rom vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 1 00:17:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA27225; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 00:15:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 00:15:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: 01 Sep 96 03:14:12 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: FORBIDDEN SCIENCE, R. Milton Message-ID: <960901071412_100433.1541_BHG44-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"-enfw2.0.Lf6.gWJAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/295 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill, Yes, Richard Milton is a nice fellow. Guess who supplied all the info for the CF chapter... Chris (finger in quite a few pies) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 1 03:03:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id DAA16720; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 03:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 03:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 11:57:34 +0200 X-Sender: jlagarde@cyberaccess.fr (Unverified) 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: Re: Transmutations Resent-Message-ID: <"qZX0b.0.C54.JxLAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/296 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk 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, > >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? Sorry, the 7 page pre-print was directly faxed by Hal Fox to Jean-Paul Biberian who works in Grenoble (France) on perovskites and who made a photocopy for me. Jean de Lagarde From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 1 08:31:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA15503; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 08:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 08:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: 01 Sep 96 11:26:42 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex , Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com>, Debbie Hagar <71431.3153@compuserve.com>, James Diss <76710.234@compuserve.com>, Chris Morriss , Hayden Smith <100355.2604@compuserve.com>, Mark Cherry <100717.1272@compuserve.com>, BOB SHELL <76750.2717@compuserve.com>, Jimmy Wallis <73641.360@compuserve.com>, "Dr John O'M Bockris" , Dennis Cravens Subject: Tampere 'antigravity' Message-ID: <960901152641_100433.1541_BHG59-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Bs_RW3.0.Ao3.bkQAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/297 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A (Those receiving the .JPG of the diagram in this article should appreciate that the term 'stone' used is equal to fourteen pounds.) (Not being terribly good at Internet stuff, I'm sending the .JPG to several people with Compuserve accounts but not to Vortex.) Article in Sunday Telegraph (UK), September 1 1996, page 3. BREAKTHROUGH AS SCIENTISTS BEAT GRAVITY. by Robert Matthews and Ian Sample SCIENTISTS in Finland are about to reveal details of the world's first anti-gravity device. Measuring about 12in across, the device is said to reduce significantly the weight of anything suspended over it. The claim -- which has been rigorously examined by scientists, and is due to appear in a physics journal next month -- could spark a technological revolution. By combatting gravity, the most ubiquitous force in the universe, everything from transport to power generation could be transformed. The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Nasa, the American space agency, is taking the claims seriously, and is funding research into how the anti-gravity effect could be turned into a means of flight. The researchers at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland, who discovered the effect, say it could form the heart of a new power source, in which it is used to drive fluids past electricity-generating turbines. Other uses seem limited only by the imagination: Lifts in buildings could be replaced by devices built into the ground. People wanting to go up would simply activate the anti-gravity device -- making themselves weightless -- and with a gentle push ascend to the floor they want. Space-travel would bitcome routine, as all the expense and danger of rocket technology is geared towards combatting the Earth's gravitation pull. By using the devices to raise fluids against gravity, and then conventional gravity to pull them back to earth against electricity-generating turbines, the devices could also revolutionise power generation. According to Dr Eugene Podkletnov, who led the research, the discovery was accidental. It emerged during routine work on so-called "superconductivity", the ability of some materials to lose their electrical resistance at very low temperatures. The team was carrying out tests on a rapidly spinning disc of superconducting ceramic suspended in the magnetic field of three electric coils, all enclosed in a low-temperature vessel called a cryostat. "One of my friends came in and he was smoking his pipe," Dr Podkletnov said. "He put some smoke over the cryostat and we saw that the smoke was going to the ceiling all the time. It was amazing -- we couldn't explain it." Tests showed a small drop in the weight of objects placed over the device, as if it were shielding the object from the effects of gravity - an effect deemed impossible by most scientists. "We thought it might be a mistake," Dr Podkletnov said, "but we have taken every precaution." Yet the bizarre effects persisted. The team found that even the air pressure vertically above the device dropped slightly, with the effect detectable directly above the device on every floor of the laboratory. In recent years, many so-called "anti-gravity" devices have been put forward by both amateur and professional scientists, and all have been scorned by the establishment. What makes this latest claim different is that it has survived intense scrutiny by sceptical, independent experts, and has been accepted for publication by the Journal of Physics-D: Applied Physics, published by Britain's Institute of Physics. Even so, most scientists will not feel comfortable with the idea of anti-gravity until other teams repeat the experiments. Some scientists suspect the anti-gravity effect is a long-sought side-effect of Einstein's general theory of relativity, by which spinning objects can distort gravity. Until now it was thought the effect would be far too small to measure in the laboratory. However, Dr Ning Li, a senior research scientist at the University of Alabama, said that the atoms inside superconductors may magnify the effect enormously. Her research is funded by Nasa's Marshall Space Flight centre at Huntsville, Alabama, and Whitt Brantley, the chief of Advanced Concepts Office there, said: "We're taking a look at it, because if we don't, we'll never know." The Finnish team is already expanding its programme, to see if it can amplify the anti-gravity effect. In its latest experiments, the team has measured a two per cent drop in the weight of objects suspended over the device -and double that if one device is suspended over another. If the team can increase the effect substantially, the commercial implications are enormous. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 1 09:38:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA26611; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 09:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 09:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 08:38:19 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Resent-Message-ID: <"9aCoi.0.iV6.4iRAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/298 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:26 AM 9/1/96, Chris Tinsley wrote: [snip] >Article in Sunday Telegraph (UK), September 1 1996, page 3. > >BREAKTHROUGH AS SCIENTISTS BEAT GRAVITY. >by Robert Matthews and Ian Sample > >SCIENTISTS in Finland are about to reveal ... [snip] Our dear Mr. Barry Fox is notably absent from the byline. Could it be the editor has seen fit to assign him to more mundane subjects? Do you suppose protests to the editor from around the world regarding his CF drivel may have had an effect? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 1 10:53:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA09444; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 10:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 10:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: 01 Sep 96 13:51:03 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Message-ID: <960901175103_100433.1541_BHG54-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"25rIN.0.VJ2.NrSAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/299 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Our dear Mr. Barry Fox is notably absent from the byline. Could > it be the editor has seen fit to assign him to more mundane > subjects? Do you suppose protests to the editor from around the > world regarding his CF drivel may have had an effect? No, I don't. Matthews is the Sunday Telegraph science correspondent, and is a sound sort of person. Fox is just some hack writing for a pull-out-and-throw-away supplement for the Daily Telegraph. Nice idea, though! And a fascinating report. Any physicists out there want to comment? I must admit I've put down a hat over a brick by mentioning this on the Cserve science forum, with no details - doubtless some drongo will come along and kick it... Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 1 11:35:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA16344; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 11:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 11:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2D2XwGAUNdKyEwX$@oroboros.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 19:17:56 +0100 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Chris Morriss Subject: Re: Tampere 'antigravity' In-Reply-To: <960901175103_100433.1541_BHG54-1@CompuServe.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.11 <5asEvod5709R6741eo9wbh3aEa> Resent-Message-ID: <"BU3wu2.0.K_3.7STAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/300 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In message <960901175103_100433.1541_BHG54-1@CompuServe.COM>, 100433.1541@CompuServe.COM writes > > Our dear Mr. Barry Fox is notably absent from the byline. Could > > it be the editor has seen fit to assign him to more mundane > > subjects? Do you suppose protests to the editor from around the > > world regarding his CF drivel may have had an effect? > >No, I don't. Matthews is the Sunday Telegraph science correspondent, >and is a sound sort of person. Fox is just some hack writing for a >pull-out-and-throw-away supplement for the Daily Telegraph. > >Nice idea, though! And a fascinating report. Any physicists out there >want to comment? I must admit I've put down a hat over a brick by >mentioning this on the Cserve science forum, with no details - doubtless >some drongo will come along and kick it... > >Chris > Barry Fox was a writer for the more serious Hi-Fi mags who later found work as a technical writer for some of the UK computing mags. I didn't realise he had spread his words of wisdom into other fields. He's got a fair amount of knowledge on the subject of audio but that's about as far as it goes. -- Chris Morriss From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 1 13:29:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA05505; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 13:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 13:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 13:28:22 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tampere 'antigravity' In-Reply-To: <960901152641_100433.1541_BHG59-3@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"hCUq1.0.zL1.g7VAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/301 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 1 Sep 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > "One of my friends came in and he was smoking his pipe," Dr Podkletnov > said. "He put some smoke over the cryostat and we saw that the smoke was > going to the ceiling all the time. It was amazing -- we couldn't explain > it." SHADES OF DR. CAVOR! (Watch out Selenites, here come the tourists.) I'd been wondering how the heck anyone might stumble across the weight- loss phenomena. With strain guages and beam balances, the experimenters would probably have ascribed the forces to magnetic forces. The smoke makes sense. It also illustrates a simple test technique which any hobbyist antigravity inventor can use. Another similar phenomenon report from the past: in the description of the "Hutchinson effect" in Yost's ELECTRIC SPACECRAFT JOURNAL, at one point Hutchinson happened to look upwards outside his home and discover a huge circular moving pattern in the clouds directly above, as if a tornado had started to form. If true, this would be right in line with accidental generation of a columnar zone of reduced weight. Hutchinson claims to have produced anomalies such as levitating objects, cold liquifaction of metal, temporarily transparency of objects, spontaneous fires, and anomalies in background radiation, all using various configurations of high frequency rotating, pulsed, and continuous E and B fields. The articles did not mention zones of "antigravity," they only discussed the anomalous forces which occasionally would loft or fling the test objects. Since Hutchinson's effects were "fragile" and only occurred rarely, everyone should expect a repeat of CF history here: the effect *might* depend on many variables besides the SC disk and its composition, so other researchers may find it hard to reproduce because they do not preceisly duplicate the orginal apparatus. And then the ridicule-storm will follow. .....................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 Sep 1 13:54:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA08855; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 13:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 13:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 13:53:19 -0700 Message-Id: <199609012053.NAA30708@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: Explained -Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Resent-Message-ID: <"n2BPp2.0.GA2.DVVAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/302 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >"One of my friends came in and he was smoking his pipe," Dr Podkletnov >said. "He put some smoke over the cryostat and we saw that the smoke was >going to the ceiling all the time. It was amazing -- we couldn't explain >it." Tests showed a small drop in the weight of objects placed over the >device, as if it were shielding the object from the effects of gravity - >an effect deemed impossible by most scientists. "We thought it might be >a mistake," Dr Podkletnov said, "but we have taken every precaution." Yet >the bizarre effects persisted. The team found that even the air pressure >vertically above the device dropped slightly, with the effect detectable >directly above the device on every floor of the laboratory. If you believe that gravitation is an attractive pull, then the above article should be very confusing to you. But if you believe in gravitation as an effect that results from one body shielding another from red shifted quantum vacuum fluctuations in an organized nodal structure of space, with matter existing as standing waves within that aethereal space, then it seems perfectly expected. The reason is because the super conductor is able to reflect the QVF incident on its surface. We know this from its reflection of the magnetic fields. But what we do not understand is that gravitation is not an attractive pull originating from inside the earth. Rather, the earth is compressed by the arrival of energy from space. That energy, red shifted and more random than the waves of sub atomic matter here, interferes with the resonances at the Planck scale of the spherically convergent standing waves that are what matter is. That interference results in a thrust away from the origin of the interfering wave energy. So, what these researchers did was to reflect some of that incident and frequency shifted energy arriving from space, vertically upward. So, the differential gravitational effect was altered in amplitude because those reflected deep space waves, traveling vertically up, interferred with the smoke and other objects placed above the device. There should be a fall off to the amplitude with angular separation from the axis of the rotating disk that is pronounced and that is similar to an interference pattern one would obtain in a pinhole difraction image. This should be the result of the reflected energy interfering with itself if reflected from opposite sides of the rotating disk. This interference will be larger at large angles due to the coincidence of the reflected waves and the effect should be zero at a 45 degree angle. This, vortexians, is what you have been looking for in longitudinal forces. Here is an experiment that can show the orientation of the forces and prove that electric fields are mechanical in nature and that there is a longitudinal and a transverse electric effect. The only difference between the electric and the gravitational effect is that the gravitational is a frequency based interference, while the electric is a local phase angle based interference. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 1 16:00:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA29145; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 15:57:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 15:57:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: 01 Sep 96 18:55:35 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Explained -Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Message-ID: <960901225534_76216.2421_HHB57-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"UhUK02.0.K77.-IXAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/303 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross - >>> "If you believe that gravitation is an attractive pull, then the above article should be very confusing to you." I don't know, I did think of the push gravitational theories when I first read of the Tampere experiment, and noticed how the "shadow" was pointing the wrong way if they were true. Well, you've covered that in part by describing it as a reflection, but then what about the "shadow" that should be underneath the apparatus? I never saw any mention of one. Not to say there isn't one, maybe it just hasn't been reported. But you'd think they would have mentioned it if it works that way, and surely they would have examined that possibility. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 1 16:23:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA02654; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 16:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 16:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: 01 Sep 96 18:55:32 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Message-ID: <960901225532_76216.2421_HHB57-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ObmVu1.0.Nf.pYXAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/304 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris - Fascinating report, and even more fascinating that it's being accepted they way it apparently is. Is gravity research coming back out from behind the veil behind which it disappeared during the late fifties? BTW, could you put me on your CC list for the pics? Thanks - - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 1 16:53:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA09552; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 16:51:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 16:51:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3229A618.4C86@loc100.tandem.com> Date: Sun, 01 Sep 1996 16:04:56 +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: Tampere 'antigravity' References: <960901152641_100433.1541_BHG59-3@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"pFARj2.0.CL2.96YAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/305 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I wonder if the team did any tests underneath the spinning disk. If gravity is caused by any type of repulsive force (such as Ross Tessien's theory), g should increase below the disk in the same amount as it decreases above the disk. -- Bob Horst From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 1 17:12:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA12446; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 17:09:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 17:09:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: 01 Sep 96 20:08:31 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Message-ID: <960902000831_100433.1541_BHG59-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"cmRdh3.0.P23.JNYAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/306 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick, I think it is not just the antigravity, it is the calm assumption of energy conservation violation. Yes, I did put you on my list for the pics, but I screwed up on addressing - and yours and Norman Horwood's vanished into the wilds of the aether. My node is playing up on long files (this is 40kb) and so I will try again in the morning UK time. Frankly, if this holds up, it could be a stake through the heart of fizzix and a vital validation of free energy and the SED (zpf) physics. It just might be the end of everything and the start of endless possibilities. The tests to be done ... what about inertia above the machine? What about under the thing? What about thicker discs, faster and slower ones, how high does it go, does it give interference fringes... I could go on all week. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 1 18:50:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA27002; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 18:47:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 18:47:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 18:47:11 -0700 Message-Id: <199609020147.SAA20745@dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: Tampere 'antigravity' To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"VpxJU2.0.sb6.7pZAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/307 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: 9/1/96 The effects of superconducting devices on gravity have be known for some time. A excellent example is the Goodkind and Warburton device. I quote, "An interesting example ... is the clever gravimeter developed by Goodkind and Warburton. It uses a superconducting sphere levitated approximately to zero by a persistent magnetic field, then balanced the rest of the way by electrostatic sensing and levitating plates. It can measure changes in gravitational field of one part in a billion, and easily sees barometric pressure variations because of the effect of the overhead air mass on local gravity!" Ahem! Ross. Forget the Cavendish experiment. It takes too long to run and the precision you require is really unobtainable. Many, many places for error. This device provides instantaneous electronic read out. You, may quickly prove or disprove your push gravity theory with this device. A small Plexiglas enclosure built over the device will allow control of the local atmospheric environment around the device, even though the full thickness of the atmospheric column above may vary considerably. This is a fairly simple device and you won't even have to spin up the superconducting sphere. You may use local phenomenon such as changing barometric pressure or place any number of masses (shields) over or under the device to study changes in local gravity. Reference: The Art of Electronics by Horowitz and Hill, 2 nd. Ed., p. 1005. RWW From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 1 21:28:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA23737; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 21:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 21:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <322A6177.2DDB@interlaced.net> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 00:24:23 -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: Tampere 'antigravity' References: <960902000831_100433.1541_BHG59-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"eeHwM.0.oo5.y5cAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/308 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: The tests to be done ... what about inertia above the > machine? What about under the thing? What about thicker discs, faster > and slower ones, how high does it go, does it give interference > fringes... I could go on all week. > > Chris Gee, guys, am I the only one who says 'duh' to the idea that smoke usually goes up? But your points above, Chris, are good ones. It would seem to me that the spinning SC disk should change weight itself - from warm to SC temperature. Get out the precision balance! Looking for heavy smoke ---------- Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 00:43:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA19184; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 00:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 00:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <322A903C.4E1B@skypoint.com> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 02:43:56 -0500 From: John Logajan Organization: Skypoint Communications, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Hello Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Mecdd3.0.ih4.L_eAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/309 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi, I'm back from a one month hiatus and just spent about three hours reading thru the August archive. Sad to see the Potapov device fail again. Which leads me to my relevant bit of news -- after the other independent tests of the Potapov device, I had intended to withdraw the images on my web site, but out of respect for the enthusiasm of Dr. Peter Glueck (my grandpa was from Rumania too) I left them up until the LANL results could be obtained. Should any new promising results develop, I will reinstall them, but for now, I am making the working conclusion that they haven't been demonstrated to work as claimed. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 05:14:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA13202; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 05:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 05:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 14:26:51 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <322ad291.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Re: Hello Resent-Message-ID: <"8XPI62.0.EE3.oziAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/310 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 2 Sep 1996 00:42:13 -0700 (PDT), vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > Hi, I'm back from a one month hiatus and just spent about three hours > reading thru the August archive. Sad to see the Potapov device fail > again. Which leads me to my relevant bit of news -- after the other > independent tests of the Potapov device, I had intended to withdraw > the images on my web site, but out of respect for the enthusiasm of > Dr. Peter Glueck (my grandpa was from Rumania too) I left them up > until the LANL results could be obtained. > > Should any new promising results develop, I will reinstall them, but > for now, I am making the working conclusion that they haven't > been demonstrated to work as claimed. > > -- > - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - > - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - > - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - > Hi, John! Any news re. the failure of the Potapov device are absolutely premature, see e.g. Ron's preliminary, unofficial report. We had to abandon the test in the tuning-in stage. Please wait for the results of the Johnston test. If this will be positive, the setup will travel again to LANL however the lack of inner workshops at this lab is at least disturbing for such tests. Sorry that for such problems my travel could not be extended to Minnesota wher i intended to discuss with Mark Hugo, you, Dave Moon, Prof. Oriani and a famous specialist in hydrodynamics Roger Arndt. Perhaps the next time. 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 Mon Sep 2 06:49:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA21667; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 06:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 06:47:57 -0700 (PDT) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 09:47:19 -0400 Message-ID: <960902094718_275052075@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Resent-Message-ID: <"COi7K2.0.VI5.DMkAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/311 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 96-09-02 00:28:09 EDT, Frank wrote: << Gee, guys, am I the only one who says 'duh' to the idea that smoke usually goes up? >> Quoting from Chris's original post: "One of my friends came in and he was smoking his pipe," Dr Podkletnov said. "He put some smoke over the cryostat and we saw that the smoke was going to the ceiling all the time. It was amazing -- we couldn't explain it." Smoke doesn't go up. It goes where the airstream carries it. Smoke from a cigarette or pipe goes up because it's in a hot airstream and will do so only until the airstream cools. Smoke blown from the mouth is cool and doesn't necessarily go up. And smoke from a pipe "doesn't go the the ceiling all the time". Something else is at work. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 07:28:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA26282; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 07:27:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 07:27:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 17:14:31 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <322af9dc.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: ICCF-6 Discussion Group, alias Vortex? Resent-Message-ID: <"6CjSb.0.ZQ6.AxkAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/312 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortexers, I remember with great pleasure Bill Page's ICCF-5 discussion group. Because ICCF-6 is coming very soon and only very few Vortexers will be present, perhaps we could start similar discussions here. Your opinion please? Bill Beaty? The other colleagues? Thank you in advance! 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 Mon Sep 2 09:04:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA09081; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 09:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 09:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 09:00:33 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Request for translation help Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"iXM5Z1.0.qD2.dImAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/313 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Anyone interested in the following request can contact Mr Heerfordt directly. He's on taoshum-L, but not on vortex-L. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 12:16:00 CET From: Anders Heerfordt To: billb@eskimo.com Subject: Ang.: Re: Scalar waves On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, I3683 wrote: > I have some Russian literature which is said to describe the generation > and detection of scalar waves, and other unusual physics. > > I don't have someone who can translate this. > > Do you have an idea about where to find someone who would translate > technical Russian, without financial reward? > > Regards, Anders > .....................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 Mon Sep 2 10:34:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA22509; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 10:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 10:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: 02 Sep 96 13:12:43 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Explained -Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Message-ID: <960902171242_100060.173_JHB97-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"6qara3.0.cV5.fTnAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/314 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross, >> This should be the result of the reflected energy interfering with itself if reflected from opposite sides of the rotating disk. This interference will be larger at large angles due to the coincidence of the reflected waves and the effect should be zero at a 45 degree angle. << Taking this a stage further, does it mean that the effect can be focussed by suitable shaping of the disc? Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 11:05:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA29878; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 10:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 10:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <322B1D93.5956@indirect.com> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 10:47:00 -0700 From: Reed Huish Reply-To: Reed Huish Organization: Zenergy Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: car, groups References: <2.2.32.19960831175209.006e3f18@mail.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"M68VD2.0.oI7.q1oAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/315 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gary Hawkins wrote: > 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). I had a BN-200, until I modified it according to George Wiseman's Brown's Gas Report. The BN-200 used 120 cells, driven by a 240 volt power supply ran through a full-wave bridge rectifier. There is no capacitors used for current limiting as Wiseman recommends. The BN-200 has no transformer. -- Reed Huish Zenergy Corporation 390 South Robins Way, Chandler Arizona 85225 Phone: 602.814.7865 Fax: 602.821.0967 Email: reedh@indirect.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 11:26:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA06115; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 11:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 11:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960902182742.006eabb8@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, 02 Sep 1996 11:27:42 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Explained -Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Resent-Message-ID: <"PfXXI1.0.QV1.9OoAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/316 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:12 PM 9/2/96 EDT, you wrote: > >Taking this a stage further, does it mean that the effect can be focussed by >suitable shaping of the disc? > >Norman > > > Great question. Imagine, long, long ago, if a some guy finds a large crystal, and grinds it a little each day, until he has a lens shape out of it, and produces fire from the sun. He would be mostly guessing to begin with (having noticed the effect from the look of a reed at an angle part way out of the water in a pond), would be considered mad by everyone, then worshipped as a god when it worked if they didn't kill him first, due to their fear. But guesswork or accident is how most everything is developed. Both concave and convex should be tried. The rotation of the superconductor might be a key though. Since electrons are thought to have weight, the rotation would generate some voltage between the center and rim of the disk, that is, a crowding of electrons on the outside. Would that act as, in effect, an electron lens, or electric field lens, of sorts? Does anyone have a reference for information on a superconductor reflecting magnetic fields? I thought the levitation of a magnet above a superconductor was merely due to the fact that the magnet is falling, ever so slowly toward the superconductor, and that its movement induces current flow in the conductor, current which has an opposite magnetic field, thus, repulsion, but not reflection. Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 11:51:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA10780; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 11:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 11:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960902184749.006e800c@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, 02 Sep 1996 11:47:49 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: car, groups Resent-Message-ID: <"iPvLh.0.Oe2._goAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/317 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:47 AM 9/2/96 -0700, you wrote: >Gary Hawkins wrote: > >> 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). > >I had a BN-200, until I modified it according to George Wiseman's >Brown's Gas Report. The BN-200 used 120 cells, driven by a 240 volt >power supply ran through a full-wave bridge rectifier. There is no >capacitors used for current limiting as Wiseman recommends. The BN-200 >has no transformer. > > >-- >Reed Huish >Zenergy Corporation >390 South Robins Way, Chandler Arizona 85225 >Phone: 602.814.7865 Fax: 602.821.0967 Email: reedh@indirect.com > > > There is a small transformer that looks like it is intended for high frequency. I'm having a difficult time picturing how the 240 volts can be divided across the 120 plates for 2 volts on each plate, when the electrolyte goes to only one place, as opposed to the arrangement on a battery, where each cell is two volts, but each needs its own water. The BN-200 we have, is being run at about 70% on a variac, to prevent liquid from bubbling into the hose. A capacitor for current limiting is a tidy-er solution, although less flexible, yet a good idea when the desired current level is determined for sure. Looking forward to hearing how well the Wiseman model works. Hoping someone will post a report. Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 12:19:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA15081; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 12:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 12:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 12:09:02 -0700 Message-Id: <199609021909.MAA04289@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: Explained -Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Resent-Message-ID: <"cE_Gk3.0.bh3.g3pAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/319 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Ross - > >>>> "If you believe that gravitation is an attractive pull, then the above >article should be very confusing to you." > >I don't know, I did think of the push gravitational theories when I first read >of the Tampere experiment, and noticed how the "shadow" was pointing the wrong >way if they were true. Well, you've covered that in part by describing it as a >reflection, but then what about the "shadow" that should be underneath the >apparatus? I never saw any mention of one. Not to say there isn't one, maybe it >just hasn't been reported. But you'd think they would have mentioned it if it >works that way, and surely they would have examined that possibility. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > Rick; I stated in a different post, but will respond here as well. It seems to me that there should be a shielding effect under the disk as well. Removing some of the thrust from space from above should alter the downward thrust and so there should be a reduction in downward thrust. Now, considering the reflection from underneath (you must always consider both), we find that the reflected signal is in phase and frequency match with the matter of the earth. So, that energy will tend to pass through the matter more easily than would the energy from space that is more random and frequency shifted. So, yes, it still seems to me that there should be a g shielding effect underneath the device as well. And, as I stated, I think the superconductive device will increase in its weight too due to not just absorbing the incident energy, but additionally reflecting it which should yield double the thrust for whatever incident energy was blocked. but the amount of change in mass of the apparatus and that of the suspended particle above it are not related directly. They are two different effects. In fact, if anything, the placement of the particle above the device should actually reduce the weight of the apparatus due to that object shielding the apparatus from space. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 12:23:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA15052; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 12:09:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 12:09:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 12:08:58 -0700 Message-Id: <199609021908.MAA04285@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: Tampere 'antigravity' Resent-Message-ID: <"LsYUw2.0.3h3.b3pAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/318 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >9/1/96 > >The effects of superconducting devices on gravity have be known for >some time. A excellent example is the Goodkind and Warburton device. > >I quote, "An interesting example ... is the clever gravimeter >developed by Goodkind and Warburton. It uses a superconducting sphere >levitated approximately to zero by a persistent magnetic field, then >balanced the rest of the way by electrostatic sensing and levitating >plates. It can measure changes in gravitational field of one part in a >billion, and easily sees barometric pressure variations because of the >effect of the overhead air mass on local gravity!" > >Ahem! Ross. Forget the Cavendish experiment. It takes too long to run >and the precision you require is really unobtainable. Many, many >places for error. This device provides instantaneous electronic read >out. > >You, may quickly prove or disprove your push gravity theory with this >device. A small Plexiglas enclosure built over the device will allow >control of the local atmospheric environment around the device, even >though the full thickness of the atmospheric column above may vary >considerably. This is a fairly simple device and you won't even have >to spin up the superconducting sphere. You may use local phenomenon >such as changing barometric pressure or place any number of masses >(shields) over or under the device to study changes in local gravity. > >Reference: The Art of Electronics by Horowitz and Hill, 2 nd. Ed., >p. 1005. > >RWW > > Sounds like a really neat device. I have two goals. One involves gravity in the vertical line, and so this device sounds really neat for that. (BTW, the alteration in the g effect due to barometric pressure has nothing to do with that pressure pushing the thing down. It has to do with the increase in mass above the device "pulling" it up due to the gravitational attraction of that air above the device. It could be in a vacuum, and still feel that effect) But the main thing I want to bag is gravitational shielding. to do this I will use the Sierra mountain range to seek a difference in the change to the device along a NS line as compared to along an EW line. This change will be due to bringing secondary masses into the system, and the mountains having already shielded some of the energy will decrease the ability of those masses to further shield energy since there will be less total energy arriving from the line of the mountains. In the EW directions, there is a more open view factor to outer space, the origin of gravitation. So when the secondary masses are brought in and block that stronger radiation, there is a greater shielding effect of the secondary masses while in that orientation. I suppose I could make some sort of magnetic ramp for the sphere to slide up based on how much horizontal shielding was in place. If I had those super conductors I would give it a try. You say this is inexpensive? Can I purchase little superconductive balls? Ross From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 12:39:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA20085; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 12:32:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 12:32:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: 02 Sep 96 15:30:53 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Explained -Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Message-ID: <960902193053_100433.1541_BHG122-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ByyOQ.0.kv4.YPpAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/320 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gary, > I thought the levitation of a magnet above a superconductor was > merely due to the fact that the magnet is falling, ever so slowly > toward the superconductor, and that its movement induces current > flow in the conductor, current which has an opposite magnetic > field, thus, repulsion, but not reflection. I don't know about reflection, but a superconductor excludes magnetic fields. If it didn't then a current flowing thorugh it would interact with the field. If the field is too strong to exclude it, or produces too big a field because of the flowing current, then the effect goes away. Er ... I think I've just painted myself into a corner. Ah well. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 12:46:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA20877; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 12:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 12:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 12:38:09 -0700 Message-Id: <199609021938.MAA06133@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: Explained -Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Resent-Message-ID: <"2yd0u2.0.765.jUpAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/321 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Ross, > >>> This >should be the result of the reflected energy interfering with itself if >reflected from opposite sides of the rotating disk. This interference will >be larger at large angles due to the coincidence of the reflected waves and >the effect should be zero at a 45 degree angle. << > >Taking this a stage further, does it mean that the effect can be focussed by >suitable shaping of the disc? > >Norman > It should, yes. Ross From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 13:19:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA26597; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:14:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:14:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: 02 Sep 96 16:13:37 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: More on Tampere Message-ID: <960902201336_100433.1541_BHG79-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ODhKL2.0.TV6.w0qAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/322 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear All, On the Science forum, I just got this nice message from Robert Matthews. Chris ------------------------------------------------------ As one of the journalists involved in the antigravity story (the other, Ian SAMple being at the IoPhys), I thought I should give a little more info about the article. I've read the proofs of the paper, checked out the claims with a number of theorists (including Li at U/Alabama) and others familiar with the research, and my overall conclusion is to put the story somewhere above cold fusion in credibility, but below room-temperature superconductivity. It's going to be difficult to say more before replication (if any) by others (Li is working on an experiment, I gather), so in the meantime I can only supply the following refs for those interested 1) The paper is called gravitational sielding properties of composite bulk YBa2Cu307-x superconductor below 70K under an electromagnetic field, by E E Podkletnov and P T Vuorinen. J Phys D (Appl Phys) vol 29 pp 1 -5 1996. 2) The authors cite a previous experimental claim of the same effect in the refereed literature: E E Podkletnov and Nieminen, R in Physica C vol 203 441 (1992) (the new paper fills in experimental loopholes). 3) An attempt at theoretical explanation of the original work comes from G Modanese, on Ginsparg's database http://xxx.lanl.gov hep-th/9505094. Preprint now accepted by Europhys Lett. It's essentially quantum gravity theory, very esoteric and to my mind rather unconvincing. Li is exploring the concept of high-angular momentum ions in the Hi-Tc s/conductors creating an intense gravito-magnetic effect many orders of magnitude higher than that expected to be generated by general relativity (and now being looked for in, e.g. the Stanford Gravity Probe-B satellite). I've not seen her theory, so I have no comment to make. That's it for now - glad the piece generated some interest among the Sci/Math folks ! Robert Matthews Science Correspondent, The Sunday Telegraph, London. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 13:24:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA26806; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <322B3D98.1263@indirect.com> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 13:03:37 -0700 From: Reed Huish Reply-To: Reed Huish Organization: Zenergy Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: car, groups References: <2.2.32.19960902184749.006e800c@mail.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Emg7G.0.oY6.s1qAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/323 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gary Hawkins wrote: > > There is a small transformer that looks like it is intended for > high frequency. I'm having a difficult time picturing how the > 240 volts can be divided across the 120 plates for 2 volts on > each plate, when the electrolyte goes to only one place, as > opposed to the arrangement on a battery, where each cell is > two volts, but each needs its own water. The small transformer is used to provide power (5-12v?) to the circuit board which handles monitoring devices & LED's of the BN-200. Its a simple step-down transformer. From my understanding, the electrolyte (i.e. lye) allows the current to pass through each plate, resulting in appx. 2 volts per plate. I've built my own BG generator, using the same plates and running it directly off a 120 volt in full-wave bridge rectifier (driving only 60 cells or 61 plates) with a 10% solution of lye and it has worked just fine. The problem is that Yull's brown's gas generators produce only 15-20% brown's gas. Wiseman did the calculations on this one. > The BN-200 we have, is being run at about 70% on a variac, > to prevent liquid from bubbling into the hose. A > capacitor for current limiting is a tidy-er solution, > although less flexible, yet a good idea when the desired > current level is determined for sure. You really ought to get Wiseman's books as they give several pointers. For example, his experiments have shown that as BG passes through water (i.e. a bubbler) the BG reverts to hydrogen. Also, a generator producing 100% Brown's gas should not heat up, but will run cold (slightly cooler than ambient air temp). > > Looking forward to hearing how well the Wiseman model works. > Hoping someone will post a report. I've stopped my experiments with BG. Too many variables at present. I'm putting some effort into an inventor in Asia who has re-invented Archie Blue's water-gas process. He claims to have a small Datsun engine running off water. A visit is planned in the next 30 days to suss this one out. Make no mistake, there are simply too many claims of cars running off water for there not to be something to this process of driving a car on water. -- Reed Huish Zenergy Corporation 390 South Robins Way, Chandler Arizona 85225 Phone: 602.814.7865 Fax: 602.821.0967 Email: reedh@indirect.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 13:32:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA28993; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:29:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:29:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:29:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199609022029.NAA09078@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: Explained -Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Resent-Message-ID: <"C800p3.0.w47.hEqAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/324 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Gary, > > > I thought the levitation of a magnet above a superconductor was > > merely due to the fact that the magnet is falling, ever so slowly > > toward the superconductor, and that its movement induces current > > flow in the conductor, current which has an opposite magnetic > > field, thus, repulsion, but not reflection. Regarding the superconductor, it actually lifts up and off of the magnet (or the magnet up and off of the superconductor) as it reaches superconductive temp. So I don't know what you mean by "falling, ever so slowly toward the super conductor". I allow you may be referring to the manner in which matter on earth is falling toward the earth due to the acceleration of gravity, but this I think is not what you meant since they would both be falling together. In any case, no, they don't fall, they actually lift up and float. The exclusion of the magnetic field, I believe, is a reflection of it. that reflection winds up going back and forth between the magnet and the superconductor which is the same thing that happens when you put two north poles toward one another. There is a helicity to the flow of energy through a magnetic. So, if a right handed flux of QVF heads through a magnet one way, it moves freely through. The other way, it is excluded and reflected. Some of the reflections go out at angles, and some of that is back toward the original source. In a magnet, this occurs due to the electrons which have a certain rotation orientation in their valences that induces a helicity to the structure of their electric emissions (this makes no sense if you think of the electric field as a static field. But, if you think of the electric field as the result of pulsations of the electron, then there are phase angles associated with the energy which is sinusoidal and effectively AC. But the AC is at E45 Hz, due to the Planck scale of the fine structure of space) The superconductor is doing the same thing. In this case, the electrons are free to mimmick whatever energy is incident. So, they freely move into, and follow the nodal structure of space they encounter. Thus, any energy incident from a magnet will be reflected with a high effeciency. And reflected signals from a short circuit in a transmission line are inverted (in this case we have a short circuit in the aether due to the convergence into the electron standing wave). A phase inversion of the incident energy reverses the helix handedness, and it will interfere with the magnet and be reflected back again toward the superconductor. So, there is a resonant build up in energy between the two just like when like poles are pointed toward one another in bar magnets. > >I don't know about reflection, but a superconductor excludes magnetic >fields. If it didn't then a current flowing thorugh it would interact >with the field. If the field is too strong to exclude it, or produces >too big a field because of the flowing current, then the effect goes >away. > >Er ... I think I've just painted myself into a corner. Ah well. > >Chris So, no, I don't think you painted yourself into a corner, rather, you just figured out that the energy must be reflecting and be subject to multiple bounces between the magnet and super conductor. Those constitute a build up in energy density of that space, and that results in a thrust apart for the objects that forced that build up in energy density (ie greater aether density). Increased field strength (magnetic) just means more vortices, which requires more electrons to reflect off of. And that means that more of them penetrate deeper into the SC. Such an effect will alter the resonance of the nuclei of the SC and will break the uniformity of the resonance that allows the superconductivity in the first place. It is all wave mechanical, and it is all due to resonances at the Planck scale. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 13:38:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA29915; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:34:10 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 16:33:31 -0400 Message-ID: <960902163330_514533109@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: tampere Resent-Message-ID: <"Qoo-01.0.NJ7.2JqAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/325 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: My latest paper, "The Zero Point Interaction" that just went to press in New Energy News predicted these effects. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 13:45:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA00429; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <322B4528.1A93@interlaced.net> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 16:35:52 -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: Tampere 'antigravity' References: <960902094718_275052075@emout08.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"X67d72.0.e6.kKqAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/326 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: RMCarrell@aol.com wrote: > Smoke doesn't go up. It goes where the airstream carries it. Smoke from a > cigarette or pipe goes up because it's in a hot airstream and will do so only > until the airstream cools. Smoke blown from the mouth is cool and doesn't > necessarily go up. > > And smoke from a pipe "doesn't go the the ceiling all the time". > > Something else is at work. > > Mike Carrell All good points Mike! But, why didn't the researchers just replace the SC with a disk of masonite and see if the smoke still rose? The air circulation around the cryostat is a minor research job in itself! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 13:48:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA00590; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Hello To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 15:36:27 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <322ad291.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> from "Peter Glueck" at Sep 2, 96 02:26:51 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"kiYza3.0.99.NLqAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/327 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dr. Peter Gluck writes: > JL > for now, I am making the working conclusion that they haven't > JL > been demonstrated to work as claimed. > > > Any news re. the failure of the Potapov device are > absolutely premature, see e.g. Ron's preliminary, unofficial > report. We had to abandon the test in the tuning-in stage. > Please wait for the results of the Johnston test. > If this will be positive, the setup will travel again to LANL I'd accept positive results from any of the previous independent efforts, including a second round at LANL. Since I have no independent knowledge of the validity of any of these gizmos, I have to rely on some sort of criteria for selection of what makes it onto my web page. (That's one of the reasons I have no published theory papers without experimental results on my web page -- I have no means to independently verify their soundness.) If anyone wants copies of my stuff on Potapov (images and documents), I'll be glad to arrange to send it to you over the internet. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 14:44:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA12237; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 14:42:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 14:42:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 14:42:38 -0700 Message-Id: <199609022142.OAA12073@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: Explained -Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Resent-Message-ID: <"ywx6P.0.5_2.QJrAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/328 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Just think about the Casimir effect for a minute. In that effect, you wind up with a region of space between the plates where the reflectivity of the metal plates (ie the ability of the electrons to move and to catch and to re emit incident photonic energy), becomes important. And we are able to measure how the cavity excludes resonances of specific wavelengths which cannot fit between the two plates. That excluded energy is the energy of "virtual" photons, which is simply a manner of stating, "The energy of space which we don't want to admit is permeating all things including the vacuum, because if we did we might need to go back to the theories that Maxwell, Thomson, Helmholtz, Riemann and the other founders of the equations that describe our universe yet today. And we don't want that because we would need to use that awful aether word and deal with concepts they grappled with like vortex sponges and others that are wave mechanical and not based on "particle" physics." In any case, you get my point that all the Casimir cavity does is to exclude certain resonances from building up between the plates, or put another way, the proximity of the plates damps out those resonances of the universe and the quantum vacuum which cannot pass back and forth and undergo a resonant amplification of those standing waves. This is because the reflected waves interfere with one another and the sum of the incident and reflected waves at specific frequencies is zero. For that reason, the plates are pushed toward one another by the energy of space that is incident on the outside, since those same resonances are **NOT** excluded from the outside of the plates. This "exclusion" of wave energy is the same thing that occurs in thin oil films on water, and in Butterfly wings where the brilliant blues and other irridescent colors can be seen. The colors are due to the **exclusion** of the colors you do not see. The new nano phase particulate suspensions are another example of exclusion of wavelengths of light and the particle size is again important to that phenomena as it sets up the refraction nodal separations in the volume of that material due to the various materials and their respective indices of refraction (yes, opaque materials also have indices of refraction but it is normally called the dielectric constant when considered in terms of electric properties). Now here with the Tampere experiment, we find another case of interaction and reflection of quantum vacuum wave energy, but this time with an excellent reflector, a super conductor. And instead of just the photonic wavelengths, apparently the SC is able to reflect a greater amount of the vacuum energy at very short wavelengths probably at or below E-15 m. The efficiency is apparently low, and it remains to be seen whether or not their device is really doing what they say, but if it is, then this is very likely what is going on. It is also likely to blow some doors wide open on a number of fringe technological fronts. If this can be shown to be true, then an all out assault on what is going on will be launched, and in that fray, there may well be funding for a number of other technologies. Later, Ross From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 16:40:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA02079; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 16:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 16:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960902234154.006dd484@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, 02 Sep 1996 16:41:54 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Explained -Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Resent-Message-ID: <"gOvZV.0.QW.g-sAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/329 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:30 PM 9/2/96 EDT, you wrote: >Gary, > > > I thought the levitation of a magnet above a superconductor was > > merely due to the fact that the magnet is falling, ever so slowly > > toward the superconductor, and that its movement induces current > > flow in the conductor, current which has an opposite magnetic > > field, thus, repulsion, but not reflection. > >I don't know about reflection, but a superconductor excludes magnetic >fields. If it didn't then a current flowing thorugh it would interact >with the field. If the field is too strong to exclude it, or produces >too big a field because of the flowing current, then the effect goes >away. > >Er ... I think I've just painted myself into a corner. Ah well. Thanks. The reason I'm asking is: If the donut theory of electron structure is so in a way I was describing, and if Cooper Pairs really exist in superconductors, there would be a completely odd effect on the magnetics involved, but I don't see exactly how it would pan out. With circulating electrons in a loop, there would be no north-south poles generated, as in a wire loop. Gary ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 16:56:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA04934; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 16:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 16:53:55 -0700 (PDT) From: roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net (Chuck Davis) Message-Id: <231ed192.u8t20e.4491e-roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Explained -Re: Tampere 'antigravity' In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960902234154.006dd484@mail.eskimo.com> (from Gary Hawkins ) (at Mon, 02 Sep 1996 16:41:54 -0700) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 2 Sep 96 16:51:35 Resent-Message-ID: <"C7Iib1.0.2D1.HEtAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/331 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hello Gary, on Sep 02 you wrote: >At 03:30 PM 9/2/96 EDT, you wrote: >>Gary, >> >> > I thought the levitation of a magnet above a superconductor was >> > merely due to the fact that the magnet is falling, ever so slowly >> > toward the superconductor, and that its movement induces current >> > flow in the conductor, current which has an opposite magnetic >> > field, thus, repulsion, but not reflection. >> >>I don't know about reflection, but a superconductor excludes magnetic >>fields. If it didn't then a current flowing thorugh it would interac= t >>with the field. If the field is too strong to exclude it, or produce= s >>too big a field because of the flowing current, then the effect goes >>away. >> >>Er ... I think I've just painted myself into a corner. Ah well =20Isn't this known as the Meisner Effect? =20BTW; this cryostat is the kewlest thing that I've heard of in a =20long time :) =20I like your website ;) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 16:58:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA04270; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 16:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 16:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960902235424.006e4ac8@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, 02 Sep 1996 16:54:24 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Explained -Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Resent-Message-ID: <"_ddbt2.0.g21.OAtAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/330 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:29 PM 9/2/96 -0700, you wrote: >>Gary, >> >> > I thought the levitation of a magnet above a superconductor was >> > merely due to the fact that the magnet is falling, ever so slowly >> > toward the superconductor, and that its movement induces current >> > flow in the conductor, current which has an opposite magnetic >> > field, thus, repulsion, but not reflection. > >Regarding the superconductor, it actually lifts up and off of the magnet (or >the magnet up and off of the superconductor) as it reaches superconductive >temp. So I don't know what you mean by "falling, ever so slowly toward the >super conductor". I allow you may be referring to the manner in which >matter on earth is falling toward the earth due to the acceleration of >gravity, but this I think is not what you meant since they would both be >falling together. > >In any case, no, they don't fall, they actually lift up and float. Oh, well nuts. I should have purchased one of those kits, or watched a little more PBS. Egg meets face. Was going on what someone told me. I appreciate the effort at an explanation. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 17:11:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA07646; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 17:05:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 17:05:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 20:04:48 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Explained -Re: Tampere 'antigravity' In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960902234154.006dd484@mail.eskimo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Q8fbf3.0.Nt1.WPtAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/332 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Cooper Pairs really exist in superconductors, there would > be a completely odd effect on the magnetics involved, but > I don't see exactly how it would pan out. With circulating > electrons in a loop, there would be no north-south poles > generated, as in a wire loop. generally there is an argument about Cooper pairs .... are the wave functions in phase [s-waves] or not [d-waves] ? There is experimental evidence for both theories. I like SC stuff because the 'rules' don't fit. J > > Gary > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today > http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 17:20:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA09944; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 17:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 17:18:09 -0700 (PDT) From: roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net (Chuck Davis) Message-Id: <231ed751.u8t20e.da8b2-roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Tampere 'antigravity' In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960902235424.006e4ac8@mail.eskimo.com> (from Gary Hawkins ) (at Mon, 02 Sep 1996 16:54:24 -0700) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 2 Sep 96 17:16:06 Resent-Message-ID: <"ucj3H1.0.IR2.0btAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/333 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: =20 Just think, a stacked array of these things could launch an earth synchronous satellite. =20 Could knock anything out of orbit. Be pretty hard on airplanes; =20 missiles and UFOs, too ;^)) =20 Disturb the course of hurricanes and tornadoes, along with the stuf= f =20 mentioned. =20 Beware the men in black..... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 18:27:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA19384; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 02 Sep 1996 18:16:18 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Power Turns (fwd) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/02/96 18:16:26 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"LEzJ_.0.lk4.rRuAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/334 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 08/31/96 21:49 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Power Turns (fwd) John S. With regard to the lower friction "roller bearings" Could we treat some standard bearings (such as used in in-line skates) and obtain the effect? Could it be done by Sept. 14th? (I have a race...!) MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 18:37:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA21225; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:28:50 -0700 (PDT) From: hjscudde@pacbell.net Message-ID: <322B8A52.35F7@pacbell.net> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 18:30:58 -0700 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Explained -Re: Tampere 'antigravity' References: <2.2.32.19960902182742.006eabb8@mail.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Nhkx52.0.bB5.HduAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/335 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gary Hawkins wrote: > > At 01:12 PM 9/2/96 EDT, you wrote: > > > > >Taking this a stage further, does it mean that the effect can be focussed by > >suitable shaping of the disc? > > > >Norman > > > > > > > > Great question. Imagine, long, long ago, if a some guy > finds a large crystal, and grinds it a little each day, > until he has a lens shape out of it, and produces fire > from the sun. He would be mostly guessing to begin with > (having noticed the effect from the look of a reed at an > angle part way out of the water in a pond), would > be considered mad by everyone, then worshipped as a god > when it worked if they didn't kill him first, due to > their fear. But guesswork or accident is how most > everything is developed. > > Both concave and convex should be tried. > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today > http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WAGary Archimedes was said to have lined up a bunch of soldiers with reflective shields and arranged them in a parabola to focus the suns rays on attacking ships, setting them on fire. Focusing has been known a long time. Hank -- 1¾ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 20:32:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA10934; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 20:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 20:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 23:28:03 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Power Turns (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"1sJed1.0.og2.yNwAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/336 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Mark, Send the bearings on.... or tell me what size they are. All I ask, at first, is if you zip along faster .... to let me know, write it up... ! And the scientists who I am helping out hope you win! J On 2 Sep 1996, MHUGO@EPRI wrote: > *** Reply to note of 08/31/96 21:49 > From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. > Subject: Power Turns (fwd) > John S. With regard to the lower friction "roller bearings" Could we > treat some standard bearings (such as used in in-line skates) and obtain > the effect? Could it be done by Sept. 14th? (I have a race...!) MDH > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 20:55:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA14303; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 20:52:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 20:52:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: 02 Sep 96 23:51:22 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Meissner & Tampere(?) SC Kits Message-ID: <960903035122_76216.2421_HHB33-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"x4oC11.0.RV3.LkwAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/337 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gary Hawkins wrote: > "I should have purchased one of those kits, or watched > a little more PBS" I had a big list of superconductor suppliers somewhere, I'll have to dig my archives for it. Anyway, I found one site last night on the web: Colorado Superconductor, Inc., at: http://www2.csn.net/~donsher/index.html They have several kits centered around 1" diameter discs of two or three different recipies of SC ceramics. $33 and up includes the rare earth magnet, SC disc, and instructions. I know there's quite a few other companies, and a bigger disc would be good to try to see the Tampere effects. CSI also has a bismuth compound that's higher T than the plain 1,2,3 stuff, so you could dip it in LN and then chuck it in a holder into a Fordom or other high speed drill motor for a quick and dirty look until the thing warmed up. As to coils or magnets, I don't have a clue as to how strong a field is needed, but I would suspect that some of the strong rare earths Vortexians have been known to play with might work. I don't know if the field is pulsed or what. But if it's steady state and it only works with current carrying wire coils, doesn't that mean that the coils in the Tampere experiment create a *different kind* of magnetism than permanent magnets? Now *that* would be strange! - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 20:56:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA14315; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 20:52:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 20:52:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: 02 Sep 96 23:51:18 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Message-ID: <960903035118_76216.2421_HHB33-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"AXYJ8.0.aV3.MkwAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/338 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gary - > "Could knock anything out of orbit. Be pretty hard on airplanes; > missiles and UFOs, too ;^))" Yikes, I thought of that too last night! We'd better get some stuff and play with it a bit before it's licensed or banned (or just taxed to death). - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 21:54:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA24772; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 21:51:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 21:51:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Tampere infinite energy To: vortex-l@eskimo.com (vortex-l) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 23:51:33 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"2v0T1.0.036.SbxAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/339 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: As Chris points out, if you accept the "pipe smoke" rising as being explained by gravitational sheilding, you must inherently buy into this as a manifestation of an infinite energy source. The news article explicitly states that this is one of the implications, but didn't connect it to the rising smoke explicitly. However, there is no avoiding it. For there to be this gravitational "convection" of air above the gravitational shadow, new air must be moving in at the base normal to the vertical plume. There is no "hill" this horizontal airflow must climb before it flows into the gravitational shadow, unlike other "conservation" engines in which there is no way to sneak to the top of the hill except by expending some nullifying effort. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 22:51:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA01647; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 22:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 22:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 22:45:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609030545.WAA27495@germany.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: Car, H20 Fuel, Calc's Resent-Message-ID: <"YPAPy3.0.hP.MOyAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/340 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:02 AM 9/2/96 -0400, you wrote: >>> what is enrg-l? are there other subscriber groups? >>Sorry, typo, its "freenrg-l" discussion group. > > where can I join it? E-mail to: freenrg-L-request@eskimo.com at Subject: line, type, "subscribe freenrg-l", you will then get a confirmation reply. > thanks. have followed your posts, and was just trying to >do net energy analytic calculations. > > Mitchell A simple calculation will determine if an electrolyzer is making normal 2H2/O2 gas, Water Gas (WG), Brown's Gas (BG) or Hyper-Gas and if so what percentage of the gas is WG. Refer to "Brown's Gas, Book 1," note that it is pulsed amperage and not voltage that causes electrolysis to happen. >From Brown's published info, his gas is a mixture of di-atomic and mono-atomic hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O). I'm calling 100% mono-atomic hydrogen & oxygen, Water Gas. Normal electrolysis and Water Gas electrolysis is "standard textbook" calc's for gas production figures below. The standard calculation for gas production is; For a 60 cell series electrolyzer 120 Vdc (120 Vac full-wave rectified), at 2 Vdc per cell; Normal electrolysis: The passage of 26.8 amps for one hour (1 Faraday) will liberate 16.8 liters of 2H2/02 (dia-atomic gas) per hour. 26.8 amps divided by 16.8 liters equals 1.59 amps per liter per hour per cell. Water Gas electrolysis: 26.8 amps per hour will make 33.6 liters of Water Gas H/O (mono-atomic gas). 26.8 amps divided by 33.6 liters equals 0.798 amps per liter per hour per cell. This for an electrolyzer making 100% mono-atomic gas. Hyper-Gas electrolysis: 26.8 amps per hour will make 1000 liters of Hyper-Gas. Unknown where the extra matter comes from. Current theory is the hydrogen atom acts like a gate for the aether to enter and create matter (extra hydrogen gases). Still working on how to consistantly reproduce this gas. Dodge 225 engine at 650 rpm fuel calculations: Normal 2H2/O2 gas: It is given that a minimum of 4% normal H2 gas with air, by volume, is required before it is a combustible mixture. A 225 cubic inch engine will pump ((225/2) x 650 rpm x .8 volumetric eff.) = 58,500 cubic inches of air per minute or 3,510,000 cubic inches per hour or 2131.25 cubic feet or 57.22 cubic meters per hour. 57.55 x 0.04 = 2.302 m3 or 2304 liters of H2 to operate for one hour an engine at 650 rpm at the leanest possible combustible ratio. 18 grams of water makes 11.2 liters of H2. To make 2304 liters of H2 we need to electrolyze 3699.64 grams or 3.7 liters of water. A Faraday (26.8 amps/hr.) will electrolyze in one hour 18 grams of water. 3700 grams/18 grams = 205.55 Faradays required to make 2303 liters of H2. 205.55 Faraday/hr. x 26.8 amps/Faraday/hr. = 11,568.35 amps continuously for one hour. At 2.1 volts, this would be 11,568.35 watt/hour or (15.5 hp/hr). No auto alternator could make that kind of wattage. Therefore normal 2H2/O2 could not operate an engine. Water Gas: 1. Water Gas is twice the volume of 2H2/O2, thus less electricity is required to make a combustible mixture. 2. WG is at a mono-atomic state and thus doesn't need to break any molecular bonds before it can recombine (combustion) with other materials. Because of this WG doesn't require a "self-propagation" temperature and this means less WG is required to make a combustible mixture (particularly in a compressed gas situation like auto engine piston cylinders). 3. WG is also a higher energy gas (442.4 Kcal per gram-mole) than 2H2/O2 (57.85 Kcal per gram-mole). This also means that that a leaner mixture with air will still explode with an acceptable force. 4. WG also explodes faster than 2H2/O2; in an enclosed space (engine cylinder) we can take advantage of of the Kinetic Energy equation, KE = 1/2 mass times velocity squared. All this means is that it is possible in theory to operate an engine on WG. Hyper-Gas: Little info to-date other than its a much higher energy gas than WG, and somehow made in an electrolyzer at much greater volume than any existing theory can explain or account for. References: - "Brown's Gas Book 1" and "Brown's Gas Reports" by George Wiseman. Michael Randall From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 23:05:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA03943 for billb@eskimo.com; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 23:05:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 23:05:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: ekwall2@november.diac.com Mon Sep 2 23:05:07 1996 Received: from diac.com (diac.com [207.17.190.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA03920 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 23:05:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ekwall2@localhost) by diac.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA07576; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 06:05:41 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: november.diac.com: ekwall2 owned process doing -bs Old-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 00:05:41 -0600 (MDT) From: Steve Ekwall X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: hjscudde@pacbell.net cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Explained -Re: Tampere 'antigravity' In-Reply-To: <322B8A52.35F7@pacbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: ------------------oOOOo--( 0 0 )--oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX >> Gary Hawkins wrote: > > > > >Taking this a stage further, does it mean that the effect can be focussed by > > >suitable shaping of the disc? > > > > > >Norman > > > > > Great question. Imagine, long, long ago, if a some guy > > finds a large crystal, and grinds it a little each day, > > until he has a lens shape out of it, and produces fire > > from the sun. He would be mostly guessing to begin with > > (having noticed the effect from the look of a reed at an > > angle part way out of the water in a pond), would > > be considered mad by everyone, then worshipped as a god > > when it worked if they didn't kill him first, due to > > their fear. But guesswork or accident is how most -----mm-(%)-mm---- > > everything is developed. O > > > > Both concave and convex should be tried. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today > > http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WAGary > Archimedes was said to have lined up a bunch of soldiers with reflective > shields and arranged them in a parabola to focus the suns rays on > attacking ships, setting them on fire. Focusing has been known a long > time. > Hank > -- True, Hank! Also IT IS NOT accident OR guesswork as he stated in his reply, but in the True Sciences It is OBSERVATION (appologies Heizenburg) and theRECORDing of it no matter how 'small' .. As a Drop of 'Dew on a leaf or twig' magnifying either it's structure OR for the far sighted, the horizon beyond! ---I think my sig. is on top here oh,well---- ps GUYS-- news says Iraq is blareing it's air raid sirens as we send in cruise missles at time of this writting.. hummmm, sh*t clinton votes+ rem: Death Is NOT the brother of Sleep, BUT, The Mother of Interruption! -=steve ekwall=- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 23:12:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA04305; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 23:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 23:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960903061311.006d5c20@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, 02 Sep 1996 23:13:11 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Meissner & Tampere(?) SC Kits Resent-Message-ID: <"gLsTV2.0.D31.ZjyAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/341 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:51 PM 9/2/96 EDT, you wrote: > >I had a big list of superconductor suppliers somewhere, I'll have to dig my >archives for it. Anyway, I found one site last night on the web: > >Colorado Superconductor, Inc., at: > >http://www2.csn.net/~donsher/index.html > >They have several kits centered around 1" diameter discs of two or three >different recipies of SC ceramics. $33 and up includes the rare earth magnet, >SC disc, and instructions. I know there's quite a few other companies, and a >bigger disc would be good to try to see the Tampere effects. CSI also has a >bismuth compound that's higher T than the plain 1,2,3 stuff, so you could dip >it in LN and then chuck it in a holder into a Fordom or other high speed drill >motor for a quick and dirty look until the thing warmed up. As to coils or >magnets, I don't have a clue as to how strong a field is needed, but I would >suspect that some of the strong rare earths Vortexians have been known to play >with might work. I don't know if the field is pulsed or what. But if it's >steady state and it only works with current carrying wire coils, doesn't that >mean that the coils in the Tampere experiment create a *different kind* of >magnetism than permanent magnets? Now *that* would be strange! > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > Bismuth is what, the strongest (?) readily available diamagnetic material? [a magnetic field prefers to go around it than through it]. A quote from the site you mentioned: "As reported in the New York Times, the New Scientist, Applied Physics Letters, etc., NASA scientists have discovered a new `superconducting suspension' phenomena: A flux-melted YBCO superconductor can be suspended below a magnet." So, if it is reflection, creating a higher density ether cushion on which the magnet floats, in the ordinary Meissner Effect, it is really more than that, if the superconductor can also be suspended below the magnet. If you go to this other page at that site: http://www2.csn.net/~donsher/simple.html ...using a browser that can handle animated 89a gifs, and wait for it all to load, the floating magnet rotates. Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 23:27:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA06406; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 23:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 23:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <322BC0C0.DFD@rt66.com> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 22:23:12 -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: vortex-l@eskimo.com, editors@sciam.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, sethnet@efn.org Subject: [Fwd: ] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------5BB6101F3682" Resent-Message-ID: <"rX1Rr.0.2a1.BxyAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/343 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------5BB6101F3682 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit About 16 reports will be on the experimental production of elements, ranging from deuterium and tritium to a great variety of heavier elements. Clearly a window has been opened, or, rather, shattered, into new physics, just as happened a century ago with the totally unexpected and then inexplicable phenomenon of radioactivity in uranium ore. The phenomena of low energy nuclear reactions now seem to have reached the critical phase of fairly easy and widespread replication of gross results. The result will be an exponential surge of experimental and economic exploration. Theorists will have to recast their conceptual nets, to a degree not presently imaginable, just as a century ago the anomaly of radioactivity led to quantum atomic theory by 1925-30. It is very challenging to deal with unexpected results whose existence challenges fundamental, long-held, and very successful paradigms. There is now no "a priori" foundation which guarantees what is "reasonable", what is "possible". For a long time, only the test of replication by separate groups can serve as an "existence proof" of these paradigm popping phenomena-- should we abreviate: "PPP"? All anomalies, however repugnant, have to be considered and subjected to fair experimental test-- no mean task, when the relevant variables are largely unknown. So the testing has to be sympathetic, dedicated, open-minded, and very patient. In many cases players "outside the club" will have to be invited in, despite their eccentricities of thought and practice. Perhaps every large establishment laboratory will have to search out and hire their own "token eccentrics", just as in recent decades women, minorities, and the physically challenged have been. Jokes and outright denigration about scientific eccentrics will soon be as socially inappropriate as racist chatter now has come to be. At any rate, I can now take some pride in correcting Dr. Lin: I am not a Ph.D., but do have a M.A. in Psychology, from Boston University in 1967. In 1964 I took a B.S. in physics and history from M.I.T. I hope this helps to alleviate any shock and confusion. Rich Murray, M.A. --------------5BB6101F3682 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: ghlin@GREENOIL.chem.tamu.edu Received: from GREENOIL.chem.tamu.edu (GREENOIL.CHEM.TAMU.EDU [165.91.176.192]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA19142 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 14:51:47 -0600 (MDT) Received: by GREENOIL.chem.tamu.edu (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.AUTO) for rmforall@rt66.com id PAA21185; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 15:44:26 -0700 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 15:44:26 -0700 From: ghlin@GREENOIL.chem.tamu.edu (Guang Hai Lin) Message-Id: <199608302244.PAA21185@GREENOIL.chem.tamu.edu> Apparently-To: rmforall@rt66.com Dear Dr. Murray: Enclosed please find a meeting schedule. This is still not the final version. Please post it into net for interested people. If anyone interested in the meeting, he (she) can contact me by e-mail or telephone (409)845-3661. Thank you Lin THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS CONFERENCES Holiday Inn, College Station, Texas Joint Chairmen: J. O'M. Bockris (Texas A&M) G. Miley (University of Illinois) September 13, 1996 Introduction 8:30 - 8:35 Professor J. O'M. Bockris Basic Experimental Studies (I): Chairman J. O'M. Bockris 8:35 - 9:05 Professor G. Miley ((University of Illinois): Nuclear Reaction in Palladium-Hydrogen System 9:05 - 9:35 Dr. T. Mizuno (Hokkaido University): The Reaction Products Induced by Isotopic Changes of Electrolysis 9:35 - 10:05 Professor J. Dash (Portland State University): Excess Heat and Unexpected Elements from Electrolysis of Acidified Heavy Water with Titanium Cathodes Coffee Break (10:05 - 10:20) Basic Experimental Studies (II): Chairman G. H. Lin 10:20 - 10:45 Dr. Stanley Szpak (COSC, Naval): Nuclear and Thermal Events Associated with Pd + D Codeposition 10:45 - 11:10 Dr. Z. Minevski (Lynntech): New Elements Formed in the Electrolysis of Light Water on Palladium 11:10 - 11:35 Dr. Mitchell Swartz (JET Energy Tech.): Deuterium Production and Light Water Excess Enthalpy Experiments Using Nickel Cathodes 11:35 - 12:00 Mr. Russ George (E-Quest Sciences): Isotopic Ratio Anomalies Induced in Palladium by the Application of Intense Ultrasound 12:00 - 12:25 Dr. Robert Bass: Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions in an Electrolytic Cell Luncheon Break (12:25 - 1:40) A photo will be taken at 1:25 in the front of Holliday Inn Basic Experimental Studies (Iii): Chairman G. Miley 1:40 - 2:10 Dr. David Nagel (Naval Research Laboratory): "Cold Fusion" Experiment, Theory & Management at the Naval Research Loboratory 2:10 - 2:40 Dr. R. Notoya (Hokkaido University): Evidence of Nuclear Reactions found by Measurement of Radioactivity in Electrolytic Cells 2:40 - 3:10 Dr. Thomas Claytor (Los Alamos National Laboratory): Tritium Production From Palladium and Palladium Alloys 3:10 - 3:40 Dr. T. Ohmori (University of Hokkaido): Isotopic Distributions of Heavy Metal Elements Produced During the Light Water Electrolysis on Au Electrode Coffee Break (3:40 - 3:55) Theoretical Models: Chairman Guang H. Lin 3:55 - 4:20 Professor Y. E. Kim (Purdue University): Nuclear Physics Mechanisms for Gamow Factor Cancellation in Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions 4:20 - 4:45 Professor R. Bush (Cal Polytec): Nuclear Reaction in Pd and Ni System 4:45 - 5:10 Dr. Y. Kucherov (ENECO): Lattice-Phonon Resonance and Energy Transfer at a Nuclear Level 5:10 - 5:35 Dr. Albert Cau: (Paris ) Natural Nuclear Synthesis of Superheavy Elements 5:35 - 6:00 Mr. Hal Fox (Fusion Info Center): Possible Palladium-Related Nuclear Reactions Dinner (7:00 - 9:30) September 14, 1996 Innovative Approaches: Chairman J. O'M. Bockris 8:30 - 8:50 Dr. Guang H. Lin (Texas A&M University): Anomalous Radioactivity and Unexpected Elements as a Result of Heating Oxide Mixtures 8:50 - 9:10 Mr. Toby Grotz (Wireless Engineering): Synthesis of Iron via Arc Discharge through Activated Carbon 9:10 - 9:30 Mr. Ken Shoulders: Observations on the Role of Charge Clusters in Nuclear Cluster Reactions 9:30 - 9:50 Dr. R. Monti & Mr. E. Bauer (Burns Development Ltd.): Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: Experimental Evidence for the Alpha-extended Model of the Atom. 9:50 -10:10 Dr. Andrew Michrowski (Planetary Clean Energy Association): Advanced Transmutation Processes Coffee Break (10:10 - 10:30) Discussion: Chairman G. Miley 10:30 - 12:00 Open Discussion 12:00 - 12:05 Dr. G. Miley: Conclusion --------------5BB6101F3682-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 23:27:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA06298; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 23:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 23:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 22:26:27 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Resent-Message-ID: <"16Vvd.0.JY1.qwyAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/342 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >As Chris points out, if you accept the "pipe smoke" rising as being explained >by gravitational sheilding, you must inherently buy into this as a >manifestation of an infinite energy source. The news article explicitly >states that this is one of the implications, but didn't connect it to the >rising smoke explicitly. However, there is no avoiding it. > >For there to be this gravitational "convection" of air above the gravitational >shadow, new air must be moving in at the base normal to the vertical plume. >There is no "hill" this horizontal airflow must climb before it flows >into the gravitational shadow, unlike other "conservation" engines in >which there is no way to sneak to the top of the hill except by expending >some nullifying effort. > >-- > - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - Also, the cryostat should be colder than abient, so create a downdraft in its vicinity. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 2 23:47:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA09210; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 23:42:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 23:42:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <322BC53E.39DC@rt66.com> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 22:42:22 -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: vortex-l@eskimo.com, editors@sciam.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, sethnet@efn.com, ceti@onramp.net, letters@csicop.org Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: ]] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------6A670EF3E1D" Resent-Message-ID: <"WhjIb3.0.oF2.TDzAo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/344 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------6A670EF3E1D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I want to recommend Barry Merriman, Ph.D. cold fusion page as one of the best entrys into the Internet offerings. It is true, he does have a doctorate in mathematics. Nevertheless he is commendably open-minded, and have labored to carefully achieve one very well-crafted failure to replicate the Patterson Power Cell of the Ceti Corp. in Dallas, TX. http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/CF/ Rich Murray,M.A. --------------6A670EF3E1D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <322BC0C0.DFD@rt66.com> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 22:23:12 -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: vortex-l@eskimo.com, editors@sciam.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, sethnet@efn.org Subject: [Fwd: ] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------5BB6101F3682" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------5BB6101F3682 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit About 16 reports will be on the experimental production of elements, ranging from deuterium and tritium to a great variety of heavier elements. Clearly a window has been opened, or, rather, shattered, into new physics, just as happened a century ago with the totally unexpected and then inexplicable phenomenon of radioactivity in uranium ore. The phenomena of low energy nuclear reactions now seem to have reached the critical phase of fairly easy and widespread replication of gross results. The result will be an exponential surge of experimental and economic exploration. Theorists will have to recast their conceptual nets, to a degree not presently imaginable, just as a century ago the anomaly of radioactivity led to quantum atomic theory by 1925-30. It is very challenging to deal with unexpected results whose existence challenges fundamental, long-held, and very successful paradigms. There is now no "a priori" foundation which guarantees what is "reasonable", what is "possible". For a long time, only the test of replication by separate groups can serve as an "existence proof" of these paradigm popping phenomena-- should we abreviate: "PPP"? All anomalies, however repugnant, have to be considered and subjected to fair experimental test-- no mean task, when the relevant variables are largely unknown. So the testing has to be sympathetic, dedicated, open-minded, and very patient. In many cases players "outside the club" will have to be invited in, despite their eccentricities of thought and practice. Perhaps every large establishment laboratory will have to search out and hire their own "token eccentrics", just as in recent decades women, minorities, and the physically challenged have been. Jokes and outright denigration about scientific eccentrics will soon be as socially inappropriate as racist chatter now has come to be. At any rate, I can now take some pride in correcting Dr. Lin: I am not a Ph.D., but do have a M.A. in Psychology, from Boston University in 1967. In 1964 I took a B.S. in physics and history from M.I.T. I hope this helps to alleviate any shock and confusion. Rich Murray, M.A. --------------5BB6101F3682 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: ghlin@GREENOIL.chem.tamu.edu Received: from GREENOIL.chem.tamu.edu (GREENOIL.CHEM.TAMU.EDU [165.91.176.192]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA19142 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 14:51:47 -0600 (MDT) Received: by GREENOIL.chem.tamu.edu (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.AUTO) for rmforall@rt66.com id PAA21185; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 15:44:26 -0700 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 15:44:26 -0700 From: ghlin@GREENOIL.chem.tamu.edu (Guang Hai Lin) Message-Id: <199608302244.PAA21185@GREENOIL.chem.tamu.edu> Apparently-To: rmforall@rt66.com Dear Dr. Murray: Enclosed please find a meeting schedule. This is still not the final version. Please post it into net for interested people. If anyone interested in the meeting, he (she) can contact me by e-mail or telephone (409)845-3661. Thank you Lin THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS CONFERENCES Holiday Inn, College Station, Texas Joint Chairmen: J. O'M. Bockris (Texas A&M) G. Miley (University of Illinois) September 13, 1996 Introduction 8:30 - 8:35 Professor J. O'M. Bockris Basic Experimental Studies (I): Chairman J. O'M. Bockris 8:35 - 9:05 Professor G. Miley ((University of Illinois): Nuclear Reaction in Palladium-Hydrogen System 9:05 - 9:35 Dr. T. Mizuno (Hokkaido University): The Reaction Products Induced by Isotopic Changes of Electrolysis 9:35 - 10:05 Professor J. Dash (Portland State University): Excess Heat and Unexpected Elements from Electrolysis of Acidified Heavy Water with Titanium Cathodes Coffee Break (10:05 - 10:20) Basic Experimental Studies (II): Chairman G. H. Lin 10:20 - 10:45 Dr. Stanley Szpak (COSC, Naval): Nuclear and Thermal Events Associated with Pd + D Codeposition 10:45 - 11:10 Dr. Z. Minevski (Lynntech): New Elements Formed in the Electrolysis of Light Water on Palladium 11:10 - 11:35 Dr. Mitchell Swartz (JET Energy Tech.): Deuterium Production and Light Water Excess Enthalpy Experiments Using Nickel Cathodes 11:35 - 12:00 Mr. Russ George (E-Quest Sciences): Isotopic Ratio Anomalies Induced in Palladium by the Application of Intense Ultrasound 12:00 - 12:25 Dr. Robert Bass: Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions in an Electrolytic Cell Luncheon Break (12:25 - 1:40) A photo will be taken at 1:25 in the front of Holliday Inn Basic Experimental Studies (Iii): Chairman G. Miley 1:40 - 2:10 Dr. David Nagel (Naval Research Laboratory): "Cold Fusion" Experiment, Theory & Management at the Naval Research Loboratory 2:10 - 2:40 Dr. R. Notoya (Hokkaido University): Evidence of Nuclear Reactions found by Measurement of Radioactivity in Electrolytic Cells 2:40 - 3:10 Dr. Thomas Claytor (Los Alamos National Laboratory): Tritium Production From Palladium and Palladium Alloys 3:10 - 3:40 Dr. T. Ohmori (University of Hokkaido): Isotopic Distributions of Heavy Metal Elements Produced During the Light Water Electrolysis on Au Electrode Coffee Break (3:40 - 3:55) Theoretical Models: Chairman Guang H. Lin 3:55 - 4:20 Professor Y. E. Kim (Purdue University): Nuclear Physics Mechanisms for Gamow Factor Cancellation in Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions 4:20 - 4:45 Professor R. Bush (Cal Polytec): Nuclear Reaction in Pd and Ni System 4:45 - 5:10 Dr. Y. Kucherov (ENECO): Lattice-Phonon Resonance and Energy Transfer at a Nuclear Level 5:10 - 5:35 Dr. Albert Cau: (Paris ) Natural Nuclear Synthesis of Superheavy Elements 5:35 - 6:00 Mr. Hal Fox (Fusion Info Center): Possible Palladium-Related Nuclear Reactions Dinner (7:00 - 9:30) September 14, 1996 Innovative Approaches: Chairman J. O'M. Bockris 8:30 - 8:50 Dr. Guang H. Lin (Texas A&M University): Anomalous Radioactivity and Unexpected Elements as a Result of Heating Oxide Mixtures 8:50 - 9:10 Mr. Toby Grotz (Wireless Engineering): Synthesis of Iron via Arc Discharge through Activated Carbon 9:10 - 9:30 Mr. Ken Shoulders: Observations on the Role of Charge Clusters in Nuclear Cluster Reactions 9:30 - 9:50 Dr. R. Monti & Mr. E. Bauer (Burns Development Ltd.): Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: Experimental Evidence for the Alpha-extended Model of the Atom. 9:50 -10:10 Dr. Andrew Michrowski (Planetary Clean Energy Association): Advanced Transmutation Processes Coffee Break (10:10 - 10:30) Discussion: Chairman G. Miley 10:30 - 12:00 Open Discussion 12:00 - 12:05 Dr. G. Miley: Conclusion --------------5BB6101F3682-- --------------6A670EF3E1D-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 02:42:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA26849; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 02:39:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 02:39:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609030939.CAA24853@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: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 02:38:48 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Very Rare Technology $ Opportunity Resent-Message-ID: <"JGfln.0.TZ6.Bp_Ao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/345 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:06 PM 8/30/96 -0700, you wrote: >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- > > Thank you for your concern and the time you took to express it. I am not worried as I am very careful about how I am doing things. The laws are riddled with ambiguities and doubletalk. There are ways to deal with them if one deals with them with certain procedures and caution. The laws cannot in anyway be read to make voluntary association, the expression of simple need, and discussion thereof illegal, so long as the object of the association is in itself legal. However, specific transactions of voluntary association must meet certain criteria, must follow certain procedures. I have lots of help to sort it out. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 02:42:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA26873; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 02:39:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 02:39:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609030939.CAA24865@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: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 02:38:53 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Very Rare Technology $ Opportunity Resent-Message-ID: <"JLxXS2.0.rZ6.Fp_Ao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/346 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:52 PM 8/30/96 -0800, you wrote: > >> >>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 > > > I simply took (cut and paste) the lead portion of my business plan to advise people of its existance and roughly, very roughly, what it is about. The line you quoted above refers to the entire document (it is in the lead portion of the entire document), not the snippet I sent through E-Mail. I guess you can say the line was included in the email post in that form by oversight. I should have more directly refered to the entire document in that line, so that you would not confuse it with the email message. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 02:53:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA27631; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 02:50:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 02:50:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 96 02:50:27 PDT From: Barry Merriman Message-Id: <9609030950.AA09886@joshua.math.ucla.edu> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Resent-Message-ID: <"QJqqL1.0.hl6.jz_Ao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/347 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Logajan says the Tampere experiment as described necessarily implies an infinite energy source. That is not true---presumably, if you tap the energy source, you will cause the effect to slowly degrade. Nowhere was it implied that the effect could supply more power out than what was put in. Indeed, if it does turn out to be real I would bet on it being conservative is some (perhaps slightly generalized) sense. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 03:22:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id DAA29564; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 03:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 03:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: 03 Sep 96 06:15:16 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Yet more on Tampere Message-ID: <960903101516_100433.1541_BHG123-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Y6e2Q.0.rD7.NP0Bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/348 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Few things have recently entertained me more than the appearance of Robert Matthews on the Compuserve Science forum. You see, I have occasionally passed on UK media stuff there, and have always been hammered for doing so - most notably over the stomach-ulcer bacterium story two years ago. But this time the actual journo himself has go involved, with happy consequences. Now, some of the 'regulars' with whom Jed and I have practised our skills have been quick to trash this report - with all manner of odd ideas, obviously not appreciating that any catch in this paper would not be a trivial one. And they were also scathing about this being a funding ploy and about journos and press conferences and press releases, and about how the term 'antigravity' was not attributable to the authors. I questioned them about 'the press conference' and 'the press release' and so forth - but they were blithely assuming all manner of things. Indeed it constantly amazes me how many people out there will believe in things when there is no evidence for them at all. The point of which is to introduce more comments from Matthews: ----------- The phrase used in the paper is "gravitational shielding". The researchers investigated the possibility that it was some EM effect by measuring weight loss on a wide variety of materials, including that well-known highly magnetic material called wood, and also plastics. Robert ----------- Nothing about distance attentuation is mentioned in the paper. Robert ------------ While it is true that most daily newspaper journalists rely on press handouts (pressure of time), Sunday journos have to do a lot better than that, as we have to get atories that no-one else has got. I was told of the existence of the paper by Ian Sample, who had access to the proofs of the paper. There was no press release, and no attempt by the researchers to go on and on about the need for funding (mercifully). Robert ------------ But I have had no answer on the crucial question of energy conservation. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 04:24:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id EAA04158; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 04:22:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 04:22:06 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Car, H20 Fuel, Calc's Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 11:21:17 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32330013.12311127@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199609030545.WAA27495@germany.it.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <199609030545.WAA27495@germany.it.earthlink.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: <"1y2vH2.0.w01.UJ1Bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/349 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 2 Sep 1996 22:45:41 -0700 (PDT), Michael Randall wrote: [snip] >Hyper-Gas electrolysis: >26.8 amps per hour will make 1000 liters of Hyper-Gas. Unknown where the >extra matter comes from. Current theory is the hydrogen atom acts like a >gate for the aether to enter and create matter (extra hydrogen gases). = Still >working on how to consistantly reproduce this gas. I would suggest that rather than extra hydrogen being created, more water is split than can be accounted for by the passing current. As I see it, there are two possible explanations for this. 1) John Bedini is correct, and "pinging" ions results in the Aether delivering extra energy to the ions. 2) CF reactions taking place during the electolysis produce high energy ionizing particles, which split multiple water molecules as they slow down in the water. =20 > >Dodge 225 engine at 650 rpm fuel calculations: > >Normal 2H2/O2 gas: >It is given that a minimum of 4% normal H2 gas with air, by volume, is >required before it is a combustible mixture. >A 225 cubic inch engine will pump ((225/2) x 650 rpm x .8 volumetric = eff.) =3D >58,500 cubic inches of air per minute or 3,510,000 cubic inches per hour= or >2131.25 cubic feet or 57.22 cubic meters per hour. 57.55 x 0.04 =3D = 2.302 m3 >or 2304 liters of H2 to operate for one hour an engine at 650 rpm at the >leanest possible combustible ratio. > >18 grams of water makes 11.2 liters of H2. To make 2304 liters of H2 we = need I'm never at my best at night, so I could be wrong, but I think this should be 22 liters of H2, not 11. I.e. 1 mole of H2O yields 1 mole of H2. (At STP). >to electrolyze 3699.64 grams or 3.7 liters of water. So this should be 1.8 liters of water. > >A Faraday (26.8 amps/hr.) will electrolyze in one hour 18 grams of = water. >3700 grams/18 grams =3D 205.55 Faradays required to make 2303 liters of = H2. >205.55 Faraday/hr. x 26.8 amps/Faraday/hr. =3D 11,568.35 amps = continuously for >one hour. At 2.1 volts, this would be 11,568.35 watt/hour or (15.5 = hp/hr). >No auto alternator could make that kind of wattage. Therefore normal = 2H2/O2 >could not operate an engine. Etc. [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 Sep 3 04:55:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id EAA07316; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 04:52:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 04:52:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: 03 Sep 96 07:50:29 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Message-ID: <960903115029_100433.1541_BHG63-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ugRbx.0.Do1.Bm1Bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/350 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, > John Logajan says the Tampere experiment as described necessarily > implies an infinite energy source. The problem is that it does say that it can be used as an energy source. Some have said here that I say that, but in fact I do not. The motion of the smoke does not of itself prove anything. However, the article does say it would provide an energy source, and to put the word 'infinite' as a caveat is equivocal in the context. More relevant is that Matthews, in his visits to the Science forum, has not as yet answered my question requesting clarification on this very point. It has to be said that he is one of the best of the British science journos, and he wouldn't put that in the paper for no reason. He is in fact very conventional, except insofar as he has been willing to look at the zpf 'free energy' stuff. > That is not true---presumably, if you tap the energy source, you > will cause the effect to slowly degrade. What is the energy source that is being tapped here? > Nowhere was it implied that the effect could supply more power out > than what was put in. Yes, it was: "By using the devices to raise fluids against gravity, and then conventional gravity to pull them back to earth against electricity-generating turbines, the devices could also revolutionise power generation." > Indeed, if it does turn out to be real I would bet on it being > conservative is some (perhaps slightly generalized) sense. So would I do that. However, the question is whether the conservation might include the 'energy' of the zpf/qvf. Concluding, I would just make it plain that *I* claim nothing. The article *does* claim it. I would suggest that the ideas of 'fringing' might make this device energy-conservative. And that I doubt we will know the truth for some time. I may or may not have mentioned that the journal in which this paper is due to appear is by no means one given to the publication of oddball stuff. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 05:52:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA13826; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 05:48:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 05:48:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 08:47:40 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Car, H20 Fuel, Calc's In-Reply-To: <32330013.12311127@mail.netspace.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Q2Oc52.0.-N3.la2Bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/351 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Please see note at very bottom On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > On Mon, 2 Sep 1996 22:45:41 -0700 (PDT), Michael Randall wrote: > [snip] > >Hyper-Gas electrolysis: > >26.8 amps per hour will make 1000 liters of Hyper-Gas. Unknown where the > >extra matter comes from. Current theory is the hydrogen atom acts like a > >gate for the aether to enter and create matter (extra hydrogen gases). Still > >working on how to consistantly reproduce this gas. > > I would suggest that rather than extra hydrogen being created, more > water is split than can be accounted for by the passing current. > As I see it, there are two possible explanations for this. > > 1) John Bedini is correct, and "pinging" ions results in the Aether > delivering extra energy to the ions. > > 2) CF reactions taking place during the electolysis produce high > energy ionizing particles, which split multiple water molecules as > they slow down in the water. > > > > >Dodge 225 engine at 650 rpm fuel calculations: > > > >Normal 2H2/O2 gas: > >It is given that a minimum of 4% normal H2 gas with air, by volume, is > >required before it is a combustible mixture. > >A 225 cubic inch engine will pump ((225/2) x 650 rpm x .8 volumetric eff.) = > >58,500 cubic inches of air per minute or 3,510,000 cubic inches per hour or > >2131.25 cubic feet or 57.22 cubic meters per hour. 57.55 x 0.04 = 2.302 m3 > >or 2304 liters of H2 to operate for one hour an engine at 650 rpm at the > >leanest possible combustible ratio. > > > >18 grams of water makes 11.2 liters of H2. To make 2304 liters of H2 we need > > I'm never at my best at night, so I could be wrong, but I think this > should be 22 liters of H2, not 11. I.e. 1 mole of H2O yields 1 mole of > H2. (At STP). > > >to electrolyze 3699.64 grams or 3.7 liters of water. > > So this should be 1.8 liters of water. > > > > >A Faraday (26.8 amps/hr.) will electrolyze in one hour 18 grams of water. > >3700 grams/18 grams = 205.55 Faradays required to make 2303 liters of H2. > >205.55 Faraday/hr. x 26.8 amps/Faraday/hr. = 11,568.35 amps continuously for > >one hour. At 2.1 volts, this would be 11,568.35 watt/hour or (15.5 hp/hr). > >No auto alternator could make that kind of wattage. Therefore normal 2H2/O2 > >could not operate an engine. > > Etc. > How many HP does a dodge 225 engine put out at 650 rpm? Maybe an ordinary alternator is not what is needed, but a non consumer type generator. J > [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 Sep 3 06:20:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA19353; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 06:17:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 06:17:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Edmund Sevior Message-Id: <199609031317.XAA30786@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 23:17:39 +1000 (EST) Cc: msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU (Martin Edmund Sevior) In-Reply-To: <9609030950.AA09886@joshua.math.ucla.edu> from "Barry Merriman" at Sep 3, 96 02:50:27 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: <"N9GSV1.0.Ik4.__2Bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/352 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry Merriman wrote: > > John Logajan says the Tampere experiment as described necessarily > implies an infinite energy source. That is not true---presumably, > if you tap the energy source, you will cause the effect to > slowly degrade. Nowhere was it implied that the effect could > supply more power out than what was put in. Indeed, if it > does turn out to be real I would bet on it being conservative > is some (perhaps slightly generalized) sense. > If the effect does turn out to be real we may have to throw out momentum and energy conservation. These are based on the concepts of isotopy of space and time (that all points in space and time are equivalent). In the weird region above the disk neither may be true. All the more reason to treat this with a big grain of salt. Still a 2% reduction in weight is very easy to measure. We should get to the bottom of this one quickly. I did a quick check on the web and the lead profesor has published a number of papers on the 1-2-3 superconductors. He appears to be a typical professional physicist. Does anyone know someone in Finland who could pay these people a visit? Cheers, Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 08:35:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA11960; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 08:18:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 08:18:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: "MHUGO@EPRI" Cc: Vortex-L Subject: RE: Power Turns (fwd) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 08:17:00 -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: <"GPF122.0.qw2.vm4Bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/353 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mark I have been using a product in my engines called "TUFOIL". It is said to be the slipperiest thing known. Guinness Book of Records says it has a coefficient of friction of .029. It has micron size spheres of teflon embedded in oil. It seems to make my diesel in the boat start quicker, even after a month or two of layover. I use it in my Nisson pickup also, with some better gas mileage. It sounds like you are taking this skating seriously. Wear a helmet please, we need your brain unscrambled:( Hank ---------- From: MHUGO@EPRI To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Power Turns (fwd) Date: Monday, September 02, 1996 6:16PM *** Reply to note of 08/31/96 21:49 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Power Turns (fwd) John S. With regard to the lower friction "roller bearings" Could we treat some standard bearings (such as used in in-line skates) and obtain the effect? Could it be done by Sept. 14th? (I have a race...!) MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 08:51:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA16893; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 08:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 08:43:07 -0700 (PDT) From: roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net (Chuck Davis) Message-Id: <231f073d.u8t20e.479d1-roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy In-Reply-To: <199609031317.XAA30786@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> (from Martin Edmund Sevior ) (at Tue, 3 Sep 1996 23:17:39 +1000 (EST)) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 96 20:40:34 Resent-Message-ID: <"LmhLD3.0.u74.985Bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/355 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hello Martin, on Sep 3 you wrote: >If the effect does turn out to be real we may have to throw out momentum >and energy conservation. These are based on the concepts of isotopy of >space and time (that all points in space and time are equivalent). In the weird >region above the disk neither may be true. All the more reason to treat >this with a big grain of salt. Still a 2% reduction in weight is very >easy to measure. We should get to the bottom of this one quickly. > Yes, but I don't think that anything derived from `zero' or the realm of SC can be called space-time, can it? We have to ask, again; "What is the source of space-time" don't we? From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 08:53:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA15065; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 08:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 08:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:34:13 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <9609030950.AA09886@joshua.math.ucla.edu> from "Barry Merriman" at Sep 3, 96 02:50:27 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"rNyzS1.0.Gh3.705Bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/354 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry Merriman writes: > John Logajan says the Tampere experiment as described necessarily > implies an infinite energy source. That is not true---presumably, > if you tap the energy source, you will cause the effect to > slowly degrade. Nowhere was it implied that the effect could > supply more power out than what was put in. Indeed, if it > does turn out to be real I would bet on it being conservative > is some (perhaps slightly generalized) sense. Yes, if it winds down, then it is just a different kind of conservation engine. I mistakenly presumed that was not the case. The press account hinted it wasn't the case, but my syllogism is nevertheless flawed. If it winds down, then it is not an energy source, free or otherwise, the claims of the news account notwithstanding. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 09:04:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA20512; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 09:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 09:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 09:00:02 -0700 Message-Id: <199609031600.JAA02693@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: Meissner & Tampere(?) SC Kits Resent-Message-ID: <"p98cz3.0.Q05.ZO5Bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/356 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >A quote from the site you mentioned: > >"As reported in the New York Times, the New Scientist, Applied Physics >Letters, etc., NASA scientists have discovered a new `superconducting >suspension' phenomena: A flux-melted YBCO superconductor can be suspended >below a magnet." > >So, if it is reflection, creating a higher density ether >cushion on which the magnet floats, in the ordinary Meissner Effect, >it is really more than that, if the superconductor can also be >suspended below the magnet. > >If you go to this other page at that site: > >http://www2.csn.net/~donsher/simple.html > >...using a browser that can handle animated 89a gifs, >and wait for it all to load, the floating magnet rotates. > >Gary Hawkins If it is floating in space, no matter where, when or why, the net effect is that there is a balance of energy arriving from beneath and interfering with the energy arriving from above and interfering. If you think in terms of gravity forcing the thing in the down ward direction, then there is some other mechanism forcing it in the upward direction. Period. If you don't understand that, then look for where that sort of mechanism might be coming from. This is what I tell myself all the time if confused by a certain behavior. In the above, are you saying by "flux melted" that the ceramic is melted and then solidified while in a magnetic field? If so then you have imprinted the helical atomic twist to the YCBO lattice, and it is passing that energy through freely. And energy arriving from the free space beneath, does not have that helicity to it and is thus thrusting the thing vertically upward from beneath. This is the same mechanism that thrusts two bar magnets toward one another when positioned with NS poles facing each other. The helicity is in the same orientation and so energy leaving (having passed through) one magnet is meshed with and able to freely pass through the second magnet. But, the energy of free space did not have that helicity to it and so some of that energy interfered and was reflected upon entering the ends of the magnets away from the mutual center. That resulted in a thrust of the two magnets toward one another, not a pull. I would suggest that by altering the structure of the YCBO you have induced a similar effect where it is in a balance of wanting to repulse the magnetic (and all for that matter) "field" and at the same time repulse space beneath it and that arriving energy. But whatever is going on, you can count on finding that the thrust to offset gravitation is coming from underneath. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 10:41:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA08776; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 03 Sep 1996 08:52:08 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: RE: Power Turns (fwd) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/03/96 08:52:31 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"k33lc.0.392.LO6Bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/357 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 09/03/96 08:33 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: RE: Power Turns (fwd) Have no fear Vortexians! I wear at least a helmet, and although I'm not on the competing "pro" circuit (yet), I do know how to fall. I think you'd all be amazed at some of the falls I've had, and other's who skate regular and know HOW to fall---and the minimal damage done. Hey, skin grows back! Mark H. So we are keeping the brain for CF work. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 10:59:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA17595; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:47:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609031747.KAA27401@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, 03 Sep 1996 10:47:03 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: FORBIDDEN SCIENCE, R. Milton Resent-Message-ID: <"n4ufv1.0.pI4.wy6Bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/358 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:14 AM 9/1/96 EDT, you wrote: >Bill, > >Yes, Richard Milton is a nice fellow. Guess who supplied all the info >for the CF chapter... > >Chris >(finger in quite a few pies) > > aahh Chris, care for a napkin? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 11:07:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA18422; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609031750.KAA27789@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, 03 Sep 1996 10:50:26 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, wchipman@axionet.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Explained -Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Resent-Message-ID: <"q3fWH3.0.nV4.H07Bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/359 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >"One of my friends came in and he was smoking his pipe," Dr Podkletnov >said. "He put some smoke over the cryostat and we saw that the smoke was >going to the ceiling all the time. It was amazing -- we couldn't explain >it." Tests showed a small drop in the weight of objects placed over the >device, as if it were shielding the object from the effects of gravity - >an effect deemed impossible by most scientists. "We thought it might be >a mistake," Dr Podkletnov said, "but we have taken every precaution." Yet >the bizarre effects persisted. The team found that even the air pressure >vertically above the device dropped slightly, with the effect detectable >directly above the device on every floor of the laboratory. If you believe that gravitation is an attractive pull, then the above article should be very confusing to you. But if you believe in gravitation as an effect that results from one body shielding another from red shifted quantum vacuum fluctuations in an organized nodal structure of space, with matter existing as standing waves within that aethereal space, then it seems perfectly expected. The reason is because the super conductor is able to reflect the QVF incident on its surface. We know this from its reflection of the magnetic fields. But what we do not understand is that gravitation is not an attractive pull originating from inside the earth. Rather, the earth is compressed by the arrival of energy from space. That energy, red shifted and more random than the waves of sub atomic matter here, interferes with the resonances at the Planck scale of the spherically convergent standing waves that are what matter is. That interference results in a thrust away from the origin of the interfering wave energy. So, what these researchers did was to reflect some of that incident and frequency shifted energy arriving from space, vertically upward. So, the differential gravitational effect was altered in amplitude because those reflected deep space waves, traveling vertically up, interferred with the smoke and other objects placed above the device. There should be a fall off to the amplitude with angular separation from the axis of the rotating disk that is pronounced and that is similar to an interference pattern one would obtain in a pinhole difraction image. This should be the result of the reflected energy interfering with itself if reflected from opposite sides of the rotating disk. This interference will be larger at large angles due to the coincidence of the reflected waves and the effect should be zero at a 45 degree angle. This, vortexians, is what you have been looking for in longitudinal forces. Here is an experiment that can show the orientation of the forces and prove that electric fields are mechanical in nature and that there is a longitudinal and a transverse electric effect. The only difference between the electric and the gravitational effect is that the gravitational is a frequency based interference, while the electric is a local phase angle based interference. Ross Tessien ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 12:05:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA04989 for billb@eskimo.com; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 12:04:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 12:04:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: Gravitics@aol.com Tue Sep 3 12:04:54 1996 Received: from emout19.mail.aol.com (emout19.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.45]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA04957 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 12:04:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Gravitics@aol.com Received: by emout19.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA25275; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:04:07 -0400 Old-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:04:07 -0400 Message-ID: <960903145530_276059668@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: david@bahnhof.se cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Access to a Cavendish Balance?? X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Dear David, Commenting on your Aug. 22nd letter: The genic energy effect is a phenomenon predicted by the SQK Model G reaction system and does not need another ad hoc phenomenon to account for it. I feel that simplicity in physics theory is important so it is best not to make external additions to the SQK theory by adding on other assumptions unless they are really necessary. As for ZPE, I have pointed out the flaws of the theoretical basis of that theory in Beyond the Big Bang. I do believe that there are ether fluctuations and that these form the seeds which spawn the birth of material particles, but as you can see from reading about SQK, these fluctuations are very different from ZPE fluctuations. The latter are quantum sized, where as the former are subquantum in size. A fusion of the two theories would be disasterous. Sincerely yours, Paul LaViolette From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 12:45:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA10680; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 12:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 12:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: 03 Sep 96 15:31:45 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Meissner & Tampere(?) SC Kits Message-ID: <960903193144_76216.2421_HHB80-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"JzVMq1.0.qc2.LW8Bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/360 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gary Hawkins wrote: > "Bismuth is what, the strongest (?) readily available > diamagnetic material?" The most diamagnetic metal element at room temperature, yes. Not sure about "material" generally. From encyclopedia and periodic table descriptions. Oh, and ununpentium (element #115), which would be right below bismuth on the table, is probably even more diamagnetic. From the Art Bell show and the booklet in the Revelle "S-4 Sport Model" kit. > "...it is really more than that, if the superconductor can also be > suspended below the magnet." They explain that as being in the strength of the "pinning" effect, which also keeps the floaters stable from just sliding away like two opposed-pole simple magnets do. They say the flux pins to impurities, but I like Ross' explanation too. I wouldn't know what pinning really is, or if it exists. The *effect* certainly exists, it's the explanation I'm a little bit suspicious of. But then my education in this area is from dismal to non-existent. Magnets confuse the heck out of me. Supermagnets superconfuse me. > "...using a browser that can handle animated 89a gifs, > and wait for it all to load, the floating magnet rotates." I wanted to see that. But all I could get was a lousy 200bps _max_ transfer rate! Gee, is there a big interest in superconducter kits all of a sudden, I wonder? Or are they just putting an old Mac Plus to work as a server? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 13:24:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA15684; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 12:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 12:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: 03 Sep 96 15:55:52 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Tampere speculations Message-ID: <960903195552_100433.1541_BHG38-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"RbfP31.0.0r3.bs8Bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/361 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: First, a word from the Peanut Gallery (aka CompuServe Science Forum): "... unless the article reaching you in "proof" form was in fact a sneaky press release. As you know better than the rest of us I'm sure, most of the science fringies have now learned to write up their articles with DTP software in fonts and formats that makes them look like they've been taken right out of a major journal." That to Robert Matthews, who had already pointed out that his co-author is with the IoPhys... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Amazing, innit? Just when you think that the so-called 'sceptics' - in fact, people who believe *anything* Authority tells them and ridicule anything else - cannot possibly dream up anything new, they take your breath away. Anyway, I thought I would treat myself to a bit of unbridled speculation about this wunnerful machine - if indeed it is wunnerful. Let's assume that it does what we are told it does. (1) What does it *do*? Does it reduce the weight of *anything* by 2% (4% if stacked up)? It sure looks like it, otherwise it would make the air column go WHOOSH. And the report makes quite clear that it is a percentage effect. If it does that, then, as Gene Mallove pointed out to me just now, you could put a huge multi-ton cylinder on top of it, held up on springs, and switch the thing on and off. Instant power as it surges up and own as its 2% or whatever comes and goes. (2) Is the effect 0.02*9.81m/S^2? Or is it 2% of *whatever the field happens to be*? Would it be 2% on Jupiter or the Sun? And 2% of 1/6 g on the Moon? BIG question, is that. (3) How far up does it go? The limit is not mentioned, but it is at least several tens of feet (see the article). If it is very long-range, then heaven help us if it is placed out of doors - the atmosphere might go whoosh. Ah, it doesn't anyway, so it can't be that. Note that 2% is equivalent to a 6degC rise in temp (2% of 300K) so it isn't really huge. (4) Underneath - what? It could be anything from zero effect to anything. Let's guess. Same effect on floors below? Reverse effect? No effect? If it is the same, then a long column of high-intensity effect might just do weird things to the geology - earthquakes... (5) If these things stack - as it is said they do - then what is the arithmetic? Linear, additive? Geometric progression? What? Doubling by fitting two together tells us very little. I guess it would be linear, just for the hell of guessing. (6) If you stack them to the point where they nullify gravity, what happens? Does the whole thing drift away? Does it drill a hole out of the atmosphere? (7) Maybe Norman Horwood is right, and you can lens the effect by making curved plates. If so - what? Do we get a bubble of space-time? Is the enclosed space in the same time-rate? To return to (1), if in fact it is a percentage of whatever the field is locally, then a stack with curved ends might be an enclosed volume of - what? (8) I may have listed these before, but what of inertia above the plate? What of a pendulum whose bob travels over it? Or a clock placed on it? No answers, please. At this stage it is more fun to ask the questions. Before long it will be hard work - looking for the 'catch' if any, testing out all the various possibilities. For now it is just the best fun you can have sitting down. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 14:47:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA02471; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:10:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:10:40 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <322C9E9C.237C228A@math.ucla.edu> Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 14:09:48 -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 Cc: Martin Edmund Sevior Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy References: <199609031317.XAA30786@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"5JgbW3.0.Yc.Ex9Bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/363 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Martin Edmund Sevior wrote: > > If the effect does turn out to be real we may have to throw out momentum > and energy conservation. These are based on the concepts of isotopy of > space and time (that all points in space and time are equivalent). In the weird > region above the disk neither may be true. Again I think that is jumping the paradigm gun. It is perfectly conceivable that one could have antigravity---in the sense of a here-to-fore undiscovered correction tot he gravitational force, such as the Baryon-dependent 5th force folks were searching for a few years back (and never found)---without violating any existing conservation laws. Just think of the fact that we have ''anti-electricity'' ( + and - signs ) for the electric force without all hell breaking loose. -- 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 Tue Sep 3 14:55:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA01385; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <322C9DA7.31DFF4F5@math.ucla.edu> Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 14:05:43 -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: Tampere infinite energy References: <960903115029_100433.1541_BHG63-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"8DLcE3.0.XL.5t9Bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/362 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: > > [from me, Barry:] > > That is not true---presumably, if you tap the energy source, you > > will cause the effect to slowly degrade. > > What is the energy source that is being tapped here? I have no idea, but it could be the rotational energy in the disc, the energy in the applied magnetic field, or the energy of the phase change to the superconducting state to name a few convential options. Of course, none of these are very large... > > > Nowhere was it implied that the effect could supply more power out > > than what was put in. > > Yes, it was: > > "By using the devices to raise fluids against gravity, and then > conventional gravity to pull them back to earth against > electricity-generating turbines, the devices could also revolutionise > power generation." > I don't think power generation here necessarily means finding a new _source_ of energy---it may mean generation in the sense of coverting one known source into another, such as a dam converts gravitational potential into electricty. Dams are certainly power generation devices, but they do not correspond to a fundamentally new source of power. That is the sense in which I interpreted the article. -- 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 Tue Sep 3 14:56:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA04304; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 20:35:36 +0100 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Chris Morriss Subject: repost from newsgroup. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.11 <5asEvod5709R6741eo9wbh3aEa> Resent-Message-ID: <"sYOqz3.0.931.w3ABo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/364 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This appeared in alt.paranet.science. Does anybody know anything about it? New Discovery of an Infinite Energy Supply A discovery that meets all the energy needs of mankind. Low temperature (above 65 degrees celsius) catalystic production of hydrogen from water. Inventors: Harjit Shergill Patent Pending Kamaljit Shergill Demonstration will be held on Tuesday September 24, 1996 at 10:00 AM Location: 6150 Old Winter Garden Rd. Orlando, Fl. 32835 The composition of the catalyst will again be revealed at this final demonstration. If you have already received instructions for the manufacture of the catalyst through IRC chat rooms you must by now have convinced yourself of the validity of this discovery through your own experimentation.We now request that you share this information with all those interested in this or related fields of energy, after this final date/demonstration (Tuesday September 24, 1996) Direct all inquires to E-mail address: (Shergills@Gnn.com) Location chosen for demonstration purposes only, no information available on site prior to demonstration. -- Chris Morriss From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 15:26:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA08321; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 13:40:56 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: repost from newsgroup. Resent-Message-ID: <"9_jHO3.0.y12.mKABo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/365 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >This appeared in alt.paranet.science. Does anybody know anything about >it? > > > >New Discovery of an Infinite Energy Supply > A discovery that meets all the energy needs of mankind. > >Low temperature (above 65 degrees celsius) >catalystic production of hydrogen from water. > >Inventors: Harjit Shergill Patent Pending > Kamaljit Shergill > >Demonstration will be held on >Tuesday September 24, 1996 >at 10:00 AM Location: 6150 Old Winter Garden Rd. >Orlando, Fl. 32835 > >The composition of the catalyst >will again be revealed at >this final demonstration. > > If you have already received instructions for the >manufacture of the catalyst through IRC chat rooms you must by now >have convinced yourself of the validity of this discovery through >your own experimentation.We now request that you share this >information with all those interested in this or related fields of >energy, after this final date/demonstration >(Tuesday September 24, 1996) Direct all inquires >to E-mail address: (Shergills@Gnn.com) >Location chosen for demonstration purposes only, >no information available on site prior to demonstration. > >-- >Chris Morriss This was posted in sci.physics.fusion also - and is getting a pretty good roasting as you can imagine - "final demonstration?" Maybe there is a language barrier here? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 16:04:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA25112; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:53:17 -0700 Message-Id: <199609032253.PAA14933@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: Meissner & Tampere and Quarks Resent-Message-ID: <"Ziqfw2.0.I86.-RBBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/370 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > "...it is really more than that, if the superconductor can also be > > suspended below the magnet." > >They explain that as being in the strength of the "pinning" effect, which also >keeps the floaters stable from just sliding away like two opposed-pole simple >magnets do. They say the flux pins to impurities, but I like Ross' explanation >too. I wouldn't know what pinning really is, or if it exists. The *effect* >certainly exists, it's the explanation I'm a little bit suspicious of. But then >my education in this area is from dismal to non-existent. Magnets confuse the >heck out of me. Supermagnets superconfuse me. >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI I never really bothered to think about it closely, but it always bothered me that the superconductors shown in the films when HTSC's were discovered floated above the magnet (or vice versa) without slipping off to one side or the other. They just floated in a stable equilibrium, and even spinning, or pushing to one side didn't matter, they just swayed their way back into center line. Now if you think about it like I think about all other things, then what you have is opposing thrusts, ie there is a repulsive interference between the magnet and the SC, but there is also a repulsive interference between the SC which is able to reflect incident energy from space and thus be thrust in some direction. If on its own, there is a reflection from above and a reflection from below, and from the sides. So, it is just like our air pressure where you right now have a force of about 10,000 pounds on the front of your body. You do not think about it because it is offset by the same amount of force on the back of your body, so you just sit there. for the SC and the magnet, though, there is a thrust that is multiply reflected between them and so an interference thrust apart. And for the SC and space there is a thrust apart too. But since the magnet and SC have multiple reflections due to mutual exclusion of the unallowed helical energy that builds up to a larger level. So, the SC is forced away until equilibrium is attained. But to slip off of one side isn't going to happen, because space will thrust it away and back toward the center region. Which I guess leads us to understand that the lateral thrust of space is diminished by the magnet when the SC gets away from center line. this implies that the magnet shields some of the random waves propogating through space. BTW; This works in other areas too. For example, in a quark structure like a proton, you have gluons. Now these guys have a really wierd behavior if you think in normal terms of attractions. If two quarks are too close, then they supposedly repulse, strongly. If too far apart, the gluons 'pull' them back together. And if in the middle, the gluons do nothing and go slack. This description of things getting stronger with an increase in distance is counter to all of our understandings of other forces, as is the force going to zero in the middle. Try this. Take the gluons and consider that space (waves at the plack frequency arriving from outside), is pushing them together strongly. And that they are pushing away from each other strongly. Now, if they get closer together, their mutual repulsion increases, but space remains the same, so they move apart. If they are separated, space pushes the same, but the quarks now are less able to repulse each other due to the increase in distance, so they are thrust back together. And if they are in the middle, the thrust together of space offsets the thrust apart of the quarks. I don't know about you guys, but that seems to make one hell of a lot more sense to me. And the same goes for the SC. Of course, this does imply something that is not allowed in current wisdom (??soon to be changed??). And this is that one is not supposed to think of space as material with waves in it that interact with sub atomic matter as wave structures rather than simple quite little particles. And this latter concept leads to the requirement that one should be able to tap net energy from the quantum vacuum, again counter to current "wisdom" which I will put in quotes to imply you know what. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 16:07:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA22195; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:40:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:40:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:38:58 -0700 Message-Id: <199609032238.PAA14168@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: repost from newsgroup. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"yUPHR2.0.fQ5.hFBBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/368 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sept. 3, 1996 Tuesday Yes I also saw the spf posting. And the roasts. I sent him an e-mail requesting more details with a desire to re-post it on the vortex. Let's see how the poster responds. -AK- You wrote: > >This appeared in alt.paranet.science. Does anybody know anything about >it? >New Discovery of an Infinite Energy Supply > A discovery that meets all the energy needs of mankind. > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 16:08:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA25136; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:53:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:53:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:53:22 -0700 Message-Id: <199609032253.PAA14936@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: Tampere infinite energy Resent-Message-ID: <"LNrkI2.0.i86.6SBBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/371 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >Again I think that is jumping the paradigm gun. It is perfectly >conceivable that one could have antigravity---in the sense of >a here-to-fore undiscovered correction tot he gravitational >force, such as the Baryon-dependent 5th force folks were searching >for a few years back (and never found)---without violating >any existing conservation laws. Just think of the fact >that we have ''anti-electricity'' ( + and - signs ) for the electric >force without all hell breaking loose. > >-- >Barry Merriman I agree. We need to find out a little more about this thing. If the effect is one that is emitted from the SC, then the SC should be heating up due to the interaction. And if this is so, then it should balance the energy. However, we have long been seeking how to unify gravitation into the fold of the other forces. Let's not forget that we currently have a system with various different forces, and yet all of these forces exist inside of just one universe. This should be very easy to ferret out, though. A two percent change is something even I could measure in my machine shop with some crude equipment, and am tempted to do so I might add. In any case, if the effect is "emitted" from the SC, then it probably will balance the energy. If on the other hand, it is a reflection of Planck scale QVF which make up the structure of our "space", then it is likely that this is a source of energy. As the easiest source of "free energy", one would have to say that gravitational shielding would be it. Gravity is obviously a unique force mechanism in its unidirectional stature vis current thinking. And if gravity is found to really be just one more force exhibiting all of the same behaviors as other forces, then this can only (I think) be so if it is found to be a shielding effect, as opposed to an attraction. The math works out identically, so it is only our perceptions that must be altered. So if it is a shielding mechanism, then one could place and remove the shield (man made shield) and get a net energy gain. A simple device to test this would be a bicycle wheel that has one side above the "beam". Such a set up would induce a spin (unless there is some fringe effect that shuts down the simple verticle thrust) to the wheel that could then be used to drive a generator. But we are definitely in the CF fiasco syndrome here and will remain until someone hooks up a cryo pump to the bicycle wheel! Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 16:11:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA22395; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:39:34 -0700 Message-Id: <199609032239.PAA21833@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Fwd: repost from newsgroup. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"zIhxP2.0.oT5.HGBBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/369 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ---- Begin Forwarded Message Return-Path: Received: from mail.eskimo.com (mail.eskimo.com [204.122.16.4]) by inews1.ix.netcom.com (8.7.5/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id OAA01901; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:50:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA04304; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 20:35:36 +0100 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Chris Morriss Subject: repost from newsgroup. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.11 <5asEvod5709R6741eo9wbh3aEa> Resent-Message-ID: <"sYOqz3.0.931.w3ABo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/364 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com This appeared in alt.paranet.science. Does anybody know anything about it? New Discovery of an Infinite Energy Supply A discovery that meets all the energy needs of mankind. Low temperature (above 65 degrees celsius) catalystic production of hydrogen from water. Inventors: Harjit Shergill Patent Pending Kamaljit Shergill Demonstration will be held on Tuesday September 24, 1996 at 10:00 AM Location: 6150 Old Winter Garden Rd. Orlando, Fl. 32835 The composition of the catalyst will again be revealed at this final demonstration. If you have already received instructions for the manufacture of the catalyst through IRC chat rooms you must by now have convinced yourself of the validity of this discovery through your own experimentation.We now request that you share this information with all those interested in this or related fields of energy, after this final date/demonstration (Tuesday September 24, 1996) Direct all inquires to E-mail address: (Shergills@Gnn.com) Location chosen for demonstration purposes only, no information available on site prior to demonstration. -- Chris Morriss From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 16:25:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA28585; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 16:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 16:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:53:04 -0700 Message-Id: <199609032253.PAA28427@dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Tampere speculations To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"aKkSM2.0.Y-6.WfBBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/372 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sept 3, 1996 Its wunnerful, wunnerful --pop! and the champagne bubbles flow. -ak- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 16:40:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA01804; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 16:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 16:22:57 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 19:22:14 -0400 Message-ID: <960903182257_276254989@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Paper Resent-Message-ID: <"vJbot2.0.7S.EtBBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/373 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: As mentioned a just had a premier paper published in New Energy News. This paper The Zero Point Interaction explains the nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational interactions in systems containing condensed electrons. A preprint has been posted for one year at: http://nucleus.ibg.uu.se/~david/elektromagnum The name of the paper is ZPE. Its also posted on Bill B's local files. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 17:24:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA15160; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:04:55 -0700 Message-Id: <199609032204.PAA14352@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: Meissner & Tampere(?) SC Kits Resent-Message-ID: <"7HJS71.0.pi3.9qABo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/367 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >>A quote from the site you mentioned: >> >>"As reported in the New York Times, the New Scientist, Applied Physics >>Letters, etc., NASA scientists have discovered a new `superconducting >>suspension' phenomena: A flux-melted YBCO superconductor can be suspended >>below a magnet." >> >>So, if it is reflection, creating a higher density ether >>cushion on which the magnet floats, in the ordinary Meissner Effect, >>it is really more than that, if the superconductor can also be >>suspended below the magnet. >> Does such a YCBO show a Hall effect for **one polarity** of magnetic field and not for the other? If so, that would show you that you induced a helicity to the atomic lattice during the solidification process. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 17:38:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA12789; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 17:22:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 17:22:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Edmund Sevior Message-Id: <199609040018.KAA05196@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Subject: Re: Tampere speculations To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 10:18:42 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <960903195552_100433.1541_BHG38-1@CompuServe.COM> from "Chris Tinsley" at Sep 3, 96 03:55:52 pm 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: <"2EpQn2.0.j73.ykCBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/375 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris writes: Lots of fun questions. How about this one? 9. Two vertical tubes of water conected together. One above the plate, one elsewhere forming a circuit. The weight of the water in the tube not above the plate is greater than the one above the plate. The water will fall down the outside and rise up above the plate giving an overall circulation. If this continues for a sustained period we'll be left to wonder where the energy driving the flow comes from. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 17:39:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA11480; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 17:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 17:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 20:11:53 -0400 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199609040011.UAA20468@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: (jlogajan@skypoint.com) Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Resent-Message-ID: <"Fv0Sf3.0.Fp2.GdCBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/374 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com): > For there to be this gravitational "convection" of air above the > gravitational shadow, new air must be moving in at the base normal > to the vertical plume. There is no "hill" this horizontal airflow > must climb before it flows into the gravitational shadow, unlike > other "conservation" engines in which there is no way to sneak to > the top of the hill except by expending some nullifying effort. I disagree, based on the comment about lower air pressure above the apparatus. This tends to indicate that there is a gravitational slope that must be climbed. BUT, you get a very interesting visit from Maxwell's Demon. Assume that there is work required to get into the airspace above the apparatus, but molecules gain the energy back when they fall out. Now the temperature above the device is maintained at a cooler temperature than the ambient air, and the energy to do that comes from the random thermal motion of the air. Hmmm... If you have a relatively heavy gas mix (air will do) free to move in and out of the field, and use a thermal engine with either conduction or a light working gas (hydrogen?) then you may be able to extract energy from the field. Does this energy come from the rotating disk? Interesting either way. On another note, if anyone is trying a replication, we thought of some interesting experiments here. First, put a Caesium source above the apparatus and use the Mossbauer effect to measure (general) relativistic time dilation. The same experiment can be done with, say Helium Neon lasers, but the expected frequency shift may be marginal. Next put a lab balance under the apparatus so you are constantly weighing it using piezoelectric effect. Now move something into the region of the field. Does the balance reading change? If so, how much? Next, seal a (non-metallic) dumbbell, suspended from a thread, in a Faraday cage, lined with glass. Slide one end into the field. If the dumbbell tilts, even if it ain't anti-gravity, it is very new physics. Replace this with a rotating dumbbell, hooked to a spring or piston that does work. Now you are extracting energy from the field. Where is it coming from? If I'm right, in this case it comes from the rotational energy of the dumbbell. Useless as an energy source, but look at the application to space flight. Build a space port in the Andes. Put your rocket inside a strong anti-gravity field. As it falls out of the field it gains energy/is accelerated. So you pump electrical or mechanical energy in on the ground, then get order of thousands of g's of GRAVITATIONAL acceleration as you leave the affected region. (You would want to pick a course which crossed the field boundary in a way that minimized tidal effects, and make the field edge as smooth and gradual as possible, but that is just engineering.) So you can build a (partially) rocket propelled space craft with less than 1 g thrust, and which needs much less than five miles/sec of delta V to make orbit. Delta Clipper starts looking very practical. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 18:10:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA11264; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0oZH5BAjOILyEws4@oroboros.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 20:14:43 +0100 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Chris Morriss Subject: Re: Car, H20 Fuel, Calc's In-Reply-To: <199609030545.WAA27495@germany.it.earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.11 <5asEvod5709R6741eo9wbh3aEa> Resent-Message-ID: <"Tg7DO.0.yl2.sWABo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/366 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In message <199609030545.WAA27495@germany.it.earthlink.net>, > >For a 60 cell series electrolyzer 120 Vdc (120 Vac full-wave rectified), at >2 Vdc per cell; > >Normal electrolysis: >The passage of 26.8 amps for one hour (1 Faraday) will liberate 16.8 liters >of 2H2/02 (dia-atomic gas) per hour. 26.8 amps divided by 16.8 liters equals >1.59 amps per liter per hour per cell. > >Water Gas electrolysis: >26.8 amps per hour will make 33.6 liters of Water Gas H/O (mono-atomic gas). >26.8 amps divided by 33.6 liters equals 0.798 amps per liter per hour per >cell. This for an electrolyzer making 100% mono-atomic gas. > >Hyper-Gas electrolysis: >26.8 amps per hour will make 1000 liters of Hyper-Gas. Unknown where the >extra matter comes from. Current theory is the hydrogen atom acts like a >gate for the aether to enter and create matter (extra hydrogen gases). Still >working on how to consistantly reproduce this gas. > Hyper Gas??? This is the first time I've heard of this. Under what circumstances has this effect been noticed? Is it claimed to be the same as the 'Meyer' gas production? -- Chris Morriss From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 21:18:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA00797; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 23:11:30 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <199609040011.UAA20468@spectre.mitre.org> from "Robert I. Eachus" at Sep 3, 96 08:11:53 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"bVtDc.0.PC.06GBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/376 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robert I. Eachus writes: > I disagree, based on the comment about lower air pressure above the > apparatus. This tends to indicate that there is a gravitational slope > that must be climbed. I think a lower pressure in the column would indicate a relative energy valley to roll down rather than a hill to climb up, though in reality a lower pressure is likely due to the Bernolli effect of the moving column than to some rarification brought on directly by the alleged gravitational shadowing. If there was no air movement, any air pressure reduction would result in lateral movement into the column by the higher pressure ambient air molecules, and the difference would be quickly neutralized. If there really is a pressure difference, it has to be due to and in some sense maintained by the dynamics of the Bernoulli effect. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 21:28:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA02344; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Tampere speculations To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 23:20:47 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <960903195552_100433.1541_BHG38-1@CompuServe.COM> from "Chris Tinsley" at Sep 3, 96 03:55:52 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"UTx2B3.0.Xa.lEGBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/377 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley writes: > No answers please. Ha, dream on! :-) > (3) How far up does it go? The limit is not mentioned, but it is at least > several tens of feet (see the article). If it is a "shadow" effect, then you must remember that gravity only seems to act as if it was from the center of the mass. In reality, each atom contributes an attractive vector, so that the mass of the earth off to the side of the vertical line would not really be shadowed, so the effect would taper off with height. The alternative is if the effect is not a shadow, but actually a repulsive force. In that case one would suppose a inverse square relation, at least in the far field. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 21:39:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA03530; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Tampere speculations To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 23:27:58 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <199609040018.KAA05196@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> from "Martin Edmund Sevior" at Sep 4, 96 10:18:42 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"tRcgG2.0.3t.VLGBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/378 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Martin Sevior writes: > 9. Two vertical tubes of water conected together. One above the plate, one > elsewhere forming a circuit. The weight of the water in the tube not above the > plate is greater than the one above the plate. The water will fall down the > outside and rise up above the plate giving an overall circulation. If this > continues for a sustained period we'll be left to wonder where the energy > driving the flow comes from. Someone has claimed that H.G. Wells anticipated devices such as this based upon a gravitational shield. Someone suggested a simple wheel or disk mounted vertically with one side in gravitational shadow. The disk would never balance weights on both sides, so it would constantly spin, and hence, you could hook a generator directly up to it. If this puppy really reduces weight by 2%, it should be easy to test for all these marvelous properties. And adding my own speculative question: 10. Can you strap such a device on the bottom of your chair and thus lift you and the chair up by supplying only enough thrust to counter the exposed weight of the of the device? -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 21:46:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA06602; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:44:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:44:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960904044901.006cd42c@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: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 21:49:01 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Resent-Message-ID: <"7HOGm1.0.6d1.haGBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/379 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:11 PM 9/3/96 -0500, you wrote: >Robert I. Eachus writes: >> I disagree, based on the comment about lower air pressure above the >> apparatus. This tends to indicate that there is a gravitational slope >> that must be climbed. If a standing wave sort of "stillness" is being set up above the SC, it should appear cooler to temperature sensors. Heat is merely our perception of molecular kinetic energy, outside of its technical definition. If air molecules were being "gripped" and held, that is, their local movement restricted by a field of some sort, it would also appear as lower air pressure. Gary From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 22:10:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA11927; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:08:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:08:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:07:45 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: magnetising water? (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"9lH1I3.0.Jw2.qwGBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/380 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Here's something interesting from the physics teaching discussion. .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 16:12:19 +0200 (METDST) From: Mark Sylvester Reply-To: phys-l@atlantis.cc.uwf.edu To: phys-l@atlantis.cc.uwf.edu Subject: magnetising water? One of my students has come back from the summer with his IB Extended Essay work for my perusal, and I find myself mystified: he claims to have "magnetised" water. He presented me with his apparatus: the outer iron armature of a motor, with its coil in place, with the rotating part replaced by a plastic cylinder with inlet and outlet tubes. Inside this goes a soft iron cylinder filling most of the space, so that the water has to flow round it. He presented me with his results: (i) he claims that the flow rate of the water decreases markedly when a current flows through the coil (ii) he measured density and refractive index and found no change after the water had passed through the device (iii) he did controlled measurements of conductivity and found a clearly detectable drop in this parameter after the water had been "magnetised". The water gradually reverted to normal over a few days. Next he presented me with his reference. This is a "normal looking" science book in terms of density of text, diagrams and formulas. I am unable to evaluate it beyond this because it is in Russian. The title translates roughly as "Magnetising of Water Systems" and the author is V. I. Klassen. Publisher is Moscow "Chemistry" 1982. The student is unable to explain very clearly what he understands from this book, but says the effect has something to do with the bond angle in the water molecule changing. I am mystified and skeptical. I've asked him to reproduce his measurements in our lab: in the meantime, can anyone enlighten me as to what this effect might be? Is there a reference in English, or at least a name for the phenomenon that I might follow up? Mark. Mark Sylvester UWCAd, Duino, Trieste, Italy. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 22:27:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA15433; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:26:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609040526.WAA19092@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, H20 Fuel, Calc's Resent-Message-ID: <"ewNO4.0.1n3.CCHBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/381 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:50:51 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: >Hyper Gas??? >This is the first time I've heard of this. Name given to this unique gas by Wiseman. >Under what circumstances has this effect been noticed? Jimmy Reed's electrolyzer powering his van (idling speed) with 24 watts input. Estimated it would have required 3000 watts to power the engine. >Is it claimed to be the same as the 'Meyer' gas production? No. Meyer uses pulsed hi voltage and low current. Brown's Gas uses pulsed low voltage and high current Michael Randall From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 22:29:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA15662; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:27:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:27:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:27:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609040527.WAA19171@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, H20 Fuel, Calc's Resent-Message-ID: <"ZJg13.0.dq3.PDHBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/382 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 08:47 AM 9/3/96 -0400, you wrote: >How many HP does a dodge 225 engine put out at 650 rpm? At present only idling the engine estimated 4 Hp. >Maybe an ordinary alternator is not what is needed, but a non consumer type generator. Could be. But according to the calc'c for normal H2 gas, for idling an engine, it would it would require 15.5 hp/hr electrolyzer input power to fuel an engine needing 4 hp at idling. Water Gas offers a simple solution on paper. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 22:30:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA15847; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609040528.WAA19234@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, H20 Fuel, Calc's Resent-Message-ID: <"_l1qM1.0.Yt3.3EHBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/383 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At Tue, 3 Sep 1996 04:22:06 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: >I would suggest that rather than extra hydrogen being created, more >water is split than can be accounted for by the passing current. >As I see it, there are two possible explanations for this. > >1) John Bedini is correct, and "pinging" ions results in the Aether >delivering extra energy to the ions. > >2) CF reactions taking place during the electolysis produce high >energy ionizing particles, which split multiple water molecules as >they slow down in the water. With more reserch data the theories can be proved or disproved. >>18 grams of water makes 11.2 liters of H2. To make 2304 liters of H2 we need > >I'm never at my best at night, so I could be wrong, but I think this >should be 22 liters of H2, not 11. I.e. 1 mole of H2O yields 1 mole of >H2. (At STP). No problem. A Faraday will liberate one gram equivalence of a substance at each electrode. Thus, the passage of 26.8 amps per hour will liberate one gram atom of hydrogen (one mole) at the cathode and eight grams of oxygen (one half mole) at the anode. One gram-mole of H would occupy 22.4 liters of volume and weigh one gram. One gram-mole of H2 would occupy 22.4 liters and weigh two grams. Because one gram-mole of hydrogen molecules (H2) equals 1/2 mole of H, the diatomic hydrogen would occupy a volume of 11.2 liters, (at STP). Michael Randall From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 3 22:42:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA18468; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 08:21:26 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <322d1fec.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Re: magnetising water? (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"cw9Cl.0.SW4.kPHBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/384 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:08:05 -0700 (PDT), vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > > Here's something interesting from the physics teaching discussion. > > .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. > William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 > EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ > Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 16:12:19 +0200 (METDST) > From: Mark Sylvester > Reply-To: phys-l@atlantis.cc.uwf.edu > To: phys-l@atlantis.cc.uwf.edu > Subject: magnetising water? There is great literature re. magnetised water, I wrote once about this subject at vortex. Uses: reduced scaling in hot and cooling water systems, accelerated concrete hardening, stimulation of the development of plants (agriculture). The effects are bound to the mechanism of crystallization and the presence of traces of iron oxides. I can send some relevant literature however the easiest way in this case is a Chemical Abstract CD-ROM search, subject "Water, Magnet* You will get immediately an image of the extent of the studies in this problem. 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 Sep 3 22:56:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA21154; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:55:19 -0700 (PDT) From: roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net (Chuck Davis) Message-Id: <232077ed.u8t20e.ec3b1-roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Power Turns (fwd) In-Reply-To: (from "Scudder,Henry J" ) (at Tue, 3 Sep 1996 08:17:00 -0700) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 96 22:53:39 Resent-Message-ID: <"ab9zb3.0.SA5.6dHBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/385 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hello Henry, on Sep 3 you wrote: >Mark >I have been using a product in my engines called "TUFOIL". It is said >to be the slipperiest thing known. Guinness Book of Records says it has >a coefficient of friction of .029. It has micron size spheres of teflon >embedded in oil. Back in the the 70's I added some of the stuff and for two consecutive days, I had to crank down the idle when I got home from work :) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 00:21:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA02224; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 00:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 00:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: 04 Sep 96 03:15:22 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Message-ID: <960904071521_100060.173_JHB99-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"VLXWD3.0.iY.isIBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/386 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross: >> But we are definitely in the CF fiasco syndrome here and will remain until someone hooks up a cryo pump to the bicycle wheel! << There's a little thing called torque which, if the wheel is made large and heavy enough, even a small cryo unit would generate massive power (if it works!!) We're back to the old water-wheel - yes? Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 02:21:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA12783; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 02:17:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 02:17:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 02:16:52 -0700 Message-Id: <199609040916.CAA02850@dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: magnetising water? (fwd) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"zFnFF3.0.e73.iaKBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/388 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: OOPS! I meant magnetic ice rather than magnetic water. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 02:26:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA12571; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 02:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 02:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 02:13:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199609040913.CAA24330@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: magnetising water? (fwd) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"dWvRC1.0.N43.fXKBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/387 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sept. 4, 1996 Wednesday Bill, You forwarded: > >One of my students has come back from the summer with his IB Extended >Essay work for my perusal, and I find myself mystified: he claims to >have "magnetised" water. > >He presented me with his apparatus: the outer iron armature of a >motor, with its coil in place, with the rotating part replaced by a >plastic cylinder with inlet and outlet tubes. Inside this goes a soft >iron cylinder filling most of the space, so that the water has to flow >round it. > >He presented me with his results: >(i) he claims that the flow rate of >the water decreases markedly when >a current flows through the coil >(ii) he measured density and refractive index and found no change >after the water had passed through the device >(iii) he did controlled measurements of conductivity and found a >clearly detectable drop in this parameter after the water had been >"magnetised". The water gradually reverted to normal over a >few days. I'd say the student did very good work! What he produced in water is probably the same effect that is claimed by those enterprises to condition water through magnetism so that there is no buildup of obstructions in water pipes. >I've asked him to reproduce his measurements in our lab: in the >meantime, can anyone enlighten me as to what this effect might be? Is >there a reference in English, or at least a name for the phenomenon >that I might follow up? References in scientific encyclopedias for Water gives some ideas to what is happening. Simply described, a water molecule is a highly polar, dielectric, and unsymmetrical. So a water molecule is affected by a magnetic field. The effect the student found that lasted for several days probably can be prolonged with lower temperatures and wiped out with boiling. And the water. after being affected, probably also changes its solubility factor enough to retain those clogging elements in solution. The two Hydrogen bonds to Oxygen are not opposite to each other at 180 degrees but closer to each other at 105 degrees at some side of Oxygen. I wonder if magnetic water can be formed by freezing water under a strong magnetic field? -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 05:12:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA24762; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 05:10:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 05:10:22 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Car, H20 Fuel, Calc's Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 12:09:43 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <322d2c9c.12768250@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199609040528.WAA19234@switzerland.it.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <199609040528.WAA19234@switzerland.it.earthlink.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: <"8Y96_2.0.s26.j6NBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/389 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:28:17 -0700 (PDT), Michael Randall wrote: [snip] >>>18 grams of water makes 11.2 liters of H2. To make 2304 liters of H2 = we need >> >>I'm never at my best at night, so I could be wrong, but I think this >>should be 22 liters of H2, not 11. I.e. 1 mole of H2O yields 1 mole of >>H2. (At STP). >No problem.=20 > >A Faraday will liberate one gram equivalence of a substance at each >electrode. Thus, the passage of 26.8 amps per hour will liberate one = gram >atom of hydrogen (one mole) at the cathode and eight grams of oxygen = (one ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >half mole) at the anode. ^^^^^^^^^ > >One gram-mole of H would occupy 22.4 liters of volume and weigh one = gram. >One gram-mole of H2 would occupy 22.4 liters and weigh two grams. > >Because one gram-mole of hydrogen molecules (H2) equals 1/2 mole of H, = the >diatomic hydrogen would occupy a volume of 11.2 liters, (at STP).=20 > >Michael Randall > This is fine, but as you have just pointed out only 8 grams of oxygen are produced, and 1 gram of hydrogen. This obviously comes from 9 grams of water, not 18 as you originally stated. 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 Sep 4 05:54:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA00717; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 05:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 05:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:49:21 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Car, H20 Fuel, Calculations's In-Reply-To: <322d2c9c.12768250@mail.netspace.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"kqyiy.0.9B.DiNBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/390 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Folks, Can we please put some simple hardball nuts and bolts, belt and suspenders engineering on the table? Those of you who have the correct information, put it down. 1) 225 cu. in. car engine .... right? 2) puts out ? 4 hp ? at idle? Y .... N ? 3) car engine running on electrically powered electrolytic water to hydrox covertor ? Right? 4) how much gas from convertor? 5) how much power to convertor? watts 6) conversion factor watts to hp 7) as a start ... any other data Let us separate this into parts a) engineering data and math b) actual observed effects c) projection or extrapolation for O U, if any d) theory OK? > >A Faraday will liberate one gram equivalence of a substance at each > >electrode. Thus, the passage of 26.8 amps per hour will liberate one gram > >atom of hydrogen (one mole) at the cathode and eight grams of oxygen (one > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 06:43:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA09923; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 06:36:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 06:36:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 05:40:22 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Resent-Message-ID: <"g97FK.0._Q2.6NOBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/391 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Ross: > >>> But we are definitely in the CF fiasco syndrome here and will remain until >someone hooks up a cryo pump to the bicycle wheel! << > >There's a little thing called torque which, if the wheel is made large and >heavy >enough, even a small cryo unit would generate massive power (if it works!!) >We're back to the old water-wheel - yes? > >Norman Not exactly. Speed is just as important as mass in the case of the cryo unit because the power is ft-lbs/sec. You don't hve to supply extra water as the wheel accelerates, so you get something for nothing with the cryo unit as rpm increases. Same is true for larger diameter. For a given sized cryo unit it is best to use a large diameter high rpm wheel to maximize power output. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 06:47:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA11402; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 06:43:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 06:43:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: wharton@128.183.46.16 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 09:42:42 -0400 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Resent-Message-ID: <"zlvmd.0.3o2.ZTOBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/392 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I think that the question of an infinite energy source should be approached from a mathematical viewpoint. If the line integral over a closed loop is always zero then the force is conservative and there is no source of energy. The condition for this is curl F = 0 where F is the force vector. The standard solution for this condition is that F = - gradient P where P is the scalar potential. Assuming that is safe to set P = 0 at infinite spatial distances (the force would have to drop off by 1/r for this condition to be violated and an asymptotic 1/r force is unheard of in physics), we can require that any stright line integral with end points at infinity must vanish. Since the claimed gravity reduction persisted at significant distances above the device, then below the device there must be an equal gravity increase so that the line integral of the force will vanish. Otherwise the force is not conservative or upward movement of mass above the device must be taking energy out of the rotating disk as has been mentioned. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 07:15:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA14751; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 06:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 06:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 05:58:46 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Resent-Message-ID: <"C95RF2.0.Rc3.4gOBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/393 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > Since the claimed gravity reduction persisted at significant distances >above the device, then below the device there must be an equal gravity >increase so that the line integral of the force will vanish. Otherwise the >force is not conservative or upward movement of mass above the device must >be taking energy out of the rotating disk as has been mentioned. > >Lawrence E. Wharton A gravity increase below the disk is eqally useful to one above in that you can then run two "water wheels", one above the cryo device and one below. The one below would simply rotate in the opposite direction. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 07:35:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA21377; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 06:27:53 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"FrACX1.0.tD5.s3PBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/394 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >(8) I may have listed these before, but what of inertia above the plate? What >of a pendulum whose bob travels over it? Or a clock placed on it? Assuming the SC disks are rotated at any decent rate, the fact that one could be placed above the other precludes effects like time dilation and inertia or mass or momentum changes. This is because during the process of placing one disk over the other one disk would shadow a portion of the other and the result would be an imbalance in the centripetal force which would cause the disks to strongly resist being placed one above the other. This suggests that either a force from the disks or a shielding effect is involved. > >No answers, please. Ha! Funy joke! :) [snip] > >Chris Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 08:26:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA28449; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 06:59:36 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"NJ9f73.0.Py6.RXPBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/395 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >(8) I may have listed these before, but what of inertia above the plate? What >of a pendulum whose bob travels over it? Or a clock placed on it? Assuming the SC disks are rotated at any decent rate, the fact that one could be placed above the other precludes effects like time dilation and inertia or mass or momentum changes. This is because during the process of placing one disk over the other one disk would shadow a portion of the other and the result would be an imbalance in the centripetal force which would cause the disks to strongly resist being placed one above the other. This suggests that either a force from the disks or a shielding effect is involved. I would like to add that, since the force doubled upon stacking, the force is not refelected by the superconductive disks, but added. This rules out any known electromagnetic effect, as the surface of the disks should reflect, not transmit or add to such effects. As John Logajan points out: "If it is a "shadow" effect, then you must remember that gravity only seems to act as if it was from the center of the mass. In reality, each atom contributes an attractive vector, so that the mass of the earth off to the side of the vertical line would not really be shadowed, so the effect would taper off with height." I would like to point out that most of the earth is to the sides, and most of what isn't is much further away, so due to the inverse square law, has much less effect. There should be a very wide shadow and a great diminution of the force within the distance of several floors. However, the shadow appears to be related to a geocentric phenomenon. It goes "up". Perhaps there is some special form of matter of small radius at the core of the earth radiating an unknown attractive force which is shielded or reflected by the disk, or a repulsive force that is amplified by the disk. The former seems more likely than the latter, but neither idea sits well with me. Another possibility is that a small body at the center of the earth is acting like a lens with a focal length of roughly one earth radius, focusing an attractive force the SC disks shield. If this were true, the disks should increase in weight when going superconducting or spinning up, whichever produces the effect. None of this makes a lot of sense. It will be interresting to see if replication and confirmation follows. > >No answers, please. Ha! Funy joke! :) [snip] > >Chris Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 08:47:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA05029; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:27:51 -0700 (PDT) From: roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net (Chuck Davis) Message-Id: <2320fe10.u8t20e.6b739-roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy In-Reply-To: (from hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner)) (at Wed, 4 Sep 1996 05:58:46 -0800) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 4 Sep 96 08:26:00 Resent-Message-ID: <"a27ML.0.XE1.s_PBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/396 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hello Horace, on Sep 4 you wrote: >A gravity increase below the disk is eqally useful to one above in tha= t you >can then run two "water wheels", one above the cryo device and one bel= ow. >The one below would simply rotate in the opposite direction. > =20I'm getting lost here, normal :) But are these principals something = akin =20to the N-machine, or is it something different? =20Seems to me that a disk large enuff would be way expensive! =2012) What if a concave config were pointed at the brain? =20 Would it make me smarter? :^) =20Rgrds, From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 08:49:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA08087; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:41:55 -0700 Message-Id: <199609041541.IAA26249@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: Tampere infinite energy Resent-Message-ID: <"pG8Pa3.0.F-1.KDQBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/398 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > I think that the question of an infinite energy source should be >approached from a mathematical viewpoint. If the line integral over a >closed loop is always zero then the force is conservative and there is no >source of energy. The condition for this is curl F = 0 where F is the >force vector. The standard solution for this condition is that F = - >gradient P where P is the scalar potential. Assuming that is safe to set >P = 0 at infinite spatial distances (the force would have to drop off by >1/r for this condition to be violated and an asymptotic 1/r force is >unheard of in physics), we can require that any stright line integral with >end points at infinity must vanish. > Since the claimed gravity reduction persisted at significant distances >above the device, then below the device there must be an equal gravity >increase so that the line integral of the force will vanish. Otherwise the >force is not conservative or upward movement of mass above the device must >be taking energy out of the rotating disk as has been mentioned. > >Lawrence E. Wharton >NASA/GSFC code 913 >Greenbelt MD 20771 >(301) 286-3486 If gravitation is due to interference with wave energies, then there wouldn't be an increase in the force of gravity on an object under the device. There would be an increase in the weight of the SC apparatus, and a reduction in the weight of masses placed above, AND beneath the disk. This structure is conservative, and as well, it is in accord with all we know about waves. The only oddity is that I am talking about waves that exist at the level of the quantum vacuum, which we are told we should not discuss by many in QM. Aside from that, what I suggest is no more complicated than the manner in which a piece of driftwood is thrust toward shore due to interference with wave action. All you need to do is to think of sub atomic matter as little oscillators. If you do, then it will become instantly clear that there would be an interference with energy that was out of frequency and or phase angle match with that oscillator. But as the Planck wavelength is at E-35 meters, the earth and all bodies are practically transparent, so most of the energy just propogates right on through without interacting. But energy from space would reasonably be less coherent than energy filtered by the earth, so you get a thrust toward the filter that cleaned up the spectrum of the energy. But, in the case of the SC disk, you should get shielding above and below the device, and the device (since it is reflecting the energy from space), should exhibit an increase in mass. Ergo, energy balance in the form of a balance of QVF waves emitted and absorbed. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 08:53:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA08053; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:42:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:42:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:41:50 -0700 Message-Id: <199609041541.IAA26246@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: Tampere infinite energy Resent-Message-ID: <"mwHQH.0.nz1.FDQBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/397 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A >Ross: > >>> But we are definitely in the CF fiasco syndrome here and will remain until >someone hooks up a cryo pump to the bicycle wheel! << > >There's a little thing called torque which, if the wheel is made large and heavy >enough, even a small cryo unit would generate massive power (if it works!!) >We're back to the old water-wheel - yes? > >Norman > If, and only if, the reflection of the deep space QVF, (or whatever is causing the effect), does not heat the ceramic. If there is heating, then there will be no free lunch. But of the matter somehow can just reflect the energy while waving with it, then there will be no heating, or less heating than reflection. So then this becomes a bit like the Casimir effect. Even so, there may not be a free lunch from this. In other words, if the effect is finite, then the more mass you put above you may saturate the amount of mass attenuation, and if so you will get no net thrust that does not result in heating of the ceramic. Ergo, energy balance. I am hopeful that this is not so, and that there will be a net gravitational effect that is an interaction with the QVF, but I have my concerns that this may not be so. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 13:28:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA07387; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:11:51 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy In-Reply-To: <199609041541.IAA26246@smudge.oro.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"eJgJL3.0.Mp1.JAUBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/399 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Doesn't the convection of air above the device suggest that energy is being extracted? Conservative fields don't drive closed-loop flows. I hope they've checked for e-fields. If the disk is ionizing the air somehow, the vertical air flow might actually be a case of "electric wind" rather than a gravitational effect. Of course whatever interaction is occurring between the air and the device might decelerate the SC disk as well as accelerate the air. So, if a lead block is placed above the SC disk and then manually yanked upwards, it might apply a measurable counter-torque upon the disk. .....................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 Sep 4 13:53:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA10741; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 15:24:40 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609042024.PAA04961@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: magnetising water? (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"pA3B63.0.md2.qNUBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/401 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 22:07 9/3/96 -0700, BillB wrote: >He presented me with his apparatus: the outer iron armature of a motor, with >its coil in place, with the rotating part replaced by a plastic cylinder >with inlet and outlet tubes. Inside this goes a soft iron cylinder filling >most of the space, so that the water has to flow round it. > >He presented me with his results: (i) he claims that the flow rate of the >water decreases markedly when a current flows through the coil I think his apparatus forms a shorted magnetohydrodynamic generator with the central iron core acting as the shorting bar. It is therefore no surprise that the water flow would slow when the field was energized....just as a generator becomes hard to turn when shorted. One way to check this is to use distilled water in the device. Little or no slowing would be observed with non-conductive water. (iii) he did controlled measurements of >conductivity and found a clearly detectable drop in this parameter after the >water had been "magnetised". ...I think that ions would be plated out of the water in passing thru the shorted MHD generator, hence the drop in conductivity....don't know about how it would be restored gradually, expect thru contamination...or maybe CO2 absorbtion. 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 Wed Sep 4 13:55:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA14688; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: 04 Sep 96 16:38:43 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Tampere speculations Message-ID: <960904203842_76216.2421_HHB73-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"y12X_.0.Pb3.jdUBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/402 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace wrote: > "I would like to point out that most of the earth is to > the sides, and most of what isn't is much further > away, so due to the inverse square law, has much > less effect. There should be a very wide shadow and > a great diminution of the force within the distance > of several floors." There we go! I guess this is what they mean when they say it's counterintuitive to the vectorial representation. And: > However, the shadow appears to be related to a > geocentric phenomenon. It goes "up". Perhaps > there is some special form of matter of small radius > at the core of the earth radiating an unknown > attractive force which is shielded or reflected by > the disk, or a repulsive force that is amplified by > the disk. That's what it looks like, but that's not a very satisfying physical explanation of what is probably really happening, IMO. We're supposed to integrate the contribution of all the little particles of matter throughout the earth to get the one vector for gravity at a point on the surface. But the vector is supposed to be a mathematical and conceptual fiction, not real! And here this thing seems to be chopping it off with fairly crisp sides to the hole as if it the vectors _were_ real. There is a model that might work though. Consider a charged sphere. All the electrostatic potential lines are normal to the surface. But if you were to try to shield it with a small disc at one spot, well - you can't - you'd be using charge, and the field lines and charges on the disc would react in the conventional way. But what if the metal sphere was the electrode of a Tesla coil? Changing from positive to negative and back all over the entire surface, and *ideally* (ahem... "magically", as a practical matter, of course) all at once or in phase. Make it a very high frequency so the wavelength is very short, say, like visible light. Since it's in phase all over the surface, it's like a spherical laser, with all photons heading out normal to the surface. Now a small shield placed near the surface of the sphere would create a shadow like the one alleged to form over the Tampere device. Maybe now people can find the wavelength of the gravitational energy by 'slit' experiments. But how does gravity from the earth act like a spherical laser? If gravity is an EM emanation with a super short planck-scale wavelength as Ross suggests, but originates from within atoms of matter themselves, perhaps they all tend to interfere with themselves deep within mass, leaving only those that are relatively in phase and heading radially out from the center to survive and weakly interact with any arbitrary small bit of matter in the manner we see gravity on our macro scale. A simple model for this is to throw a handfull of gravel in a pond. Let it spread in a circular patch bit before it hits the water, but not too dispersed. Within the center of the area where most of the gravel has landed, you see a jumble of waves, but they're organizing or netting out into the more familiar rings near the edge, with the concentric waves (shells if in a sphere) heading out from the geometric center. Now they say EM radiation doesn't interact with itself the way watter waves easily can, but that's at "our" wavelengths. The planck-scale range and below ... "there be monsters". Who knows. Of course there are profound implications for gravity if this is the case, as big G would then be a dependent variable relying on a large number of conditions, primary among them the volume and density of the mass surrounding the observation point. Maybe this has something to do with the odd gravitational effects observed in certain tunnel systems, like the strangely divergent bobs in the mineshaft problem, and perhaps even at the other end of the scale, the odd behavior of the arms of spiral galaxies. But I don't know. As you say, "None of this makes a lot of sense", and you can raise that to a large exponent for my speculative postings. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 14:02:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA08495; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:17:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:17:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 12:20:57 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: magnetising water? (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"rnnTH2.0.g42.zEUBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/400 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >I wonder if magnetic water can be formed by freezing water under a >strong magnetic field? > >-AK- If so, not very much. I just tried it. Froze water in a 35 mm plastic film canister. Had two powerful 35 MGO magnets in attraction one on top one on bottom. No reaction of a compass to frozen water once magnets removed. I allowed ice to partially melt. No reaction of free ice floating in canister to powerful magnetic field - it just floated freely, no attraction or repulsion regardless of proximity of strong magnets. Water used was very hard tap water. When electrodes (leads from newly purchased resistors) were placed into canister resistance gradually rose from about 5 megohms to over 20 megohms. Same for control sample and about the same rate of increase, about a minute to make the rise. There seemed not to be any major difference to the elecrtrochemistry as far as I took it which was not very far or very controlled scientificlly speaking. However, it this does point out that if such effects exist they must be comparatively subtle and require very accurate measuring conditions, and may possibly be very transient. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 14:41:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA17056; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:52:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199609042052.NAA29798@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: Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"MaHQX2.0.RA4.dmUBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/403 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >[snip] >>(8) I may have listed these before, but what of inertia above the plate? What >>of a pendulum whose bob travels over it? Or a clock placed on it? > >Assuming the SC disks are rotated at any decent rate, the fact that one >could be placed above the other precludes effects like time dilation and >inertia or mass or momentum changes. This is because during the process of >placing one disk over the other one disk would shadow a portion of the >other and the result would be an imbalance in the centripetal force which >would cause the disks to strongly resist being placed one above the other. >This suggests that either a force from the disks or a shielding effect is >involved. > >I would like to add that, since the force doubled upon stacking, the force >is not refelected by the superconductive disks, but added. This rules out >any known electromagnetic effect, as the surface of the disks should >reflect, not transmit or add to such effects. This does not rule out reflections. You are thinking of the disks as though they were made of some "solid" substance. At the quantum level, they are wide open empty space. There is just a dot here and a dot there of what one might call matter under current conceptualizations, And these dots are just E-15 or thereabouts in diameter. The vast majority of the volume, according to current concepts is thus empty, and any "reflections", would be off of the tiny dots. So, at the level of the QVF which is certainly where this effect must be based, we must think not in terms of solids, but in terms of the waves that matter really has to be. Stacking disks you might think of like stacking colored plates of glass. The effect becomes more intense as you stack more plates, but it is due to the cumulative effect of the individual defects in the glass which alter the transmission properties. So, again this may still be a shielding effect. Personally, I see no mechanism for attractions to manifest anywhere, so you know my opinion on this. > >As John Logajan points out: "If it is a "shadow" effect, then you must >remember that gravity only seems to act as if it was from the center of the >mass. In reality, each atom contributes an attractive vector, so that the >mass of the earth off to the side of the vertical line would not really be >shadowed, so the effect would taper off with height." I would like to >point out that most of the earth is to the sides, and most of what isn't is >much further away, so due to the inverse square law, has much less effect. This is not correct. The primary gravitational vector from the earth is along a radial line, with the importance of the components of mass contribution at any radial distance from ones location on the surface always being a vector along that line with the exceptions of if you are close to a mountain range or something like that. Aside from that, if you consider all of the mass within 10 feet, or ten miles, you will add up to the same radial vector. And, the sum of the differential thrusts is identical whether you consider it to be an attraction or a shielding effect. >There should be a very wide shadow and a great diminution of the force >within the distance of several floors. However, the shadow appears to be >related to a geocentric phenomenon. It goes "up". Again, this closes ones mind to other symmetries of the system. The effect is not only aligned with the earths center, it is normal to the stationary plane of the disk, it is also aligned to the horizon of the earth, and it is also aligned to the axis of rotation of the disks. So don't be too quick to jump to conclusions as to the reason for the directionality. I would say that the reason is the axis of revolution, and that it has nothing to do with the earth except for one thing. The earth sets up an assymetry in the QVF frequency of transiting waves if compared through a spherical arrival, and the assymetry is maximum along a vertal line. This being due to the earth filtering out the red shifted and more random wave frequencies coming from deep space (again, E45 Hz, so not EM you might think of). >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 16:05:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA07612; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 15:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 15:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: 04 Sep 96 18:20:59 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Message-ID: <960904222058_100060.173_JHB110-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"zvZ3a1.0.rs1.Y5WBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/404 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace, >> For a given sized cryo unit it is best to use a large diameter high rpm wheel to maximize power output. << Like wot I sed, but if its big enuf the tork can be used in gearing to generate the power at higher revs. I was thinking of a huge concrete flywheel, say 50 ft rad and a teeny 12" cryo thingy sucking the weight from the rim, to use the scientific terminology. 2% off 1/2 a ton = about 40lbs at 50ft = 2000ft lbs - get the thing up to say 20 rpm @ 100 ft/sec rim velocity = 200,000 ft lbs/sec /550 = 363 HP. Mind you not very compact, but OK for a stretched limo, if you don't mind the gyro effect when cornering! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 16:56:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA20665; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 16:21:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 16:21:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 15:06:35 -0700 Message-Id: <199609042206.PAA14703@dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: some more: Re: magnetising water? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"08w5K3.0.q25.3yWBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/405 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sept. 4, 1996 Wednesday I am no expert on water so I can only quote limited published works which in themselves may not be complete. Van Nostrand's eighth edition of the Scientific Encyclopedia, for one, has an expanded section on water as compared with its fourth edition. In it, liquid water "may be regarded as a mixture of hydrogen bonded clusters and unbonded molecules. Other research characterises this model (liquid water) in terms of 5 species; unbonded molecules, tetrahydrogen bonded molecules in the interior of cluster; and surface molecules connected by 1,2, or 3 hydrogen bonds." And "the water molecule has a strong tendency to be oriented in an electric field". So who knows what exactly happens in pure water, hard water, cold water, hot water under the influence of a magnetic and or electric field. There seems to be continuing studies of water. It would be interesting to see the student's experiment and results replicated in front of the instructoer and other witnesses. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 18:11:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA05440; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 17:32:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 17:32:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 01:20:41 +0100 Message-Id: <199609050020.AA01642@felix.dircon.co.uk> X-Sender: dominic@popmail.dircon.co.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: dominic@dircon.co.uk (Dominic Murphy) Subject: Re: t e s t, ignore this Resent-Message-ID: <"I3hFd.0.yK1.M-XBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/406 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Since you changed list server software my Eudora wont tell me who correspondence is from. All messages are from vortex-l. Any view on how I can change this? regards, dominic murphy > > >.....................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 > > > dominic murphy +44 (0)181 747 0499 Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 20:26:39 -0700 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Call me- I'm near Santa Fe References: <320EACED.5E0B@rt66.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"v1ttF2.0.cy.DVaBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/409 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Richard Thomas Murray wrote: > Rich Murray HCR 70 Box 515 Pecos, NM 87552 505-757-6145 home > 505-699-4122 cellularRich I would like to find out how to get a copy of the proceedings of this conference. Hank Scudder -- 1¾ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 21:27:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA14698; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 21:10:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 21:10:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609050403.VAA05834@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: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 21:12:08 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Resent-Message-ID: <"e5az73.0.bb3.2BbBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/410 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: "One of my friends came in and he was smoking his pipe," Dr Podkletnov said. "He put some smoke over the cryostat and we saw that the smoke was going to the ceiling all the time. The moral to the story is -- in this day of health conscience scientists, if it had not been for this cancer causing, tumor building smoker, this discovery would not have occurred. Since I am only a recorder of information, may I point out that we must give mention to the fact that tobacco has established its precedence in science. _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 22:46:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA01142; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 22:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 22:44:04 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 05:43:15 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <322f4e57.15587241@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199609041541.IAA26249@smudge.oro.net> In-Reply-To: <199609041541.IAA26249@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: <"HgEKA3.0.oH.aYcBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/411 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:41:55 -0700, Ross Tessien wrote: [snip] >All you need to do is to think of sub atomic matter as little = oscillators. >If you do, then it will become instantly clear that there would be an >interference with energy that was out of frequency and or phase angle = match >with that oscillator. But as the Planck wavelength is at E-35 meters, = the >earth and all bodies are practically transparent, so most of the energy = just >propogates right on through without interacting. But energy from space Ross, have you considered that oscillations at the Planck length may only be one of the wavelengths involved?=20 Perhaps there are in fact oscillations at this fundamental wavelength, and also at all of its harmonics (sub-harmonics when thinking of frequencies). This might fit in better with Ray Tomes theory, while having the advantage that strong multiple harmonics (as per RT) would nicely explain different forces on different scales. Though I hesitate to say it, it would also provide some theoretical underpinning of J.W. Keely's experimental work. >would reasonably be less coherent than energy filtered by the earth, so = you >get a thrust toward the filter that cleaned up the spectrum of the = energy. > [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 Wed Sep 4 22:53:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA22639; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 18:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 18:58:57 -0700 (PDT) From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 21:56:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Subj: RE: Car, H20 Fuel, Calc's To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-id: <01I93H3FEWXU8X7FCX@delphi.com> X-VMS-To: INTERNET"vortex-l@eskimo.com" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Resent-Message-ID: <"BGVf-2.0.hX5.WFZBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/407 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Idling HP power of an engine would not have any meaning except idling. The power the engine consumes might not be much more than idling at 70 mph if the car is not accelerating, the increase would be the amount to overcome friction and wind and gravity (on a grade). The car's engine would have a wide variation in applied load in actual operation. I don't understand where idling HP factors into a comparison. Joe Flynn From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 23:00:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA03698; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 22:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 22:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 15:57:54 +1000 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Where is Podkletnov? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Lfm2g3.0.fv.AmcBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/412 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I've tried to find Dr. Eugene Podkletnov via the web at Tampere Technical University. No luck. I couldn't find an internal phone number for him and he's not listed in the Departments of Physics, Material Science or Superconductivity. I suspect his connection with Tampere may be tenuous. Anyone got any further news and background information? His last refereed publication appears to be from 1992 when he first reported this gravity shielding effect. Is there anymore information about other members of his team? I'm trying to ascertain something of his character and reputation... Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 23:46:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA11965; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 23:43:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 23:43:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960905064827.006e7e00@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: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 23:48:27 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: t e s t, ignore this Resent-Message-ID: <"oKXCn3.0.vw2.PQdBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/413 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:20 AM 9/5/96 +0100, you wrote: >Since you changed list server software my Eudora wont tell me who >correspondence is from. All messages are from vortex-l. Any view on how I >can change this? > >regards, > >dominic murphy >> >> >>.....................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 >> >> >> >dominic murphy >+44 (0)181 747 0499 +44 (0)181 780 5113 dominic@dircon.co.uk > > My Eudora Pro (version 2.2) shows a 'From' line (you), and a 'Resent-From' line (vortex). Your message looked like this: Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 17:32:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 01:20:41 +0100 X-Sender: dominic@popmail.dircon.co.uk To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: dominic@dircon.co.uk (Dominic Murphy) Subject: Re: t e s t, ignore this Resent-Message-ID: <"I3hFd.0.yK1.M-XBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/406 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Might want to see if you can find a later version of Eudora. ----------------------------------- --Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 23:52:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA12865; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 23:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 23:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 22:51:37 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"2-az1.0.u83.sTdBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/414 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > > However, the shadow appears to be related to a > > geocentric phenomenon. It goes "up". Perhaps > > there is some special form of matter of small radius > > at the core of the earth radiating an unknown > > attractive force which is shielded or reflected by > > the disk, or a repulsive force that is amplified by > > the disk. > >That's what it looks like, but that's not a very satisfying physical >explanation of what is probably really happening, IMO. > [snip] >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI Amen to that! Worse than unsatisfying. That was my point - nothing I've heard yet seems to provide a sensible explanation. This one is way out there if it is real. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 23:52:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA12891; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 23:47:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 23:47:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 22:51:43 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"7hJjN2.0.N93.yTdBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/415 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> >>I would like to add that, since the force doubled upon stacking, the force >>is not refelected by the superconductive disks, but added. This rules out >>any known electromagnetic effect, as the surface of the disks should >>reflect, not transmit or add to such effects. > >This does not rule out reflections. You are thinking of the disks as though >they were made of some "solid" substance. No - I should have stated my inherent assumption that the frequency would be tied in some way to the rate of rotation. Yes, very high frequency stuff, like xrays or gammas, can pass through. However, if you assume such a short wavelength you have to find a source for a previously (and currently) undetected very high frequency EM wave and show how it can exert so much pressure, yet never previously have been detected - a significant task. This puts you back into the realm of the unknown. At the quantum level, they are >wide open empty space. This depends on your interpretation. Are electron waveforms continuous probability distributions or some more basic waveform? Is the electron really everywhere at once or is it only at some point when a sample is taken? Can a waveform collapse and reappear in another place with another size? These kinds of premises or assumptions should be agreed upon before a discussion of this can make sense. At the quantum level space inside matter is very full, but full of what? It depends on the wavelength interacting with it. There is just a dot here and a dot there of what one >might call matter under current conceptualizations, And these dots are just >E-15 or thereabouts in diameter. I don't know of any experimental proof that particles exist as dots, do you? The vast majority of the volume, according >to current concepts is thus empty, and any "reflections", would be off of >the tiny dots. So, at the level of the QVF which is certainly where this >effect must be based, we must think not in terms of solids, but in terms of >the waves that matter really has to be. > >Stacking disks you might think of like stacking colored plates of glass. >The effect becomes more intense as you stack more plates, but it is due to >the cumulative effect of the individual defects in the glass which alter the >transmission properties. So, again this may still be a shielding effect. >Personally, I see no mechanism for attractions to manifest anywhere, so you >know my opinion on this. > It will be interresting to see some results about all this. There is just not enough substance here yet. Still fun to speculate. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 23:53:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA12928; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 23:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 23:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 22:51:50 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Resent-Message-ID: <"o2E2-2.0.y93.4UdBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/416 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Horace, > >>> For a given sized cryo unit it is best to use a large diameter high rpm >>>wheel >to maximize power output. << > >Like wot I sed, but if its big enuf the tork can be used in gearing to generate >the power at higher revs. > >I was thinking of a huge concrete flywheel, say 50 ft rad and a teeny 12" cryo >thingy sucking the weight from the rim, to use the scientific terminology. 2% >off 1/2 a ton = about 40lbs at 50ft = 2000ft lbs - get the thing up to say 20 >rpm @ 100 ft/sec rim velocity = 200,000 ft lbs/sec /550 = 363 HP. Mind you not >very compact, but OK for a stretched limo, if you don't mind the gyro effect >when cornering! > >Norman Much more efficient to go for high rpms when you consider weight and compactness. Your recycle factor goes up - the same weight is used more time for a given effect. Suppose you knock the radius down to 2.5 feet (factor of 1/20) reduce the mass to 500 lbs (factor of 1/2) but increase the revs to 800 rpm (factor of 40) to achieve the same result. Much more compact. Maybe at 20,000 rpms the thing would be useful. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 4 23:59:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA15938; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 23:56:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 23:56:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 23:00:37 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Resent-Message-ID: <"ttBqE3.0.yu3.NcdBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/417 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] I point out that we must give mention to the fact that >tobacco has established its precedence in science. > > > >_______________________________ >Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com >http://www.netzone.com/~discpub You must have some inside information. I haven't seen any evidence it was tobacco. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 00:56:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA27101; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 00:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 00:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960905075824.007075bc@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: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 00:58:24 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"FG4Xq3.0.Jd6.zReBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/418 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Shades of scalarism? | 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 | Oleg Jefimenko, "Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation", | Electret Scientific, Star City, (1992) On another note: It was a *ring*, rather than a disk, in the Tampere results. There is a diagram: http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/gravity.htm Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 01:09:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id BAA29363; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 01:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 01:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960905081128.006ff770@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: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 01:11:28 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: More on Tampere Resent-Message-ID: <"v505e.0.jA7.EeeBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/419 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The quote following is from: http://www.padrak.com/ine/RS_REF2.html ...where there is quite a bit more on it. In fact, if you do a search at Alta Vista for 'Tampere', a lot of information is out there, and it's not brand new. The reason I'm quoting this here is to illustrate the meager distances and percentages of weight loss being reported. "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" Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 01:31:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id BAA02558; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 01:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 01:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 03:28:32 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy From: dtmiller@dsmnet.com (Dean T. Miller) Message-Id: <09960805032748.OUI38.dtmiller@dsmnet.com> In-Reply-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"epXui1.0.ud.BzeBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/420 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Horace, >> Suppose you knock the radius down to 2.5 feet (factor of 1/20) reduce the mass to 500 lbs (factor of 1/2) but increase the revs to 800 rpm (factor of 40) to achieve the same result. Much more compact. Maybe at 20,000 rpms the thing would be useful << I recall reading (maybe 20-30 years ago) about experiments with small flywheels sealed in a vacuum container with magnet bearings which did spin that fast (or faster) for automotive use. You would get the flywheels up to speed by plugging into house current for a few hours, then the flywheels would be used to generate electricity to power the auto. The electric motors (one on each wheel) would be used to generate power when braking (feeding the power back into the flywheel). The problem was finding a material that would withstand the 'centrifugal' force on a long-term basis. I think the test models used bicycle spokes and piano wire -- but they lasted only 100 hours or so before disintegrating. !^NavFont02F0320000AMGSHGD4HJhCDBE -- -- Dean -- from Des Moines ---- Using: OUI Internet Mail TE 1.5 from http://www.dvorak.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 01:43:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id BAA04433; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 01:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 01:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960905084529.006eec30@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" X-Priority: 4 (Low) Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 01:45:29 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Podkletnov Resent-Message-ID: <"mOvE_1.0.951.68fBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/421 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Wait. The search that found info on SC was on the word 'Podkletnov' at Alta Vista. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 02:36:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA08999; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 02:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 02:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: 05 Sep 96 05:28:48 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Where is Podkletnov? Message-ID: <960905092847_100433.1541_BHG74-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ygRca2.0.TC2.dtfBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/422 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Martin, As to the Podkletnov trail ... well ... all I have is this, from 76625.3045@compuserve.com (Fulvio Castello): ------------------------------------- Evgueni Podkletnov has made his PhD at Tampere University of Technology in 1991 in the Institute of Material Science. (I am at the Institute of Physics). The name of his thesis was Superconducting thin coatings of Y-Ba-Cu-O by RF magnetron sputtering : processing, microstructure and superconducting properties. The telephone operator does not have his phone number at TTKK, so he is not working in our university any more." Since he no longer seems to be at Tampere, can you tell me where Dr. Podkletnov can now be reached? And since it appears he left Tampere in 1991, where did the research for this paper take place? Thanks. --------------------------------------- How significant all that is, I don't know. I see that Dr Eberlein (the lady who did the sonoluminescence stuff) is described as being of Cambridge U, but appears elswhere to be with a US university (Illinois, I vaguely recall). And I would remind all here that, according to Robert Stirniman's earlier posting on this subject, the research moved to Canada some while back. Could I add at this point that I think there have been a lot of very helpful comments here, and that Barry Merriman's have been particularly interesting. I don't want to leave the impression that I am arguing with anybody about this claim, I'm not. By the way, I saw Frank Close on TV the other week - on the tape I sent to Hal Puthoff, actually, saying: "Anti-gravity is one of the things that science fiction writers have always loved, and [shrugs] *perhaps* might not be so far from science fact. "Of all the forces of nature, gravity is the one which is most familiar to us day to day, but it's the one we understand least. And in some theories of gravity, the gravity that we know turns out to have two bits to it. There's a big bit which drags us to earth, and a little bit on the top - which is like antigravity." Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 02:47:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA10155; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 02:44:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 02:44:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: 05 Sep 96 05:42:31 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Tampere 'antigravity' Message-ID: <960905094231_100433.1541_BHG103-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"5NDm_2.0.bU2.c3gBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/423 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace, > You must have some inside information. I haven't seen any evidence > it was tobacco. WOW! Well, if it was something more interesting than tobacco in that pipe he was smoking, this might put a whole new spin on these findings! One other point. Gary says that it was a ring of superconductor. The text refers to a disc. Either might be correct, we just do not have the actual paper yet. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 08:36:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA29358; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 08:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 08:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Vortex-L Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 08:20:00 -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: <"rfm7h2.0.WA7.G_kBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/424 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: There was an interesting article in Discovery magazine a couple of months ago about flywheel power and Bitterly. It would be an interesting machine to put together with anti-gravity. Wow :>} Hank ---------- From: dtmiller@dsmnet.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Date: Thursday, September 05, 1996 1:28AM Hi Horace, I recall reading (maybe 20-30 years ago) about experiments with small flywheels sealed in a vacuum container with magnet bearings which did spin that fast (or faster) for automotive use. You would get the flywheels up to speed by plugging into house current for a few hours, then the flywheels would be used to generate electricity to power the auto. The electric motors (one on each wheel) would be used to generate power when braking (feeding the power back into the flywheel). The problem was finding a material that would withstand the 'centrifugal' force on a long-term basis. I think the test models used bicycle spokes and piano wire -- but they lasted only 100 hours or so before disintegrating. !^NavFont02F0320000AMGSHGD4HJhCDBE -- -- Dean -- from Des Moines ---- Using: OUI Internet Mail TE 1.5 from http://www.dvorak.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 09:18:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA03556; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 08:41:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 08:41:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 10:41:10 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: from "Horace Heffner" at Sep 4, 96 10:51:50 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"hvVxw3.0.Qt.XIlBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/425 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Much more efficient to go for high rpms when you consider weight and > compactness. Your recycle factor goes up - the same weight is used more > time for a given effect. I think the power output is directly related to the mass difference (not ratio.) You could use a smaller mass to store rpms when the energy wasn't needed, but for continuous real-time power draw, you'd want a large mass difference and that requires a large mass. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 09:19:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA08499; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 09:06:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 09:06:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 09:06:17 -0700 Message-Id: <199609051606.JAA10319@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: Tampere infinite energy Resent-Message-ID: <"jbHRF1.0.h42.9glBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/426 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >On Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:41:55 -0700, Ross Tessien wrote: >[snip] >>All you need to do is to think of sub atomic matter as little oscillators. >>If you do, then it will become instantly clear that there would be an >>interference with energy that was out of frequency and or phase angle match >>with that oscillator. But as the Planck wavelength is at E-35 meters, the >>earth and all bodies are practically transparent, so most of the energy just >>propogates right on through without interacting. But energy from space > >Ross, have you considered that oscillations at the Planck length may >only be one of the wavelengths involved? >Perhaps there are in fact oscillations at this fundamental wavelength, >and also at all of its harmonics (sub-harmonics when thinking of >frequencies). >This might fit in better with Ray Tomes theory, while having the >advantage that strong multiple harmonics (as per RT) would nicely >explain different forces on different scales. As RT are the initials of both Ray and myself!, it is best to use, as per Ray!!!! In any case, yes, Ray and I converse a lot and are planning a conference to discuss our various theories (Ray Tomes, Paul Stowe, myself and some others). In particular, I think that a melding of the three of our concepts would result in a theory that matches and describes our universe in a quantative manner, without all the hocus pocus of the current QM treatment. Yes, harmonics are extremely important. But I personally do not think they are the primary factor behind the forces. Forces are simple, they are the interference of one waveform with another. What is difficult to grasp is that the waveform that happens IMO to represent matter, is a standing wave with a phase change that occurs at the Planck scale at the convergence center, a tiny sphere at about E-35 meters. That is a tiny thing made of black hole stuff if you prefer. (I do thing that Ray's stuff is right on target though. We are discussing a new harmonic that may have the earths and moons rotations linked to the solar 160 minute pulsations. And yes, his concepts fit in with mine, indeed, my theories require that his theories be manifest in the universe. His theory, though, does not require aether condensation which is what makes my theory tick so to speak. So, there are tremendous compatabilities between our concepts and I have been trying to learn more of what he understands. As of late, he is beginning to understand how my models fit in with his and we have been working on a harmonic that bridges the gap between our theories, ie the solar pulsations and my statement that those are aether emissions from the nuclear reactions) However, there is no such thing as an attractive force in a fluid dynamic universe. There are harmonics, there are solitons and vortices and helical curvatures, but no attractive forces. This means that you must invert you thoughts any time you find an attraction, and look for where the energy, ie waves, really came from (outside of the two objects being considered). We don't like to do this. We like peas, and forces. Peas are static, stable, stationary things and we don't need to describe the distortions to the aether at the Planck scale. All we need to do is to make a bunch of measurements of all of the probabilities of how a given reaction will proceed, and then determine the average, and say that such and such a force behaves a certain way. This is great if you consider things to be peas and forces. However, if you refine your measurements well enough, you will begin to notice that things do not really behave this way, each and every time. Sometimes more wave energy impacts than others, and the things being tossed about don't follow a nice, smooth, static force kind of a line. Brown found this out in about 1825 when looking under a microscope. He noticed that little dust particles were tossed about and we call this Brownian motion. Frankly, I am at a loss to understand why we do not make the connection today, or many decades ago. But this comes from thinking that forces are some fundamental thing in nature, and not a wave effect. Why we think this when we know that electrons are photons are bashed about along their trajectories through a two slit and other experiments is beyond me. I understand these experiments, but to invent a wave function collapse and our mind somehow altering the universe to our satisfaction and amazement is absurd. And as of late, everything is beginning to crumble. Transmutations that cannot happen, do. Gravitation that cannot vary in amplitude does. And radioactivity that is supposed to be completely radom isn't. The sun that should have no hot atmosphere around it does. Galaxies that should gravitate with a given falling off in circular velocities of the matter at great radii, don't (enter dark matter for those who don't know, and the solar atmosphere was the solar coronal heating problem, gravitation the three experiments that found different constants for G, and some researchers have found synchronicity to radioactivity at disparate locations but this is not yet well confirmed) The thing is, if matter is not static (this is as abhorent today as the concept of the universe not being static at the turn of our century), then matter is just a wave form, a soliton if you will, or a standing wave as I prefer. And if you have a standing wave, then of course if you pass it through a two slit experiment it will refract. And if you bash that with a different high energy photon to figure out which slit it went through, of course it will no longer be phase and frequency matched with the balance of its energy that passed through the other paths and so interference will be negated. Was it our minds that did it? No. It was our minds that jumped to the conclusion they did, and ignored the fact that in figuring out which way the electron went we altered it. You see, if you think of an electron as a pea, then this is very confusing. A pea is a pea is a pea, how could my zapping it matter? But, if an electron is a standing wave, and you shift the convergence frequency and phase angle of that standing wave, would you expect it to still interfere with the rest of its wave energy? Of course not. I don't know. It seems so simple to me. All you need to learn is refraction at the Planck scale and then it makes sense. This does not mean to imply that a high school kid is going to be able to visualize this, but then who knows. Maybe with less of a predisposition to our current "wisdom", they could better succeed. >Though I hesitate to say it, it would also provide some theoretical >underpinning of J.W. Keely's experimental work. What is this? >Robin van Spaandonk Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 10:59:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA29595; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 10:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 10:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 09:42:10 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Resent-Message-ID: <"J0Sel3.0.KE7.t0nBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/427 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > >I recall reading (maybe 20-30 years ago) about experiments with small >flywheels sealed in a vacuum container with magnet bearings which did >spin that fast (or faster) for automotive use. You would get the >flywheels up to speed by plugging into house current for a few hours, >then the flywheels would be used to generate electricity to power the >auto. The electric motors (one on each wheel) would be used to generate >power when braking (feeding the power back into the flywheel). [snip] > > -- Dean -- from Des Moines ---- Using: OUI Internet Mail TE 1.5 from There have been successful implementation of flywheels in various applications. I believe one such was in a bus or trolly. The flywheels don't store enough to power anything long term, but are useful for storing braking energy to momentarily to later assist in re-acceleration - great for stop and go vehicles like busses. There are lots of 20,000 rpm motors around. I remember as a kid converting a 20,000 rpm vacuum sweeper motor to drive a rotary spark gap. I like the idea of a miniature o-u device. Maybe it would be possible to cool a HTSC in a vacuum using muti-stage peltier devices. It would take at least two vacuum chambers - one for the HTSC, the shell of which would be cooled by the peltier device, and a vacuum around that to keep it insulated. If the HTSC disk were small then it would be possible to drive it at ultra-high rpm's, maybe get a lot more than 2 percent weight change per disk. Maybe use a stack of thin carbon fiber disks with HTSC coatings. Make an assembly of very thin disks connected with a central shaft. The whole assembly could levitate as a unit. Similarly with the extraction disks, carbon fiber, high rpm's, high power. Use the power extracted to run the peltier stack. If feasible to do it would make a nice convention demo. :) Yikes! Theres that nasty word "convention". Dare I use it? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 11:10:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA03751; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 10:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 10:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 09:58:39 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Resent-Message-ID: <"1MUcg.0.Rw.bFnBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/428 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > >I think the power output is directly related to the mass difference (not >ratio.) You could use a smaller mass to store rpms when the energy wasn't >needed, but for continuous real-time power draw, you'd want a large mass >difference and that requires a large mass. > >-- > - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - Isn't a small torque at high rpm's just as good as a large torque at low rpm's? That's the interresting thing about this. Unfortunately we don't know much about this effect and in particular that weight loss is not a function of the velocity of the affected mass. But assuming not, as I have, then the weight difference between one side of the power extrraction wheel and the other is constant. The rotational force is constant regardless of velocity. The faster the wheel goes the more energy you get per unit of time. Is this true, or am I missing something? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 12:07:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA19108; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 11:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 11:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960905185507.006fd6f4@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: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 11:55:07 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Resent-Message-ID: <"IWsrE2.0.Tg4.V3oBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/430 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:42 AM 9/5/96 -0800, you wrote: >[snip] > >If the HTSC disk were small then it would be possible to drive it at >ultra-high rpm's, maybe get a lot more than 2 percent weight change per >disk. Maybe use a stack of thin carbon fiber disks with HTSC coatings. >Make an assembly of very thin disks connected with a central shaft. The >whole assembly could levitate as a unit. Similarly with the extraction >disks, carbon fiber, high rpm's, high power. Use the power extracted to >run the peltier stack. If feasible to do it would make a nice convention >demo. :) Yikes! Theres that nasty word "convention". Dare I use it? > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > > Would a motor about 1/8" in diameter, turning at 100,000 RPM do you any good? http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/minihelicopter.htm Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA "Professor Goddard [NASA] ... does not know the relation of action to reaction ... he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in our high schools." [New York Times, January 13, 1920] From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 12:13:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA18105; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 11:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 11:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 13:45:55 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609051845.NAA19460@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: Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"P77np1.0.pQ4.r_nBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/429 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 22:51 9/4/96 -0800, someone wrote: >> > However, the shadow appears to be related to a >> > geocentric phenomenon. It goes "up". Perhaps >> > there is some special form of matter of small radius and Rick wrote" >>That's what it looks like, but that's not a very satisfying physical >>explanation of what is probably really happening, IMO. and Horace said: >Amen to that! Worse than unsatisfying. That was my point - nothing I've >heard yet seems to provide a sensible explanation. This one is way out >there if it is real. I'll agree that the whole gravity shielding thing is way out...but, if it works, the fact that the device casts a gravity shadow that extends upwards in a narrow column is not surprising to me at all. Outside a sphere like the Earth, the gravitational field is indistinguishable from that of a point mass having the same mass as the Earth located at the center of the Earth, right? Thus the gravity "shadow" cast by a gravity shield would be just like the light shadow cast by an opaque disk with the point light source located 4000 miles away...i.e. a very tight column. 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 Thu Sep 5 12:47:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA24448; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 12:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 12:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 14:13:41 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: from "Horace Heffner" at Sep 5, 96 09:58:39 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"sg9BA2.0.uz5.4QoBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/431 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner writes: > >I think the power output is directly related to the mass difference (not > >ratio.) You could use a smaller mass to store rpms when the energy wasn't > >needed, but for continuous real-time power draw, you'd want a large mass > >difference and that requires a large mass. > > Isn't a small torque at high rpm's just as good as a large torque at low > rpm's? That's the interresting thing about this. Unfortunately we don't > know much about this effect and in particular that weight loss is not a > function of the velocity of the affected mass. But assuming not, as I > have, then the weight difference between one side of the power extrraction > wheel and the other is constant. The rotational force is constant > regardless of velocity. The faster the wheel goes the more energy you get > per unit of time. Is this true, or am I missing something? The velocity of rotation is some function of the acceleration rate of gravity. More to the point, a low mass wheel will gain rotational velocity at the same rate as a high mass wheel (if "shadow" area is proportional.) You can't make up for lack of mass with increased rotational velocity, because Galelio proved that small things fall the same speed as big things. :-) -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 13:14:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA03037; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 12:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 12:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Tampere speculations To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 14:50:44 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <199609051845.NAA19460@natashya.eden.com> from "Scott Little" at Sep 5, 96 01:45:55 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Q3Pq93.0.Il.UyoBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/432 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little writes: > I'll agree that the whole gravity shielding thing is way out...but, if it > works, the fact that the device casts a gravity shadow that extends upwards > in a narrow column is not surprising to me at all. Outside a sphere like > the Earth, the gravitational field is indistinguishable from that of a point > mass having the same mass as the Earth located at the center of the Earth, > right? Thus the gravity "shadow" cast by a gravity shield would be just > like the light shadow cast by an opaque disk with the point light source > located 4000 miles away...i.e. a very tight column. A "point mass" at the center of the earth leads to infinities in math calculations. Most calcs of gravity assume the earth radius of 4000 miles as a minimum, the calculation breaks down and gives the wrong answer inside the earth. (The calc would say the gravity increases as the center of the earth is approached, but actually the gravity diminishes to zero at the center of the earth.) The correct way to calculate it is to consider the vector sum of all atoms with regard to their spacial location. For locations outside the earth surface this method and the "convenient method" above come to the same answers. But inside the earth only the vector method (or an equivalent simplified method) gives the correct answer. In the case of "shadowing" the "convenient method" breaks down as well. The "shadow" is not of all the contributing vectors from all the distributed earthly atoms. Instead, any point above the plane of the "blockage" will have its gravity defined by the mass of the earth minus the mass of the cone that the point is a vertex of, and the radius of the cone is defined by the silhouette of the "blockage." This means all points above the blockage (even those far off to the side) have reduced gravity, but the magnitude of the reduction is in proportion to the obtuseness of the vertex angle, and that in turn is in proportion to proximity and centeredness over the blockage. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 13:42:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA13290; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 13:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 13:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: 05 Sep 96 16:32:32 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Tampere speculations Message-ID: <960905203232_100433.1541_BHG54-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ARYEI2.0.YF3.bbpBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/433 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, Nice to see you back! Are we having fun yet? Is Hal going to comment? What do you think of it so far? a) Something queer about this guy's association with Tampere. b) J Phys D is not an easy J to get funny stuff into. c) Matthews is an OK guy. d) There is a good paper trail. So ... is that three good and one bad? What - oddly enough - intigues me a lot is the claim that the effect is present when the disc is *not* spinning... Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 14:38:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA21824; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 14:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 14:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:17:24 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609052117.QAA02072@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: Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"TwMWS3.0.qK5.HEqBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/434 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 14:50 9/5/96 -0500, John L wrote: >The correct way to calculate it is to consider the vector sum of all >atoms with regard to their spacial location. Right, John, and when you do that you find that, FOR LOCATIONS OUTSIDE THE EARTH, the field is equivalent to that of a point mass located at the center of the Earth with mass equal to that of the Earth. In this field, tHe force on a test mass m would be F = GMm/(r^2) where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, and r is the distance from the test mass to the center of the Earth. There are no infinities because we're restricting our considerations to locations outside the Earth's sphere. In other words, I still think that, with a gravity shielding disk, you'd have a very narrow cone-shaped low gravity region above the shield. 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 Thu Sep 5 14:51:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA23755; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 14:26:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 14:26:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:22:13 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609052122.QAA02548@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: Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"SE2KS3.0.5p5.XMqBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/435 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 16:32 9/5/96 EDT, Chris wrote: >Scott, > >Nice to see you back! Are we having fun yet? Is Hal going to comment? Thanks. Yes. I don't know. >What do you think of it so far? I'm certainly swayed in a positive direction by the reported experimental observations, especially the serendipitous nature of the initial discovery (the smoke rising)....i.e. we're not talking about a crazed theoretician desperately seeking evidence for his latest fantasies. >What - oddly enough - intigues me a lot is the claim that the effect is >present when the disc is *not* spinning... I need to do more studying and read the papers. Exactly where does it mention that the effect was present when the disc was not spinning??? Was the effect diminished then? 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 Thu Sep 5 14:58:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA25761; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 14:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 14:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <322F47AD.7AE9@interlaced.net> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 17:35:41 -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: Tampere infinite energy References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"dc2bG2.0.KI6.sUqBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/436 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Logajan wrote: > > You can't make up for lack of mass with increased rotational velocity, > because Galelio proved that small things fall the same speed as big > things. :-) > I think I'm with you - in a way - on this, John. Rotating wheels tend to limit out on peripherial velocity - I think it's a few thousand feet per second. I would think you would run a "gravity turbine" at constant angular velocity (easier alternator design). Torque = dW x r where dW is the effective gravitational weight difference acting at a wheel radius, r. Power = Torque x rotSpeed (rotSpeed in rad/sec) Peripherial velocity = r x rotSpeed = V , so rotSpeed = V/r. Then, Power = Torque x rotSpeed = (dW x r) x (V/r) = dW x V. Now, since V tends to be a constant for any particular material of construction, we need to rotate the wheels at the limiting V, and, the wheels should be BIG to make dW large. I think Chris T. hit right on it - this has got to be a "pipe" dream! Feeling around for gravity shadows - Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 15:29:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA06117; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 15:18:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 15:18:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: 05 Sep 96 18:15:29 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Message-ID: <960905221529_100060.173_JHB98-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"wQTR7.0.QV1.Z6rBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/438 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace, >> Much more compact. Maybe at 20,000 rpms the thing would be useful. << Ah! But with this gravity shielding effect, and with only a small gravity shield, the greater the mass shielded the higher the power generated at any given speed. So - Ok lets have the biggest wheel acceptable to the application, both in dia and rim section and density, and whiz it up to the maximum possible speed in a vacuum or He and you have a stabilizer as well as a power unit. Just don't try to turn! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 15:30:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA29516; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 14:54:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 14:54:03 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <322F4BEB.2C67412E@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 14:53:47 -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: Tampere speculations References: <199609052122.QAA02548@natashya.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"N4AKl1.0.4D7.wlqBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/437 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > > At 16:32 9/5/96 EDT, Chris wrote: > > >Scott, > > > >Nice to see you back! Are we having fun yet? Is Hal going to comment? > > I need to do more studying and read the papers. Exactly where does it > mention that the effect was present when the disc was not spinning??? Was > the effect diminished then? > In the original 1992 paper I believe they found a very small effect (0.05% mass loss in a 5gm mass, if I recall...) when the disc was not spinning, and spinning the disk could bring the effect up towards 1%. Scott: are you going to try to replicate this experiment? It sound like it would be fun. If so, get the 1992 paper: E E Podkletnov and Nieminen, R in Physica C vol 203 441 (1992) (the new paper fills in experimental loopholes) and start reading up. It seems odd to me that no one else ever published followup work on the 1992 result, especially since there was a big search for a 5th force on at the time.... -- 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 Sep 5 16:19:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA18946; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 15:16:21 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"OS5jI3.0.xd4.4vrBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/440 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >Instead, any point above the plane of the "blockage" will have its >gravity defined by the mass of the earth minus the mass of the >cone that the point is a vertex of, and the radius of the cone is defined >by the silhouette of the "blockage." > >This means all points above the blockage (even those far off to the >side) have reduced gravity, but the magnitude of the reduction is in >proportion to the obtuseness of the vertex angle, and that in turn is >in proportion to proximity and centeredness over the blockage. > > >-- > - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - Yes, that is my point also. If the force (or force reduction) is due to a sheilding effect of the disk related to an emission from the earth in some way, then the disk will have an umbra and penumbra, and the penumbra should be very tiny indeed due to the fact the horizons are almost 180 degrees apart. If the earth were a big translucent light bulb this would be much clearer. It doesn't matter if the earth is the source of the energy the disk shields, or whether the atoms of the earth somehow trap and re-radiate the energy. The geometry involved is still between the atoms of the earth and the disk. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 16:33:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA21458; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: 05 Sep 96 19:21:09 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Tampere speculations Message-ID: <960905232108_100433.1541_BHG38-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"fVDdu1.0.AF5.r3sBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/441 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Scott, > I need to do more studying and read the papers. Exactly where > does it mention that the effect was present when the disc was not > spinning??? Was the effect diminished then? It is all in the Vortex list, so excuse me if I don't drag through the files and repost. Yes, the effect was there with no spin - but very tiny. I get the strong impression that the magnitude of the effect depends on the 'quality' of the superconductor - in other words something like how much of the mass of the material is actually superconducting. And on whether it is spinning. If (sigh) it really is real... Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 16:34:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA18930; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 15:16:10 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Resent-Message-ID: <"Vl55X1.0.dd4.2vrBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/439 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >The velocity of rotation is some function of the acceleration rate of >gravity. More to the point, a low mass wheel will gain rotational >velocity at the same rate as a high mass wheel (if "shadow" area is >proportional.) > >You can't make up for lack of mass with increased rotational velocity, >because Galelio proved that small things fall the same speed as big >things. :-) > >-- > - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - It doesn't matter how fast the wheels gain rotational velocity, what matters is how much work you can extract from the wheel per unit time when working at design speed. Further, since we are now talking about optimizing size and mass, I would think the objective would be to optimize some function of HP/lb and HP/in^3. There is only one way to improve both simultaneously - increase rpm's. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 17:21:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA00370; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 17:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 17:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: 05 Sep 96 20:03:58 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Tampere speculations Message-ID: <960906000357_76216.2421_HHB54-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Lu2qs.0.e5.JhsBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/442 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Chris wrote: > "What - oddly enough - intigues me a lot is the claim that the effect > is present when the disc is *not* spinning..." WHAT? Where do they say that? ... Oh, I see, in Robert Stirniman's cross posting. That's .05% weight loss in a 5 gram sample, or 1 part in 50,000 for the non-spinning disc. Up to 2% loss when spinning. Yep - weird, alright, especially because that's 2.5 *thousandths* of a gram difference. Kinda hard to measure? Maybe the scale or balance beam parts had something to do with it? Or maybe it was a typo. I still tend to like the columnar shadow rather than a rapidly diffusing one for High Weirdness because of what it seems to say about the nature of gravity. I vaguely recall reading somewhere about someone who tried to fit overall mass and geometry into G, but I can't remember if it worked out when applied to observations. Might have been in that Discover magazine article about G measurement trouble. BTW, to Scott Little, those resultant single vectors are _supposed_ to be a conceptual fiction for simplicity and calculation's sake, as I'm sure you know. For symmetrical objects we don't even have to sum them up, just use the mass and the object's geometric center. I think everyone believed that all those little vectors which get summed up are closer to the physical reality, and that it would have to be those which get shielded and would likely result in a very diffuse shadow from a shield close to earth's surface. For instance, a penny on the surface of a large frosted lamp globe would cast such a very diffuse shadow. But if the surface of the globe were made up of fiber-optic bundles oriented normal to the surface carrying light out from an interior source (or better yet tiny laser emitters), the shadow would be much sharper. Lots of little 'rays' of gravity emitting normal to the surface at all points. Now _that's_ far out, but I must admit - not really all that counterintuitive if you get caught up by that single resultant vector. And I certainly would get caught up in it if I fell out of my chair. Or maybe the disc actually does emit some sort of beam that appears not let gravity work as well anywhere along the beam? That would be way cool if that's the case, because that suggests mass/inertia reduction instead of just gravity reduction. Mass/inertia reduction means partially reactionless flywheels and so forth. Play that beam on one side of a flywheel and not the other, and off you go! And another related subject - could anyone please explain the quantities used for diamagnetism? And, how much more diamagnetic are typical YCBO SCs compared with, say bismuth at room temperature? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 17:48:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA07523; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 17:37:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 17:37:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 17:36:50 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tampere speculations In-Reply-To: <960905232108_100433.1541_BHG38-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"En0ve1.0.Sr1.m8tBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/443 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 5 Sep 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > tiny. I get the strong impression that the magnitude of the effect > depends on the 'quality' of the superconductor - in other words > something like how much of the mass of the material is actually > superconducting. And on whether it is spinning. So maybe a big lead slab in a vat of liquid helium would give as strong an effect as a tiny spinning HTSC disk in LN2? .....................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 Sep 5 17:52:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA09117; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 17:44:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 17:44:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 17:44:11 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tampere speculations In-Reply-To: <960906000357_76216.2421_HHB54-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"fWTnS3.0.GE2.yFtBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/444 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On "earth as frosted bulb" analogies, it would be more accurate to instead visualize "earth as dimly glowing liquid", since the frosted bulb is a surface emitter, while the gravity force is associated with mass in the volume. Most of the force vectors come from below, not from the horizon. Also, gravity increases as you go down a mine shaft. This because you approach the dense iron core. At some depth the force must level off and start decreasing, since the net force is zero at the center presumably. So, a better analogy would be "earth as dimly glowing liquid having a huge central ball that's glowing somewhat brighter." :) .....................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 Sep 5 18:35:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA17169; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 18:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 18:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 20:23:09 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609060123.UAA20293@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: Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"snOV-3.0.9C4.ZqtBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/445 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 08:03 PM 9/5/96 EDT, Rick wrote: >For instance, a penny on >the surface of a large frosted lamp globe would cast such a very diffuse >shadow..... hmmm! perhaps there is more to this than I first thought... more hmmmm! >And another related subject - could anyone please explain the quantities used >for diamagnetism? And, how much more diamagnetic are typical YCBO SCs compared >with, say bismuth at room temperature? I can venture a guess here: Diamagnetic materials are characterized by relative permeabilities LESS than 1.00. This means that they are repelled from all magnetic fields regardless of polarity. Bi's mu is .99+ i.e. very close to 1 but slightly below 1. I've got a rod of Bi hanging from a thread in my office and, with a strong neo magnet, you can readily detect the repulsion...but it it WEAK! SC's on the other hand appear to have a mu of nearly 0...i.e. they almost completely expel magnetic fields. The effect is quite strong! - 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-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 19:52:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA03485; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 19:38:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 19:38:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 21:38:11 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609060238.VAA25927@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: erroneous Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"HmC3S1.0.Ns.VwuBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/446 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: OK, I goofed. It was the "penny on the frosted light bulb" that did it for me. I was just failing to see that matter to the sides of the shield is simply not shielded by the shield. So we _would_ expect a rather rapid diffusion of the shielding effect above the shield. How rapid? As penance for my intuition blunder, I volunteer to attempt a calculation of the rate of decline of the gravity shadow...but I propose, for my sanity, to calculate the shadow cast by a narrow, axially oriented strip of shielding on the surface of a cylindrical mass infinitely long...ought to be somewhat like the shadow from a disk shield sitting on a sphere...no? From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 21:15:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA21293; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 20:56:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 20:56:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: erroneous Tampere speculations To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 22:55:59 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <199609060238.VAA25927@natashya.eden.com> from "Scott Little" at Sep 5, 96 09:38:11 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0JB8h.0.aC5.X3wBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/447 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > I volunteer to > attempt a calculation of the rate of decline of the gravity shadow...but I > propose, for my sanity, to calculate the shadow cast by a narrow, axially > oriented strip of shielding on the surface of a cylindrical mass infinitely > long...ought to be somewhat like the shadow from a disk shield sitting on a > sphere...no? Reminds me of the old Physicist joke, "Imagine a spherical cow ..." :-) -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 22:38:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA14420; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 22:33:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 22:33:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 01:31:39 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Diamagnetism In-Reply-To: <199609060123.UAA20293@natashya.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"t0YxI2.0.AX3.GUxBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/448 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Basic idea: See CRC Handbook for different materials. Diamagnetism is in negative to -6 power. Small. Paramagnetism ... about same magnitude positive. Ferromagnetism plus units, [not -6 power] from maybe 10 to 170,000 big. Superconductors: Perfect diamagnetism huge ... perfect is huge, right? Up to the field density the material can no longer support. John 'hit the books' Schnurer From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 22:44:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA16083; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 22:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 22:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 22:41:44 -0700 Message-Id: <199609060541.WAA19821@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: erroneous Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"TfkVH1.0.Cx3.bcxBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/449 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> I volunteer to >> attempt a calculation of the rate of decline of the gravity shadow...but I >> propose, for my sanity, to calculate the shadow cast by a narrow, axially >> oriented strip of shielding on the surface of a cylindrical mass infinitely >> long...ought to be somewhat like the shadow from a disk shield sitting on a >> sphere...no? > >Reminds me of the old Physicist joke, "Imagine a spherical cow ..." :-) > >-- > - John Logajan -- Just imagine a crystal cow, and a crystal earth and you will see gravitations point of view. It is a distortion to the index of refraction of space that is due to the tiny little dots of higher aether density here and there, and through which all of the transiting quantum vacuum waves must propogate. When you get that then you will understand gravitational sheilding as a refraction effect, or considered in another manner, it becomes just a region of the universe in which there is a time delay for the wave energies, and thus a refraction due to aether density gradients (we call this gravitational lensing)!! Later, Ross From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 5 23:26:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA24272; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 23:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 23:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960906063032.006e5398@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: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 23:30:32 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Podkletnov Resent-Message-ID: <"RdhKX1.0.9x5.aFyBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/450 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >From a researcher at Tampere, regarding Dr. Podkletnov: Dear Sir, I'm sorry that I couldn't reply to your E-mail sooner than this. Following statement was given by professor Tiainen, Leader of the Institute of Materials Science: "According to article published in The Sunday Telegraph (London, England) newspaper 1.9.1996 Dr Evgueni Podkletnov is leading in Tampere University of Technology a research group working on gravitational force shielding by applying ceramic high temperature superconductors. As a consequence of this the Institute of Materials Science of Tampere University of Technology gives the following statement: Dr Podkletnov has been working in the Institute of Materials Science, Tampere University of Technology as a researcher in a project studying the fabrication and properties of ceramic high temperature superconductors. On this work he published his doctoral thesis at Tampere University of Technology in 1991. During his research work he carried out on his own initiative some preliminary experiments on the possibilities of obtaining gravitational shielding by applying ceramic high temperature superconductors. Without giving any judgement on the phenomenon and the results of Evgueni Podkletnov the Institute of Materials Science states that after the end of his research project in 1992 he has not been working for the university and the gravitational shielding subject has not been studied in Tampere University of Technology. Actual scientific experiments on the subject have not been carried out at the university and there is no research group working on this field. " Dr Petri Vuorinen is currently working at our institute. He gave the following statement: "I worked with Dr Evgueni Podkletnov from 1988 to 1990 in Tampere University of Technology when we made ceramic 123- and Bi-based superconductive thin films by sputtering. After that I haven't been working on superconductors and I have never been involved in the studies of antigravity phenomenon." From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 00:34:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA04756; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 00:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 00:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: 06 Sep 96 03:27:26 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: erroneous Tampere speculations Message-ID: <960906072725_100060.173_JHB72-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"iz3En3.0.EA1.BDzBo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/451 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross, >> it becomes just a region of the universe in which there is a time delay for the wave energies, and thus a refraction due to aether density gradients (we call this gravitational lensing)!! Later, Ross << So the SC material can be shaped to focus the "flow" - yes? Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 01:30:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id BAA12375; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 01:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 01:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: 06 Sep 96 04:21:47 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Podkletnov Message-ID: <960906082147_100433.1541_BHG102-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"H2zJX3.0.B13.k2-Bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/452 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Well, I suppose I'm pleased that what I said about pro- and con-factors about this hoped-for (let's face it, who here doesn't hope for it) grav shielding seems to be right. The big question is what does the Tampere statement mean? Has this guy been guilty of some impropriety? Or is it just some muddle? I did note that Eberlein (the sonoluminescence lady) was described in the Brit press as being at Cambridge, but appears on the actual paper as being at Illinois or somewhere. Chauvinism is rife in science, innit? Here we have Crick and Watson, Fleischmann and Pons; in the US the names are reversed. If there is any question as to who invented or discovered something, then each country claims it for their own. If it is perfectly clear who invented it, then no other country ever mentions the inventor. Or they just quietly foster the myth that somehow they themselves really invented it. Although I've been accused of being half-Yank in attitudes - sort of by absorbtion - I would stress that I maintain a solid Brit chauvinism in ALL matters. None of which is relevant to the issue. Does the Tampere statement significantly reduce this man's credibility? Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 03:59:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id DAA23888; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 03:56:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 03:56:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 05:56:35 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609061056.FAA18201@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com (Unverified) 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: Podkletnov Resent-Message-ID: <"jRKQk2.0.Ar5.nD0Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/453 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:21 AM 9/6/96 EDT, Chris wrote: >The big question is what does the Tampere statement mean? Has this guy >been guilty of some impropriety? Or is it just some muddle? I think it's just the sort of restrained, non-controversial statement that you'd expect them to make about a guy they have little or no respect for. If they are really NOT pursuing research along these lines, then they clearly do not believe Podkletnov's reported results...but why? Gary, could you go to them again and ask directly why they are not pursuing work in this area? - 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-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 07:15:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA26267; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 07:09:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 07:09:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 06:13:39 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"l1ftt3.0.GQ6.X23Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/454 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Yesterday I wrote: > >Yes, that is my point also. If the force (or force reduction) is due to a >sheilding effect of the disk related to an emission from the earth in some >way, then the disk will have an umbra and penumbra, and the penumbra should >be very tiny indeed due to the fact the horizons are almost 180 degrees >apart. If the earth were a big translucent light bulb this would be much >clearer. It doesn't matter if the earth is the source of the energy the >disk shields, or whether the atoms of the earth somehow trap and re-radiate >the energy. The geometry involved is still between the atoms of the earth >and the disk. > Sorry about the mixup of umbra and penumbra above (I really do know which is which, but too late for anyone to believe that!). The above "then the disk will have an umbra and penumbra, and the penumbra should be very tiny indeed due to the fact the horizons are almost 180 degrees apart" should read "then the disk will have an umbra and penumbra, and the umbra should be very tiny indeed due to the fact the horizons are almost 180 degrees apart" Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 07:22:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA27613; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 07:16:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 07:16:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 06:20:28 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: erroneous Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"f1APt3.0.Ml6.Y83Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/455 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >OK, I goofed. It was the "penny on the frosted light bulb" that did it for >me. I was just failing to see that matter to the sides of the shield is >simply not shielded by the shield. > >So we _would_ expect a rather rapid diffusion of the shielding effect above >the shield. How rapid? As penance for my intuition blunder, I volunteer to >attempt a calculation of the rate of decline of the gravity shadow...but I >propose, for my sanity, to calculate the shadow cast by a narrow, axially >oriented strip of shielding on the surface of a cylindrical mass infinitely >long...ought to be somewhat like the shadow from a disk shield sitting on a >sphere...no? Sorry Scott, but inverse square fields around cylinders stretched out to infinity have a way of becoming linear fields. Also, you should get no umbra at all, and since, to any limit you choose, the mass is all out at infinity, your shadow will be much more diffuse. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 07:26:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA28080; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 07:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 07:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:18:33 -0400 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199609061418.KAA03017@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <960905232108_100433.1541_BHG38-2@CompuServe.COM> (message from Chris Tinsley on 05 Sep 96 19:21:09 EDT) Subject: Re: Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"A08yZ1.0.gs6.AB3Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/456 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley (100433.1541@CompuServe.COM) said: > Yes, the effect was there with no spin - but very tiny. I get the > strong impression that the magnitude of the effect depends on the > 'quality' of the superconductor - in other words something like > how much of the mass of the material is actually superconducting. > And on whether it is spinning. If it was at rest in the lab frame, it was still rotating once every 24 hours and 4 minutes. I think it is too early to conclude that the effect occurs if the disk is not spinning. 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 Sep 6 08:02:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA05443; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 07:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 07:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:49:15 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609061449.JAA12802@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: erroneous Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"VVEeD1.0.xK1.vd3Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/457 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:20 9/6/96 -0800, Horace wrote: >Sorry Scott, but inverse square fields around cylinders stretched out to >infinity have a way of becoming linear fields. Also, you should get no >umbra at all, and since, to any limit you choose, the mass is all out at >infinity, your shadow will be much more diffuse. OK, I've already decided to go with the spherical case but I'll just limit the analysis to points along a radial line that passes thru the center of the shield disk...that should provide ample simplifying symmetry. It will be interesting to see the results of this calculation...perhaps we will demonstrate that the reported effects on the floor above the Pod experiment are impossible due to these geometric considerations... ...now all I've got to do is figure out how to "cast" this problem into equation form so MathCAD can do all the tedious work... Gnorts! 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 Sep 6 08:23:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA09566; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 08:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 08:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 07:12:37 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: erroneous Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"-XleZ2.0.JL2.Vv3Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/458 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >When you get that then you will understand gravitational sheilding as a >refraction effect, or considered in another manner, it becomes just a region >of the universe in which there is a time delay for the wave energies, and >thus a refraction due to aether density gradients (we call this >gravitational lensing)!! > >Later, Ross Isn't gravitational lensing the effect of very large masses on photons. Such an effect by the earth would be almost immeasureable, wouldn't it? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 09:02:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA09594; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 08:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 08:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 07:12:42 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"Rr2T_2.0.qL2.Yv3Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/459 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Suppose spinning superconductor disks actually can shield gravity, and suppose the shadow cast by the disk has clean edges (a small penumbra) and goes "up", that if you stack one disk on top of the other the 2 percent sheilding effect is multiplied, i.e. .98 x .98 = .9604 transmisssion of the gravity. There just doesn't seem to be any readily acceptable explanation for all that. The thing that causes me the greatest difficulty is the "up" part combined with the "effect goes up for several floors" part - indicating a fairly clear shadow. This implies a large point mass near the center of the earth containing most of the mass of the earth. The "most" part comes from the fact the sheilding effect is multiplicative (orginally stated as additive, but shielding effects are multiplicative). If it were not for this multiplicative property of the sheilding, then it would be possible to assume a nearly point source of gravity contasining about 2 percent of the earth's mass. This alone would be very bad news, for it would mean there is a micro-black hole accreting the center of the earth. If such were the case, then the 2 percent effect should be growing at a regular rate. However, since there is a multiplicative effect, most of the mass of the earth must be in the point source. This does not seem possible without some major disruptions. So, barring major catastophy, I would expect any such effect to be originating from the disk itself. If the force eminates from the disk itself, we have a horse of a much different color. The effect then should be in the form of some new force. If the effect is due to time dilation or change in inertia, then it should not have been possible to place one of the spining disks above the other without a significant lateral force due to the imbalance that would be generated in the centepital force of the spinning disks. The disks would have tended to fly apart sideways, even though separated by a relatively large vertical distance. Since they were supported magnetically, this should have readily been observed. Also, a 2 percent drop in mass on one side should have generated a precession of the horizontally spinning disks. This precession would not cause a shadow to move, but would cause a directed beam to circle in a conical path like a searchlight. The "overlapping" effect should not be seen while the disks are being moved over each other. If there is a force eminating from the disks it should eminate both up and down equally, by symmetry. The force eminating downward, since it can go right through matter, yet exert a roughly 2 percent of mass force on the matter, should be exerting one whopping big force on the earth. However, the disk doesn't fly upward. One big question, if such a force exists, is whether it obeys Newton's laws, especially the equal reaction law. It appears to cost nothing in the way of energy or momentum to do the "eminating", yet a force results on the object in the "shadow" or "beam". It clearly would be good to establish if the force can be directed any way but "up", if some component of the force can operate purpendicularly to the gravitational field, and if it can operate independently from a gravitational field. If it can operate outside the equal reaction law and without gravity - it represents the perfect space propulsion system. Lots of if's make lots of questions. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 09:57:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA01109; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:34:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609061628.JAA00249@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Podkletnov To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:28:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <199609061056.FAA18201@natashya.eden.com> from "Scott Little" at Sep 6, 96 05:56:35 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: <"V_iX32.0.FH.HA5Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/461 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >The big question is what does the Tampere statement mean? Has this guy > >been guilty of some impropriety? Or is it just some muddle? > > I think it's just the sort of restrained, non-controversial statement that > you'd expect them to make about a guy they have little or no respect for. > If they are really NOT pursuing research along these lines, then they > clearly do not believe Podkletnov's reported results...but why? > > Gary, could you go to them again and ask directly why they are not pursuing > work in this area? > > - Scott Little Also -- So far Podkletnov has published two papers, in 1992 and 1995. The 95 paper was published by the Tampere University Press. Yet the email message about him suggests that he has not been at Tampere since 1992. And the recent newspaper article reports there is a new paper soon to be published in Physica D. Where was this work done? Following up today on some ealier info. I am told once again -- Podkletnov and Niemann are no longer in Finland, but in Canada. I don't know where, and don't why we aren't told where? Are we having fun yet? Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 10:27:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA11240; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:16:11 -0700 Message-Id: <199609061716.KAA27592@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: Podkletnov Resent-Message-ID: <"rHuDN.0.Pl2.iq5Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/462 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >None of which is relevant to the issue. Does the Tampere statement >significantly reduce this man's credibility? > >Chris Who cares? Time will tell, and this experiment is so simple, very little time will be required. But if there is some peculiarity to the set up like the precise materials in their SC, I really hope they make it available to the outside for physical testing on cite in order to figure out if it is real by independent sources. But if one didn't think there are at least a hundred teams attempting to replicate this experiment right now today, then that person would be delusional. I am perfectly confident that there are many many teams right now attempting to replicate this experiment. And I say this because I am going to do so myself, and I can barely afford to do so. There are a lot of teams that already have this stuff available in their lab. So can you imagine them finding out about this and not giving it a try? Inconceivable. I think that speculation is a waste of time here, and that we should focus on how to develop this technology. Normally, I wouldn't be so open with my comments, but I feel that NASA and many other agencies are already on the track of nailing this technology down and trying to get patents. So I figure that if we figure out what is needed to control the effect here in a public forum, then no one will be able to patent it and it will be public domain information. figuring out who figured it out first will be a nightmare for the courts, and the consumers will benefit from open competition on all of the new products like hospital beds that do not produce bed sores for just one. Last December I had put together all of my designs on this subject and already considered most of this. I was surprised to find that someone actually measured an effect with that disk because it is like a low power version of my designs and gives me more confidence that I am on the right track. There are still some key issues that are being missed, but first steps first. Try to think in terms of waves, not nebulous forces. How do you control waves? Reflection, attenuation, transmission, refraction, emission. That is all there is. And if you think in terms of those waves having a wavelength of E-35 meters, then you will need to begin to imagine ways of setting up gravitational lensing around the "galaxies" (which in matter are huge by comparison, and are at E-15 meters). But in this case, we can shape the "universe" in our SC and we can cause the "galaxies" to rotate, or slosh back and forth, or whatever we want by altering the motions of the ceramic and thus altering the motions of the quantum distortions within the ceramic. So, if you wish to make a lens out of this stuff, that is what you must consider. GR gravitational lensing around galaxies that are nice and neatly space within a crystal of ceramic. This is the sort of stuff that makes cosmologists, when considering the number of galaxies per steradian at red shift x and dependent on whether the universe is open or closed, smile. It is the sort of stuff that Quantum physicists have never thought of. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 10:32:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA11942; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:21:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:21:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:16:20 -0700 Message-Id: <199609061716.KAA27601@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: erroneous Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"nimNg3.0.Ww2.ms5Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/466 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >> >>When you get that then you will understand gravitational sheilding as a >>refraction effect, or considered in another manner, it becomes just a region >>of the universe in which there is a time delay for the wave energies, and >>thus a refraction due to aether density gradients (we call this >>gravitational lensing)!! >> >>Later, Ross > >Isn't gravitational lensing the effect of very large masses on photons. >Such an effect by the earth would be almost immeasureable, wouldn't it? >Horace Heffner It is an effect that involves a region of space that is distorted in the manner in which it conducts energy from here to there where energy is a bunch of waves at the Planck scale. Yes, the "gravitational lensing power of the earth" is immeasureable for most things, though we do measure things like red shifting of photons, and time rate gradients with altitude, etc. So, that is really the same thing, but no we haven't placed a telescope on the moon to look for a deflection of starlight. The other effects are the same thing though. But that is not what I was referring to. I was speaking of the interaction of Planck scale waves with the distortions to the aether of the universe that occur inside of materials. We notice this all the time. If light goes into water at an angle, we say that it is refracted. I say that it interacted with the distortions to the aether density around the convergences inside that material and was thus 'gravitationally lensed' by those little "galaxies" we call atoms. I make no claim that their shapes are comparable, I simply state that they alter the aether density around them in a similar manner, the atoms being much more intense alterations than galaxies, but their physical extent much shorter. So, I am speaking of interactions with individual sub atomic particles, not the earth in general. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 10:34:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA11867; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:21:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:21:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:16:17 -0700 Message-Id: <199609061716.KAA27598@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: Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"7daYs3.0.Gv2.Xs5Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/464 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > Chris Tinsley (100433.1541@CompuServe.COM) said: > > > Yes, the effect was there with no spin - but very tiny. I get the > > strong impression that the magnitude of the effect depends on the > > 'quality' of the superconductor - in other words something like > > how much of the mass of the material is actually superconducting. > > And on whether it is spinning. > > If it was at rest in the lab frame, it was still rotating once >every 24 hours and 4 minutes. I think it is too early to conclude >that the effect occurs if the disk is not spinning. > > > Robert I. Eachus Precisely correct. And this falls into the same catagory as the Japanese experiment that used a spinning wheel (not SC) to show a reduction in mass dependent on the direction of rotation as compared to that of the earth. The SC is like a macroscopic uniform wave source altering the shape of spacetime around it due to uniform and synchronized motions of the nuclear lattice and the interconnected electrons. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 10:34:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA11848; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:16:14 -0700 Message-Id: <199609061716.KAA27595@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: Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"ve6n03.0.-u2.Vs5Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/463 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The above "then the >disk will have an umbra and penumbra, and the penumbra should be very tiny >indeed due to the fact the horizons are almost 180 degrees apart" should >read "then the disk will have an umbra and penumbra, and the umbra should >be very tiny indeed due to the fact the horizons are almost 180 degrees >apart" > >Horace Heffner Horace; I feel you are thinking too much in shades of black and white, and need to add in all the tones of grey. There is no distinct umbra or penumbra in this effect. There is a gradual shift from one to the other, and, there is no long axial shadow. There is no where above, below, or even inside of the disk that is completely dark. This is because the disk itself is practically transparent at the Planck scale. this is a simple fact, and it is used by those with x-ray equipment to peer into the interior of things. The fact is, that as the wavelength is reduced, things become transparent to that wave energy. And x-rays are huge compared to the level of the quantum vacuum at E-35 meters wavelength. So the ceramic is more like what we could imagine as a clear transparent piece of glass, rather than an opaque ceramic. There is no "shadow" in such a thing, but there are distortions to the directions in which the wave energy will propogate. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 10:35:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA11880; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:16:04 -0700 Message-Id: <199609061716.KAA27589@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: erroneous Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"bLZId1.0.Wv2.Ys5Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/465 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Ross, > >>> it becomes just a region of the universe in which there is a time delay for >the wave energies, and thus a refraction due to aether density gradients (we >call this gravitational lensing)!! > >Later, Ross << > >So the SC material can be shaped to focus the "flow" - yes? > >Norman Be careful thinking in terms of "flow". That is not accurate. You must consider a view from high up on a hill, or in an airplane, overlooking the ocean. From that vantage point, you can see the waves and you can follow their translation. You can see them propogate into shore, and reflect back out into the open ocean. That is propogation of waves, and the energy contained in the rolling motions of those waves, but there is no "flow" of the water that induces it. The water pretty much remains stationary. So, yes, I think there are ways of redirecting the propogation of the waves, and those waves are responsible for all of the forces we know, nuclear, electric, weak, gravitation. They are also responsible for inertia, momentum, mass, and in short, everything you know is due to that wave energy. You are made of a bunch of spherical (I use this term loosely to avoid the complex geometries that unfold and are not easily described) resonances in a fluid called aether. And those waves alter the direction your resonances would prefer to move their center convergences in. But you must be very careful. This is a black body problem. You cannot use simple optics because if you look, all of those examples treated the redirection of waves arriving from a singular direction. Space is not like that. We have these quantum vacuum waves arriving from all directions. However, we do stand a chance here on earth because there is an assymetry to the wave energy. overhead, it is red shifted. And coming up from below, it is more blue, relatively speaking. This is nothing more than a relative observation of the Hubble flow energy spectrum as it arrives here, today, from matter way out there that sent those waves on their way long ago. We live in an ocean, not a vacuum. Think of waves, not forces. Get down to the first principles on this one. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 11:36:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA26476; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:19:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609061812.LAA00614@shell.skylink.net> Subject: More Tampere References To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:12:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <199609061716.KAA27601@smudge.oro.net> from "Ross Tessien" at Sep 6, 96 10:16:20 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: <"dFTDS.0.aT6.Dj6Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/467 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Here's some references related to the Tampere experiment. These showed up yesterday on Usenet. Posted by: Timothy J. Thompson, Timothy.J.Thompson@jpl.nasa.gov California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer. Atmospheric Corrections Team - Scientific Programmer. tim@uzon.jpl.nasa.gov 6 Sep 1996 00:29:04 GMT We've seen the first reference listed below. Most of the others are new to me. Some of these throw cold water on the Tampere fire. Courtesy of NASA. Maybe it's time for a reality check, or maybe not. Robert Stirniman Note: Comments made below are by Timothy Thompson, Scientific Programmer. And gravity researcher? ========================================================== A POSSIBILITY OF GRAVITATIONAL FORCE SHIELDING BY BULK YBA2CU3O7-X SUPERCONDUCTOR Article (Refs:8) by Podkletnov-E (*R) Nieminen-R Tampere Univ,Inst Mat Sci,Pob 589/SF-33101 Tampere//FINLAND/ PHYSICA C v203(3-4): pp441-444 (1992 Dec 10) ---------------------------------------------------------- Shielding properties of single-phase dense bulk superconducting ceramics of YBa2Cu3O7-x against the gravitational force were studied at temperatures below 77 K. A small non-conducting and non-magnetic sample weighing 5.48 g was placed over a levitating superconducting disk and the loss of weight was measured with high precision using an electro-optical balance system. The sample was found to lose from 0.05 to 0.3% of its weight, depending on the rotation speed of the superconducting disk. Partial loss of weight might be the result of a certain state of energy which exists inside the crystal structure of the superconductor at low temperatures. The unusual state of energy might have changed a regular interaction between electromagnetic, nuclear and gravitational forces inside a solid body and is responsible for the gravity shielding effect. ============================================================= ================================================================ DOES A SUPERCONDUCTOR SHIELD GRAVITY? Article (Refs:5) by Unnikrishnan-CS (*R) Tata Inst Fundamental Res,Gravitat Experiments Grp,Homi Bhabha Rd/ Bombay 400005/Maharashtra/INDIA/ PHYSICA C v266(1-2): pp133-137 (1996 Jul 20) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Recently there were some experimental observations which were interpreted as due to a shielding of the gravitational interaction by a superconducting disc in a static configuration as well as when set in rotation. We examine the experiments in detail and point out some difficulties which should be eliminated before reliable results can be claimed. The data from these experiments provide an internal check on the correctness of the hypothesis and we argue that the observed results are inconsistent with the hypothesis of shielding and therefore they are not due to shielding of the Earth's gravity. Our preliminary experiments in the static case do not show any evidence for the reported shielding. ================================================================ ================================================================ ABSENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL ANALOG TO THE MEISSNER EFFECT Article (Refs:14) by Ciubotariu-C (*R) Agop-M Tech Univ Iaso,Dept Phys,Strada Dacia 9,Cartierul Cantemir, Oficiul Postal/R-6600 Iasi//ROMANIA/ GENERAL RELATIVITY AND GRAVITATION v28(4): pp405-412 (1996 Apr) ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the framework of the weak stationary gravitational field and low velocity, we investigate the gravitomagnetic effects on a superconductor. We show that we have no gravitomagnetic shielding, and thus no generalized Meissner gravitational effect in superconductors. ================================================================ ================================================================ INTERACTION BETWEEN GRAVITY AND MOVING SUPERCONDUCTORS Article (Refs:54) by Peng-H (*R) Lind-G Chin-YS Univ Alabama,CSPAR/Huntsville//AL/35899 GENERAL RELATIVITY AND GRAVITATION v23 (11) : pp1231-1250 (1991) ----------------------------------------------------------------- We propose a unified phenomenological theory to investigate the interaction between arbitrarily moving superconductors and gravitational fields including the Newtonian gravity, gravitational waves, vector transverse gravitoelectric fields, and vector gravitomagnetic fields. In the limit of weak field and low velocity, the expressions for the induced electromagnetic and gravitational fields in the interior of a moving superconductor are obtained. The Meissner effect, London moment, DeWitt effect, effects of gravitational wave on a superconductor, and induced electric fields in the interior of a freely vibrating superconductor are recovered from these two expressions. We demonstrate that the weak equivalence principle is valid in superconductivity, that Newtonian gravity and gravitational waves will penetrate either a moving superconductor or a superconductor at rest, and that a superconductor at rest cannot shield either vector gravitomagnetic fields or vector transverse gravitoelectric fields. ================================================================== Aside from these, there are a number of papers in the literature, specifically on antigravity. Several interpretations of general relativity can produce anti-gravitational effects, and likewise for competing theories. For instance ... =================================================================== THE THEORY OF ANTIGRAVITY Article (Refs:0) by Aspden-H (*R) Univ Southampton,Dept Elect Engn/Southampton SO9 5NH/Hants/ENGLAND/ PHYSICS ESSAYS v4(1): pp13-19 (1991) ------------------------------------------------------------------- This paper extends the principles of earlier gravitational theory by which the constant of gravitation G has been deduced in terms of an electrodynamically based graviton theory. Demonstrable anomalous gravitational effects reproducible in the laboratory, which reveal the prospect of antigravitational action, are discussed. It is shown that the theory does include features which can explain observed antigravitational effects. The action points to vacuum energy fluctuations arising from graviton decay and regeneration. Recently reported weight loss accompanying gyroscopic spin in a nonprecessing mode is also explained. =================================================================== =================================================================== GRAVITATIONAL SHIELDING Note (Refs:8) by Eckhardt-DH (*R) USAF,Geophys Lab/Bedford//MA/01731 PHYSICAL REVIEW D v42(6): pp2144-2145 (1990) ------------------------------------------------------------------ No abstract is available for this article. ================================================================== Too bad there is no abstract online for this, but the note and references should be of interest to anyone who wants to be industrious and go after the sources. I have not seen any of these papers, I only grab the abstracts from Caltech's abstract server. Physical Review is the flagship journal of the American Institute of Physics. I have two reasons for posting this. First, if any of you care to do your own homework, here are the places to start. Second, despite Holden's insufferable arrogance, his insufferable ignorance shows through. This is not the sudden Earth-shaking discovery he would have you believe, but as you can see here, a topic which has been in the scientific literature for several years, and is in fact subject to study and examination. All it takes is a minimal effort to find the appropriate papers. Holden could have done this, albeit with other resources, if cared to. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy J. Thompson From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 11:47:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA29542; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:33:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:33:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: 06 Sep 96 14:20:43 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Podkletnov Message-ID: <960906182043_100433.1541_BHG121-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"l5HHQ.0.QD7.jv6Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/468 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross, > But if one didn't think there are at least a hundred teams > attempting to replicate this experiment right now today, then that > person would be delusional. Forgive me my delusions, then ! However, I do wish you the very best of success with your own efforts, and with the public domain idea. Brilliant. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 11:51:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA02309; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: 06 Sep 96 14:42:34 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: ICCF6 Schedule Message-ID: <960906184233_72240.1256_EHB96-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Js4YE2.0._Z.G47Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/470 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I just got the ICCF6 preliminary schedule in the mail. I will OCR it and upload it here. That's gonna take a while, because it is long, formatted funny, and they printed it on this !@$# colored paper, which is difficult to OCR. Anyway, here is the summary from page 5. First, however, an important note on page 1: Deadline for Submission of Papers for the Proceedings is OCTOBER 17, 1996. That's the last day of the conference! Okay? I hope they stick to that schedule and publish promptly. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion Scientific Program Oral presentations will be given in the mornings of 14-17 October and in the afternoon of 17 October, 1996. Oral presentations will consist of the following categories. * Excess Heat * Helium and Heat Correlation * Excess Energy and Nuclear Products * Innovative Approach * Material Science Studies * NHE Session * Nuclear Physics Approach Special Sessions will be given in the evening of 14 and 15 October, 1996. Special Sessions will consist of the following categories. * Cold Fusion Activities in Russia * Special Lecture by Prof. Fleischmann * CETI Session * Special Session on Transmutation Poster presentations will be displayed on 14 and 15 October. Also there will be poster previews by authors in the afternoon of 14 and 15 October,1996. The poster presentation will consist of the following categories. * Excess Energy and Nuclear Products * Material Science Studies * Nuclear Physics Approach * Innovative Approach - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - It looks like CETI will kick ass and take names at their Special Session. They have an impressive line-up of speakers: Chair Dr. Miles, M. H. (U.S.A.) Dr. Ota, K. (Japan) Electrical Control of New Hydrogen Energy Reactions Dr. Cravens, D. (U.S.A.) Design Considerations for Multilayer ThinFilm PattersonType Micro spheres Dr. Miley, G. H. (U.S.A.) Experimental Observation of Massive Transmutations Occurring in Multilayer Thin-Film Microspheres after Electorolysis Dr. Miley, G. H. (U.S.A.) Electrochemistry and Calorimetry in a Packed-Bed Flow-Through Electrochemical Cell Dr. McKubre, M. C.H. (U.S.A.) Producing Excess Enthalpy and Nuclear Reaction Products in the Patterson Power Cell_ with Near 100 % Reproducibility Mr. Nix, J. A. (U.S.A.) Analysis of Reaction Products from a CETI Cell Dr. Claytor, T. N. (U.S.A.) . . . more later. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 12:02:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA03425; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <323071BC.64880EEB@math.ucla.edu> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 11:47:24 -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: Podkletnov References: <199609061716.KAA27592@smudge.oro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"c9HoW2.0.Pr.L77Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/471 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross Tessien wrote: > > I am perfectly confident that there are many many teams >right now attempting to replicate this experiment. Honestly I don't think so. The original paper came out in Physica C: Superconductors in 1992, and I did a quick check in the science citation index and found _no_ published paper that cited that original work. Since there was no big explosion of research after the original paper, I don;t expect to see one now either---especially since the original came out when there was a big push to look for 5th force effects in other areas of physics. Also, I not that the original paper says the primary effect of the set-up was to cause the weight to _fluctuate_ by -3% to +5%, and only at certain special settings would it stabilize on -0.3%. I imagine most people reading it took that to be a sign of experimental error. -- 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 Fri Sep 6 12:03:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA29574; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: 06 Sep 96 14:20:48 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: New Tampere article Sunday Message-ID: <960906182047_100433.1541_BHG121-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"DUEdm2.0._D7.pv6Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/469 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Howdy, y'all. Robert Matthews reports: "I've spoken to all the major parties involved with this story today (Friday), and have put together an account for publication in the Sunday Telegraph this Sunday." I shall post the text here on Sunday morning. Chris (busy bee) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 12:28:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA10114; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: 06 Sep 96 15:13:24 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: erroneous Tampere speculations Message-ID: <960906191323_76216.2421_HHB52-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"rYUtP1.0.tT2.uY7Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/473 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott - > "...now all I've got to do is figure out how to "cast" this problem into > equation form so MathCAD can do all the tedious work..." All this following is dependent on the conventional many-vectored representation of gravity and not the strange all-vertical version suggested before, but how about defining an array of points above the disc and projecting cones into the earth's sphere defined by each point and the disc? The ratio of the volumes of the cone and remaining sphere after deducting the cone volume should yield the normalized strength of the shielding a that point. Map a color to the value at that point and you could have a nice graphical representation. Also, consider a point just off to the side of a vertical line above the edge of the disc, but fairly close to the disc surface. Notice how most of the earth opposite that side of the disc is shielded? That point would experience gravitational effect from the side of the earth that it's on since the other 'half' is blocked. A bob held there should appear to shift slightly away from the core of the "beam" - similar to what was reported. Further, you can see then how some of these cones would block the earths central dense core, and others would miss it entirely. This could have a significant effect on the spread of calculations, so it might be a good idea to add that factor in too. Just another suggestion for version 1.1. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 12:29:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA08116; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 06 Sep 1996 12:06:12 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Re: Podkletnov To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/06/96 12:06:38 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"npBIz.0.e-1.9R7Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/472 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 09/06/96 11:57 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Podkletnov Gosh Barry, yeah I recall that problem---analytical chemistry. We had a HECK of a time weighing things +/- 5%. I also imagine those poor saps working for the petroleum companies are really put out when we know that they couldn't be measuring local gravity to part per million variation. (This is said tounge in cheek, if this was a genuine fluctuation in "weight" of +/- 3 to 5 % that in itself would be a phenomenon.) Ross let's face it, if observations made in a lab in any way border on stuff that is "unexplained" the rigid science minds of our era will dismiss them as "experimental error" well before they investigate them more in detail. It's a nice intellectual laziness factor. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 12:30:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA10320; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 14:16:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609061916.OAA13652@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: ICCF6 Schedule Resent-Message-ID: <"EOv6R2.0.AX2.tZ7Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/476 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 14:42 9/6/96 EDT, Jed posted from the ICCF6 program: >Producing Excess Enthalpy and Nuclear Reaction Products in the Patterson Power >Cell_ with Near 100 % Reproducibility Mr. Nix, J. A. (U.S.A.) Where is this person working? Is he working for CETI..or independent? 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 Sep 6 12:31:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA10163; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: 06 Sep 96 15:13:29 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Tampere speculations Message-ID: <960906191329_76216.2421_HHB52-4@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"9eS6X2.0.iU2.2Z7Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/475 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace wrote: > If the effect is due to time dilation or change in > inertia, then it should not have been possible to > place one of the spining disks above the other > without a significant lateral force due to the > imbalance that would be generated in the centepital > force of the spinning disks. They might have stacked one disc directly on top of the other in the same cryostat, then spun up. Or even if separate devices, aligned them well before spinup. Such forces might be expected to be slight on discs only slightly misaligned. Even though the discs were magnetically levitated, that's not to say the discs weren't axially confined within in the apparatus. They probably were, since they were designed to spin up to such speeds. If they were mounted in that way, they would then have a fixed attachment to the apparatus which was itself either bulky or mounted firmly to a sturdy base as well, as it only makes sense to do so with fast spinning apparatus of any appreciable size. Such possible lateral thrust effects might have then been lost to observation. That would be one of the first things I'd like to find out about, though. Bring a spinning any-kind of disc into the field edgewise and see if it thrusts from inbalanced inertial effects. I hate piling speculation on top of speculation like this, but it's all I've got. Using what you mentioned as a metaphor, it seems like the logical framework of such speculative constructions want to go flying apart from their own inherent imbalance, and eventually they usually do. Remember this whole thing *might* not be real! I'm also noticing with some admiration how good Chris Tinsley's been about adhering to his personal commitment to avoid such sessions. It must be very hard for him. Whattaguy. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 12:33:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA10130; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:17:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:17:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: 06 Sep 96 15:13:21 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Diamagnetism Message-ID: <960906191321_76216.2421_HHB52-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"L9Bzm.0.8U2.wY7Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/474 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Thanks for the tips on diamagnetism. I could use a good hit-the-books session after reading and participating in so much speculation. I've just always found magnetism to be a very difficult subject to 'get' for some reason. Perhaps my brain is diamagnetic. I do tend to feel lighter if I spin around rapidly, even at room temperature. Scott, where do you get bismuth, is it commonly available from specialty metals dealers? That you could see the repulsion from a neodynium magnet sounds very interesting. If it's in the area of 100 times "worse" than a SC, then 100 times as much of it, spinning faster, strong-as-hell magnets, maybe it could be used. An SC would be so much better for initial experiments of course, but for scaling up the effect and so forth, it would be nice to have something on hand that wasn't as expensive and difficult to handle. And what about multiple thin layers, is there any reason to believe that would increase the bulk diamagnetic effects of a sample? I know, I know, the books... - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 12:58:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA22657; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:02:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:02:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609061554.IAA00212@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Tampere Practical Uses To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 08:54:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: from "John Logajan" at Sep 5, 96 02:13:41 pm 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: <"h6bbT3.0.wX5.zh4Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/460 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Robert Stirniman Subject: Re: anti-gravity experiments > Pat Parinnello, not to be outdone by the researchers who have found the > anti-gravity machine, has already developed a way to use it. > http://www.republic.net/~pparri/antigravity > Be the first on YOUR block to invent a use for the "anti-gravity machine." From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 13:47:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA27636; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 13:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 13:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: 06 Sep 96 16:35:02 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: ICCF6 Schedule Message-ID: <960906203502_72240.1256_EHB78-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"AYkCP3.0.fl6.Yj8Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/477 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little asks: Where is this person [J.A. Nix] working? Is he working for CETI.. or independent? CETI. Formerly Coca Cola Corporation. Other affiliations: Miles, M. H. China Lake Ota, K. Yokohama Nat. U. Cravens, D. himself, mostly Miley, G. H. U. Illinois McKubre, M. SRI Claytor, T. Lost Animals A couple of years ago Ota was saying he tested Ni CF and got nothing. He said he would try it again. It'll be interesting to see where he stands now. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 15:10:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA13842; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 14:51:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 14:51:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 13:55:48 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"02Vpo3.0.7O3.fp9Co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/478 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A > >There is no "shadow" in such a thing, but there are distortions to the >directions in which the wave energy will propogate. > >Ross Tessien Shadow, column of effect, beam, cone of silence, whatever you call it, it must be fairly narrow to show a similar effect over several stories. I would call any space where the effect is the same magnitude as near the surface of the disk (i.e. 2 %) the umbra of the effect. At this point we don't know how far the umbra extends, but we do know the penumbra weekens only gradually with regard to angle from the vertical, else the effect would not be similar several stories up. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 15:42:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA19460; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 15:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 15:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 15:17:34 -0700 Message-Id: <199609062217.PAA11155@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: John Nix, was:(Re: ICCF6 Schedule) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"T6CoM2.0.xl4.CDACo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/479 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sept. 6, 1996 Thurs. Jed wrote: > >Scott Little asks: > > Where is this person [J.A. Nix] working? Is he working for >CETI.. or independent? > >CETI. Formerly Coca Cola Corporation. Bit of trivia & information: John Nix attended the ICCF-5. He did not want Coca Cola identified as his affiliation since it seems he attended the Conference on his own. We happened to sit together at at one of many furnished lunch tables for ten. Out of curiosity since Coca Cola was on his name tag and wondering what was Coca Cola was doing there (Fizz(ix) research?). We talked a little. At the time, Nix was involved at Coca Cola in designing those new curvey plastic Coke bottles that they were trying to resemble the original glass bottles. He had technical and science backgrounds. He explained, with prodding, in detail that those plastic bottles had different chemical and physical characteristics in retaining the 'fizz' in the drink, standing up to abuse, and the trade-offs of design to manufacturing practicality. Well, well. After the Coke bottles, Nix went to CETI! Must have talked with them at Monaco where CETI had their working, almost hands on working display. Nix is fairly young. Seen his future in CF. Got The Real Thing! John Nix is listed on the ICCF-5 Participant List. Address: 121 Glenn Circle Decatur, GA 30030-1925 Mailing address is not Coca Cola but the phone numbers given are so not included here. Better to reach him at CETI. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 16:18:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA00224; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 16:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 16:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: 06 Sep 96 19:03:45 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: erroneous Tampere speculations Message-ID: <960906230345_100060.173_JHB52-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"eyUj6.0.Q3.YvACo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/480 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross, >> overhead, it is red shifted. And coming up from below, it is more blue, relatively speaking. << So would it be better to think in terms of wave-guides at the molecular or atomic level and design the SC ceramic structure to resonate at E-35 or whatever within the matrix? By the way, someone suggested hospital beds which don't produce bed-sores (I think it was Horace) - I visualised a multi-storey hospital with a spinning SC disc in the basement and all the patients directly above it floating towards the ceiling with their bedpans. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 16:39:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA04484; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 16:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 16:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3230B329.6F5992E1@math.ucla.edu> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 16:26:33 -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: Podkletnov References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"99-0u1.0.y51.yCBCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/481 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: MHUGO@EPRI wrote: > > if this was a > genuine fluctuation in "weight" of +/- 3 to 5 % that in itself would > be a phenomenon. Yes indeed---so why wasn't it? Why does the paper merely mention this in passing, but fixate on the .05% and 0.3% weight loss that was stably obtainable only for special resonant conditions? Surely a 8% time variation in weight is more interesting than a steady 0.3% loss? > Ross let's face it, if observations made in a lab > in any way border on stuff that is "unexplained" > the rigid science minds of our era will dismiss them as > "experimental error" well before they > investigate them more in detail. You're entitled to hold thaat opinion, but it doesn't improve the rather uneven quality of the first published paper. That paper goes into little detail about the tests they applied to rule out different effects, and they give a rather half hearted ruling out of a list of possible causes. Another thing about they original paper is they don't provide the information needed to reproduce the effect---i.e. they don' tsay what parameter settings led to a 0.3% weight loss. > It's a nice intellectual laziness factor. and also a nice way to avoid wasting time on every erroneous result that comes down the pike. Having read the original paper, the quality of the investigation as presented is definitely not on a par with the bizarreness of the claim. I would have rejected it and told them to put in more detail on their tests, as well as do obvious additional tests (like trying different objects for weighing) that are not mentioned in this study. Certainly its in any case silly to call it anti-gravity or gravitational shielding---their predominant effect was to cause the weight to fluctuate by 8%, with a bias towards _gaining_ weight! -- 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 Fri Sep 6 17:55:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA21881; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 17:53:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 17:53:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 17:52:58 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tampere speculations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"22QCm1.0.kL5.qTCCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/482 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Horace Heffner wrote: > would call any space where the effect is the same magnitude as near the > surface of the disk (i.e. 2 %) the umbra of the effect. At this point we > don't know how far the umbra extends, but we do know the penumbra weekens > only gradually with regard to angle from the vertical, else the effect > would not be similar several stories up. The vertical-column effect also comes up in G. Hodowanec's article on his strange capacitor-based "gravity wave detectors." He runs these detectors into chart recorders and discovers features which repeat on a 24hr cycle, as if the capacitors were responding to narrow lines connecting the earth to astronomical objects. This was in a very old Radio Electronics magazine as "All about gravity waves:" grav3.asc on Keelynet http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/const.html links to it. Other stuff: If an SC disk creates DC gravity forces when spun, maybe it creates AC signals when vibrated in a rotational mode. Not very useful as a communicator if the "beam" can't be aimed. But it would be very interesting to attach a big voicecoil to the rim of the disk, get it squealing like a Chladni plate, then see if a tiny accelerometer or strain gauge can pick up the audio when held in the "beam" high above it. .....................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 Fri Sep 6 20:40:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA23486; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: erroneous Tampere speculations To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 22:20:18 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <960906191323_76216.2421_HHB52-2@CompuServe.COM> from "Rick Monteverde" at Sep 6, 96 03:13:24 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"N6lKs1.0.sk5.FeECo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/483 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick Monteverde writes: > opposite that side of the disc is shielded? That point would experience > gravitational effect from the side of the earth that it's on since the other > 'half' is blocked. A bob held there should appear to shift slightly away from > the core of the "beam" - similar to what was reported. Yup. All points above the plane of the blockage (except those exactly vertical) would experience an apparent shift of earth center of gravity. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 20:54:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA25463; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: 06 Sep 96 23:29:01 EDT From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Power plant or Plant Power? Message-ID: <960907032901_76570.2270_FHU67-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"zBjmF.0.iD6.unECo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/484 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I just got this newspaper article from a contact in India: Copy of a newspaper article showing a photo of the inventor. Paper is "TOI" -- this must be "Times of India" -- dated Friday September 6th, 1996, page 16. ************ 'Herbal petrol' invention sets scientific community afire New Delhi, September 5. A high school dropout from Tamil Nadu created history here on Wednesday when he turned water into a petrol-like fuel by mixing it with a herb he discovered in the hills. Scientists witnessing his demonstratlon at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) said they were baffled. "It is incredible but true, " exclaimed IIT chemist N.K.Jha who organised the experiment at the request of the department of science and technology (DST). In plain terms, this discovery means that given the herb you can convert tap water into a fuel that can drive your vehicle. In fact 30-year-old Ramar Pillai who discovered the amazing herb seven years ago has been doing precisely that in his villatge near Rajapalayam. Mr Pillai, who was invited to Delhi by DST secretary Yalangiman Ramamurti, says his herbal petrol would cost one rupee per litre. All he wants from DST is money to put up a plant in his native place and personal prouction. He recently had an attempt on his life for refusing to part with his secret. "I am personally convinced is is a discovery worth pursuing," said Mr Ramamurti after repeating the experiment himself. The product burnt with a . sooty flame, smelled like kerosene and on distillation yielded a pure hydrocarbon fraction with a bolting point of 170 degrees centlgrade. "We have no doubt that we are sitting on something very big," Mr Ramamurti sald. But we must proceed carefully and systematically." He said DST has assigned the highest priority to get Mr. Ramar's inventlon patented. Tile department has also acceded to his request for funds to erea a 300 litre per day pilot plant at Rajapalayam. Simultaneously the best scientists in the country are going to be assembled to understand the chemical process in detail before setting up a plant with a production capacity of one mililon liters per day Mr. Ramamurti said. Defence Science adviser A.P.J. Abdul Kalam has been briefed and he is reportedly "excited" Mr Ramamurthi said the economic impilcatlon of his discovery for the country being so enormous, he has decided to keep science minister Yoginder Alagh and the office of Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda informed about the developments. As an eighth class student Mr Ramar realised the value of the plant during a picnic in a forest when a flying spark from the cooking stove set a leaf of a nearby plant on fire. He almost forgot about this strange event of a green leaf catching fire but ten years later he tracked down the plant and started experimenting with it. To produce petrol, leaves and barks of this plant are cooked for about ten minutes in hot water. The mixture is cooled and stirred after adding a little salt, citric acid and traces of a few unknown chemicals. Once allowed to settle, the liquid fuel which is lighter than water floats to the top and is separated by filtering. The entire process takes less than 30 minutes. According to DST, laboratory tests conducted with earlier samples have conclusively shown that the herbal fuel is a pure hydrocarbon similar to kerosene and diesel. ***** Photo of inventor performing test --- Caption: Inventor Ramar Pillai of Tamil Nadu demonstrating the conversion of water into petrol using a secret herb at the Indian Institute of Technology at Delhi. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 21:00:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA26774; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 19:40:58 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: erroneous Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"yDzvl1.0.EY6.atECo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/485 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Ross, > >>> overhead, it is red shifted. And coming up from below, it >is more blue, relatively speaking. << > >So would it be better to think in terms of wave-guides at the molecular or >atomic level and design the SC ceramic structure to resonate at E-35 or >whatever >within the matrix? > >By the way, someone suggested hospital beds which don't produce bed-sores (I >think it was Horace) - I visualised a multi-storey hospital with a spinning SC >disc in the basement and all the patients directly above it floating >towards the >ceiling with their bedpans. >Norman Nope - wasn't I who suggested "hospital beds which don't produce bed-sores". Seems to me until anit-gravity is a proven technology a form of waterbed in a box with a lose containment bag would do a good job of that. Easier to get on those bedpans too! However, if you had left out the bedpan part I would have been really interrested in a visit to that anti-gravity hospital! The credit goes to Ross Tessien who delighted me in the same post by suggesting working towards putting anit-gravity ideas into public domain. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 21:17:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA29604; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 19:56:01 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"oLRFd3.0.TE7.e5FCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/486 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A [snip] > >Other stuff: > >If an SC disk creates DC gravity forces when spun, maybe it creates AC >signals when vibrated in a rotational mode. Not very useful as a >communicator if the "beam" can't be aimed. But it would be very >interesting to attach a big voicecoil to the rim of the disk, get it >squealing like a Chladni plate, then see if a tiny accelerometer or strain >gauge can pick up the audio when held in the "beam" high above it. > > >.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. >William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 Thanks for the URL. Interresting idea - the voicecoil. Might also be able to put a horizontal axis coil around the device in order to make the disk precess - kind of like a macro version of NMR. Some more questions: in the two disk shielding effect it would be interresting to know if the effect depends on relative rotational directions. What happens if one disk is reversed? Both? Does only one or do both have to be levitating, or just spinning? Lots of things to check out. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 21:24:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA00701; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:57:09 -0700 (PDT) From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 23:56:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Meissner not gravity To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-id: <01I96DUFZ6208X7ELW@delphi.com> X-VMS-To: INTERNET"vortex-l@eskimo.com" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Resent-Message-ID: <"aN1o21.0.sA.JAFCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/487 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >But whatever is going on, you can count on finding that the thrust to offset >gravitation is coming from underneath. >Ross Tessien The way I understand the Meissner effect is "magnetic pinning". Whether the pinned magnet is above or below the superconductor it is being magnetically repelled or attracted depending on the direction it is moving, toward or away from the superconductor. Since the superconductor is a superconductor the movement of the magnet induces current in the superconductor. Lenz's law takes care of the rest. The magnetic field of the induced currents in the superconductor will always oppose the change that produced them. The floating magnet distance is due to magnetic equilibrium ,the superconductor already has a magnetic field of its own, the polarity of which is decided by the direction the current is flowing in the superconductor, and this direction is decided by the direction the floating magnet is moving. Simply put the superconductors magnetic polarity is always compensating the position and direction of the floating magnet. So long as the magnetic forces are greater than gravity, gravity plays only a minor role. It makes no difference whether the floating magnet is above or below the superconductor gravity plays the same role. If a large (heavy) magnet were used, where gravity were the greater force it would not float above or below the superconductor. Joe Flynn Flynn Research Inc. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 22:03:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA08283; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 21:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 21:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:38:18 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"CZZEq3.0.D12.WjFCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/488 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Shades of scalarism? >On another note: It was a *ring*, rather than a disk, in the >Tampere results. There is a diagram: > >http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/gravity.htm > >Gary Hawkins Thanks for the URL! So, it's a 5000 RPM ring, not a disk. Well Scott, not much different to you - no way to put a hole in your point! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 22:30:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA10917; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 21:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 21:50:27 -0700 (PDT) From: hjscudde@pacbell.net Message-ID: <3230FF99.4787@pacbell.net> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 21:52:41 -0700 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L Subject: anti-gravitation proposed experiment Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"6wP4Q.0.Vg2.IyFCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/489 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Proposed experiment. I have always wanted to play with some super conductors anyhow, so I ordered a kit from Colorado Superconductor Inc.(CSI) Internet Web Site: http://www.sni.net/superconductor My intention is to build a pendulum with a good low-friction bearing, shine an LED across it to a photodetector, let the interruptions trigger a clock and a counter on and off, and get some statistics, both plain, and above a superconducting disk mounted on a Dremel tool. According to my basic physics, the period of a pendulum is given by: T = 2*pi*sqrt(L/g) where L is the length of the pendulum. The period is independent of the mass. If L = 8 ft, g=approx 32 ft/sec^2 the period would be 3.14 seconds, A 10Mhz crystal oscillator driving a counter should yield about 31.4 million counts, and twenty minutes or so of this should give some good statistics (std deviation of average reduced by a factor of 20). I would expect a 2% or so phenomenon would be visible here. I welcome any comments, and independent replication. It will probably take a month or two to get this done since I work full time, and am also building a calorimeter. Hank Scudder Stochastic Enterprises -- 1¾ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 22:49:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA14132; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 22:07:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 22:07:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 00:06:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609070506.AAA23551@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: Meissner not gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"Cl-6O.0.iS3.CCGCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/490 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:56 PM 9/6/96 -0500, Joe Flynn wrote: >The way I understand the Meissner effect is "magnetic pinning". >Since the superconductor is a superconductor the movement of >the magnet induces current in the superconductor. Lenz's law >takes care of the rest. Indeed some SC's do behave like this. We have some large-crystal 123's in our lab that you can cool down with a magnet sitting on top of them and, when they become SC, they will pin the magnet's flux so solidly that you can lift up on the magnet and the SC comes up with it, hanging about a mm below the magnet. Other SC's, however, exhibit the "2nd form of the Meissner effect" in which the magnet sitting on top of the SC is repelled away (i.e. lifted up) as the SC becomes a SC. We have an older, presumably small-crystal, block of 123 that clearly exhibits this latter behavior. This latter behavior is completely at odds with the laws of magnetic induction and was first "explained" by the phenomenological equations developed by the London brothers. J = -kA is the one that says that a current will _spontaneously_ arise in a SC in response to the presence of certain magnetic fields, REGARDLESS of whether the field is changing with time or not. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 22:58:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA17569; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 22:25:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 22:25:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 00:21:58 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609070521.AAA24434@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: Diamagnetism Resent-Message-ID: <"k8MYz.0.RI4._SGCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/491 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:13 PM 9/6/96 EDT, Rick wrote: >Scott, where do you get bismuth, is it commonly available from specialty metals >dealers? These guys would be a good choice for pounds of the stuff Belmont Metals, Inc. Brooklyn, NY 11207 USA 718-342-4900 FAX: 718-342-0175 This outfit can supply smaller quantities: Alfa Aesar Johnson Matthey Ward Hill, MA 01835-8099 USA 800-343-0660 FAX: 508-521-6350 These addresses came from the wonderful Thomas Register web page at: http://www.thomasregister.com there are many more companies listed under "Bismuth" - 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-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 6 23:07:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA21589; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 22:44:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 22:44:54 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tampere infinite energy Date: Sat, 07 Sep 1996 05:42:43 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3230d59b.25008438@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199609051606.JAA10319@smudge.oro.net> In-Reply-To: <199609051606.JAA10319@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: <"N25Do3.0.FH5.KlGCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/492 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >>Though I hesitate to say it, it would also provide some theoretical >>underpinning of J.W. Keely's experimental work. > >What is this? > J.W. Keely is the man that Keelynet was named after. If you take a look there, you will find descriptions of a few of the things he is supposed to have achieved, all apparenly based upon resonance. 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 Sep 7 02:29:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA05881; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 02:21:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 02:21:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: 07 Sep 96 05:19:53 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Meissner not gravity Message-ID: <960907091953_76216.2421_HHB31-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"8JraU.0.lR1.rwJCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/494 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > "We have some large-crystal 123's..." [...] > "We have an older, presumably small-crystal, block of 123..." Might you also happen to have a high speed drill motor, a way to fabricate a holder for the SC you could chuck into the drill, and some LN? I know that we suffer from a serious lack of information at this point which tends to make any detailed experimental attempts at duplication essentially impossible until those details come out (hopefully) in October. And I know quick and dirty methods aren't scientific, and may run contrary to the philosophy of a professionally run lab. But it would be so easy to take a quick preliminary peek. Even a modest little torsion balance ought to register something, the push away from the "beam" perhaps, if there's anything to register. Are you considering trying something like this? I see Hank Scudder is already going for it, and I'm trying to tweak my budget and order something from CSI as well. Like Hank, I've always wanted to see the Meissner effect and fool around with SCs, maybe even do a Meissner demo at my girlfriends public school 1st grade class as part of her "magnets" science teaching unit. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 02:32:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA05903; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 02:22:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 02:22:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: 07 Sep 96 05:19:50 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Diamagnetism Message-ID: <960907091950_76216.2421_HHB31-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"fpUQh1.0.9S1.ywJCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/495 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott - > These addresses came from the wonderful Thomas > Register web page at: > > http://www.thomasregister.com > > there are many more companies listed under > "Bismuth" Thanks! I was just there before I posted the question, and searched under "metals" but got lost over which of them in the long list might be the ones to carry the stuff. Too broad a category. Gee, I'd have never thought to try "bismuth" for some reason. Funny how the mind works - or doesn't. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 02:38:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA06894; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 02:35:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 02:35:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960907094054.0071a6c0@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, 07 Sep 1996 02:40:54 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Podkletnov Resent-Message-ID: <"6Fb-92.0.eh1.a7KCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/496 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:28 AM 9/6/96 -0700, you wrote: >> >> Gary, could you go to them again and ask directly why they are not pursuing >> work in this area? >> >> - Scott Little It is a worthy thought. But I have quite an appreciation that he returned something to my message anyway, and would prefer to not risk upsetting him at all. An altenative route I would like to suggest is that someone check in with this: http://www.tut.fi/ttkk.koti/index_en.html ...and look for another one to contact there. There is a link "addresses", that goes to "Staff Email Addresses", which should yield some interesting results, or better, those listed on that page under "Information Office". Hope this helps. Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA "Professor Goddard [NASA] ... does not know the relation of action to reaction ... he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in our high schools." [New York Times, January 13, 1920, before it all] From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 02:52:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA07976; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 02:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 02:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: 07 Sep 96 05:46:01 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Message-ID: <960907094601_100433.1541_BHG104-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"trrUx.0.Yy1.fKKCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/497 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > So, it's a 5000 RPM ring, not a disk. Not necessarily. The text refers throughout to a disc. The Telegraph illustrator may have got it wrong and there may not have been time to correct the drawing. Rule #1: "Never presume competence." Let's not attempt to put any little nuggets of certainty into a vaporous situation. We have to look at what has actually been published in the real literature, and wait for the new paper (if we can't get hold of a preprint). I see that the essential point of this new paper is that it is supposed to address problems with the earlier stuff. And it is reported as having passed some heavy scrutiny. Clearly there is also the problem that the recent comment from Tampere muddies the paper trail. Matthews is promising to address that specific problem in his article tomorrow, which I shall post here. One thing nobody seems to have addressed is the question of why the disc seems to require magnetic support, when perhaps it should work even if it just spins? I am reminded of the famous question and answer: Q: "Why a mouse when it spins?" A; "42." Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 03:18:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id DAA10154; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 03:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 03:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: 07 Sep 96 06:14:55 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Podkletnov, urgent. Message-ID: <960907101455_100433.1541_BHG93-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"qALQv3.0.WU2.ejKCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/498 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Could somebody quickly tell me about the Podkletnov paper published by Tampere U Press, full details and co-author? I need this information urgently, I've been asked for it by The S Telegraph science correspondent, Robert Matthews, who hopes to publish a lot more about all this tomorrow. Please... Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 04:47:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA10883; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 00:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 00:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: 07 Sep 96 03:46:46 EDT From: Wolfram Bahmann <100276.261@CompuServe.COM> To: VORTEX-L Subject: Brown's Gas Message-ID: <960907074645_100276.261_JHF77-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"bZpTF.0.zf2.RaICo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/493 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi, there, can anybody tell me where to get the items: "Brown's Gas Book 1" and "Brown's Gas Reports" by George Wiseman. 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 see our NEW Web Site at: ----------------------------------------------------- http://energie.keng.de/~pace ################################################# From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 07:17:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA01356; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 07:14:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 07:14:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:14:48 +1000 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ICCF6 Schedule In-Reply-To: <960906184233_72240.1256_EHB96-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"xeARQ2.0.5L.XDOCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/499 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 6 Sep 1996, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > It looks like CETI will kick ass and take names at their Special Session. They > have an impressive line-up of speakers: > > Chair Dr. Miles, M. H. (U.S.A.) Dr. Ota, K. (Japan) > > Electrical Control of New Hydrogen Energy Reactions Dr. Cravens, D. (U.S.A.) > > Design Considerations for Multilayer ThinFilm PattersonType Micro spheres Dr. > Miley, G. H. (U.S.A.) > > Experimental Observation of Massive Transmutations Occurring in Multilayer > Thin-Film Microspheres after Electorolysis Dr. Miley, G. H. (U.S.A.) > > Electrochemistry and Calorimetry in a Packed-Bed Flow-Through Electrochemical > Cell Dr. McKubre, M. C.H. (U.S.A.) > > Producing Excess Enthalpy and Nuclear Reaction Products in the Patterson Power > Cell_ with Near 100 % Reproducibility Mr. Nix, J. A. (U.S.A.) > > Analysis of Reaction Products from a CETI Cell Dr. Claytor, T. N. (U.S.A.) > A pretty imposing sounding set of talks. Sounds like CETI continues to claim lead the pack while keeping widespread replication (and acceptance) at bay. By that I mean amongst the general Scientific community. Interesting that Claytor is in with CETI crowd. Los Alamos wasn't one the gang of 5. Also nothing from Motorola, those mid-West Utilities or U of Missouri. The CETI machinations continue. When this is over one way or the other, I'd really like to read a history of that company! Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 10:21:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA04401; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 10:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 10:12:14 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 13:11:31 -0400 Message-ID: <960907131131_517719667@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: home page Resent-Message-ID: <"WUsHE3.0.h41.kpQCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/500 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Yusmar updates will be found on http://members.aol.com/fznidarsic Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 11:14:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA17105; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 11:10:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 11:10:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 14:09:45 -0400 Message-ID: <960907140944_196414852@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: erroneous Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"-LinS2.0.BB4.NgRCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/501 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross says (and I have some sympathy for this, having worked on a dielectric-constant vacuum model for General Relativity): "When you get that then you will understand gravitational sheilding as a refraction effect, or considered in another manner, it becomes just a region of the universe in which there is a time delay for the wave energies, and thus a refraction due to aether density gradients (we call this gravitational lensing)!!" If it's the case that the effect is due to the time delay, doesn't that imply that if one could stop a planet in the ether, there would be no gravity, since the effects of delay would be lost? Of course, planets, stars, etc, are all in motion so that one always encounters new space and thus new opportunity for delay. It seems that we can't do the experiment! Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 12:10:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA26999; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:02:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609071856.LAA00754@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Meissner not gravity To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 11:56:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <960907091953_76216.2421_HHB31-2@CompuServe.COM> from "Rick Monteverde" at Sep 7, 96 05:19:53 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: <"W3MVT3.0.jb6.zQSCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/502 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > "We have some large-crystal 123's..." > > [...] > > > "We have an older, presumably small-crystal, block of 123..." > > Might you also happen to have a high speed drill motor, a way to fabricate a > holder for the SC you could chuck into the drill, and some LN? Spinning the disk might not do it, if the effect is caused by the current flowing in the disk from the coils used to levitate and rotate it. Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 12:40:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA01951; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:32:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:32:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609071926.MAA00843@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:26:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <960907094601_100433.1541_BHG104-1@CompuServe.COM> from "Chris Tinsley" at Sep 7, 96 05:46:01 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: <"weJcA3.0.MU.6tSCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/503 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley writes: > One thing nobody seems to have addressed is the question of why the > disc seems to require magnetic support, when perhaps it should work > even if it just spins? In my opinion, it is ironic that the answer to the above question is perhaps the title of this thread -- "The Hooper Effect". It is possibly the current flowing in the disk, which causes the effect. Hooper identified an electric field, non-shieldable, and in his opinion, non-distinguishable from gravitation. Hooper's theory of why this happends is weak, but his devices do indeed perform as claimed. For the best documentation of the truth in this, see the well done experiments of W.F.Edwards -- references were provided here in early August. For a theoretical clue, see the paper referenced earlier by Jefimenko, or take a look at Feynman's lectures, where he "develops" the equation for the electric field of a moving charge. There is a neat diagram in Feyman, which shows how the electric field is intensified in the direction perpendicular to motion, and is decreased in the direction of motion. Heaviside was the first to come up with this same picture. Of course, the effect is second order (v/c)**2 -- and Feynman comments that is not of practical importance. Hooper could barely measure it, Edwards did measure it well -- it increases with the square of the current, and it is it is perpendicular to the current flow and not dependent on the direction of flow (forward or backward). Hooper got it by winding a hair-pin coil -- back and forth, over and over. He also got it with a pancake coil. It is a curious coincidence, that the drawing of the pancake coil and weighing apparatus in Hooper's patent is strikingly, uncannily, similar the the figure shown in the 1992 Tampere paper -- except that an SC disk has replaced the coil. Also Hooper states in his patent, and articles, that the velocity of electron flow in metal conductors is not enough to provide practical benefits, but when superconductor technology becomes available the invention will provide great benefits. One of the presumptions in electrodynamics, is the Clausius postulate -- that a current carrying conductor is electrically neutral. It is WRONG. At the time this postulate was formed, it was not know that current flow in metals results solely from negative charge carriers. Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 12:45:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA03251; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:39:45 -0700 Message-Id: <199609071939.MAA12688@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: erroneous Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"yL8vs1.0.io.O-SCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/506 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Ross says (and I have some sympathy for this, having worked on a >dielectric-constant vacuum model for General Relativity): > >"When you get that then you will understand gravitational sheilding as a >refraction effect, or considered in another manner, it becomes just a region >of the universe in which there is a time delay for the wave energies, and >thus a refraction due to aether density gradients (we call this >gravitational lensing)!!" > >If it's the case that the effect is due to the time delay, doesn't that imply >that if one could stop a planet in the ether, there would be no gravity, >since the effects of delay would be lost? Of course, planets, stars, etc, >are all in motion so that one always encounters new space and thus new >opportunity for delay. It seems that we can't do the experiment! > >Hal Puthoff You could stop the planet, but you would not stop the resonance of the matter that makes up the planet. Again, you are thinking of matter as self contained peas that do not need the outside arrival of wave energies in order to maintain their very existence. In such a case, then you must resort to thinking of matter as being a pea, plus a field. But you fail to define what either one is. If instead you define matter to be a standing wave with a convergence at the Planck scale, then matter is in a sense a pea in that it has an identifiable convergence. But it is really just a standing wave that has a non linear process at the conevergent core that allows the thing to remain coherent and not spread out. So, again, you must think very much smaller when I say "wave" energy, and you must get down into the structure of space itself at the Planck scale. In this case, you will find that all of the matter in the planet, a star, or wherever is buzzing at a blazing E45 Hz. Those are the waves that are slowed down as they come into a region with a lot of standing waves. And again, the shielding effect is that of the earth essentially filtering, like a band pass filter, the energy arriving from deep space. The energy that comes out has had its spectrum shifted to that of local space somewhat. Such a spectral shift does not *interfere* with local matter as much as the deep space incident energy did. So despite having the same amount of energy headed up as down, the spectrum is different, and the interference is different, and so the thrust is as well, different. Now, the SC, it seems, is able to resonate its nuclei in some form of coherent manner. And that creates a reflection of the incident energy. This reflection is nothing new. All matter transmits and reflects the wave energy of the quantum vacuum. What *IS* new, is that the SC does this in a uniform and coherent manner due to the uniform and coherent motions within the crystalline matrix. So, the reflections are left phase and frequency coherent to that which they had originally. Thus, the noisy deep space energy is more effeciently reflected from the SC than it would have been from the matter in the earth, which is all moving in random directions due to thermal motions of the nuclei wrt one another. A second effect is created with the SC, and this is a focusing of the incident energy. Normally, in a black body cavity, this would not be possible. But on the surface of the earth, there is a spectral gradient that is symmetric about a horizontal plane. Above we have deep space energy with a redened component. And from below, we have the energy filtered by the earth which is relatively "blue" shifted. With that, we can consider the lensing effect of the SC. The thing I believe is important to all effects dealing with the quantum vacuum is that of accelerations. The greater the acceleration, the greater the interference with energy incident, and thus the greater the time delay imposed on the QVF waves. This again creates a build up in the density of space near an accelerating body, and has been studied under the name of the Unruh effect. If you consider the shape of space around the rotating SC, we find that there is a difference in the density of space along a radial line. The rotation induces a radius dependent acceleration and velocity on the matter in the disc. And so there is a greater density of space to the outside of the disk as compared to the inside of the disk. I imagine that the disk appears to distort space into a convex shape on both sides of the disk. With that, if the matter in that disk is now able to remain in a coherent resonance throughout the crystalline lattice, then you will get a better "focused" reflection off of the surface of the "mirror". Where the mirror is the distortion to space itself around the disk. >From that, you come to studying the different energies you might reflect with such a mirror. And what you find when you look up is some ugly, noisy energy that will induce a great interference effect. So, by reflecting some of that space energy upwards, you thrust the object in that direction and offset some of the thrust in the downward direction. Hal, does this explain my thoughts better? Do you see that you cannot stop the motions of matter because by stopping a ball you just stop the matter in the ball from precessing through space wrt your position. But, the matter in the ball is still buzzing virtually unaltered by the change in motion you imposed. It is sort of like thinking that you stopped the motion of a quartz crystal when you take it to space and stop its rotation with on the surface of the earth. But you know there is still rapid thermal motion at the scale of E-10 and nuclear motions at the scale of E-15. All I am saying is to continue on down to where the whole thing begins. At the Planck scale where space becomes defined. That leads to the motions being of standing waves with their focal nodes at E-35 meters, and you are not going to stop that motion without taking the matter out of the universe so that it could boil away to free aether. Even then that aether would be moving. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 12:47:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA02875; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:37:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609071931.MAA00870@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Podkletnov, urgent. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:31:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <960907101455_100433.1541_BHG93-1@CompuServe.COM> from "Chris Tinsley" at Sep 7, 96 06:14:55 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: <"u6kCX.0.qi.3ySCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/505 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > Could somebody quickly tell me about the Podkletnov paper published by Tampere U > Press, full details and co-author? > > I need this information urgently, I've been asked for it by The S Telegraph > science correspondent, Robert Matthews, who hopes to publish a lot more about > all this tomorrow. > > Please... > > Chris I don't have a copy handy, or could fax it, but here's the reference. It is the second of the two published papers. A little better done that the first, but still very weak. The striking thing in the second paper is the measurement of the effect in the vertical direction. Second floor of the lab. Robert Stirniman From: Robert Stirniman To: Vortex-L List Date: Wednesday August 6, 1996 Subject: Tampere Experiments 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. Aside from NASA, I'm not aware of any other groups which may be 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 =========================================================== 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. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 12:48:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA02798; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 14:36:48 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609071936.OAA17086@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: Meissner not gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"UzeMX.0.ah.gxSCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/504 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:19 AM 9/7/96 EDT, Rick wrote: >Might you also happen to have a high speed drill motor, a way to fabricate a >holder for the SC you could chuck into the drill, and some LN? sure, but I think a quick and dirty run at this experiment is doomed to failure...one of the things that appears to be key to Pod's work is to have the SC both spinning and levitating above an electromagnet. This is no small order. You'd need either a SC electromagnet or to settle for short duration burts of operation... >trying to tweak my budget and order something from CSI as well. Like Hank, I've >always wanted to see the Meissner effect and fool around with SCs, just seeing the Meissner effect is worth the cost of the kit. I definitely recommend it. You can go to a sizeable welding supply and get LN2...they might even give you a thermos jug full. - 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-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 14:04:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA16516; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 14:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 14:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: 07 Sep 96 16:58:36 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Podkletnov, urgent. Message-ID: <960907205835_100433.1541_BHG50-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"lj2-H1.0.-14.6AUCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/509 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Thanks, Robert Stirniman, for the reference. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 14:05:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA15907; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 13:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 13:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: 07 Sep 96 16:55:58 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Brown's Gas Message-ID: <960907205558_76216.2421_HHB46-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"oQymu2.0.Ou3.17UCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/508 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Wolfram Bahmann wrote: > Hi, there, can anybody tell me where to get the > items: > > "Brown's Gas Book 1" and "Brown's Gas Reports" > by George Wiseman. > > > 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 Books I and II can be ordered through the International Tesla Society, but I didn't see "Brown's Gas Reports" in the listing I have. Ask about them. International Tesla Society PO box 5636 Colorado Springs, CO 80931 http://www.tesla.org e-mail: USA-Tesla@USA.net (719) 475-0918 voice (719) 475-0582 fax (800) 397-0137 fee call USA Membership (magazine) rates: USA $30.00/year Canada/Mexico $35.00/year All Others $55.00/year - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 14:07:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA15855; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 13:57:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 13:57:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: 07 Sep 96 16:56:00 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Meissner not gravity Message-ID: <960907205600_76216.2421_HHB46-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"KFH-A1.0.et3.v6UCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/507 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robert Stirniman wrote: > Spinning the disk might not do it, if the effect is > caused by the current flowing in the disk from the > coils used to levitate and rotate it. Of course. That's one more thing to check. But it also helps illustrate the futility factor inherent in trying this without more documentation from the original experimenters. The effect might be so small or missing altogether unless the exact parameters are in place, and we don't know what those might be. The effect might not even exist at all. On the other hand, it *might* be something that jumps out at you if you spin a SC fast enough in a strong magnetic field, and that would be simple to check. You could get lucky. But if you got nothing, it could be terribly frustrating because you'd have no way of knowing if it was just becasue there is nothing to this or you simply didn't have the proper set up. It sounds like hearing about cold fusion, running off and wiring up a US nickel as an electrode in a glass of water (a la Wayne Green) and getting nothing - the nickel would have been better spent in buying a stick of gum to chew while reading about it and wondering if it's all for real. I can understand why Scott Little wouldn't bother. Look at all the luck he's had with CF after setting it up so carefully. Nature does hide her secrets well. So the quick 'n dirty look is a long shot bet at best. But if you love to gamble and you've only got a nickel... - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 15:34:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA02015; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 15:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 15:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 96 15:28:33 PDT From: Barry Merriman Message-Id: <9609072228.AA18914@joshua.math.ucla.edu> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Podkletnov paper question Resent-Message-ID: <"28J7w.0.PV.KSVCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/510 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In the first 1992 antigravity paper, there is a sentence in the sunnary that says it is well known that an object rotating around its vertical axis loses part of its weight. Uh...what is he talking about? This principle simple doesn't ring a bell with anything I recall learning about physics... the paper simply throws it in at the end with no further explanation. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 15:54:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA05843; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 15:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 15:51:07 -0700 (PDT) From: hjscudde@pacbell.net Message-ID: <3231FCF4.5BCA@pacbell.net> Date: Sat, 07 Sep 1996 15:53:40 -0700 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Hooper effect References: <199609071856.LAA00754@shell.skylink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"oiVS41.0.AR1.QnVCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/511 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robert Stirniman wrote: > > > > "We have some large-crystal 123's..." > > > > [...] > > > > > "We have an older, presumably small-crystal, block of 123..." > > > > Might you also happen to have a high speed drill motor, a way to fabricate a > > holder for the SC you could chuck into the drill, and some LN? > > Spinning the disk might not do it, if the effect is caused > by the current flowing in the disk from the coils used to > levitate and rotate it. > > Robert StirnimanRobert I missed the WF Edwards reference in August. Could you please repeat it? Hamk -- 1¾ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 16:00:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA07189; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 15:57:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 15:57:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 15:57:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199609072257.PAA23974@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: Scott, Re: Meissner not gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"iZKXU1.0.Cm1.RtVCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/513 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 11:56 PM 9/6/96 -0500, Joe Flynn wrote: > >>The way I understand the Meissner effect is "magnetic pinning". >>Since the superconductor is a superconductor the movement of >>the magnet induces current in the superconductor. Lenz's law >>takes care of the rest. > >Indeed some SC's do behave like this. We have some large-crystal 123's in >our lab that you can cool down with a magnet sitting on top of them and, >when they become SC, they will pin the magnet's flux so solidly that you can >lift up on the magnet and the SC comes up with it, hanging about a mm below >the magnet. if you lift up on the SC, and then rotate the magnet so that it would force the SC to follow around a circle if it remained pinned, such that the circle is in a vertical plane, does the SC slide off of the magnet, or remain pinned and follow the magnet all the way around? What I am gettint at is whether or not the magnet will slip, ie does it resist lateral shear. And second, if you invert an SC that is attracting, does the force reverse to become a repulsion, or does the SC fall down onto the magnet? Ross Tessien > >Other SC's, however, exhibit the "2nd form of the Meissner effect" in which >the magnet sitting on top of the SC is repelled away (i.e. lifted up) as the >SC becomes a SC. We have an older, presumably small-crystal, block of 123 >that clearly exhibits this latter behavior. This latter behavior is >completely at odds with the laws of magnetic induction and was first >"explained" by the phenomenological equations developed by the London >brothers. J = -kA is the one that says that a current will _spontaneously_ >arise in a SC in response to the presence of certain magnetic fields, >REGARDLESS of whether the field is changing with time or not. > > - Scott Little > EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 > 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 16:01:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA07216; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 15:57:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 15:57:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 15:57:24 -0700 Message-Id: <199609072257.PAA23976@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: erroneous Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"pjzo93.0.cm1.UtVCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/514 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >>By the way, someone suggested hospital beds which don't produce bed-sores (I >>think it was Horace) - I visualised a multi-storey hospital with a spinning SC >>disc in the basement and all the patients directly above it floating >>towards the >>ceiling with their bedpans. >>Norman > > >Nope - wasn't I who suggested "hospital beds which don't produce >bed-sores". Seems to me until anit-gravity is a proven technology a form >of waterbed in a box with a lose containment bag would do a good job of >that. Easier to get on those bedpans too! However, if you had left out >the bedpan part I would have been really interrested in a visit to that >anti-gravity hospital! > >The credit goes to Ross Tessien who delighted me in the same post by >suggesting working towards putting anit-gravity ideas into public domain. >Horace Heffner Good point, and zero g would be a very smelly proposition in that situation! Of course, to prevent bed sores one only has to reduce the pressure on the tissue such that the heart can overcome the restriction and blood can continue to flow. In the amusement park, though, you could have the little kids mystery house with a 2 g vertical thrust. Then you could have kids walk past the window and look outside while upside down. If you gradually had them walk into a room, and then with the doors closed, rotated the room while at the same time rotating the g vector, they might not even notice they were being rotated upside down. then, you could let them walk out of the room, and past a window that let them look outside to see everyone out there "upside down"! I think you could sell a couple of tickets to that one. How about freeways in congested cities? You could pave the top and the bottom of the elevated freeway deck! Cars on top go one way, cars on the bottom the other way. Double the lanes for the same amount of pavement (plus a little bit of SC tiling work to be done). Hell during power outages, or if you run out of LN2, though! Does anyone know if there is a source for 6 inch or 4 inch SC disks? I am getting ready to build a device. I would like a bunch of them, ie about 10 or 20. Any ideas on how to get some for not too much $$$$??? Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 16:06:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA07155; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 15:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 15:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 15:57:19 -0700 Message-Id: <199609072257.PAA23971@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: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"22B-03.0.dl1.NtVCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/512 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >One thing nobody seems to have addressed is the question of why the >disc seems to require magnetic support, when perhaps it should work >even if it just spins? I agree this must be determined. I can see where the disk spinning on its own during levitatin makes for a nice sort of magnetic bearing and very low friction. But it could be performed on top of an air bearing support above a flat surface plate with air holes in the bottom like an air hockey table. Except instead of air, boil off the LN2 through the holes and use the flow to both float and cool the disk at the same time. > >I am reminded of the famous question and answer: > >Q: "Why a mouse when it spins?" > >A; "42." > >Chris But I always heard this as Q; "Why is a mouse that spins?" A; "The fewer the higher." Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 16:31:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA11150; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 16:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 16:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: 07 Sep 96 19:24:15 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Podkletnov paper question Message-ID: <960907232415_100433.1541_BHG49-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"6_EJl1.0.8k2.hIWCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/515 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > In the first 1992 antigravity paper, there is a sentence in the > sunnary that says it is well known that an object rotating around > its vertical axis loses part of its weight. This is the notorious experiment which turned out to be a big mistake. This Finnish guy may well have something, but I reckon he is like so many of them. If you know what I mean. A quote on the rotating thing losing weight, from the CSERVE Science Sysop. For once, I suspect that this comment is completely correct: "I should also remind everyone of the Tohuku Top Experiment: they published in PRL (or maybe PRD) unambiguous evidence that tops spinning in one direction weigh less on a precision scale than tops spinning in the other direction. NIST (or maybe it was NBS back then) was able to replicate the result on another scale, but only after introducing a tiny mechanical linkage between the scale and the tops." Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 16:34:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA11590; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 16:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 16:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 16:29:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199609072329.QAA15419@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: Meissner not gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"jhB8U1.0.0r2.8LWCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/516 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >>But whatever is going on, you can count on finding that the >thrust to offset >>gravitation is coming from underneath. > >>Ross Tessien > >The way I understand the Meissner effect is "magnetic pinning". >Whether the pinned magnet is above or below the superconductor >it is being magnetically repelled or attracted depending on the >direction it is moving, toward or away from the superconductor. >Since the superconductor is a superconductor the movement of >the magnet induces current in the superconductor. Lenz's law >takes care of the rest. The magnetic field of the induced >currents in the superconductor will always oppose the change >that produced them. The floating magnet distance is due to >magnetic equilibrium ,the superconductor already has a magnetic >field of its own, the polarity of which is decided by the >direction the current is flowing in the superconductor, and >this direction is decided by the direction the floating magnet >is moving. Simply put the superconductors magnetic polarity is >always compensating the position and direction of the floating >magnet. So long as the magnetic forces are greater than >gravity, gravity plays only a minor role. It makes no >difference whether the floating magnet is above or below the >superconductor gravity plays the same role. If a large (heavy) >magnet were used, where gravity were the greater force it would >not float above or below the superconductor. > >Joe Flynn >Flynn Research Inc. Thanks for the post. You state that the effect will be inverted if you invert the magnet and SC, so this answers a question I posted in a recent letter. I am still looking for the magnitude of the shear resistance of these things, ie, at what angle to horizontal will the SC begin to slip off from above the magnet, or vice versa, or will they remain stuck together? As far as the "magnetic pinning" concept is concerned, I have no problem with it as far as being a tool to use to figure out what is happening. And, if you can explain to me precisely what the mechanism is for a magnetic field then I would be satisfied with the above description. This is the problem with such a description. We define all these nice things like fields, but then close our eyes to the reality that we defined them in terms of things which are themselves undefined. Considering matter as a convergent acoustic resonance, eliminates this problem by providing a reason for all of these things to manifest. But this is not to say that visualizing what I am saying is easy, it is not. However, I wind up with one question unanswered, why is the universe here in the first place. I know of no manner that mankind could ever answer that question. However, I do not wind up with either matter, fields, energy, inertia, or any other concept undefined from first principles. All are acoustic resonances in a material aether, and all observed phenomena are the result of the communication and distortions of those waves emitted from those convergences we call matter, photons, etc. In order to get the functionality of an SC that can sit on top, or hang from beneath a magnet, we need to look at it just like the case of quarks and gluons. There must be a mutual repulsion between the two objects. **AND** there must be a mutual shielding of the energy arriving from space and forcing the two objects toward one another. The equilibrium position is just a balance between those two thrusts. If you look at the case of an SC sitting on top of a magnet, you get precisely the same result as with gluons. If you pull the SC up, it becomes an "attractive" force mechanism. And if you push the SC down, then it becomes a repulsive mechanism. And if you leave it alone, then it goes "slack". Now, if you were to consider the SC and the magnet in outer space, then you would have exactly the same thing as the quark, and you know this is so because you can suspend the SC beneath the magnet, so in space the thing would find the average of the on top and on bottom conditions on earth. This eliminates gravitation from the picture and leaves just the SC effect. So, what you are trying to tell me is that the force pulling the SC toward the magnet becomes stronger as I pull the SC away while in space. This makes no sense. No force should become stronger with an increase in separation distance. I would buy it if there were a focusing, and the amplitude of the effect were altered for a different reason, but not for the intrinsic force itself. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 17:21:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA19640; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 17:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 17:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 96 17:18:37 PDT From: Barry Merriman Message-Id: <9609080018.AA20088@joshua.math.ucla.edu> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Podkletnov paper question Resent-Message-ID: <"rTooT3.0.oo4.V3XCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/517 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: This is the notorious experiment which turned out to be a big mistake. ... [quoting another fellow] Tohuku Top Experiment: they published in PRL (or maybe PRD) unambiguous evidence that tops spinning in one direction weigh less on a precision scale than tops spinning in the other direction. NIST (or maybe it was NBS back then) was able to replicate the result... -------- So, uh, what is the verdict then---does a spinning top lose weight, or was that just an artifact? If a top loses weight, then forget all this superconductor stuff---that alone is amazing! I find it inconceivable that POdkletnov put the trhow away line at the end of his 1992 paper saying its well known that spinning objects lose weight---with no further clarification or even a reference. Did anyone even referee that paper? Thats like ending a paper with the comment that its well known that humans can bend spoons with their minds. I'd like to see the new Pod. paper---but given his first one, I seriously question his scienific skills. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 18:03:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA24860; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 17:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 17:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: 07 Sep 96 20:57:36 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Podkletnov paper question Message-ID: <960908005736_76216.2421_HHB48-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"MSeGb2.0.H46.tfXCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/518 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris is quoting the CIS Science forum Sysop here: > "I should also remind everyone of the Tohuku Top > Experiment: they published in PRL (or maybe PRD) > unambiguous evidence that tops spinning in one direction > weigh less on a precision scale than tops spinning in the > other direction. NIST (or maybe it was NBS back then) was > able to replicate the result on another scale, but only after > introducing a tiny mechanical linkage between the scale and > the tops." I was wondering just what that would mean, exactly. So they're mechanically linked. Is this assumed to have something to do with the earth's rotation causing the gyros to precess, and that such a precessional force at that point on the earth's surface might have a small net vertical component? I'm trying to visualize it as a version of that Laithwaite rig we were just discussing. Is that close? But then even if it were not linked, wouldn't the vertical component still make the gyro appear to weigh more (or less, depending on spin direction) than normal, since gravity is holding it down against the scale anyway? I think I recall from the description that the weight change was in one direction only, where a precessional force should go either way depending on spin direction. Anyway, propping up your experimental results by leaning them against another result that is now thought, rightly or wrongly, to be bogus - yow. The kiss of death in skeptical hands. Line up a couple more such glitches, and it would be like F&P's original announcement all over again. Any orthodox labs or organizations that aren't seen redshifting off in the opposite direction might stick around just long enough to debunk it in front of the media. I'd like it to at least get a fair test. If it's not real, I'd like to be able to have some confidence in any announcements regarding that outcome as well. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 18:44:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA00759; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 18:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 18:35:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609080128.SAA02057@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Tampere References To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 18:28:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3231FCF4.5BCA@pacbell.net> from "hjscudde@pacbell.net" at Sep 7, 96 03:53:40 pm 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: <"7lRg53.0.mB.HBYCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/519 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Robert > I missed the WF Edwards reference in August. Could you please repeat it? > Hamk Here's all the references. Also see Feynman Volume 2 Chapter 13, and Chapter 26, and Figure 26-4. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here's some more references related to the Tampere experiment. That showed up on Usenet in early September. Posted by Timothy Thompson of JPL. ========================================================== A POSSIBILITY OF GRAVITATIONAL FORCE SHIELDING BY BULK YBA2CU3O7-X SUPERCONDUCTOR Article (Refs:8) by Podkletnov-E (*R) Nieminen-R Tampere Univ,Inst Mat Sci,Pob 589/SF-33101 Tampere//FINLAND/ PHYSICA C v203(3-4): pp441-444 (1992 Dec 10) ---------------------------------------------------------- Shielding properties of single-phase dense bulk superconducting ceramics of YBa2Cu3O7-x against the gravitational force were studied at temperatures below 77 K. A small non-conducting and non-magnetic sample weighing 5.48 g was placed over a levitating superconducting disk and the loss of weight was measured with high precision using an electro-optical balance system. The sample was found to lose from 0.05 to 0.3% of its weight, depending on the rotation speed of the superconducting disk. Partial loss of weight might be the result of a certain state of energy which exists inside the crystal structure of the superconductor at low temperatures. The unusual state of energy might have changed a regular interaction between electromagnetic, nuclear and gravitational forces inside a solid body and is responsible for the gravity shielding effect. ============================================================= ================================================================ DOES A SUPERCONDUCTOR SHIELD GRAVITY? Article (Refs:5) by Unnikrishnan-CS (*R) Tata Inst Fundamental Res,Gravitat Experiments Grp,Homi Bhabha Rd/ Bombay 400005/Maharashtra/INDIA/ PHYSICA C v266(1-2): pp133-137 (1996 Jul 20) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Recently there were some experimental observations which were interpreted as due to a shielding of the gravitational interaction by a superconducting disc in a static configuration as well as when set in rotation. We examine the experiments in detail and point out some difficulties which should be eliminated before reliable results can be claimed. The data from these experiments provide an internal check on the correctness of the hypothesis and we argue that the observed results are inconsistent with the hypothesis of shielding and therefore they are not due to shielding of the Earth's gravity. Our preliminary experiments in the static case do not show any evidence for the reported shielding. ================================================================ ================================================================ ABSENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL ANALOG TO THE MEISSNER EFFECT Article (Refs:14) by Ciubotariu-C (*R) Agop-M Tech Univ Iaso,Dept Phys,Strada Dacia 9,Cartierul Cantemir, Oficiul Postal/R-6600 Iasi//ROMANIA/ GENERAL RELATIVITY AND GRAVITATION v28(4): pp405-412 (1996 Apr) ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the framework of the weak stationary gravitational field and low velocity, we investigate the gravitomagnetic effects on a superconductor. We show that we have no gravitomagnetic shielding, and thus no generalized Meissner gravitational effect in superconductors. ================================================================ ================================================================ INTERACTION BETWEEN GRAVITY AND MOVING SUPERCONDUCTORS Article (Refs:54) by Peng-H (*R) Lind-G Chin-YS Univ Alabama,CSPAR/Huntsville//AL/35899 GENERAL RELATIVITY AND GRAVITATION v23 (11) : pp1231-1250 (1991) ----------------------------------------------------------------- We propose a unified phenomenological theory to investigate the interaction between arbitrarily moving superconductors and gravitational fields including the Newtonian gravity, gravitational waves, vector transverse gravitoelectric fields, and vector gravitomagnetic fields. In the limit of weak field and low velocity, the expressions for the induced electromagnetic and gravitational fields in the interior of a moving superconductor are obtained. The Meissner effect, London moment, DeWitt effect, effects of gravitational wave on a superconductor, and induced electric fields in the interior of a freely vibrating superconductor are recovered from these two expressions. We demonstrate that the weak equivalence principle is valid in superconductivity, that Newtonian gravity and gravitational waves will penetrate either a moving superconductor or a superconductor at rest, and that a superconductor at rest cannot shield either vector gravitomagnetic fields or vector transverse gravitoelectric fields. ================================================================== Aside from these, there are a number of papers in the literature, specifically on antigravity. Several interpretations of general relativity can produce anti-gravitational effects, and likewise for competing theories. For instance ... =================================================================== THE THEORY OF ANTIGRAVITY Article (Refs:0) by Aspden-H (*R) Univ Southampton,Dept Elect Engn/Southampton SO9 5NH/Hants/ENGLAND/ PHYSICS ESSAYS v4(1): pp13-19 (1991) ------------------------------------------------------------------- This paper extends the principles of earlier gravitational theory by which the constant of gravitation G has been deduced in terms of an electrodynamically based graviton theory. Demonstrable anomalous gravitational effects reproducible in the laboratory, which reveal the prospect of antigravitational action, are discussed. It is shown that the theory does include features which can explain observed antigravitational effects. The action points to vacuum energy fluctuations arising from graviton decay and regeneration. Recently reported weight loss accompanying gyroscopic spin in a nonprecessing mode is also explained. =================================================================== =================================================================== GRAVITATIONAL SHIELDING Note (Refs:8) by Eckhardt-DH (*R) USAF,Geophys Lab/Bedford//MA/01731 PHYSICAL REVIEW D v42(6): pp2144-2145 (1990) ------------------------------------------------------------------ No abstract is available for this article. ================================================================== From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 20:01:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA13440; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 19:55:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 19:55:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 22:54:19 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960907225317.6ef7b4dc@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: home page Resent-Message-ID: <"GIJ8h.0.wH3.JMZCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/520 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:11 PM 9/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >Yusmar updates will be found on http://members.aol.com/fznidarsic > >Frank Z > > Frank, Thanks for the site, and the picture. Data would be nice. In fact, any data showing any evidence of o/u performance has been requested, rerequested, and still appears to be lacking. That might include any kind of baseline, and background thermal loss of the system, in any type of calorimetric setup. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 21:39:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA27494; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 21:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 21:32:49 -0700 (PDT) From: roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net (Chuck Davis) Message-Id: <2325aa6d.u8t20e.e84d1-roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Mallove on Lauralee Show Right now... In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960907225317.6ef7b4dc@world.std.com> (from Mitchell Swartz ) (at Sat, 7 Sep 1996 22:54:19 -0400) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 7 Sep 96 21:30:27 Resent-Message-ID: <"1wRRc.0.Wj6.mnaCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/521 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 22:34:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA09938 for billb@eskimo.com; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 22:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 22:34:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: ekwall2@november.diac.com Sat Sep 7 22:34:47 1996 Received: from diac.com (diac.com [207.17.190.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA09917 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 22:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ekwall2@localhost) by diac.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA28455 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 05:35:18 GMT Old-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 23:35:18 -0600 (MDT) From: -steve ekwall- X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mallove on Lauralee Show Right now... In-Reply-To: <2325aa6d.u8t20e.e84d1-roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 7 Sep 1996, Chuck Davis wrote: > Date: Sat, 7 Sep 96 21:30:27 > From: Chuck Davis > Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Mallove on Lauralee Show Right now... > Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 21:32:49 -0700 (PDT) > Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Lauralee Show?? channel= Freq= Transponder= (???) ------------------oOOOo--( 0 0 )--oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 22:59:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA12955; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 22:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 22:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 22:56:19 -0700 Message-Id: <199609080556.WAA27973@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Mallove on Lauralee Show Right now... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"nWm8g3.0.FA3.g0cCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/522 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: Zilch except subject title. What's the Lauralee Show & where was it showing? -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 23:11:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA14205; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 23:06:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 23:06:42 -0700 (PDT) From: roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net (Chuck Davis) Message-Id: <2325c05e.u8t20e.4a318-roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mallove on Lauralee Show Right now... In-Reply-To: <199609080556.WAA27973@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> (from aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki )) (at Sat, 7 Sep 1996 22:56:19 -0700) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 96 23:04:03 Resent-Message-ID: <"Fb9c22.0.sT3.n9cCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/523 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hello Akira, on Sep 7 you wrote: It's on radio. I'm in LA listening to KOH, Reno. She has spotty coverage out of Seattle. KOH is at 780 kHz. KOB in NM is 770 kHz. www.lauralee.com for more stations. Tonight seems to be her night for alternative energy. She's doing Brown's Gas now. >You wrote: > >Zilch except subject title. What's the Lauralee Show & where was it >showing? > >-AK- > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 23:14:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA14663; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 23:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 23:10:02 -0700 (PDT) From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 02:09:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: Meissner not gravity To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-id: <01I97WSZJFK28X8IP2@delphi.com> X-VMS-To: INTERNET"vortex-l@eskimo.com" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Resent-Message-ID: <"SCOvS2.0.za3.vCcCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/524 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Ross Tessien wrote: >if you can explain to me precisely what the mechanism is for a magnetic >field Beats me, wish I knew. >So, what you are trying to tell me is that the force pulling the SC toward >the magnet becomes stronger as I pull the SC away while in space. This >makes no sense. No force should become stronger with an increase in >separation distance. The forces as you have said are balanced. The distance does not change until you apply enough force to dislodge the floating magnet. At this time you now have three forces (four counting gravity) acting on the floating magnet. What happens next can be figured using a vector. By lifting up or pulling down the amount of force to pin becomes less for the SC, you are suppling the force to maintain the greater distance, not the SC. Joe Flynn Flynn Research From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 23:25:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA16369; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 23:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 23:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 23:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609080620.XAA25556@austria.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: Brown's Gas Resent-Message-ID: <"LAFHw2.0.h_3.KNcCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/525 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Books I and II can be ordered through the International Tesla Society, but I >didn't see "Brown's Gas Reports" in the listing I have. Ask about them. The "Brown's Gas Reports" is published by: George Wiseman Box 145 Eastport, Idaho 83826 The Reports will probably be incorporated in "Brown's Gas Book 2" and 3. Michael Randall From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 23:33:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA17944 for billb@eskimo.com; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 23:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 23:33:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: ekwall2@november.diac.com Sat Sep 7 23:33:46 1996 Received: from diac.com (diac.com [207.17.190.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA17915 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 23:33:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ekwall2@localhost) by diac.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA01105 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 06:34:23 GMT Old-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:34:23 -0600 (MDT) From: -steve ekwall- X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mallove on Lauralee Show Right now... In-Reply-To: <2325c05e.u8t20e.4a318-roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 7 Sep 1996, Chuck Davis wrote: > Date: Sat, 7 Sep 96 23:04:03 > From: Chuck Davis > Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Mallove on Lauralee Show Right now... > Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 23:06:42 -0700 (PDT) > Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Hello Akira, on Sep 7 you wrote: > > It's on radio. I'm in LA listening to KOH, Reno. She has spotty coverage > out of Seattle. KOH is at 780 kHz. KOB in NM is 770 kHz. > > www.lauralee.com for more stations. Tonight seems to be her night for > alternative energy. She's doing Brown's Gas now. > > >You wrote: > > > >Zilch except subject title. What's the Lauralee Show & where was it > >showing? > > > >-AK- Oh, local North/West AM radio -=thanks=-, out of area here however! Syndicated (nationally) or higherBAND width (ham?).. UPDATE US with programs 'success'. ------------------oOOOo--( 0 0 )--oOOOo------------------ -=Steve Ekwall=- O POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com wk.1.800.798.1100 ekwall2@freenet.scri.fsu.edu_________________1.303.293.2FAX Sleep is NOT the Brother of DEATH,BUT the Mother of INTERRUPTS! From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 7 23:53:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA20382; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 23:50:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 23:50:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: 08 Sep 96 02:46:04 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Podkletnov paper question Message-ID: <960908064603_100433.1541_BHG35-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"C6SlZ1.0.N-4.YocCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/526 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, > If a top loses weight, then forget all this superconductor > stuff---that alone is amazing! I find it inconceivable that > POdkletnov put the trhow away line at the end of his 1992 paper > saying its well known that spinning objects lose weight---with no > further clarification or even a reference. Did anyone even referee > that paper? Thats like ending a paper with the comment that its > well known that humans can bend spoons with their minds. > > I'd like to see the new Pod. paper---but given his first one, I > seriously question his scienific skills. These things are very difficult to evaluate. The problem with the spinning top is that the claimed weight loss was microscopic, not far from the limits of measurement. And the other problem is that if anyone publishes a paper which appears to show that that a remarkable claim is no more than an artefact - then the latter paper tends to get less careful study. Sagan enshrined this principle by saying that remarkable claims require remarkable evidence - which is in fact the enshrinement of prejudice by somebody who can't think straight. Evidence is evidence and proof is proof. The better statement is that we should believe nothing new without proof - a crude paraphrase of Ockham. But in the case of the top, that proof is lacking - so far as I know. So I don't believe it. On the other hand, if Podkletnov is right about a superconductor, then conceivably an ordinary conductor just might show the merest ghost of the effect? As for our dear Dr Pod, well ... I wrote this to someone yesterday: ----------------- The essential problem is that for every revolution in science, there has been a crank turning it. Whether or not he needs to be barking mad to try to turn the wheel, or whether he is driven mad by a combination of greed for money or glory, and the reception his peers give to his ideas, I just do not know. But for certain a lot of the revolutionaries brought on themselves most of the flak they got - and still get. ------------- Podkletnov, it would seem, wrote a pretty slack paper when he first reported all this. Then a better one in 1995, which addressed some of the weaknesses in the first one. And now a better one yet, good enough for the reviewers at the Institute of Physics. My own feeling is that a rather enthusiastic doctoral student saw something, and rather than ignore it he followed it up - and perhaps got into conflict with others as a result. Adversarial science is bad science. Neither side thinks straight, and they stop abiding by the rules. How history treats that depends on who wins the fight - just as when a navy captain disobeys an order, and is covered with medals or cashiered - depending on the outcome. I think that the only approach is to try to form a dispassionate opinion based on the papers (published or otherwise), preferably backed up by a site visit to a purportedly working device. And, as a further test, we have to step back from the science; in other words if it is felt that the experiment is not clearly flawed (and we know it isn't, unless it is clear fraud, because IoPhys are/were going to publish it) and its significance is sufficiently high, and the cost is not too great for whatver budget may be available - then its potential importance makes it worth a replication attempt. I note that the News Editor of the Sunday Telegraph has not run Matthews' second article today - or maybe Matthews feels that the fog has not cleared enough for the article to see daylight. Whatever is the truth in all this, we can only hope (and I think it is a slim hope indeed) that this whole business will be approached by everybody in the kind of rational way I outline above. In fact, I fear that Dr Podkletnov's *apparent* haste, carelessness and whatever else he may have got up to will be given more weight than a paper which did at least survive some heavy peer review. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 00:13:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA22434; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 23:11:42 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Meissner not gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"4hcsk1.0.SU5.l2dCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/527 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >sure, but I think a quick and dirty run at this experiment is doomed to >failure...one of the things that appears to be key to Pod's work is to have >the SC both spinning and levitating above an electromagnet. This is no >small order. [snip] > - Scott Little I know it's not the same experiment, but if the motor turns the magnet the suspended SC should follow. Just another variation, but the motor heat flow is then more to the magnet and less to the suspended SC. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 00:15:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA22605; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960908071353.006fc8dc@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, 08 Sep 1996 00:13:53 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Podkletnov paper question Resent-Message-ID: <"LB2D72.0.3X5.A4dCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/528 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:28 PM 9/7/96 PDT, you wrote: > >In the first 1992 antigravity paper, there is a sentence >in the sunnary that says it is well known that >an object rotating around its vertical axis loses >part of its weight. > >Uh...what is he talking about? This principle simple doesn't >ring a bell with anything I recall learning about physics... >the paper simply throws it in at the end with no further explanation. > > > From: http://www.padrak.com/ine/RS_REF2.html Jaegu Kim, "Gravitational Field of a Moving Spinning Point Particle", Journal of the Korean Physical Society, Vol 27 No 5, Oct 94, Pages 479-483 In the above papers, Dr. Kim derives solutions for the Einstein-Maxwell equations for: a charged massless point particle, a point particle having mass but no charge, a point particle having mass and charge, a massless point particle with charge and spin, and finally -- a point particle having charge, mass, and spin. He determines that there is a region of space around a charged spinning mass in which the gravitational force is negative. That's math only, but it's a subset of physics. The math on a micro level would appear to be supporting observation on a viewable scale in this case, in combination with the 1992 paper. Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 00:25:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA24277; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:19:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:19:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960908072442.0070abe8@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, 08 Sep 1996 00:24:42 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Meissner not gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"-PG4e1.0.Ex5.JEdCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/529 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >This eliminates gravitation from the picture and leaves just the SC effect. >So, what you are trying to tell me is that the force pulling the SC toward >the magnet becomes stronger as I pull the SC away while in space. This >makes no sense. No force should become stronger with an increase in >separation distance. > I would be interested in knowing, if a spherical SC were used, whether the magnet could orbit it, in zero g. The levitated peas in accoustic standing waves would come to mind. Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 00:32:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA25358; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:27:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:27:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 01:27:55 -0600 (MDT) From: -steve ekwall- X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Meissner not gravity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"-POHq3.0.7C6.PLdCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/530 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 7 Sep 1996, Horace Heffner wrote: > From: Horace Heffner > Subject: Re: Meissner not gravity > Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:07:28 -0700 (PDT) > [snip]--------------------------------------------- > >sure, but I think a quick and dirty run at this experiment is doomed to > >failure...one of the things that appears to be key to Pod's work is to have > >the SC both spinning and levitating above an electromagnet. This is no > >small order. > [snip]--------------------------------------------- > > - Scott Little > > I know it's not the same experiment, but if the motor turns the magnet the > suspended SC should follow. Just another variation, but the motor heat > flow is then more to the magnet and less to the suspended SC. > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > Horace, have you considered using 'remote motor' as a 'pin-will' type driver? remove the motor heat from area via belt or shaft drive ( connect magnet(s) ) to end/shaft. -=good luck=- -=Steve Ekwall=- POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com 'SLEEP is NOT the wk.1.800.798.1100 303.293.2FAX Brother of DEATH, BUT the CML#41251 ------------------MOTHER of INTERRUPTS!'------------------- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 02:58:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA08644; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 02:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 02:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 96 02:55:48 PDT From: Barry Merriman Message-Id: <9609080955.AA02364@joshua.math.ucla.edu> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Podkletnov paper question Resent-Message-ID: <"ErT0d1.0.-62.kWfCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/531 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gary Hawkins refers to Jaegu Kim, "Gravitational Field of a Moving Spinning Point Particle", Journal of the Korean Physical Society, Vol 27 No 5, Oct 94, Pages 479-483 which finds solutions of general relativistic equations with variations from the inverse square law for a point mass. That is all well and good, but being done within classical relativity the _magintude_ of these effects undoubtably goes like v/c and the ration of the length scale of interest to the planck length scale. There are about 8 orders of magnitude between this and the effect observed by Podkletnov---so I don;t think one can seriously claim they support his findings. Anyway, I would love to see Pod's new paper---presumably it addresses many obvious shortcomings in his original paper, since he's had four years to think it over. Maybe this time he will even give out enough info for someone to replicate the work. Personally, to anyone thinking of reproducing the effect: I would contact POdkletnov directly first, and get the procedure straight from the horses mouth. In fact, if I were going to do it myself I think it would save money in the long run to go visit him in person and see it in his lab first, maybe even pick up a material sample while there. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 03:38:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id DAA10572; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 03:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 03:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: 08 Sep 96 06:34:16 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com>, Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>, Vortex Subject: Watch this space Message-ID: <960908103416_100433.1541_BHG62-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"qrP063.0.2b2.B6gCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/532 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is on the Cserve Science forum. I'll keep an eye on that board and repost here anything he says. Chris -------------------------------------------------- Following the non-appearance in today's Sunday Telegraph of my follow-up account to the anti-gravity story last week (something over which, as a mere writer, I have no control whatsoever) I intend to publish the results of my conversations last Friday with all the principal parties involved on this Forum later today (Sun), time permitting. Robert Matthews Science Correspondent, The Sunday Telegraph From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 03:38:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id DAA10612; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 03:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 03:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: 08 Sep 96 06:34:29 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Meissner not gravity Message-ID: <960908103429_100060.173_JHB20-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"T0lDp2.0.kb2.c6gCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/533 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, >> one of the things that appears to be key to Pod's work is to have >the SC both spinning and levitating above an electromagnet. This is no >small order. [snip] > - Scott Little << I rather liked the idea of boiling off N through a perforated plate to act as a gas bearing for the SC disc. I would add to that the idea of angling the holes in the plate to impinge tangentially on the SC disc and so rotate it at the same time. You could still have magnets along the side face of the SC to provide the induced current, rather like a standard Watt-hour meter. Wadya think? Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 05:16:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA16763; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 05:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 05:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 07:13:22 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609081213.HAA16883@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: Scott, Re: Meissner not gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"gpu653.0.n54.iXhCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/534 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:57 PM 9/7/96 -0700, Ross wrote: >if you lift up on the SC, and then rotate the magnet so that it would force >the SC to follow around a circle if it remained pinned, such that the circle >is in a vertical plane, does the SC slide off of the magnet, or remain >pinned and follow the magnet all the way around? Never tried this (yet) but I'm pretty sure the SC would "try" to remain pinned... >What I am gettint at is whether or not the magnet will slip, ie does it >resist lateral shear. It's very interesting. the magnet can move freely in directions that don't cause the flux thru the SC to change. We have some bar-shaped neos (8mm x 8mm x 30mm) which are magnetized across one of the 8mm directions. You can lay one of them across the SC (which is only about 15mm in dia), get it pinned about 1mm above the SC surface, and then give it a horizontal shove. It will glide freely back and forth horizontally bouncing off magnetic "walls" at each end of the stroke (30mm-18mm). >And second, if you invert an SC that is attracting, >does the force reverse to become a repulsion Yes, the magnet becomes truly pinned at a particular distance from the SC. You can lift the SC by lifting the magnet...or you can set the assembly down and the magnet will float above the SC...or you can invert the assembly and the magnet will hang beneath the SC. NOTE: This strong flux-pinning phenomena has only been observed by me in the large-crystal 123's. I don't think the Colorado SC stuff is like this. I know the Edmund SC's are not like this...they show the 2nd form of the MEissner effect (i.e. expelling all magnetic fields). - 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-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 05:37:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA18211; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 05:34:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 05:34:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 07:34:13 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609081234.HAA17413@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: Meissner not gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"JEkpZ1.0.SS4.ErhCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/535 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:34 AM 9/8/96 EDT, Norman wrote: >I rather liked the idea of boiling off N through a perforated plate to act as a >gas bearing for the SC disc. I would add to that the idea of angling the holes >in the plate to impinge tangentially on the SC disc and so rotate it at the same >time. You could still have magnets along the side face of the SC to provide the >induced current, rather like a standard Watt-hour meter. >Wadya think? Norman Well, I agree that you could certainly float the SC that way and probably with quite a bit less trouble than the magnetic levitation that was apparently used by Pod...but it would be DIFFERENT than the way Pod did it. Is it _significantly_ different? Who knows? My intuition (still bruised) says that, since this whole thing is such an unexpected effect anyway, we should dogmatically reproduce precisely the apparatus that Pod used. - 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-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 05:56:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA19781; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 05:52:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 05:52:14 -0700 (PDT) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 08:51:35 -0400 Message-ID: <960908085133_518177339@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Errata in Correa article, IE #9 Resent-Message-ID: <"dKS5L2.0._q4.z5iCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/536 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Swartz caught a computation error in the labeling of Fig.4 in my article on the Correa invention in IE #8 and was kind enough to point it out in private correspondence. On reviewing my work, I found two more errors. The errors are not in the curves of Fig.4 or the coordinates; these are faithfully copied from the original figures as explained in the article. The visual impression of charge and energy o/u performance is correct. The errors are in my estimations of the charge from the DP and delivered to the CP, and energy delivered to the CP. I did these as a convenience for the reader, and made arithmetic and transcription errors. A quick triangular approximation of the charge and energy pulses delibvered to the CP, and correction of a transcription error for the charge delivered by the DP, gives the following numbers: Charge from the Drive Pack = .008 coulomb Charge delivered to the Charge Pack = .85 coulomb o/u ratio about 100 Energy from the Drive Pack = 4.4 joules Energy delivered to the Charge Pack = 290 joules o/u ratio about 66 The energy ratio is not the same as the charge ratio because the DP charge comes from a 570 V source and the CP charge goes into a sink at about 380 V. The revised numbers show an even greater o/u performance than my original numbers. I will do the graphical integration again and post more accurate numbers. There will also be an errata notice in IE #9. Mitchell also raised the question of simultaneous measurement. The original figures from Correa are graphical printouts from a digital instrumentation system. It is quite standard to provide differential probes which can measure the potential differences between many pairs of points in an electrical circuit simultaneously, while connected to a common ground in the recording instrument. The data are presented as simultaneous measurements, and I find no prima facie reason not to accept them as such. The Correa technology looks good. However, I welcome any and all critiques. Mark Hugo and Bob Horst have been helpful in pre-publication reviews. I'm only interested in getting it right and in an understandable form. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 07:00:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA23713; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 06:47:21 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 06:47:21 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 09:46:41 -0400 Message-ID: <960908094636_280053950@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: home page Resent-Message-ID: <"EVAr4.0.Po5.eviCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/537 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: We don't have the data yet. Our plan is not just to test the device but rather to make it work. We are going to try a number of things to take advantage of the high pressures produced by cavitation. Experiemnts are still at least a week away. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 07:00:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA23749; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 06:47:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 06:47:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 06:46:54 -0700 Message-Id: <199609081346.GAA15578@dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Brown's Gas Questions To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"_NxRs3.0.xo5.sviCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/538 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: 9/89/96 Has anyone experimented with and reported on chemical reactions of Brown's Gas with other elements and compounds? Can the H and O components of Brown's Gas be separated and used in other "exotic" chemical reactions? What are the chemical structures of H and O in Brown's Gas? Are they charged ions and how do they relate to each other? Has Brown's Gas been subjected to to testing such as spectral analysis? RWW From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 07:45:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA28561; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 07:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 07:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 07:34:18 -0700 Message-Id: <199609081434.HAA13623@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Errata in Correa article, IE #9 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"OTN_p.0.A-6.IcjCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/539 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Psst!, its IE #8 :~} -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 07:56:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA01086; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 07:51:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 07:51:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 07:51:14 -0700 Message-Id: <199609081451.HAA14194@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: Transmutation and Joe Champion To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"pbw2j1.0.uG.9sjCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/540 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: 9/8/96 Hafnium. Has there been independent confirmation of Dan York's amazing claim? RWW From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 07:57:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA01310; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 07:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 07:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 10:51:12 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960908105007.403f88ac@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: Errata in Correa article, IE #9 Resent-Message-ID: <"lnBXy3.0.MK.8ujCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/541 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mr. Carrell has published on vortex-l some of my preliminary discussions with him. This is unfortunate because he has implied that somehow I found a "computational error" which on second glance demonstrates more excess heat in experiment he, and others, purport as excess energy. Mr. Carrell's post says (excerpts taken_: mc> "Mitchell Swartz caught a computation error in the labeling of Fig.4 in my mc>article on the Correa invention in IE #8 and was kind enough to point it out mc>in private correspondence. mc>On reviewing my work, I found two more errors... mc>The revised numbers show an even greater o/u performance than my original mc>numbers. ... mc>The Correa technology looks good. mc>Mike Carrell" This posted message to vortex-l mischaracterizes the problem, and underestimates the seriousness and the nature of the issue brought to the Mike Carrell's attention, since he has been the author of that paper. The innuendo that anything I examined showed more excess heat in the Correa experiment, or that anything posted indicated such, is simply not true. Here are the facts: The problem begins at figure 4A in Infinite Energy, page 11, May-June 1996 issue which was received in the last couple of weeks. The article is entitled "The Correa Invention" by Michael Carrell. Coverage of this device appears to be a cover-feature matter of that magazine, which reviews purported overunity devices. First, all of the handwaving in the world do not explain away the following problem which is the basis of my original post to Mike about a published error in the last issue of Infinite Energy. My preliminary examination of the data shows that the integral of Correia input lists 24 coulombs which in my initial examination comes nowhere near the actual integral. In figure 4A, the y axis goes from 0 to 64.6 amps. the x axis goes from 0 to 150 milliseconds. the received charge is 24 coulombs. the received charge curve is the larger of the two curves, and presumably goes with the axes. If the curve represented a rectangle filling the entire graph it would only be 64 A * .15 seconds = circa 9 coulombs but the curve featured in Infinite Energy to show over-unity behavior is only a portion of that amount -- a fraction of it -- but the graph explicitly states 24 amp-sec = 24 coulombs. Therefore, upon first inspection by the semiquantitative analysis of the published date, the amount of charge transferred appears to be closer to 2.4 coulombs. which would make the output 4.2 joules for 4.4 joules input. This is not overunity. This is not to say that o/u does not exist for this device, only that based upon curve 4A there are major quantitative errors as discussed above with no evidence of o/u performance in the equipment associated with figure 4 if figure 4, as labelled, faithfully represents the experiment. ---------------- Second, Mr. Carrel speaks of a "computational error" which I found. I am honored but have not even considered the computation as yet. There is no data available for inspection that explains the false labelling which when examined closer demonstrates no excess heat. In fact, there could not have been computational inspection possible because such data is not even available to Mr. Carrell, who wrote to me of his interest in getting to it, and inability to do so: mc>"What I want to see are the voltage and current waveforms in the reactor mc >itself, but these are propreitary. mc > I do not have access to original tabular data, which in itself would not mc>answer the question about simultaneous measurement of different parts of the mc >circuit. " .... mc>The battery calibration charts in the patents raise a lot of questions and I mc>discussed them at length with Paulo, finally arriving at the revision in the mc>article which better portrays the procedure used. There are still some mc>details I'm not entirely satisified with, based on the illustrations, which mc>are an illustrator's reconstruction of test data. > mc>After some discussion, Paulo sent me some waveforms from a European patent mc>which on close inspection were very unsatisfactory, and when I asked him mc>about them he agreed that they were erroneous and sent me three sets taken mc>with modern digital instrumentation. For some reason he declined to provide mc>make and model. I chose one illustration for the article." ---------------- Third, in summary, upon first examination of curve 4A, there is a mislabelling error that is obvious to anyone attempting even semiquantitative analysis of this. Hope that sets the record straight. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 08:06:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA01529; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 07:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 07:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 10:54:45 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960908105341.114fd48e@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: Erratum in Correa article, IE #8 Resent-Message-ID: <"nzP3h3.0.lN.UvjCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/542 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: There is a problem in figure 4A in Infinite Energy, page 11, May-June 1996. The article is entitled "The Correa Invention" by Michael Carrell. Coverage of this device appears to be a cover-feature matter of that magazine, which reviews purported overunity devices. My preliminary examination of the data shows that the integral of Correia input lists 24 coulombs which in my initial examination comes nowhere near the actual integral. In figure 4A, the y axis goes from 0 to 64.6 amps. the x axis goes from 0 to 150 milliseconds. the received charge is 24 coulombs. the received charge curve is the larger of the two curves, and presumably goes with the axes. If the curve represented a rectangle filling the entire graph it would only be 64 A * .15 seconds = circa 9 coulombs but the curve featured in Infinite Energy to show over-unity behavior is only a portion of that amount -- a fraction of it -- but the graph explicitly states 24 amp-sec = 24 coulombs. Therefore, upon first inspection by the semiquantitative analysis of the published date, the amount of charge transferred appears to be closer to 2.4 coulombs. which would make the output 4.2 joules for 4.4 joules input. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 09:38:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA15194; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 09:28:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 09:28:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960908163326.006f529c@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, 08 Sep 1996 09:33:26 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Brown's Gas Questions Resent-Message-ID: <"ZMYFc.0.Kj3.cGlCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/543 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:46 AM 9/8/96 -0700, you wrote: >9/89/96 > >Can the H and O components of Brown's Gas be separated >and used in other "exotic" chemical reactions? Some speculation has been that Brown's Gas allows for monotomic hydrogen and oxygen together for a limited time. This can imply that the two in the same container would somehow be providing just enough attraction to each other to prevent a collapsing of two hydrogens together, or two oxygens. Likely not supported by chemical realities. But if there is any element of truth to it, then it would imply that separating the H from the O would simply give H2, and O2, for nothing unusual. >Has Brown's Gas been subjected to to testing such as spectral analysis? Although not spectral analysis here per se, the flame itself was subjected to an infrared pyrometer as it acted on tungsten, to measure temperature. The situation is told about in Explore Magazine, vol 3, no 6, 1992, in an article by Christopher Bird, called "Fire From Water". For their address: http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/h-o/ Basically, one of three companies in the region was said to be capable of measuring such high temperatures: 'Diversified Inspections' of California. They said they measured 6000 C (10,858 F), but would not release the report in print, apparently not certain their equipment was registering properly. Btw, Lithium-Oxide, I am told, has a boiling point of 13,000 F, higher than tungsten at 10,220 F. One might wonder how its boiling point was determined. I do not know of anyone having tried Brown's Gas on Lithium-Oxide. As far as spectral analysis on the gas itself, and a determination of the precise frequencies that show up during its use, and as far as the other questions, I leave those for someone else. [No match for "Diversified Inspections", CA, in the Thomas Register on the web. Thanks to Scott Little for the tip on that highly useful resource]. Someone in Hot Springs, ID, would like this experiment to be tried: Apply Brown's Gas to a metal plate with a wire attached, leading to an ammeter, then back to the case of the unit, and see if it generates any current while being applied. (My shop is down, due to a move). Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 10:05:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA20446; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 10:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 10:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609081653.JAA21740@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: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 10:02:00 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Re: Transmutation and Joe Champion Resent-Message-ID: <"nsXo21.0.L_4.tklCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/545 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:51 AM 9/8/96 -0700, you wrote: >9/8/96 > >Hafnium. Has there been independent confirmation of Dan York's amazing >claim? > >RWW At this time samples are at three different laboratories. Emission and mass studies "should" be available this week. Other studies on the material are also being completed and I will be reported priopr to 13 Sept 96. _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 10:09:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA20226; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 09:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 09:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 09:59:11 -0700 Message-Id: <199609081659.JAA26602@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: Meissner not gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"BJ2kv.0.sx4.hjlCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/544 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Well, I agree that you could certainly float the SC that way and probably >with quite a bit less trouble than the magnetic levitation that was >apparently used by Pod...but it would be DIFFERENT than the way Pod did it. >Is it _significantly_ different? Who knows? My intuition (still bruised) >says that, since this whole thing is such an unexpected effect anyway, we >should dogmatically reproduce precisely the apparatus that Pod used. > - Scott Little Scott; There should be a two pronged approach. One prong should be to verify the apparatus and the result. The majority of people will attempt to do this as soon as the paper is out. The second prong should be aimed at determining new physics. Take from what you know and make some wild guesses as to how to change the apparatus and to seek different effects. If one new effect is there, then hundreds are lurking. As far as the gas float table with rotational capability, as soon as I finish up with some machining (approx. three weeks), I could build such a device. I could even embed some ceramic magnets into it if desired and could create a recess into the entire table for the disk to rotate in, thus "captivating" it in a floatation well so it doesn't just wander around. How large are the ceramic components you have made, and that you could make (or purchase)? And is there any way that I could get my hands on some? Ross Tessien, Impulse Engineering, Inc. (800) 5 - IMPULS or, (916) 273-8807 if that doesn't work in your area FAX (916) 273-5119 (But the fax is a modem, so there are times when I am on the net and it isn't up. if it doesn't go through, send it twice within minutes since I normally fire up the fax when a message comes in if it is not up. It is normally on line during business hours, and off when I am on the net) Later, Ross From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 10:09:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA20885; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 10:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 10:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 13:01:12 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Brown's Gas 'temperature' In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960908163326.006f529c@mail.eskimo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Rn2uc3.0.E65.kmlCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/546 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Some comments on this topic related to temperature; > > Although not spectral analysis here per se, the flame itself was > subjected to an infrared pyrometer as it acted on tungsten, to > measure temperature. The situation is told about in Explore Magazine, > vol 3, no 6, 1992, in an article by Christopher Bird, called > "Fire From Water". For their address: > http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/h-o/ The hydrox flame is well know for its temperature. Flame temperatures and melting and boiling point temperatures can be found in CRC handbook. Don't have mine handy so I won't give you exact figures. Hydrox will easily develop 2,000 to 2,500 C Any measurements of melting and so on will be a good experience to anyone who has never worked in this temperature range. I have done work here and enjoy it because all the 'rules' ,in my opinion, are "squishy"; 2000 C is above incandescence ..... have a good time trying to see what is happening.... When ou are out in this 'neverland' you wonder... 'Is it melting....or am I causing a chemical reaction '? The later may be difficult to determine at times with hydrox. > > Basically, one of three companies in the region was said to be capable > of measuring such high temperatures: 'Diversified Inspections' of > California. They said they measured 6000 C (10,858 F), but would > not release the report in print, apparently not certain their > equipment was registering properly. > > Btw, Lithium-Oxide, I am told, has a boiling point of 13,000 F, > higher than tungsten at 10,220 F. One might wonder how its boiling > point was determined. I do not know of anyone having tried Brown's > Gas on Lithium-Oxide. > > As far as spectral analysis on the gas itself, and a determination > of the precise frequencies that show up during its use, and as far > as the other questions, I leave those for someone else. > > [No match for "Diversified Inspections", CA, in the Thomas Register > on the web. Thanks to Scott Little for the tip on that highly > useful resource]. > > Someone in Hot Springs, ID, would like this experiment to be tried: > > Apply Brown's Gas to a metal plate with a wire attached, leading > to an ammeter, then back to the case of the unit, and see if it > generates any current while being applied. (My shop is down, > due to a move). > > Gary Hawkins > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 10:17:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA23013; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 10:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 10:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 09:17:17 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Meissner not gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"94edX.0.Vd5.EwlCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/547 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 06:34 AM 9/8/96 EDT, Norman wrote: > >>I rather liked the idea of boiling off N through a perforated plate to >>act as a >>gas bearing for the SC disc. I would add to that the idea of angling the >>holes >>in the plate to impinge tangentially on the SC disc and so rotate it at the >same >>time. You could still have magnets along the side face of the SC to >provide the >>induced current, rather like a standard Watt-hour meter. > >>Wadya think? Norman > >Well, I agree that you could certainly float the SC that way and probably >with quite a bit less trouble than the magnetic levitation that was >apparently used by Pod...but it would be DIFFERENT than the way Pod did it. >Is it _significantly_ different? Who knows? My intuition (still bruised) >says that, since this whole thing is such an unexpected effect anyway, we >should dogmatically reproduce precisely the apparatus that Pod used. [snip] > - Scott Little Maybe the current induced around the ring by the coils circling the ring is more important than the motion of the ring that is induced, or the current in the levitating coils and the levitation. Maybe the overall coil/ring geometry is more important than the levitation/rotation part. Maybe some high frequency alternation dependent on the geometry and distances is set up. Too many maybe's. Scott, Your linearly "sliding" magnets may offer a great way to isolate the importance of the SC motion by separating the motion/levitation aspect from the other variables. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 10:39:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA26747; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 10:35:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 10:35:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 09:39:59 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' Resent-Message-ID: <"JYOre1.0.lX6.aFmCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/548 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Schnurer writes: > > The hydrox flame is well know for its temperature. Flame >temperatures and melting and boiling point temperatures can be found in >CRC handbook. Don't have mine handy so I won't give you exact figures. > Hydrox will easily develop 2,000 to 2,500 C > Any measurements of melting and so on will be a good experience >to anyone who has never worked in this temperature range. > I have done work here and enjoy it because all the 'rules' ,in my >opinion, are "squishy"; > 2000 C is above incandescence ..... have a good time trying to >see what is happening.... > When ou are out in this 'neverland' you wonder... 'Is it >melting....or am I causing a chemical reaction '? The later may be >difficult to determine at times with hydrox. > > This points out one of the big mytseries of Brown's gas which is perported to melt tungsten. That requires much more than 2500 C, closer to 6000 C. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 11:16:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA02492; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 11:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 11:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609081758.KAA26666@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: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 11:07:08 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' Resent-Message-ID: <"xcTat2.0.sc.uhmCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/549 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >This points out one of the big mytseries of Brown's gas which is perported >to melt tungsten. That requires much more than 2500 C, closer to 6000 C. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > No mystery...... At temperatures starting around 800oC, metallic W will rapidly oxidize. Without saying, Brown's Gas has a ample supply of O. WO(x) has a melting point of ~1,500oC which is well within the temerature envelop of water gas. _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 11:38:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA07032; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 11:27:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 11:27:44 -0700 (PDT) From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 14:27:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Meissner not gravity To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-id: <01I98MK6ML0I8X8AB3@delphi.com> X-VMS-To: INTERNET"vortex-l@eskimo.com" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Resent-Message-ID: <"2qoKx2.0.oj1.V0nCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/550 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >I would be interested in knowing, if a spherical SC were used, >whether the magnet could orbit it, in zero g. The levitated peas >in accoustic standing waves would come to mind. >Gary Hawkins Wouldn't a spherical shape short external magnetic fields from the SC? Joe Flynn Flynn Research From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 11:40:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA07295; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 11:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 11:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960908183401.006d01d8@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, 08 Sep 1996 11:34:01 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' Resent-Message-ID: <"rjcYQ.0.vn1.e1nCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/551 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >This points out one of the big mytseries of Brown's gas which is perported >to melt tungsten. That requires much more than 2500 C, closer to 6000 C. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > > Correction. It does not melt tungsten. It boils it, instantly. That requires 5660 degrees C, (10,220 degrees Fahrenheit). Quite the thing to observe. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 12:33:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA19548; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 12:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 12:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: 08 Sep 96 15:26:04 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: ICCF6 Schedule Message-ID: <960908192603_72240.1256_EHB46-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"fH-C71.0.Mn4.YunCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/553 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex This is the full schedule. I posted part of it earlier. I will put this in my home page when I get around to it. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THE SIXTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION October 13-18, 1996 Hotel Apex Toya, Hokkaido, Japan Sponsored by: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM Oral presentations will be given in the mornings of 14-17 October and in the afternoon of 17 October, 1996. Oral presentations will consist of the following categories. * Excess Heat * Helium and Heat Correlation * Excess Energy and Nuclear Products * Innovative Approach * Material Science Studies * NHE Session * Nuclear Physics Approach Special Sessions will be given in the evening of 14 and 15 October, 1996. Special Sessions will consist of the following categories. * Cold Fusion Activities in Russia * Special Lecture by Prof. Fleischmann * CETI Session * Special Session on Transmutation Poster presentations will be displayed on 14 and 15 October. Also there will be poster previews by authors in the afternoon of 14 and 15 October,1996. The poster presentation will consist of the following categories. * Excess Energy and Nuclear Products * Material Science Studies * Nuclear Physics Approach * Innovative Approach PRELIMINARY PROGRAM SCHEDULE MONDAY, OCTOBER 14 Opening Ceremony (8:50) Helium and Heat Correlation (9:00-12:00) Chair Dr. Celani, F. (Italy) Mr. McKubre, M.C.H. (U.S.A.) Dr. Yamagachi, E. (France) X-Ray, Heat Excess and 4He in the Electrochemical Confinement of Deuterium in Palladium Dr. Gozzi, D. (Italy) Mass Spectroscopic Search for Helium in Effluent Gas and Palladium Cathodes of D20 Electrolysis Cells Involving Excess Power Dr. Isagawa, S. (Japan) Achievement of Solid-State Plasma Fusion ("Cold Fusion") Dr. Arata, Y. (Japan) Heat and Helium Measurements Using Palladium and Palladium Alloys in Heavy Water Dr. Miles, M. H. (U.S.A.) Further Measurements on 4He Production from Pd/D2 Systems in Gas Phase Dr. Botta, E. (Italy) Study of Excess Heat and Nuclear Products with Closed D20 Electrolysis System Mr. Yasuda, K. (Japan) Poster Previews (14:00-15:00) Chair Mr. Matsui, K. (Japan) Dr. Tanzella, F. L. (U.S.A.) Cold Fusion Activities in Russia (20:00-21:00) Chair Dr. Kim, Y. E. (U.S.A.) Dr. Kozima, H. (Japan) Dr. Notoya, R. (Japan) On Cold Fusion Activity in Russia Dr. Samsonenko, N. (Russia) Dr. Tsare, V.(Russia) Special Lecture (21:00-22:00) Chair Dr. Ikegami, H. (Japan) Dr. Fleischmann, M. (U.K.) TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15 NHE Session (9:00-11:00) Chair Dr. Kunimatsu, K. (Japan) Dr. Miley, G. H. (U.S.A.) Material Behaviour of Highly Deuterium Loaded Palladium by Electrolysis Dr. Asami, N. (Japan) Development and Experiments on a Flow Calorimetry System Mr. Kubota, A. (Japan) Excess Heat in Fuel-Cell Type Cells from Pure Pd Cathodes Annealed at High Temperatures Dr. Kamimura, H. (Japan) Study on Material Processing and Treatment for High Deuterium Loading Mr. Senjuh, T. (Japan) New Hydrogen Energy Research at SRI International Mr. McKubre, M. C.H. (U.S.A.) Excess Heat I (11:20-12:00) Chair Dr. Bressani, T. (Italy) Dr. Iwamura, Y. (Japan) The ICARUS 9 Calorimeter: Summary of Three Years Designing, Testing and Operation of this Device at the IMRA Europe Science Center Mr. Pons, S. (France) High Power /Is Pulsed Electrolysis Using Long and Thin Pd Wires in Very Diluted LiOD-D20 Solution: Observation of Anomalous Excess Heat Dr. Celani, F. (Italy) Some Thoughts on the Nature of the Nuclear-Active Regions in Palladium Dr. Storms, E. K. (U.S.A.) Poster Previews (14:00 - 15:00) Chair Dr. Kasagi, J. (Japan) Dr. Crouch-Baker, S. (U.S.A.) CETI Session (20:00-21:00) Chair Dr. Miles, M. H. (U.S.A.) Dr. Ota, K. (Japan) Electrical Control of New Hydrogen Energy Reactions Dr. Cravens, D. (U.S.A.) Design Considerations for Multilayer ThinFilm PattersonType Micro spheres Dr. Miley, G. H. (U.S.A.) Experimental Observation of Massive Transmutations Occurring in Multilayer Thin-Film Microspheres after Electorolysis Dr. Miley, G. H. (U.S.A.) Electrochemistry and Calorimetry in a Packed-Bed Flow-Through Electrochemical Cell Dr. McKubre, M. C.H. (U.S.A.) Producing Excess Enthalpy and Nuclear Reaction Products in the Patterson Power Cell with Near 100% Reproducibility Mr. Nix, J. A. (U.S.A.) Analysis of Reaction Products from a CETI Cell Dr. Claytor, T. N. (U.S.A.) Special Session on Transmutation (21:00-22:00) Chair Dr. Passell, T. O. (U.S.A.) Dr. Takahashi, A. (Japan) Analysis of Nickel-Hydrogen Isotope System on TNCF Model Dr. Kozima, H. (Japan) Nuclear Transmutation in Cold Fusion Experiments Dr. Kozima, H. (Japan) Isotopic Distribution for the Elements Evolved in Palladium Cathode after Electrolysis in D20 Solution Dr. Mizano, T. (Japan) Production of Heavy Metal Elements and the Anomalous Surface Structure of the Electrode Produced during the Light Water Electrolysis on Au Electrode Dr. Ohmori, T. (Japan) Nuclear Reactions Caused by Electrolysis in Light and Heavy Water Solutions Dr. Notoya, R. (Japan) The Experimental Discovery of the Phenomenon of Controlling and Changing Probability and Time of Spontaneous Decay and Gamma-Transmutation of Excited Nuclei Statuses Dr. Vysotskii, V. 1. (Ukraine) Experimental Discovery of the Phenomenon of LowEnergy Nuclear Transmutation of Isotopes (Mn55 --> Fe57) in Growing Biological Cultures Dr. Vysotskii, V. I. (Ukraine) WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16 Material Science Studies (9:00-11:00) Chair Dr. Sakamoto, Y. (Japan) Dr. Scaramuzzi, F. (Italy) Progress Report on the Research Activities on Cold Fusion at ENEA Frascati Dr. Violante, V. (Italy) Searching of Neutron Emissions Induced by Electrical Currents and Phase Transitions in Titanium Deuteride Films Dr. Sanchez, C. (Spain) Calorimetric Enthalpies in the Beta-phase Regions of Pd black-H(D) Systems Dr. Sakamoto, Y. (Japan) Parameters Affecting the Loading of Hydrogen Isotopes into Palladium Cathodes Dr. Tanzella, F. L. (U.S.A.) Sustentation of Higher Deuterium Loading Ratio in Palladium Mr. Terazawa, T. (Japan) In Situ Determination of Structural Changes Accompanying the Electrochemical Absorption of Deuterium in Pd Using Synchrotron-Wiggler Radiation Dr. Hayans, P. L. (U.S.A.) Excess Heat II (11:20-12:00) Chair Dr. Crouch-Baker, S. (U.S.A.) Dr. Numata, H. (Japan) Cold Fusion Phenomena in Modified Fleischmann-Pons Electrolytic Cells Dr. Preparata, G. (Italy) Excess Heat Measurement at High Cathode Loading by Deuterium During Electrolysis of Heavy Water Dr. Kunimatsu, K. (Japan) [Wednesday afternoon devoted to excursion tour and banquet] THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17 Nuclear Physics Approach (9:00-10:40) Chair Dr. Iida, T. (Japan) Dr. Li, X. Z. (China) Tritium Production from Palladium and Palladium Alloys Dr. Claytor, T. N. (U.S.A.) Reaction Rates of the D + D Reaction in Metal at Very Low Energies Dr. Kasagi, J. (Japan) Optical Theorem Formulation and Gamow Factor Cancelation for Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Dr. Kim, Y. E. (U.S.A.) Correlation between Behavior of Deuterium in Palladium and Occurrence of Nuclear Reactions Observed by Simultaneous Measurement of Excess Heat and Nuclear Products Dr. Iwamura, Y. (Japan) Measurement of the Neutron Emission and Nuclear Products from Nax W03 in the Deuterium DC Plasma Environment Dr. Yamagachi, E. (France) Innovative Approach (11:00-12:00) Chair Dr. Kamimura, H. (Japan) Dr. Sanchez, C. (Spain) A Confirmation of Anomalous Thermal Power Generation from a Proton-Conducting Oxide Dr. Oriani, R. A. (U.S.A.) Solid Protonic Conductors: Conductivity, Structure, Proton Traps, Phase Transitions, Excess Heat and Neutron Anti-Effect Dr. Samgin, A. L. (Russia) Excess Energy and Nuclear Product (14:00-16:00) Chair Dr. Claytor, T. N. (U.S.A.) Dr. Gozzi, D. (Italy) Dr. Oyama, N. (Japan) Radiationless Cold Fusion: Why Small "Crystals" Are Better, N[cell] Requirement, and Energy Transfer to Lattice Dr. Chubb, T. A. (U.S.A.) Measurments of Excess Heat and Nuclear Products in PdD2O System Using Twin Open Type Electrolysis Cells Mr. Fukuoka, H. (Japan) Excess Heat Production and Nuclear Ash in PdO/Pd/PdO Heterostructure After Electrochemical Saturation With Deuterium Dr. Lipson, A. G. (Russia) Dynamic Movement of Hydrogen Isotopes in Pulse Mode Electrolysis Dr. Okamoto, M. (Japan) Correlation of Excess Heat and Neutron Emission in PdLiOD Electrolysis Mr. Ogawa, H. (Japan) "Excess Heat" Measurement in Gas-Loading (D/Pd) System Dr. Li, X. Z. (China) Summary (16:00-17:00) Dr. Bressani, T. (Italy) Dr. Ikegami, H. (Japan) Mr. McKubre, M. C. H. (U.S.A.) FRIDAY, OCTOBER 18 Technical Tour of the NHE Laboratory in Sapporo Outline of the New Hydrogen Energy Project at the NHE Laboratory. It was 1989 when Prof. Fleischmann and Prof. Pons announced the excess heat generation phenomena observation by electrolysis of heavy water using a palladium electrode. Since then, there have been many researchers who have observed this heat generation and the amount of heat sometimes cannot be explained by chemical reaction, but there are some theoretical models which may possibly explain the phenomena. Since the heat generation is essentially based on abundant deuterium, there arose an expectation to develop this phenomena as a non-oil energy source. A research and development project, named "New Hydrogen Energy"(NHE), started in Japan in November, 1993, to confirm the excess heat generation during electrolysis with Pd-LiOD system as the first priority objective. The aim of this project is to clarify the potential and possibility for the phenomena as a future energy source and to control heat generation quantitatively by its demonstration and understanding of the reaction mechanism. The project has been supported by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) and major industries in Japan. MITI has subsidized the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) for the project, which has consigned the Institute of Applied Energy (IAE) to conduct the related R&D over four years. IAE established a new laboratory - NHE Laboratory - in Sapporo in late 1993. The laboratory was reinforced by introducing of mass flow calorimetry systems, and reaction products detection systems in addition to electrolysis cells with some excess heat records. Three committees were established in NEDO with notable experts, some from the academic world and others from industry; the first committee is responsible for devising a basic plan and action programs, the second to evaluate R&D results and the third to plan and manage the action programs. The NHE R&D project as a whole consists of a national project and a multi - client industry supported project. The national project conducts mainly to examine excess heat generation for confirmation and demonstration. The latter project conducts related basic researches from nuclear physics to material science. These two projects have a close relationship and are mutually supported in cooperation. [End] From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 12:39:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA19462; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 12:27:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 12:27:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 11:31:37 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Meissner not gravity - longitudinal force? Resent-Message-ID: <"PkSDa1.0.xl4.JunCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/552 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >Other SC's, however, exhibit the "2nd form of the Meissner effect" in which >the magnet sitting on top of the SC is repelled away (i.e. lifted up) as the >SC becomes a SC. We have an older, presumably small-crystal, block of 123 >that clearly exhibits this latter behavior. This latter behavior is >completely at odds with the laws of magnetic induction and was first >"explained" by the phenomenological equations developed by the London >brothers. J = -kA is the one that says that a current will _spontaneously_ >arise in a SC in response to the presence of certain magnetic fields, >REGARDLESS of whether the field is changing with time or not. > > - Scott Little On the surface, J = -kA appears to be evidence of the longitudinal force. This suggests a longitudinal force is accelerating the electrons. This also gives rise to some possibilities for perpetual motion. Based on this the coils surrounding the ring could possibly be replaced with magnetron style ring magnets. This should both induce a current around the ring and cause the ring to turn. Either effect provides a source of infinite energy by simply alternately tapping the induced energy and letting it rebuild. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 13:10:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA25128; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 12:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 12:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 11:59:59 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Meissner not gravity - longitudinal force? Resent-Message-ID: <"QXLAh3.0.S86.sIoCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/554 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Is there any reason the various coils in Dr. Podkletnov's experiment could not be replaced by permanent magnets? If so, who needs anitgravity - the fact the ring can accelerate up to speed without power supplied is sufficient to show non-conservation, provided the energy can be removed and used on a repetitive basis, and the ring still recover motion spontaneously. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 13:12:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA26324; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 13:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 13:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 12:05:13 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Meissner not gravity - longitudinal force? Resent-Message-ID: <"mxUJH3.0.ER6.kNoCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/555 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >Other SC's, however, exhibit the "2nd form of the Meissner effect" in which >the magnet sitting on top of the SC is repelled away (i.e. lifted up) as the >SC becomes a SC. We have an older, presumably small-crystal, block of 123 >that clearly exhibits this latter behavior. This latter behavior is >completely at odds with the laws of magnetic induction and was first >"explained" by the phenomenological equations developed by the London >brothers. J = -kA is the one that says that a current will _spontaneously_ >arise in a SC in response to the presence of certain magnetic fields, >REGARDLESS of whether the field is changing with time or not. > > - Scott Little If J = -kA, then a SC suspended above a magnet with a pole facing up should spontaneously begin to spin, the electrons going one way the remaining + ions the other. This doesn't happen. What am I missing? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 13:15:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA27761; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 13:06:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 13:06:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609081959.MAA00603@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Meissner not gravity - longitudinal force? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 12:59:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: from "Horace Heffner" at Sep 8, 96 11:59:59 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: <"Ca3iL.0.gn6.dSoCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/556 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > Is there any reason the various coils in Dr. Podkletnov's experiment could > not be replaced by permanent magnets? If so, who needs anitgravity - the > fact the ring can accelerate up to speed without power supplied is > sufficient to show non-conservation, provided the energy can be removed and > used on a repetitive basis, and the ring still recover motion > spontaneously. > > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 The coil under the disk is energized with DC current, and could probably be replaced with a PM. The two coils on the side of the disk are energized with AC current to provide a rotating field motoring effect. Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 13:26:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA28045; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 13:07:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 13:07:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609081959.MAA06072@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: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 13:08:32 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' Resent-Message-ID: <"Wfl2v.0.5s6.yToCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/557 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:34 AM 9/8/96 -0700, you wrote: > >>This points out one of the big mytseries of Brown's gas which is perported >>to melt tungsten. That requires much more than 2500 C, closer to 6000 C. >> >> >>Regards, >> PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >>Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 >> >> >> >> > >Correction. It does not melt tungsten. It boils it, instantly. >That requires 5660 degrees C, (10,220 degrees Fahrenheit). > >Quite the thing to observe. > > > Boils, or sublimes? Some WO[x] will sublimate at water gas temperatures. _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 14:03:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA06572; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 13:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 13:48:51 -0700 (PDT) From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 16:48:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Messiner not Gravity To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-id: <01I98RHLR6C28YDX0Q@delphi.com> X-VMS-To: INTERNET"vortex-l@eskimo.com" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Resent-Message-ID: <"-cvFz.0.Tc1.n4pCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/558 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > This also gives rise to some possibilities for perpetual >motion............................ >Either effect provides a >source of infinite energy by >simply alternately tapping the induced energy and letting it >rebuild. >Horace Heffner If the energy out is enough to power "cool" the SC. An ambient temp SC would already exhibit possibilitys of infinite energy. Joe Flynn Flynn Research From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 14:10:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA09335; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:03:52 -0700 (PDT) From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 17:03:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Meissner not gravity - longitudinal force? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-id: <01I98S17LOA08YDX0Q@delphi.com> X-VMS-To: INTERNET"vortex-l@eskimo.com" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Resent-Message-ID: <"mfC9t3.0.nH2.tIpCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/559 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Is there any reason the various coils in Dr. Podkletnov's experiment could >not be replaced by permanent magnets? >Horace Heffner There is one reason I can think of: since the coil has current flowing in a circular path, depending on your perspective current flows in opposite directions on opposite sides of the coil. The force of a static magnetic field moving over the top of the coil would (Lorentz) be aided for one half the journey and opposed for the other half. net zero. This would be like moving both sides of a current loop up through a magnetic field. This is why a loop is placed in the field of motor with one side of the loop moving up and the other side moving down through the field. Joe Flynn Flynn Research From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 14:23:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA10276; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:08:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:08:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:07:54 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Gravitational telescope w/imaging capability In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"HnBRD1.0.UW2.qMpCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/560 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Horace Heffner wrote: > Bill B. wrote: > >If an SC disk creates DC gravity forces when spun, maybe it creates AC > >signals when vibrated in a rotational mode. Not very useful as a > >communicator if the "beam" can't be aimed. But it would be very > >interesting to attach a big voicecoil to the rim of the disk, get it > >squealing like a Chladni plate, then see if a tiny accelerometer or strain > >gauge can pick up the audio when held in the "beam" high above it. > >.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. > >William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 > > Thanks for the URL. Interresting idea - the voicecoil. Might also be able > to put a horizontal axis coil around the device in order to make the disk > precess - kind of like a macro version of NMR. Oooo! Brainstorm time! The shielded zone is a columnar shadow with no dropoff in strength with distance. This describes a whole different device: the camera obscura. The shielded zone is a sort of image of the earth (with the earth being unexpectedly a point-source.) If the spinning SC disk is made very small, and if weight loss measurements are made across a square grid positioned a few meters above the disk, the resulting data is an image of the earth made in the gravity spectrum. __________________ \ / Grid of ("image plane") \ ( ) / measurements \____| |____ / | | | | | | Zone of | | weight loss | | | | | | | | === Spinning SC disk The vertical column is a strange result, implying either that gravity forces disobey superposition, or that there is a micro-black-hole in the center of the earth. What would be revealed if precise measurements were made across the "image plane" above? Would new details appear in the earth image, including the borders of the dense core, etc? Even better: what would be revealed if the whole device were oriented sideways? Would blurry images of distant mountains appear? And if it were inverted, would an image of the "gravity sky" appear? At the very least, wouldn't the earth's moon when high in the sky create its own columnar shadow of slight shielding effect diagonally below the disk? It's tough to detect the image if it's in terms of small weight changes. So, how about this: build a dense grid of accelerometers, rotate the disk back and forth at high frequency, then amplify any synchronized AC output from the accelerometers and render it as an image. It's not hard to crank the gain up to amazing values if you have an AC system. With enough gain, it might be possible to build a "mass camera:" __ __-- | -- | Accelerometer | | square array || | | (the film) | | SC disk, --__ | oscillating --__|==================== rotationally _____||_______ (the pinhole) | / \ | || realtime || || display || | \__________/ | -------------- .....................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 Sep 8 14:45:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA15906; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:33:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:33:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:32:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199609082132.OAA28453@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: Brown's Gas Questions To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"5h6cw3.0.Su3.UkpCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/561 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gary Hawkins wrote: snip >>Has Brown's Gas been subjected to to testing such as spectral analysis? > >Although not spectral analysis here per se, the flame itself was >subjected to an infrared pyrometer as it acted on tungsten, to >measure temperature. Hey Joe, Think you could get some of your buddies with their mass specs to do a spectral analysis on Brown's Gas prior to burning? Real science here. RWW From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 14:49:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA16852; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:38:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:38:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960908214325.006e5c0c@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, 08 Sep 1996 14:43:25 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' Resent-Message-ID: <"nne_k1.0.E74.9ppCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/563 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:08 PM 9/8/96 -0700, you wrote: >Boils, or sublimes? Some WO[x] will sublimate at water gas temperatures. >_______________________________ >Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com >http://www.netzone.com/~discpub > > > It sublimates it, that's right, at the boiling temperature. Sublimation is the process of changing a substance directly from a solid to a gas as I understand it. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 14:55:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA16539; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:36:26 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Modanese article sent to me... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"sLJH2.0.G24.XnpCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/562 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 19:01:56 +0200 \documentstyle[12pt]{article} \textwidth 170mm \textheight 235mm \topmargin -36pt \oddsidemargin -0.2cm \evensidemargin -0.5cm \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.5} \begin{document} \thispagestyle{empty} \hfill \parbox{45mm}{{UTF-367/96} \par Jan 1996 \par supr-con/9601001} \vspace*{15mm} \begin{center} {\LARGE Updating the Theoretical Analysis of the} \smallskip {\LARGE Weak Gravitational Shielding Experiment.} \vspace{22mm} {\large Giovanni Modanese}% \footnote{e-mail: modanese@science.unitn.it} \medskip {\em I.N.F.N. -- Gruppo Collegato di Trento \par Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universita' \par I-38050 POVO (TN) - Italy} \bigskip \bigskip \medskip \end{center} \vspace*{10mm} \begin{abstract} The most recent data about the weak gravitational shielding produced recently 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 small expulsive force observed at the border of the shielded zone is due to energy conservation. \medskip \noindent 74.72.-h High-$T_c$ cuprates. \noindent 04.60.-m Quantum gravity. \bigskip \end{abstract} The measurements of Podkletnov et al.\ of a possible weak gravitational shielding effect \cite{p1,p2} have been repeated several times and under different conditions by that group, with good reproducibility, including results in the vacuum. In the forthcoming months other groups will hopefully be able to confirm the effect independently. While the Tampere group was mainly concerned with obtaining larger values for the shielding, studying its dependence on numerous experimental parameters and testing new materials for the disk, in the future measurements it will be important to obtain more exact data, including detailed spatial field maps. The theoretical model suggested by us \cite{m1} is still evolving, although at a fundamental level; a more detailed account appears elsewhere \cite{m2}. Let us recall in short the main features of the experiment. A HTC superconducting disk or toroid with diameter between 15 and 30 $cm$, made of $YBa_2 Cu_3 O_{7-x}$, is refrigerated by liquid helium in a stainless steel cryostat at a temperature below $70 \ K$. The microscopic structure of the material, which plays an important role in determining the levitation properties and the amount of the effect, is described in details in the cited works. The disk levitates above an electromagnet operated by high-frequency AC currents and rotates by the action of lateral alternating e.m. fields. Samples of different weight and composition are placed over the disk, at a distance which can vary from a few $cm$ to 1 $m$ or more (see below). A weight reduction of about 0.05\% is observed when the disk is levitating but not rotating; the weight loss reaches values about 0.5\% when the disk rotates at a frequency of ca.\ 5000 $rpm$. If at this point the rotating fields are switched off, the sample weight remains decreased till the rotation frequency of the disk decreases. On the other hand, if the rotation frequency is decreased from 5000 to 3500 $rpm$ using the solenoids as braking tools, the shielding effect reaches maximum values from 1.9 to 2.1\%, depending on the position of the sample with respect to the outer edge of the disk. This effect, if confirmed, would represent a very new and spectacular phenomenon in gravity; namely, as well known, there has never been observed any conventional gravitational shielding up till now, up to an accuracy of one part in $10^{10}$, and General Relativity and perturbative Quantum Gravity exclude any measurable shielding \cite{m1,unni}. Our tentative theoretical explanation is based on some properties of non-perturbative quantum gravity. We have shown that the density field $|\phi_0|^2$ of the Cooper pairs inside the superconductor may act as localized positive contribution to the small negative effective gravitational cosmological constant $\Lambda$; if the sum turns out to be positive in a certain four-dimensional region, a local gravitational singularity arises there, affecting the gravitational propagators and thus the interaction potential (between the Earth and the samples, in this case). To sketch our model -- although not rigorously -- we could say that there is an "anomalous coupling" between the mentioned density $|\phi_0|^2$ and the gravitational field, and that the net result is to partly "absorb" the field. We expect that only in some regions of the superconductor the density $|\phi_0|^2$ will be strong enough and that the inhomogeneities of the material and the pinning centers will be crucial in determining such regions. (It is known that the rapid motion of a type II superconductor in a magnetic field causes resistive effects in the superconductor.) Since the gravitational field is attractive, its "absorption" requires energy from the outside. This is provided in the experiment by the action of the levitating rf field. The dependence of the shielding effect on the height, at which the samples are placed above the superconducting disk, has been recently measured up to a height of ca.\ 3 $m$ \cite{p3}. No difference in the shielding value has been noted, with a precision of one part in $10^3$. It is also remarkable that during the measurement at 3 $m$ height the sample was placed in the room which lies above the main laboratory, on the next floor; in this way the effect of air flows on the measurements was greatly reduced. For the used 500 $g$ sample the weight loss was ca. 2.5 $g$. Such an extremely weak height dependence of the shielding is in sharp contrast with the intuitive picture, according to which the gravitational field of the Earth is the vectorial sum of the fields produced by each single "portion" of Earth. In the absence of any shielding, the sum results in a field which is equivalent to the field of a pointlike mass placed in the center of the Earth; this can be checked elementarily by direct integration or invoking Gauss' theorem and the spherical symmetry. But if we admit that the superconducting disk produces a weak shielding, the part of the Earth which is shielded lies behind the projection of the disk as seen from the sample, i.e., within an angle $\theta$ about the vertical direction, such that $\ \tan \theta = h$, where $h$ is the sample height over the disk measured in units of the disk radius. (For simplicity we suppose now the sample to be centered above the disk.) In order to obtain the shielding effect as a function of $h$, taking into account this geometrical factor, one must integrate the Newtonian contribution $\cos \phi /R^2$ over the intersection between the Earth and the cone defined by $\phi<\theta$. We have done this for the values $h=1,2,3,4,6,8,10$, through a Montecarlo algorithm. We took into account the higher density of the Earth's core ($\rho_{core} \sim 2 \rho_{mantle}$; $r_{core} \sim (1/2) r_{Earth}$; it is straightforward to insert more accurate values, but the final results change very little); we also computed analytically the contribution of the tip of the cone, from the Earth's surface to the Earth's core, in order to reduce the fluctuations in the Montecarlo samplings for small $R$. \footnote{For the detailed algorithm and figures please ask the author at the e-mail address above.} The resulting values were the following: \begin{verbatim} h shielding/maximum-shielding ================================= 1 0.62 +/- 0.02 2 0.34 +/- 0.01 3 0.18 +/- 0.01 4 0.102 +/- 0.003 6 0.050 +/- 0.002 8 0.029 +/- 0.001 10 0.018 +/- 0.001 \end{verbatim} This strong height dependence is clearly incompatible with the mentioned experimental data, which instead seem to indicate that in the shielding process all the mass of the Earth behaves effectively as if it would be concentrated in one point. On the basis of an analysis similar to ours, it was argued in \cite{unni} that Podkletnov's data are inconsistent with the hyotesis of a real gravitational shielding. In our theoretical model, however, the weak height dependence arises in a natural way. We employ a quantum formula which expresses the static gravitational interaction energy of two masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ in terms of an invariant vacuum expectation value, namely \cite{m3} \begin{eqnarray} E & = & \lim_{T \to \infty} - \frac{\hbar}{T} \log \frac{\int d[g] \, \exp \left\{ - \hbar^{-1} \left[ S[g] + \sum_{i=1,2} m_i \int_{-\frac{T}{2}}^{\frac{T}{2}} dt \, \sqrt{g_{\mu \nu}[x_i(t)] \dot{x}_i^\mu(t) \dot{x}_i^\nu(t)} \right] \right\}}{\int d[g] \, \exp \left\{ - \hbar^{-1} S[g] \right\} } \label{ciao} \\ & \equiv & \lim_{T \to \infty} - \frac{\hbar}{T} \log \left< \exp \left\{ - \hbar^{-1} \sum_{i=1,2} m_i \int_{-\frac{T}{2}}^{\frac{T}{2}} ds_i \right\} \right>_S \label{bella} \end{eqnarray} where $g$ has Euclidean signature and $S$ is the gravitational action of general form \begin{equation} S[g] = \int d^4x \, \sqrt{g} \left( \lambda - kR + \frac{1}{4} a R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} R^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} \right) . \label{azione} \end{equation} The constants $k$ and $\lambda$ are related -- in general as ``bare quantities'' -- to the Newton constant $G$ and to the cosmological constant $\Lambda$: $k$ corresponds to $1/8\pi G$ and $\lambda$ to $\Lambda/8\pi G$. The trajectories $x_i(t)$ of $m_1$ and $m_2$ are parallel with respect to the metric $g$; let $R$ be their distance. In the weak-field approximation, eq.\ (\ref{ciao}) reproduces to lowest order the Newton potential and can be used to find its higher order quantum corrections \cite{muz}, or implemented on a Regge lattice to investigate the non-perturbative behaviour of the potential at small distances \cite{h}. The addition to the gravitational action (\ref{azione}) of a term which represents a localized {\it external} Bose condensate \footnote{This means that the density of the condensate is not included into the functional integration variables.} mimics a shielding effect which is absent from the classical theory and which we take as our candidate model for the observed shielding. The feature of eq.\ (\ref{ciao}) which is of interest here is that if the two masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ are not pointlike, the trajectories $x_1(t)$ and $x_2(t)$ must be those of their centers of mass. (This also makes irrelevant the question -- actually ill-defined in general relativity -- whether they are pointlike or not.) Thus, when applying eq.\ (\ref{ciao}) to the Earth and the sample, we only need to consider the centers of mass of those bodies. In this way we reproduce the observed behaviour for the shielding as well as for the regular interaction. The ensuing apparent failure in the "local transmission" of the gravitational interaction does not contrast with any known property of gravity (compare \cite{m3,j}, and references about the problem of the local energy density in General Relativity and \cite{m3} about the non-localization of virtual gravitons. One should also keep in mind that (\ref{ciao}) holds only in the static case.) Finally, if we describe the shielding effect as a slight diminution of the effective value of the gravitational acceleration $g$, and remember that the gravitational potential energy $U=-\frac{G m_{Earth} }{r_{Earth} }=-g r_{Earth}$ is negative, it follows that the energy of a sample inside the shielded zone is larger than its energy outside. This means in turn that the sample must feel an expulsive force at the border of the shielded region. Such a force has been indeed observed \cite{p3}, although precise data are not available yet. From the theoretical point of view it is however not trivial to do any prevision about the intensity of the force. In fact, the shielding process absorbs energy from the experimental apparatus and thus any transient stage is expected to be highly non-linear, especially for heavy samples. I would like to thank C.S.\ Unnikrishnan for useful discussions. \begin{thebibliography}{99} \bibitem{p1} E.\ Podkletnov and R.\ Nieminen, Physica {\bf C 203} (1992) 441. \bibitem{p2} E.\ Podkletnov and A.D.\ Levit, {\it Gravitational shielding properties of composite bulk $YBa_2Cu_3O_{7-x}$ superconductor below 70 K under electro-magnetic field}, Tampere University of Technology report MSU-95 chem, January 1995. \bibitem{m1} G.\ Modanese, {\it Theoretical analysis of a reported weak gravitational shielding effect}, report MPI-PhT/95-44, hep-th/9505094, May 1995; to appear in Europhys.\ Lett. \bibitem{m2} G.\ Modanese, {\it Role of a "local" cosmological constant in Euclidean quantum gravity}, report UTF-368/96, hep-th@xxx.lanl.gov/9601160; to appear in Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D}. \bibitem{p3} E.\ Podkletnov, private communication, October 1995. \bibitem{m3} G.\ Modanese, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 325} (1994) 354; Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 434} (1995) 697; Riv.\ Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf 17}, n.\ 8 (1994). \bibitem{unni} C.S.\ Unnikrishnan, {\it Does a superconductor shield gravity?}, to appear in Physica {\bf C}. \bibitem{muz} I.J.\ Muzinich and S.\ Vokos, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 52} (1995) 3472. \bibitem{j} D.\ Bak, D.\ Cangemi, R.\ Jackiw, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 49} (1994) 5173. \bibitem{h} H.W.\ Hamber and R.M. Williams, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 435} (1995) 361. \end{thebibliography} \end{document} ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb@eskimo.com www.eskimo.com/~billb EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 15:03:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA21426; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 15:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 15:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960908220018.006d12c0@microweb.com> X-Sender: bcolias@microweb.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 15:00:18 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Bill Colias Subject: Re: Transmutation and Joe Champion Resent-Message-ID: <"w0eSx2.0.dE5.X7qCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/564 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hello, Vortexians. I'm new to this group. I hope you find my following speculation of interest: Transmutation of elements can be thought of as fusing elements together to generate new elements. The trouble with transmutation in classical physics thought is that to fuse elements together you have to overcome the coloumb barrier which takes an enormous amount of energy. Could this transmutation be inducing a quantum tunneling effect and thereby circumventing the coloumb barrier? Does anyone have any thoughts on the theoretical basis of inducing such a quantum tunneling effect? -Bill Colias- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 16:04:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA01716; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 15:44:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 15:44:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: 08 Sep 96 18:42:43 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Watch this space Message-ID: <960908224243_100433.1541_BHG77-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"W8OPS1.0.jQ.8nqCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/565 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >From the Compuserve science forum. I would presume that the paper will now be axed by IoPhys. Chris --------------------------------------------------------------------- What follows is a summary of my conversations on Friday 6/9/96 with the various parties involved in the anti-gravity claims, on which Ian Sample and I reported in the Sunday Telegraph on 1/9/96. It's rather terse, but it's been a long day..... 1. Following the posting of the statement from Prof Tuomo Tiainen of Tampere U Inst of Materials Science disclaiming any knowledge or involvement in the anti-gravity research, I contacted the Institute of Physics in London and the offices of J Phys D in IoP Publishing in Bristol to find out their reaction. Neither were aware of any problems about the paper, scheduled to appear in the October issue of the journal, and were taken aback by the reaction of Tampere. Richard Palmer, Managing Editor of J Phys D said he would investigate matters further (of which more below) 2. Following the statement by Petri Vuorinen, whose name appears on the paper as co-author, disclaiming any involvement, I faxed a set of questions to Dr Eugene Podkletnov (lead author) asking for an explanation. While waiting for a response of the paper, I contacted PV, whose immediate reaction was to insist that I talk to Prof Tiainen, who was apparently fielding all inquiries. However, PV did say that he had worked with EP some years ago, but had no idea why his name had appeared on the paper as co-author on this latest paper. He was anxious to distance himself from the research. 3. EP then responded to my fax by telephone. He said that the denial of any (recent) involvement by Tampere stemmed from the fact that (a) the key experiments were indeed done some years ago, in 1992; (b) that Prof Tiainen has only been director of the Institute for four months, and was not in a position to know about the experiments before then. EP insisted that the results stated in the forthcoming paper are reliable and genuine, and that Tampere has full knowledge, with a (Finnish?) patent being applied for in its name. (I wasn't able to confirm this latter point in the time available). On the matter of PV's denial of all involvement in the paper, and mystification of his involvement, EP insisted that there must have been some mix-up over names at Tampere, and that there must be a second Petri Vuorinen working on superconductivity at the Institute, and that the one involved in anti-gravity was now working in Japan. When challenged on the sheer implausibility of this, EP said that the name was a common one in Finland. He finished by saying that he did not want to cause any trouble with Tampere, with which he appears to still have some relationship (Tampere's statement says he no longer works there; however, one researcher said he had seen EP visiting the Institute last week; the discrepancy may revolve on the question of full-time salaried staff and others like EP who appear to be on more informal arrangements - see below). 4. I went back to PV, putting to him EP's claim that there must be two researchers with the same name. PV said there are only about 60 people in the Institute, and that he was sure he would know if there was another researcher with the same name there. He added that he had indeed been in Japan - three years ago. He ended by saying that he hoped the controversy did not damage relationships between Finnish institutes and the British academic journals. Later I discovered that there is indeed another PV - Petri Vuoristo - at the Institute, but he denied all involvement in the research too. 5. Prof Tiainen responded to a call placed AM, and began by repeating the original statement denying any involvement - except some years ago - in anti-gravity research. He re-iterated that he did not have any views on whether the claims being made in the forthcoming JPhysD were valid or not (he said he was not qualified to do so). He added, however, that "We don't want to get the credit for the result if it is good or bad". He said that EP had done good work at Tampere on thin films and S/conductivity, and that EP still came into the university, but had no official position.TT said: "I was completely surprised when I learnt these things were going on". He finished by saying that "If this turns out bad" he would consider banning EP from the Institute. He said that there had been claims that part of the work was funded by the Finnish military, but denied that this was the case. 6. I then contacted the editorial offices of JPhys D again, and was told by Richard Palmer, managing editor, that he had been contacted by TT. In the light of the conversation, RP said he and his staff were looking at the paper again, and had not ruled out the possibility of holding the paper out of the journal until EP had been contacted for clarification of various issues. Among these was the fact that documents relating to the paper's publication carry the signature of PV - who denies involvement in the research. 7. Despite repeated requests, the IoP head office did not issue a position statement during the day. That's all for now - I hope to report further developments later this week. Robert Matthews Science Correspondent, The Sunday Telegraph From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 16:24:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA05298; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 16:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 16:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609082259.PAA18975@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: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 16:08:24 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Re: Brown's Gas Questions Resent-Message-ID: <"e2Yng.0.iI1.K6rCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/566 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:32 PM 9/8/96 -0700, you wrote: >Gary Hawkins wrote: > >snip > >>>Has Brown's Gas been subjected to to testing such as spectral >analysis? >> >>Although not spectral analysis here per se, the flame itself was >>subjected to an infrared pyrometer as it acted on tungsten, to >>measure temperature. > >Hey Joe, > >Think you could get some of your buddies with their mass specs to do a >spectral analysis on Brown's Gas prior to burning? Real science here. > >RWW I have access to a small Brown's Gas Generator, maybe (just maybe) we could ask Barry to run a spectrum at the university. To treat it as a fair test, I would think that the gas should be made in close proximity to the MS and not only check the gas, but check the water after reformation. Personally, I think that all one will find is hydrogen and oxygen. However, it would be neat if one found determium, or tritium after combustion. This would assist in the determination is anything is really going on. As far as the tungsten, allow me to present the following: 1. Tungsten readily oxidizes at red heat. 2. Heat of formation is: W + O2 => W02 + 589.7 J/mol 3. WO2 melts at ~1,500oC (in N2), boils at 1430oC and sublimes at 800oC. Using tugsten as an example as to the heat or energy of Brown's flame is not justified, for W will appear to vaporize using the above chemical reaction with any "highly" oxidized flame such as water gas. Whereas the reality is -- tungsten is coverted to its oxide state from the H2 + O2 gas and the tungsten oxide vaporizes (or sublimes) at temperatures less than 1,500oC. No magic here, just plain chemistry. _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 16:52:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA11369; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 16:36:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 16:36:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 96 16:36:50 PDT From: Barry Merriman Message-Id: <9609082336.AA11649@joshua.math.ucla.edu> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Transmutation and Joe Champion Resent-Message-ID: <"jS5ry1.0.Yn2.NYrCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/567 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill Colias asks if there is any way quantum tunneling effects can explain transmuation claims. The short answer is no. There are two types of tunneling phenomena in QM (and analogues are present in any other wave system, such as water waves or elctromagnetic waves): tunnellng through a single barier, and resonant tunneling through a series of barriers (which is a resonant enhancement of the single barrier effect). Both of these result in an _enormously long_ expected time for a particle at an energy of ~1 eV to tunnel throuhg barriers of height 1 MeV....roughly e^{sqrt{1 MeV/1 eV}} ~ e^1000 ~ 10^300 seconds, to give you an idea what I mean by long. Stretching things a bit can get you down to the 10^40 seconds or so regime. If you have a mole of guyas woking at it in parallel, you might only need to wait a few billion years for one to succesfully tunnel. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 17:34:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA18385; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 17:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 17:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 17:17:59 -0700 Message-Id: <199609090017.RAA31477@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: Pinning, was Re: Meissner not gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"hrpC33.0.7V4.69sCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/568 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott; Did the linear bouncing back and forth continue indefinitely? ie, was it truly a coupled SC type effect, or did the air friction etc. damp out the oscillation. Also, if it was damped, do you know what the resonance amplification factor was? Alternately, do you know the frequency of the oscillation back and forth, and the number of cycles to damp out the effect to double the original period, even a guess would be fine. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 19:49:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA12242; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 19:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 19:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 18:43:38 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Messiner not Gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"AhS-P.0.C_2.ODuCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/569 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> This also gives rise to some possibilities for perpetual >>motion............................ >Either effect provides a >>source of infinite energy by >>simply alternately tapping the induced energy and letting it >>rebuild. > >>Horace Heffner > >If the energy out is enough to power "cool" the SC. An ambient >temp SC would already exhibit possibilitys of infinite energy. > >Joe Flynn >Flynn Research This makes no sense to me. What creates the heat that has to be cooled? A few dollars worth of liquid nitrogen can keep a vacuum insulated dewar cool for many days. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 19:49:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA12269; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 19:39:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 19:39:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 18:43:43 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravitational telescope w/imaging capability Resent-Message-ID: <"n3PjZ2.0.d_2.SDuCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/570 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > >It's tough to detect the image if it's in terms of small weight changes. >So, how about this: build a dense grid of accelerometers, rotate the disk >back and forth at high frequency, then amplify any synchronized AC output >from the accelerometers and render it as an image. It's not hard to crank >the gain up to amazing values if you have an AC system. With enough gain, >it might be possible to build a "mass camera:" [snip] >.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. >William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 I like the idea very much, assuming there is no penumbra, as you say "The shielded zone is a columnar shadow with no dropoff in strength with distance." Could be very interresting in orbit too. This brings up a point - have SC experiments been done in orbit, and if so were there any strange results, such as unexplained motions of the SC's or changes in orbital parameters without any burn? This would make a great little experiment for a shuttle flight assuming the liqiuid N2 is not a problem. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 20:22:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA20884; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 20:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 20:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 19:17:40 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Modanese article sent to me... Resent-Message-ID: <"c2pk81.0.E65.SjuCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/571 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Provided courtesy Bill Beaty: [snip] >The most recent data about the weak gravitational shielding >produced recently 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. So, the gravity camera might work. [snip] >The disk levitates above an electromagnet operated by >high-frequency AC currents and rotates by Levitated by A/C? That's a new wrinkle! >the action of lateral alternating e.m. fields. Samples of different >weight and composition are placed over the disk, at a distance >which can vary from a few $cm$ to 1 $m$ or more (see below). A >weight reduction of about 0.05\% is observed when the disk is >levitating but not rotating; the weight loss reaches values about >0.5\% when the disk rotates at a frequency of ca.\ 5000 $rpm$. >If at this point the rotating fields are switched off, the >sample weight remains decreased till the rotation frequency >of the disk decreases. On the other hand, if the rotation >frequency is decreased from 5000 to 3500 $rpm$ using the solenoids >as braking tools, the shielding effect reaches maximum values >from 1.9 to 2.1\%, depending on the position of the sample >with respect to the outer edge of the disk. Another new wrinkle - you don't get to 2 percent without applying breaking power. The o-u range is really only at 0.5 percent, unless you can extract energy from the breaking, then you get double duty! Wonder what happens if you break really hard? [snip] >Since the gravitational >field is attractive, its "absorption" requires energy from the >outside. This is provided in the >experiment by the action of the levitating rf field. Uh oh. > > >The dependence of the shielding effect on the height, at which the >samples are placed above the superconducting disk, has been recently >measured up to a height of ca.\ 3 $m$ \cite{p3}. No difference in the >shielding value has been noted, with a precision of one part in >$10^3$. It is also remarkable that during the measurement at 3 $m$ height >the sample was placed in the room which lies above the main laboratory, >on the next floor; in this way the effect of air flows >on the measurements was greatly reduced. For the used 500 $g$ sample >the weight loss was ca. 2.5 $g$. > [snip] > h shielding/maximum-shielding > ================================= > 1 0.62 +/- 0.02 > 2 0.34 +/- 0.01 > 3 0.18 +/- 0.01 > 4 0.102 +/- 0.003 > 6 0.050 +/- 0.002 > 8 0.029 +/- 0.001 > 10 0.018 +/- 0.001 > >\end{verbatim} > >This strong height dependence is clearly incompatible with the mentioned >experimental data, which instead seem to indicate that in the >shielding process all the mass of the Earth behaves effectively >as if it would be concentrated in one point. Wonder what Scott Little thinks about this. [snip] >Finally, if we describe the shielding effect as a slight >diminution of the effective value of the gravitational >acceleration $g$, and remember that the gravitational potential >energy $U=-\frac{G m_{Earth} }{r_{Earth} }=-g r_{Earth}$ >is negative, it follows that the energy of a sample inside >the shielded zone is larger than its energy outside. This >means in turn that the sample must feel an expulsive force >at the border of the shielded region. There goes the water column and water wheel type ideas if the fringe repulsion is conservative, i.e. if it takes just as much energy to push the mass into the shadow as you get by the weight loss at the elevation of entry into the shadow. There is then no o-u cycle that can be repeated. Such a force has been >indeed observed \cite{p3}, although precise data are not >available yet. Alternate explanations of time dilation, mass or inirtia reduction, etc. are still on! One good piece of news anyway. From the theoretical point of view it is >however not trivial to do any prevision about the intensity >of the force. In fact, the shielding process absorbs energy >from the experimental apparatus and thus any transient >stage is expected to be highly non-linear, especially for >heavy samples. > [snip] Much thanks to Bill Beaty for providing this info. Could we someday be hearing about the BSGT, Beaty Space Gravity Telescope? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 20:40:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA25639; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 20:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 20:34:36 -0700 (PDT) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 23:33:52 -0400 Message-ID: <960908224441_280524230@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Errata in Correa Article Resent-Message-ID: <"0BS9f2.0.TG6.B1vCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/572 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I in no way intended to offend Mitchell Swartz, and I am sorry my post was so construed. I believed I was behaving professionally in quickly and publicly annoucing the error and acknowledging Mitchell in bringing it to my attention. I believed it was proper to thank Mitchell for doing so in private correspondence; if he wishes to make that correspondence public he is welcome to do so. It was an additional statement that I found more errors and did a quick recalculation, which indicated even stronger o/u performance. These same calculations were in a private message to Mitchell, in which I admitted my error, which he graciously acknowledged. If these numbers are still in error, it is my responsibility with no implied endorsement from Mitchell. I want to make it clear that the issue revolves about calculations of charge and energy which I made from the curves for the convenience of the readers. The calculations of charge and energy delivered to the CP are in error in the article. The curves themselves are faithful trascriptions of the original data from Correa, simplified for clarity in reproduction. My article is the result of a endeavor to present the available evidence for o/u behavior in the Correa PAGD reactor in a straightforward manner. In my opinion, a good case is made, taking the data at face value. One can always find more things to question. I will carefully go over the original data in Fig. 4 and perform a new graphical integration of the curves, and post the new numbers next week. There will be errata published in IE #9. Mike Carrell Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 20:46:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA25896; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 20:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 20:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 19:40:35 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Transmutation and Joe Champion Resent-Message-ID: <"WzDNi.0.YK6.s2vCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/573 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Hello, Vortexians. I'm new to this group. I hope you find my following >speculation of interest: > Transmutation of elements can be thought of as fusing elements together to >generate new elements. The trouble with transmutation in classical physics >thought is that to fuse elements together you have to overcome the coloumb >barrier which takes an enormous amount of energy. Could this transmutation >be inducing a quantum tunneling effect and thereby circumventing the coloumb >barrier? Does anyone have any thoughts on the theoretical basis of inducing >such a quantum tunneling effect? > -Bill Colias- Yes, howver not theoretical, but conjectural. Consider it a three body problem, not a two body problem. If you momentarily accept (as many won't) my hypothesis that tunneling is a multi-waveform interaction precipitated instantaneous waveform collapse and reappearance at a new location and with a new psi^2 distribution then the coloumb barrier can be overcome. Assume 2 atoms in proximity have the same relative motion periodically and momentarily form an overlapping bose condensate. The overlap overcomes the barrier but no tunneling occurs beacuse the waveforms are large and co-located so the tunneling is unlikely. However, if a fast third particle, i.e. an electron, collides with the center of the condensate then, from it's high velocity perspective, the waveform of the condensate is small, the deBroglie wavelength is small, the first two atoms have close small waveforms. The trick in making large scale transmutation happen is setting up a concentration of atoms with a large condensate population and letting cosmic rays trigger the initial fusion events which eject energetic electrons which then trigger more fusion events which eject the HV electrons and numerous others at a high energy to continue the process. Doesn't explain how such events can happen without massive radiation of gammas, neutrons, etc. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 21:26:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA04618; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 21:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 21:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960909042615.0070bec4@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, 08 Sep 1996 21:26:15 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Gravitational telescope w/imaging capability Resent-Message-ID: <"en8CL1.0.081.1jvCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/574 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:43 PM 9/8/96 -0800, you wrote: >[snip] >I like the idea very much, assuming there is no penumbra, as you say "The >shielded zone is a columnar shadow with no dropoff in strength with Penumbra (pe numbre, pi-) pl. -brae (-bre) or -bras 1 the partly lighted area surrounding the complete shadow (umbra) of a body, as the moon, during an eclipse: see eclipse, illus. 2 the less dark region surrounding the dark central area of a sunspot 3 a vague, indefinite, or borderline area (C)1995 ZCI Publishing, Inc. (C)1994, 1991, 1988 Simon & Schuster, Inc. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 22:12:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA13426; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 22:04:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 22:04:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 22:04:16 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Modanese article sent to me... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"cNS-B.0.gH3.MLwCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/575 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, William Beaty wrote: > by our theoretical model. The small expulsive force observed at the > border of the shielded zone is due to energy conservation. But if the system is conservative, this force should prevent such phenomena as the reported air convection. The repulsion around the columnar weight loss zone should be fairly strong, since placing a mass into the column is energetically the same as elevating it to a height. Think: if the disk could produce *zero* gravity above itself, then the energy cost to escape the earth's gravity would either be the conventional route: raise a mass many thousands of miles to where it is essentially out of the gravity well, or the novel route: push it against an immense force into the zero gravity area above the disk, then do no work in rising within the column. And if a mass that was already in the column should drift out and be expelled, the final velocity would be the same as had by dropping the mass to earth from infinite height. ( This was the topic of an SF short story from decades ago. One character rode a chair being pushed hydraulically into the "repulsion zone" around an antigravity generator, but upon falling off the chair, burned up on reentry! ) If I have it right, then the work done in pushing a mass into a 1% weightloss zone should be enormous, and so the expulsion force should also be enormous. I'd think that this force would be obvious to anyone waving a hand over the device. .....................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 Sep 8 22:14:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA13878; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 22:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 22:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 00:05:47 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609090505.AAA08121@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: whew!... Resent-Message-ID: <"YoCAf3.0.jO3._MwCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/577 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:36 PM 9/8/96 -0700, BillB posted: > h shielding/maximum-shielding > ================================= > 1 0.62 +/- 0.02 > 2 0.34 +/- 0.01 > 3 0.18 +/- 0.01 > 4 0.102 +/- 0.003 > 6 0.050 +/- 0.002 > 8 0.029 +/- 0.001 > 10 0.018 +/- 0.001 I'm glad to see this surfacing. (1) It is good that Pod has considered this problem and recognized its ramifications. (2) It relieves the pressure on me. Believe it or not, I have made considerable progress on the calculation this weekend and I have not resorted to Monte Carlo methods as Pod did. I do, however, have MathCAD which makes integration of "impossibly complex" functions effortless. However, my initial results are clearly erroneous and I think I have identified a shortcoming in my approach. I am therefore still some hours away from any possible completion. I will continue to pursue the calculation thru next week.... - 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-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 22:17:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA13849; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 22:06:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 22:06:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 00:05:46 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609090505.AAA08118@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: Pinning, was Re: Meissner not gravity Resent-Message-ID: <"M0oXC3.0.IO3.yMwCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/576 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:17 PM 9/8/96 -0700, Ross wrote: >Scott; > >Did the linear bouncing back and forth continue indefinitely? it was gradually damped....not sure of damping source >Alternately, do you know the frequency of the oscillation back and forth, >and the number of cycles to damp out the effect to double the original >period, even a guess would be fine. F depended upon how hard you pushed it initially....I got it going about 2 Hz and I think it was 20 seconds before it was down to 1 Hz. - 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-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 22:40:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA19913; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 22:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 22:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 22:38:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609090538.WAA04959@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: Brown's Gas Questions Resent-Message-ID: <"TvrAE2.0._s4.arwCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/578 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 06:47:35 -0700 (PDT), you wrote > >Has anyone experimented with and reported on chemical reactions of >Brown's Gas with other elements and compounds? Some more good published info on Brown's Gas (BG) is the Int'l Tesla Society (ITS) quarterly magazine, "Extraordinary Science" Vol. V Issue 3 Jul/Aug/Sep 1993. Another "unusual effect" of BG can be utilized for nuclear radiation disposal. Cobalt 60 was treated with BG and it reduced the radioactivity from 1000 rads to 40 rads, on many occasions. Michael Randall From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 23:19:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA25818; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 23:16:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 23:16:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 02:15:25 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Brown's Gas Questions In-Reply-To: <199609090538.WAA04959@iberia.it.earthlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"MGtdt3.0.KJ6.IPxCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/579 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear MR., What was the nature of the treatment of Co 60? Did the isotope vaporize? If treated with BG, was this ingited gas, or not ingited? If ignited, how were Co 60 vapors [if any] accounted for. On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, Michael Randall wrote: > Sun, 8 Sep 1996 06:47:35 -0700 (PDT), you wrote > > > >Has anyone experimented with and reported on chemical reactions of > >Brown's Gas with other elements and compounds? > > Some more good published info on Brown's Gas (BG) is the Int'l Tesla Society > (ITS) quarterly magazine, "Extraordinary Science" Vol. V Issue 3 Jul/Aug/Sep > 1993. > > Another "unusual effect" of BG can be utilized for nuclear radiation > disposal. Cobalt 60 was treated with BG and it reduced the radioactivity > from 1000 rads to 40 rads, on many occasions. > > Michael Randall > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 23:40:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA28156; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 23:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 23:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: 09 Sep 96 02:36:13 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Modanese article sent to me... Message-ID: <960909063612_76216.2421_HHB37-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"RNApR2.0.st6.CkxCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/580 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace wrote: > Another new wrinkle - you don't get to 2 percent without > applying breaking power. Sounds like you could directly drive a disc with mechanical power while bucking it with the AC fields to maximize this effect in a steady state. > Alternate explanations of time dilation, mass or inirtia > reduction, etc. are still on! One good piece of news anyway. That is. But they were also using LH, not LN. Much more expensive and less availability, right? Perhaps a blow of sorts to garage-shop hackers having any chance of duplication. Another major experiment which I haven't seen mentioned yet that might become possible with this sort of apparatus is the measurement of the speed of propagation of gravitational effects. At this point though, this whole thing is beginning to bother me. This stuff implies so much about the nature of gravity, so many important experiments and applications suggested, like the 'camera' and so forth, that in light of how this news has come about, I'm beginning to feel a pretty strong pull in the direction of the hoax explanation. Isn't this just a little bit too *huge* to come dribbling out from obscure papers with poorly described experiments? That there's some serious controversy swirling around the names on the recently submitted paper tends to reinforce the hoax notion. Either way though, it sure has been fun speculating, and dreaming a little bit of what might be. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 8 23:56:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA00682; Sun, 8 Sep 1996 23:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 23:54:55 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Transmutation and Joe Champion Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 06:53:54 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3233a170.24006048@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <2.2.32.19960908220018.006d12c0@microweb.com> In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960908220018.006d12c0@microweb.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: <"dedwx3.0.aA.-yxCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/581 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 08 Sep 1996 15:00:18 -0700, Bill Colias wrote: > Hello, Vortexians. I'm new to this group. I hope you find my following >speculation of interest: > Transmutation of elements can be thought of as fusing elements = together to >generate new elements. The trouble with transmutation in classical = physics >thought is that to fuse elements together you have to overcome the = coloumb >barrier which takes an enormous amount of energy. Could this = transmutation >be inducing a quantum tunneling effect and thereby circumventing the = coloumb >barrier? Does anyone have any thoughts on the theoretical basis of = inducing >such a quantum tunneling effect? > -Bill Colias- > > First of all, it is well accepted that *all* fusion (hot included) makes use of quantum tunnelling (see hot fusion FAQ?). Second, you might find Charles Cagle's web page at http://www.teleport.com/~singtech interesting. You might also like to take a look at that of Joe Champion at http://www.netzone.com/~discpub/ and mine at http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa 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 Sep 9 00:36:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA05446; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 00:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 00:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: 09 Sep 96 03:32:40 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Modanese article sent to me... Message-ID: <960909073240_76216.2421_HHB29-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"QKNjz1.0.xK1.oYyCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/582 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Correction: My typo said: "But they were also using LH" - Should have been "LHe". - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 9 00:47:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA07122; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 00:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 00:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: 09 Sep 96 03:45:04 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Modanese article sent to me... Message-ID: <960909074503_100060.173_JHB121-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"1KxRl2.0.Cl1.HjyCo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/583 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace: >> Much thanks to Bill Beaty for providing this info. Could we someday be hearing about the BSGT, Beaty Space Gravity Telescope? << By the way, the same article (Modanese) describes Liq. He not N and a temp of 70K max. Has this been appreciated by all? Also, how does all this data marry up with the latest Matthews info re: Pod et al? Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 9 05:57:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA02561; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 05:55:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 05:55:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609091253.AA20483@gateway1.srs.gov> Alternate-Recipient: prohibited Disclose-Recipients: prohibited Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 08:39:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Kirk L Shanahan Subject: Re: Power plant or Plant Power? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Posting-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 08:43:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal A1-Type: MAIL Hop-Count: 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"pO0o_3.0.qd.xE1Do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/584 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sounds to me like the Indian gentleman has a biomass-derived version of something that is being studied now in the US. Caterpillar is working with an inventor out of Denver I believe on a fuel/water mix for diesel engines. It is supposed to work very well. I can track down some more details if there is enough interest... Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}} From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 9 06:05:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA03352; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 06:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 06:02:52 -0700 (PDT) From: roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net (Chuck Davis) Message-Id: <23277386.u8t20e.384ab-roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Power plant or Plant Power? In-Reply-To: <199609091253.AA20483@gateway1.srs.gov> (from Kirk L Shanahan ) (at Mon, 09 Sep 1996 08:39:00 -0400 (EDT)) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 96 06:00:45 Resent-Message-ID: <"-cWu61.0.Iq.yL1Do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/585 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hello Kirk, on Sep 09 you wrote: >Sounds to me like the Indian gentleman has a biomass-derived version of >something that is being studied now in the US. Caterpillar is working with >an inventor out of Denver I believe on a fuel/water mix for diesel engines. >It is supposed to work very well. I can track down some more details if >there is enough interest... > >Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}} > > I think the fuel is naptha with some sort catalyst. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 9 07:26:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA15630; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 07:16:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 07:16:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 06:21:05 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Gravitational telescope w/imaging capability Resent-Message-ID: <"CnsgB3.0.7q3.7R2Do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/586 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 06:43 PM 9/8/96 -0800, you wrote: >>[snip] > >>I like the idea very much, assuming there is no penumbra, as you say "The >>shielded zone is a columnar shadow with no dropoff in strength with > > >Penumbra (pe numbre, pi-) pl. -brae (-bre) or -bras > >1 the partly lighted area surrounding the complete shadow >(umbra) of a body, as the moon, during an eclipse: >see eclipse, illus. > >2 the less dark region surrounding the dark central >area of a sunspot > >3 a vague, indefinite, or borderline area > >(C)1995 ZCI Publishing, Inc. >(C)1994, 1991, 1988 Simon & Schuster, Inc. =46rom recent prior post of mine: "Shadow, column of effect, beam, cone of silence, whatever you call it, it must be fairly narrow to show a similar effect over several stories. I would call any space where the effect is the same magnitude as near the surface of the disk (i.e. 2 %) the umbra of the effect. At this point we don't know how far the umbra extends, but we do know the penumbra weekens only gradually with regard to angle from the vertical, else the effect would not be similar several stories up." If we can talk about a gravitational shadow then certainly can talk about a gravitational umbra and the existence or non-existance of a gravitational penumbra. No need to repeat gravitational all the time is there? Since we are in new territory it is reasonable to define new terms or borrow old terms and apply where the meaning is similar and readily understandable, like "shadow". Seems to me umbra and penumbra are fine terms for such borrowing, or do you take umbrage with that. :) um0bra (=EEm2br=F5) n., pl. um0bras or um0brae (-brT). 1. A dark area, especially the blackest part of a shadow from which all light is cut off. 2. Astronomy. a. The completely dark portion of the shadow cast by the earth, moon, or other body during an eclipse. b. The darkest region of a sunspot. pe0num0bra (p=BE-n=EEm2br=F5) n., pl. pe0num0brae (-brT) or pe0num0bras. 1. A partial shadow, as in an eclipse, between regions of complete shadow and complete illumination. 2. The grayish outer part of a sunspot. 3. An area in which something exists to a lesser or an uncertain degree. 4. An outlying, surrounding region; a periphery. -pe0num2bral or pe0num2brou= s American Hweritage dictionary - Macintosh version. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 9 07:49:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA21127; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 07:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 07:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 07:39:13 -0700 Message-Id: <199609091439.HAA15879@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Dr. Y. Arata at ICCF6 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"zR1XQ.0.z95.4n2Do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/587 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sept. 9, 1996 A listing of the ICCF-6 program posted here by Jed has Dr. Y. Arata scheduled as the third presentor on the first morning of the program. In the past, he presented long term excess heat data from his special P&F type cell. His cell was an electrolytic cell like the P&F cell but the difference lay in his cathode design where the D migrated into, and in effect, gas(ion?) charged an inner chamber containing Palladium Black. This gave rise to the excess heat. He called it the 'Double Cathode'. At the ICCF-5, he presented some theories of the excess heat phenomena. At the ICCF-6, his presentation is boldly titled "Achievement of Solid-State Plasma Fusion ("Cold Fusion"). Everybody else is talking about measurements, studies, thoughts, observations, reports, analysis, occurances, confirmations, considerations, correlations, reactions, excesses, effects, productions, and so forth --- including CETI. Well, he has been at it long enough, starting from Hot Fusion/Fission days. Let's see what he presents which should be as un-ambiguous as the title. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 9 08:10:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA00773 for billb@eskimo.com; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: MHUGO@EPRINET.EPRI.COM Mon Sep 9 08:10:30 1996 Received: from relay3.UU.NET (relay3.UU.NET [192.48.96.8]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA00738 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 08:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from atai.epri.com by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: atai.epri.com [144.58.2.61]) id QQbgky28013; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 11:09:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from epri.epri.com by atai.epri.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA10402; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 08:09:20 -0700 Received: by EPRINET.EPRI.COM (Soft*Switch Central V4L40P1A) id 135008080096253FEPRI; 09 Sep 1996 08:08:08 PDT Message-Id: Old-Date: 09 Sep 1996 08:08:08 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: Vortex Down on this End... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/09/96 08:08:49 SMTP X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Vortex Down on this End... - I haven't had any Vortex messages for a couple days. I believe the server is down. I'm feeling guilty, I need to send Bill B. some $$$... sorry Bill, we'll try to get to it Friday. (Free will donation for a valuable service.) MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 9 08:18:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA27488; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 07:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 07:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 10:57:45 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Power plant or Plant Power? In-Reply-To: <199609091253.AA20483@gateway1.srs.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"6IWVM2.0.Mj6.s23Do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/588 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Real question to me is: How much water, in weight, plus how much plant matter, in weight, equals how much 'fuel', in weight. I could add 1 lb of creosote oil to 1 lb water and go through some chemistry and easily wing up with 1/2 lb fuels. J On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Kirk L Shanahan wrote: > Sounds to me like the Indian gentleman has a biomass-derived version of > something that is being studied now in the US. Caterpillar is working with > an inventor out of Denver I believe on a fuel/water mix for diesel engines. > It is supposed to work very well. I can track down some more details if > there is enough interest... > > Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}} > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 9 10:31:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA09177; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 10:17:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 10:17:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609091709.KAA00494@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Modanese article sent to me... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 10:09:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <960909063612_76216.2421_HHB37-1@CompuServe.COM> from "Rick Monteverde" at Sep 9, 96 02:36:13 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: <"UhrFp3.0.IF2.g45Do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/589 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick Monteverde writes: > I'm beginning to feel a pretty strong pull in the direction of the > hoax explanation. Isn't this just a little bit too *huge* to come > dribbling out from obscure papers with poorly described experiments? So, bury Tampere? Maybe so, it rhymes, you know. But please first take a hard look at the "obscure" research which well documents the fact that William Hooper's invention works. Hooper's discovery, along with the confirming experiments of W.F. Edwards and others, has been buried in obscurity for over twenty five years. And isn't it a bit too *huge* to have been buried accidently? Tampere is much the same invention. How much dirt will it take? Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 9 14:44:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA08365; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 14:14:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 14:14:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609092113.OAA32337@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, 09 Sep 1996 14:12:49 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Power plant or Plant Power? Resent-Message-ID: <"4Lg2j1.0.X22.QY8Do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/592 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:57 AM 9/9/96 -0400, you wrote: > > > Real question to me is: > > How much water, in weight, plus how much plant matter, in weight, >equals how much 'fuel', in weight. > > I could add 1 lb of creosote oil to 1 lb water and go through >some chemistry and easily wing up with 1/2 lb fuels. > > J > >On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Kirk L Shanahan wrote: > >> Sounds to me like the Indian gentleman has a biomass-derived version of >> something that is being studied now in the US. Caterpillar is working with >> an inventor out of Denver I believe on a fuel/water mix for diesel engines. >> It is supposed to work very well. I can track down some more details if >> there is enough interest... >> >> Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}} >> >> > > very good point. the Indian may have discovered a creosote type plant or johoba type plant with lots of easily cracked oil which can be bound as a sort of naptha with water, like the Utah invention. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 9 14:45:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA08309; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 14:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 14:13:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609092113.OAA32325@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, 09 Sep 1996 14:12:46 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Power plant or Plant Power? Resent-Message-ID: <"mEJ8Q3.0.k12.HY8Do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/591 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:00 AM 9/9/96, you wrote: >Hello Kirk, on Sep 09 you wrote: > >>Sounds to me like the Indian gentleman has a biomass-derived version of >>something that is being studied now in the US. Caterpillar is working with >>an inventor out of Denver I believe on a fuel/water mix for diesel engines. >>It is supposed to work very well. I can track down some more details if >>there is enough interest... >> >>Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}} >> >> > I think the fuel is naptha with some sort catalyst. > > > nay, naptha with a binder to keep it bound in mixture with water. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 9 14:46:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA08073; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 14:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 14:13:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609092112.OAA32295@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, 09 Sep 1996 14:12:25 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' Resent-Message-ID: <"3G-mv1.0.xz1.-X8Do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/590 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Responses to various and sundry Brown's GAS At 09:39 AM 9/8/96 -0800, you wrote: >John Schnurer writes: > >> >> The hydrox flame is well know for its temperature. Flame >>temperatures and melting and boiling point temperatures can be found in >>CRC handbook. Don't have mine handy so I won't give you exact figures. >> Hydrox will easily develop 2,000 to 2,500 C >> Any measurements of melting and so on will be a good experience >>to anyone who has never worked in this temperature range. >> I have done work here and enjoy it because all the 'rules' ,in my >>opinion, are "squishy"; >> 2000 C is above incandescence ..... have a good time trying to >>see what is happening.... >> When ou are out in this 'neverland' you wonder... 'Is it >>melting....or am I causing a chemical reaction '? The later may be >>difficult to determine at times with hydrox. >> >> > > >This points out one of the big mytseries of Brown's gas which is perported >to melt tungsten. That requires much more than 2500 C, closer to 6000 C. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > That's right - mysterious, but maybe not so if you look with em eyes. Hydrox flame is not the same so do not equate it to Brrown's Gas. With Brown's Gas, I think frankly that we are talking about a semi-coherent function as opposed to a well mixed, randomized type of adventure chemists call "a burn". BG does not burn. BG reassembles into water in a well ordered process very nearly free of any other complications. I suspect that what we have is an em pulse, a semi-coherent product of the total combining, obviously VERY SHORT WAVE since the electrons so called are not moving very far, such that it is a lasing effect which pinpoints the energy onto a small spot on the surface of whatever it is applied. Under this circumstance, temperature doesnt mean much because apparantly it will sublimate anything. Trying it on lithium oxide is worth while, I guess, just to validate this point. AS pointed out by Brown, trying to use infarad to get a reading is not worthwhile because the temp you see is the temp of the sublimating item. The "flame" cone itself is blue, easy to look at and will probably show approx what hydrox shows. The whole difference is in the "resonant" possibilities of proportion. Maybe the cascading of the wave onto a surface creates a zpe region from the reverse standing wave reflection function? EMers can understand it. Can chemists understand it? A few simple experiments should be able to show the possible pregnacy of these thoughts. Gary, can you excite Merlin into a run or two on our unit? >>>>Has Brown's Gas been subjected to to testing such as spectral >>analysis? >>> >>>Although not spectral analysis here per se, the flame itself was >>>subjected to an infrared pyrometer as it acted on tungsten, to >>>measure temperature. >> >>Hey Joe, >> >>Think you could get some of your buddies with their mass specs to do a >>spectral analysis on Brown's Gas prior to burning? Real science here. >> >>RWW > > >I have access to a small Brown's Gas Generator, maybe (just maybe) we could >ask Barry to run a spectrum at the university. To treat it as a fair test, >I would think that the gas should be made in close proximity to the MS and >not only check the gas, but check the water after reformation. > >Personally, I think that all one will find is hydrogen and oxygen. However, >it would be neat if one found determium, or tritium after combustion. This >would assist in the determination is anything is really going on. > >As far as the tungsten, allow me to present the following: > >1. Tungsten readily oxidizes at red heat. > >2. Heat of formation is: W + O2 => W02 + 589.7 J/mol > >3. WO2 melts at ~1,500oC (in N2), boils at 1430oC and sublimes at 800oC. > >Using tugsten as an example as to the heat or energy of Brown's flame is not >justified, for W will appear to vaporize using the above chemical reaction >with any "highly" oxidized flame such as water gas. Whereas the reality is >-- tungsten is coverted to its oxide state from the H2 + O2 gas and the >tungsten oxide vaporizes (or sublimes) at temperatures less than 1,500oC. > >No magic here, just plain chemistry. > > > >_______________________________ >Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com >http://www.netzone.com/~discpub > >At 10:38 PM 9/8/96 -0700, you wrote: >Sun, 8 Sep 1996 06:47:35 -0700 (PDT), you wrote >> >>Has anyone experimented with and reported on chemical reactions of >>Brown's Gas with other elements and compounds? > >Some more good published info on Brown's Gas (BG) is the Int'l Tesla Society >(ITS) quarterly magazine, "Extraordinary Science" Vol. V Issue 3 Jul/Aug/Sep >1993. > >Another "unusual effect" of BG can be utilized for nuclear radiation >disposal. Cobalt 60 was treated with BG and it reduced the radioactivity >from 1000 rads to 40 rads, on many occasions. > >Michael Randall > Gary, maybe the time is right to coordinate the Seattle Weird Science Club into conducting a set of experiments on the Wilson BG unit over at Merlin's. One All Vortexians: We have a BG unit sitting idle most of the time in the Puget Sound. This unit could be employed in cooperative experiments. Simple material experiments are difficult to motivate third parties to accomplish. But, the line of reasoning above introduced by Champion is very interesting. IE, my thoughts above regarding possible ZPE zone in the standing wave reflection at the surface of the material might be pregnant (might) and Champion is pointing toward an examination of its transmutative qualities, looking for a dirty byproduct of xsmutation as a defining signal which would show up on spectral vision. Brown is a part of the emergent transmutation phenomenon and Champion/Bockris can tell you that story. Suffice to say, one BG unit needs to be married in convenience to a first class chem/fizz analysis situation to progresss beyond the hoary story stage. I would be willing to work on getting that motivated and happening, if the marriage of convenience included open access to Vortexian designed experiments and people like Gary were motivated to run the experiments. What say you? BTW, anybody know how to get ahold of dust particles and cutting fragments from natural gemstones, or really small grains of natural gemstones, especially ruby? Natural, not cultured. An interesting cottage industry is possible and if you can source the material, we can add value. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 9 15:53:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id PAA27708; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 15:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 15:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32349C36.2C03@interlaced.net> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 18:37:42 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Beaty's hydraulic chair References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"iMQ4M3.0.nm6.En9Do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/593 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: William Beaty wrote: > ( This was the topic of an SF short story from decades ago. One > character rode a chair being pushed hydraulically into the "repulsion > zone" around an antigravity generator, but upon falling off the chair, > burned up on reentry! ) Hey! I read that story, Bill. By Arthur C. Clark I think. Great tale! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 9 18:06:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA29213; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: 09 Sep 96 20:33:57 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Modanese article sent to me... Message-ID: <960910003356_76216.2421_HHB52-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"yjzxy2.0.I87.6kBDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/594 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robert Stirniman wrote: > So, bury Tampere? Maybe so, it rhymes, you know. > > But please first take a hard look at the "obscure" research > which well documents the fact that William Hooper's > invention works. Hooper's discovery, along with the > confirming experiments of W.F. Edwards and others, has > been buried in obscurity for over twenty five years. And > isn't it a bit too *huge* to have been buried accidently? > > Tampere is much the same invention. How much dirt will it > take? Maybe Hooper's invention is real (i.e. works, is anomalous, etc.), I don't know. Maybe the Tampere setup works too. But right now it looks like Pod was either trying to pull a fast one of some sort, or there was some kind of grand mix-up regarding the submitted paper. IOW, it doesn't look good, and we have no proof that it's real at all beyond the reported claims made in the original papers and the recent newspaper article based on those papers. How much dirt will it take? So far the only real dirt has come from the author of the paper, so it probably won't take much. It tends to be pretty heavy when it originates with the source. He has withdrawn the paper from consideration for publication in J Phys D, according to the reporter Matthews. It's a little early to be saying it might be a conspiracy to bury this, as there's no evidence of that either. If it's not an attempt at fraud at some level, then it's probably just a conspiracy to screw up. I believe the other possibilities are rather remote. Your may feel otherwise. But is the effect real? Will we ever know? Looks like this one is just slipping away like someone said early on that these kinds of things tend to do. I'm very disappointed. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 9 18:13:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA00113; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:54:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 20:52:19 -0400 Message-ID: <960909205218_197961872@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"yYfNo1.0.h1.MnBDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/595 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Stirniman says: "One of the presumptions in electrodynamics, is the Clausius postulate -- that a current carrying conductor is electrically neutral. It is WRONG. At the time this postulate was formed, it was not know that current flow in metals results solely from negative charge carriers." Am I missing something? Seems to me that Clausius postulate is still true; even though the current carriers are all negative electrons, the conductor of such electrons and the ion background still consitutes a neutral conductor overall. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 9 18:17:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id RAA00626; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:57:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:57:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 20:56:32 -0400 Message-ID: <960909205631_197965499@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: erroneous Tampere speculations Resent-Message-ID: <"v8Zfr2.0.g9.jpBDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/596 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross asked: "Hal, does this explain my thoughts better? " Yes, interesting stuff. Hal From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 9 20:03:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA09769; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 19:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 19:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 19:31:09 -0700 Message-Id: <199609100231.TAA16683@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: Modanese article sent to me... Resent-Message-ID: <"pAUWU3.0.VO2.VCDDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/598 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, William Beaty wrote: > >> by our theoretical model. The small expulsive force observed at the >> border of the shielded zone is due to energy conservation. > >But if the system is conservative, this force should prevent such >phenomena as the reported air convection. This is not accurate. If the SC is heated in an equal amount to any work performed on the air or other objects, then the energy is conservative in the system as a whole. There are two major inputs of energy in the system that are being overlooked here when we discuss the possibility of free energy. 1) Any heating of the SC could offset the energy gain from lifting other matter. 2) There could be a rotational drag effect that is being compensated for by the electric coils, and the energy to drive the coils could be used up to lift things. 3) If the driving coils are as well SC devices, then there could be additional heating of those SC's. That said, it really doesn't matter whether the thing is yielding free energy or not. Any ability to alter the amplitude of the gravitational potential in such a manner would be tremendously useful. > >The repulsion around the columnar weight loss zone should be fairly >strong, since placing a mass into the column is energetically the same as >elevating it to a height. Yes. Brings to mind the concept of constant pressure vaporization. A tiny change in the mass of a weight where the weight is a piston over liquid, can alter the equilibrium point and lead to the piston rising any height desired by only changing the mass a tiny amount, say 2 percent! So if this is real, there are already a whole class of devices that are possible. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 9 23:39:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA26871; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 23:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 23:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 22:28:08 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' Resent-Message-ID: <"TyAhH1.0.mZ6.LcGDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/600 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >> >>Personally, I think that all one will find is hydrogen and oxygen. However, >>it would be neat if one found determium, or tritium after combustion. This >>would assist in the determination is anything is really going on. >> >>As far as the tungsten, allow me to present the following: >> >>1. Tungsten readily oxidizes at red heat. >> >>2. Heat of formation is: W + O2 => W02 + 589.7 J/mol >> >>3. WO2 melts at ~1,500oC (in N2), boils at 1430oC and sublimes at 800oC. >> >>Using tugsten as an example as to the heat or energy of Brown's flame is not >>justified, for W will appear to vaporize using the above chemical reaction >>with any "highly" oxidized flame such as water gas. Whereas the reality is >>-- tungsten is coverted to its oxide state from the H2 + O2 gas and the >>tungsten oxide vaporizes (or sublimes) at temperatures less than 1,500oC. >> >>No magic here, just plain chemistry. >> >> >> >>_______________________________ >>Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com >>http://www.netzone.com/~discpub Yes, Joe, no reason to believe there is any magic here. I wasn't going to post because you are so clearly right on this, but since I am posting anyway just want to agree. >> >>Another "unusual effect" of BG can be utilized for nuclear radiation >>disposal. Cobalt 60 was treated with BG and it reduced the radioactivity >>from 1000 rads to 40 rads, on many occasions. >> >>Michael Randall Wow, now that's magical! I assume it didn't vaporize and blow away! :} [snip] >Suffice to say, one BG unit needs to be married in convenience to a first >class chem/fizz analysis situation to progresss beyond the hoary story >stage. I would be willing to work on getting that motivated and happening, >if the marriage of convenience included open access to Vortexian designed >experiments and people like Gary were motivated to run the experiments. >What say you? [snip] >Michael Mandeville, publisher Since tungsten is not a valid test, maybe there is something that is good. Need something that will not react with H or O at high temp to form lower tmep boiling/sublimating substance (tall order!) Maybe Rhenium (5596 C), Iridium (4428 C)? Probably both oxidize. Maybe tungsten carbide (6000 C) or ziconium carbide (5100 C)? Probably reacts with H. Maybe that's part of the magic - high temperature Brown's gas is a universal solvent. This brings up a point. Why make the Browns gas in the first place? Just use a steam jet and excite it electrically to create a plasma jet or arc. Much safer and maybe similar effects? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 00:05:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA02666; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 23:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 23:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960910070419.0072cd68@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: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:04:19 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' Resent-Message-ID: <"Kmg_r2.0.Zf.z6HDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/601 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Can you [motivate] [******} into a run or two on our unit? He's on the list now, will eventually see the message. >Maybe the time is right to coordinate the Seattle Weird Science Club >into conducting a set of experiments on the Wilson BG unit over at ******'s. The next meeting is over there. Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 00:08:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA04455; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960910071148.00730ec4@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: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:11:48 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Materials for Brown's Gas units Resent-Message-ID: <"6tu263.0.R51.zDHDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/602 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: For any of you in the Seattle area, there is a stainless pipe with about a 1/4" wall, around 8 feet long, and about 10" in diameter, at the recycling junkyard where Leary Way turns due west into Ballard. Suitable for a Brown's Gas unit. They will cut a piece for you, and they sell by the pound. Also, Arrow Metals, another recycler, in Woodinville. These are both neat places to find stuff real cheap. Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 00:09:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA04469; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960910071151.00739e34@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: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:11:51 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' Resent-Message-ID: <"x_WaZ1.0.i51.-DHDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/603 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >This brings up a point. Why make the Browns gas in the first place? Just >use a steam jet and excite it electrically to create a plasma jet or arc. >Much safer and maybe similar effects? > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > > Interesting that you would mention that Horace. I am aware of an individual who built a plasma jet, and he's the one who told me about Lithium Oxide having a boiling point of 13,000 degrees. He said he was able to boil it with the plasma device. Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 00:25:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA06679; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:23:35 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Need ideas Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 07:22:44 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32350c07.28622903@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960909180250_197829088@emout11.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <960909180250_197829088@emout11.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: <"5YAyw3.0.Be1.rTHDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/604 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 9 Sep 1996 18:13:32 -0400, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: >How much electrochemical pressure do cold fusion cells impose upon = hydrogen. > This pressure forces hydrogen into the surface of nickel or palladium. = At >first glance it would appear that the Nerst Equation applies. > >volts =3D .059 ln (delta P) > >My first thought was, "With 2 volts, the pressure runs into the hundreds= of >millions of pounds." > >I have now found that nickel and palladium adsorb or molecular hydrogen= NOT Where did you find this Frank? >IONS. Electrochemical pressure is not exerted on uncharged molecules. = What >is going on? What forces the molecular hydrogen into the metal surface? > >What is the role of CO2. Nickel complexes with CO2 to form a liquid. = Is Are you sure this is CO2, and not CO? >this happening? Any ideas? > >Frank Znidarsic > > 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 Sep 10 00:53:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id AAA10466; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:52:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:52:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:51:53 -0700 Message-Id: <199609100751.AAA20512@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: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"qdX3U.0.RZ2.cuHDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/605 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Stirniman says: > >"One of the presumptions in electrodynamics, is >the Clausius postulate -- that a current carrying >conductor is electrically neutral. It is WRONG. >At the time this postulate was formed, it was >not know that current flow in metals results >solely from negative charge carriers." > >Am I missing something? Seems to me that Clausius postulate is still true; >even though the current carriers are all negative electrons, the conductor of >such electrons and the ion background still consitutes a neutral conductor >overall. > >Hal Puthoff > > Seems to me that the statement is indeed incorrect and that an excess of charge will indeed exist in a conductor carrying a current. As you send a current through a wire, there is a voltage gradient that develops as you get the current going, and this gradient remains for as long as there is charge flowing. That gradient is maintained due to the resistance in the conductor. There is thus an excess of electrons in the wire, and that excess is measured as voltage along the length of the wire at any location, but the voltage will be dropping. Now in an SC, this is not true and the Clausius principle is true when the current is not **changing**. For changing currents, even the SC should have a voltage gradient and thus an excess of charge that gets the electrons moving. Is there anything wrong with the above thoughts? Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 01:49:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA06244; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 19:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 19:13:22 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 18:13:32 -0400 Message-ID: <960909180250_197829088@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, GeorgeHM@aol.com Subject: Need ideas Resent-Message-ID: <"0mrIT2.0.TX1.0xCDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/597 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: How much electrochemical pressure do cold fusion cells impose upon hydrogen. This pressure forces hydrogen into the surface of nickel or palladium. At first glance it would appear that the Nerst Equation applies. volts = .059 ln (delta P) My first thought was, "With 2 volts, the pressure runs into the hundreds of millions of pounds." I have now found that nickel and palladium adsorb or molecular hydrogen NOT IONS. Electrochemical pressure is not exerted on uncharged molecules. What is going on? What forces the molecular hydrogen into the metal surface? What is the role of CO2. Nickel complexes with CO2 to form a liquid. Is this happening? Any ideas? Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 03:50:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id DAA27100; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 03:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 03:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 03:43:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199609101043.DAA01062@dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"alCR41.0.Md6.qPKDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/606 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: > > >>This brings up a point. Why make the Browns gas in the first place? Just >>use a steam jet and excite it electrically to create a plasma jet or arc. >>Much safer and maybe similar effects? >> >> >>Regards, >> PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >>Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 >> >> >> >> > >Interesting that you would mention that Horace. I am aware >of an individual who built a plasma jet, and he's the one >who told me about Lithium Oxide having a boiling point of >13,000 degrees. He said he was able to boil it with the >plasma device. > >Gary Hawkins > > 9/10/96 Plasma jet cutting devices are widely commercially available. They will easily and quickly "cut" the hardest 1" steel. Why reinvent the wheel, just use use a commercial model on Lithium oxide or any other material. Just call any local welding supply and they will direct you to the nearest owner of a machine. Take your Li2O over and blast away. Barry are you up to doing mass spec and MRI testing on before and after Brown's gas? RWW From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 04:31:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id EAA01311; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 04:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 04:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609101123.AA22476@gateway1.srs.gov> Alternate-Recipient: prohibited Disclose-Recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 07:08:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Kirk L Shanahan Subject: Re: Power plant or Plant Power? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 07:16:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal A1-Type: MAIL Hop-Count: 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"BvHns2.0.PK.e0LDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/607 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John wrote: > Real question to me is: > > How much water, in weight, plus how much plant matter, in weight, > equals how much 'fuel', in weight. > > I could add 1 lb of creosote oil to 1 lb water and go through > some chemistry and easily wing up with 1/2 lb fuels. I dug the following out of the DejaNews archives for sci.energy. There was a long thread about this awhile back on that newsgroup as I recall. There should be more info there. You might want to note where the original posting on the note came from...;-). Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}} --------------------------- Subject: Re: Water as a fuel in internal combustion engines From: Gary Steckly Date: 1996/03/18 Message-Id: <4ikgp0$jqj@crc-news.doc.ca> References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii Organization: Industry Canada Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: sci.engr.chem,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22(Windows; I; 16bit) Span8591@uidaho.edu (Michael Spangler) wrote: older stuff deleted... >There was a test going on in Reno where the buses were running a >diesel/water mix emulsified with some new surfactant. it is similar in >effect to water injection, but easier to manage. The initial results >looked good, but I haven't heard any more about it since moving to Idaho. >Caterpillar was also looking into the technology. > >The benefit Reno was interested in was a reduction in NOx emmisions and >possibly an improvement in fuel economy. It had an unforseen benefit of >reducing particulates as well. The bus drivers said it made no difference >in the buses' performance. > >-- >Mike Spangler >University of Idaho >span8591@uidaho.edu You are referring to Rudolf Gunnerman's A-21 fuel...a mix of water and naptha I believe (but don't quote me on this). Anyway, by the looks of this note, things are progressing wrt the regulatory hurdles they have to pass. This comes via Bill Beaty's freenrg listserver. I don't know the original source. regards Gary *************excerpt begins************************ Reply-To: freenrg-list@eskimo.com >From Nando.net... New 'primary' fuel wins federal approval New 'primary' fuel wins federal approval SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Mar 16, 1996 12:27 p.m. EST) -- A new petroleum-based fuel that promises to cut vehicle smog by nearly half has won federal approval to be become the first "primary fuel" on the market since the invention of gasoline and diesel more than a century ago. The Reno inventor of the creamy white fluid says it can be used in existing cars with minor modifications costing less than $500, and may sell for less than half the price of conventional fuel. "It's cheaper and cleaner," said Rudolf Gunnerman, who has invested seven years and $7 million of his personal fortune to develop the "A-21" formula, or "advanced fuel for the 21st century." The fuel, up to 55 percent water, also has been shown to be much more fire-resistant than gasoline and diesel. Sacramento area air pollution officials have taken a strong interest in the fuel because of its potential for reducing oxides of nitrogen emissions from vehicles, the chief culprit in the region's summer smog problem. "It's not a commercial technology yet, but we have high hopes that it will succeed and get on the market," said Ranson Roser, an engineer with the Sacramento Air Quality Management District. The U.S. Department of Energy on Friday declared the "A-21" formula a "primary fuel," clearing the biggest regulatory hurdle for its use in government fleets and eventually private vehicles. The action means the fuel can now be sold just like gasoline and diesel without further federal review, energy department officials said. "We're extremely excited," said Peter Gunnerman, director of Advanced Fuels, a partnership with the Peoria, Ill.-based truck manufacturer Caterpillar Inc. Representatives of the oil industry and environmentalists remain skeptical. "A number of options have come and gone in the past two decades, said Jason Mark, a transportation analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Berkeley. "We've learned that there's no such thing as a silver bullet." Peter Gunnerman, the inventor's son, said the fuel must satisfactorily complete several more rounds of customer-acceptance tests and pass California's environmentally stringent fuel certifications. Under federal rules, engines modified to use the fuel are legal as long as they don't increase emissions. Those modifications will cost consumers no more than $500, Peter Gunnerman said. Diesel bus and truck modification would cost about $1,000. Modified vehicles could still run on gasoline or diesel, he said. The company first wants to market the fuel as an alternative to diesel for the heavy-duty trucks and construction equipment in smoggy areas. Fleet operators at the state and large companies are highly motivated to find a fuel like A-21, says Kurt Ettinger of the Department of Energy's Alternative Fuels Hotline. "It's probably close to half again cleaner than regular gasoline, at least," says Ed Glick, a planner in charge of the mobile sources section of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, which has studied A-21. "It'll meet the 2005 standards -- the gasoline that we're all using now wouldn't." While large trucks would be more expensive to modify to use A-21, that cost is not nearly so expensive as the modifications that will be required when new regulations on diesel fleets go into effect in 1998. Moreover, the fuel is produced at oil refineries and can be transported in existing pipelines and trucks, giving it what is referred to in the oil industry as "transparency." Now the developers must market the technology to the oil giants. Right now, the company's blending facility outside Reno is making 35,000 gallons of A-21 daily, with the capacity to produce three times that much. A second blending station opened recently in Woodland. Don Patterson, a truck engine account manager with Tenco, the Caterpillar dealership for 10 counties surrounding Sacramento, has used A-21 to fuel a three-axle, 300 horsepower tractor truck, and he's impressed. "It felt exactly like diesel, good acceleration, no smoke," he says. "You could not tell you were driving an alternative fuel truck. The other alternative fuels, compressed natural gas, liquid natural gas, you do get a horsepower and torque loss. Not with this. I've been a journeyman mechanic for 25 years, and I've never seen anything like it." At the Gunnerman's modest operation in downtown Reno, a sample of the fuel is mixed in a bucket and then run through both a V-8 automobile engine and a 350 horsepower diesel engine, with a marked reduction in smoke from the tailpipes, but no apparent reduction in power. With blowtorch in hand, Gunnerman demonstrates another one of A-21's remarkable properties: because of its low volatility, a tray full of the fuel fails to ignite under the flame. Thus, the fuel will not explode in automobile crashes. A-21 has also been successfully used in boilers, specifically by the city of Reno, which receives 250 kilowatts of electricity a day from an A-21-fueled generator stationed on the Gunnerman's property. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 04:51:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id EAA03494; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 04:45:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 04:45:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 04:44:51 PDT From: Barry Merriman Message-Id: <9609101144.AA20946@joshua.math.ucla.edu> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas Resent-Message-ID: <"MsMf61.0.Ss.0JLDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/608 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: RWW asksi if "I am up to doing mass spec and MRI testing on before and after Brown's gas?" Well, sure if I had an ICP Mass Spec amchine and MRI chamber in my basement, I would fire them up an give it a shot. Howver, in reality these facilities exist is heavily used and underfunded university laboritories, that would have to do such work as a favor or to satisfy their own curiosity. So, first I require some education---exactly what are the anomalous claims associated with Brown's Gas? As far as I have heard and seen, it simply seems like an effcient H-O combustion torch. Admittedly I haven't paid much attention, btu perhaps someone could briefly summarize the supposed properties of BG. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 05:37:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA17801; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 05:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 05:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 04:35:16 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' Resent-Message-ID: <"ySSI33.0.2M4.s1MDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/609 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >>This brings up a point. Why make the Browns gas in the first place? Just >>use a steam jet and excite it electrically to create a plasma jet or arc. >>Much safer and maybe similar effects? >> >> >>Regards, >> PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >>Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 >> >> >> >> > >Interesting that you would mention that Horace. I am aware >of an individual who built a plasma jet, and he's the one >who told me about Lithium Oxide having a boiling point of >13,000 degrees. He said he was able to boil it with the >plasma device. > >Gary Hawkins There is something strange about that. The 74th edition of the CRC Handbook (1993-94) p. 4-70 shows the melting point of Li2O as >1700 C (760 mm Hg assumed) and the boiling point as 1200 C. at 600 mm Hg pressure. The 29th edition shows m.p. as >1700 also, and no boiling point. Weird? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 05:38:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA17933; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 05:35:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 05:35:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 04:35:21 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"Dkl6f.0.7O4.Q2MDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/610 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >>Stirniman says: >> >>"One of the presumptions in electrodynamics, is >>the Clausius postulate -- that a current carrying >>conductor is electrically neutral. It is WRONG. >>At the time this postulate was formed, it was >>not know that current flow in metals results >>solely from negative charge carriers." >> >>Am I missing something? Seems to me that Clausius postulate is still true; >>even though the current carriers are all negative electrons, the conductor of >>such electrons and the ion background still consitutes a neutral conductor >>overall. >> >>Hal Puthoff >> >> > >Seems to me that the statement is indeed incorrect and that an excess of >charge will indeed exist in a conductor carrying a current. As you send a >current through a wire, there is a voltage gradient that develops as you >get the current going, and this gradient remains for as long as there is >charge flowing. That gradient is maintained due to the resistance in the >conductor. There is thus an excess of electrons in the wire, and that >excess is measured as voltage along the length of the wire at any location, >but the voltage will be dropping. > >Now in an SC, this is not true and the Clausius principle is true when the >current is not **changing**. For changing currents, even the SC should have >a voltage gradient and thus an excess of charge that gets the electrons moving. > >Is there anything wrong with the above thoughts? > >Ross Tessien I think the potential of a conductor at any point on it is independent of the current, at least at potentials experienced in everyday life, but the potential difference between any two points on a conductor is a function of the IR drop as you indicate. More complex if heat dynamics are considered. Also, every segment of every conductor has a capacitance and inductance and geometric relationship to other components or at least other segments of the conductor, so obviously electrodynamics can come into play as well. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 05:43:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA18894; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 05:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 05:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 04:42:52 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas Resent-Message-ID: <"22lrl3.0.7d4._4MDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/611 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >Plasma jet cutting devices are widely commercially available. They >will easily and quickly "cut" the hardest 1" steel. Why reinvent the >wheel, just use use a commercial model on Lithium oxide or any other >material. Just call any local welding supply and they will direct you >to the nearest owner of a machine. Take your Li2O over and blast away. > >Barry are you up to doing mass spec and MRI testing on before and after >Brown's gas? > >RWW I suspect maybe you missed the point. Does the plasma in commercial units consist of H and O in a 2 to 1 ratio? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 06:07:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA23732; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 05:59:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 05:59:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 05:04:14 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas Resent-Message-ID: <"xTxTg2.0.ho5.7PMDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/612 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >Plasma jet cutting devices are widely commercially available. They >will easily and quickly "cut" the hardest 1" steel. Why reinvent the >wheel, just use use a commercial model on Lithium oxide or any other >material. Just call any local welding supply and they will direct you >to the nearest owner of a machine. Take your Li2O over and blast away. > >Barry are you up to doing mass spec and MRI testing on before and after >Brown's gas? > >RWW I suspect maybe you missed the point. Does the plasma in commercial units consist of H and O in a 2 to 1 ratio? The objective is to retain the Brown's gas properties without having to put up with the dangers and problems of generating and piping stoichiometric ratio gas. Also, the universal solvent aspect would be retained, even for the large number of H2O molecules that might remain in tact. In addition the electrical waste heat is delivered right to the target, as opposed to a bank of electrolysis cells, although it is true the steam needs to be generated. Also, such a torch should cut most anything. Cutting steel is no big deal. In addition the cut should be ultra clean, steam cleaned! No hydrocarbons left behind. Maybe the steam generation could occur at the torch by injecting water directly. Major industrial processes that can take place at above 100 C could take place in an H2O atmosphere - no "water" to worry about. Just some thoughts. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 06:17:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA25656; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 06:09:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 06:09:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:07:18 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960910090607.2f876cf4@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: Need ideas Resent-Message-ID: <"Wcryn3.0.oG6.EYMDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/613 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:13 PM 9/9/96 -0400, you wrote: >How much electrochemical pressure do cold fusion cells impose upon hydrogen. > This pressure forces hydrogen into the surface of nickel or palladium. At >first glance it would appear that the Nerst Equation applies. > >volts = .059 ln (delta P) > It does at equilibrium. Quasi-1-dimensional models can be used prior to equilibrium. ------------------------ >My first thought was, "With 2 volts, the pressure runs into the hundreds of >millions of pounds." > >I have now found that nickel and palladium adsorb or molecular hydrogen NOT >IONS. Electrochemical pressure is not exerted on uncharged molecules. What >is going on? What forces the molecular hydrogen into the metal surface? > The applied electric field intensity, at odds with thermal disorientation. Suggest you read my paper: "Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading of Isotopic Fuel into a Metal", Fusion Technology, vol 22, no 2, Sep. 1992, pp 296-300 (1992), or "Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled to Reactions at an Electrode", Fusion Technology, 26, 4T, 74-77 (December 1994) ------------------------ >What is the role of CO2. Nickel complexes with CO2 to form a liquid. Is >this happening? Any ideas? > >Frank Znidarsic > Frank, Some of these are green-colored carbonates which are precipitates and are discussed in my paper pending for FT, "The Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena is Consistent with the Quasi-1-Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading into a Material", submitted to Fusion Technology, (1995, accepted 1996). These materials (and nickel is not the only Group VIII material to form these), although not reported previously, can arise from anodic polarization of the electrodes and can contribute to some of the the measured signals, if unanticipated. These complexes are, however, insufficient to account for the observed excess heat in the nickel-light water systems. BTW, the presence of these materials (occurring since CO2 enters the solutions from the air) has led to my suggestions regarding possible corrosion products contributing to some measurements in other (e.g. vortex) systems. Hope that helps. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 09:31:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA01155; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960910160653.006e6c40@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" X-Priority: 2 (High) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:06:53 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: car, groups Resent-Message-ID: <"EU0RK2.0.wH.U3PDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/615 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I wrote, about the BG unit: >There is a small transformer that looks like it is intended for >high frequency. I'm told it's just for running the IC's. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 09:32:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA00400; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 08:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 08:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 08:58:09 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Speculations run amok Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"MbN1z2.0.66.X0PDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/614 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: If superconducting materials act as feeble gravity shields even when not being levitated and rotated, it should be possible to demonstrate this effect via a superconducting chopper-wheel and a force sensor. No expensive 6" disk is needed. Simply mount any chunk of HTSC ceramic off-center upon a motorized plastic disk, glue on a counterweight to reduce any noise or vibration, dunk it in LN2 for awhile, spin it fast, then use a force sensor to listen for the repetitive passage of the gravity-shadow above the moving SC chunk. Because the signal is AC, the sensor need not be fancy. A simple microphone should be vibrated enough by the moving gravity-beam. Maybe a small mass could be glued to the mic diaphragm. Maybe a soundproof enclosure around the mic would help. If the gravity beam simultaneously shakes the mic body and diaphragm, then mount the mic to a large mass so only the diaphragm will be moved. Crank up your audio amplifier, listen on headphones and watch via an oscilloscope, then hold the microphone at various places above the spinning wheel. Or perhaps use a larger object to intercept the changing forces, then connect a contact-microphone to this object. Of course there are many reasons why this might not work. Perhaps the RF levitator is a necessary part of the effect, and nothing happens if the SC slab is not exposed to the e/m field. Perhaps a particular formulation of SC is required, and off-the-shelf samples don't do it. Perhaps the effect vanishes at higher temperatures, and liquid-He is a requirement. Perhaps a disk or toroid is required, an an eccentric shape kills the effect. On the other hand, this chopper-wheel test is extremely simple, so not much work is wasted if the result is nil. Hey, maybe other materials besides HTSC ceramics will produce a vastly-diminished (but still detectable) effect. How about a quartz or a bismuth chopper-wheel? What percentage of 1G acceleration can a microphone detect? Pretty tiny, I would think. Wouldn't it be wonderful if certain materials have *always* been projecting weak vertical gravity beams upwards, and no one noticed? ( No one but those infamous Tibetans and their trumpeters, I mean. :) ) Now that I think about it, the chunk of SC material as used above *would* be continuously rotating, it would also be slung back and forth in two other axes at the same time. So would the gravity-beam, I hope, so it would repeatedly whack the microphone at a high rate. And in a similar vein; if the spinning disk in the original experiment is not perfectly symmetrical, won't some of the asymmetry appear in the gravity-shadow as a vibration force? Wave a microphone above the apparatus while it's spinning and see if it picks up a 3000RPM = 50Hz vibration signal in the region far above the disk. Knock a chip off the disk or drill a hole to possibly enhance the effect. Or drill four holes, so the 3000RPM rate gives 200Hz instead. Drill lots of holes and create a gravity siren. If the gravity beam extends to infinity, the sound might be heard outside when air high above the building is wiggled. Remember what Faraday said about phenomena being too wonderful to be true. ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb@eskimo.com www.eskimo.com/~billb EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 09:43:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA09059; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:34:23 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect In-Reply-To: <960909205218_197961872@emout16.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"5ddDP2.0.TD2.OYPDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/616 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 9 Sep 1996 Puthoff@aol.com wrote: > Am I missing something? Seems to me that Clausius postulate is still true; > even though the current carriers are all negative electrons, the conductor of > such electrons and the ion background still consitutes a neutral conductor > overall. As I understand it, Hooper claimed that a moving line of charges should be Lorentz contracted, and act as if the density of charge was higher during a current. This would be a very small effect. This means that a neutral metal ring becomes charged when a current is induced in the ring, but only if the current is a net motion of one polarity of charges. Direction of current would not matter, but Hooper's effect would vanish if the current was an equal and opposite flow of pos and neg particles within the conductor. Metal wires would produce Hooper's field, but electrolytes might not. He built these "coils" consisting of back-and-forth folded wire, like a bale of straight conductors. The average b-field should be zero. He placed the device within sheilding, applied a current, then suceeded in detecting microvolt potentials outside the shielding. Matter, being composed of pos and neg charges having asymmetrical motion and asymmetrical spin, should produce Hooper's field constantly. Is this gravity? But why attraction instead of repulsion? .....................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 Sep 10 11:48:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA01524; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:06:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609101806.LAA17674@axionet.com> X-Sender: jmanning@axionet.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: jeane manning Subject: Re: vortex, thanks Resent-Message-ID: <"RXchj1.0.kN.uzQDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/617 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Gary Thanks for putting me on vortex list to further my education. it's a highly-informed group obviously and into actually DOING instead of rumoring. I'll keep my eyes open... Enjoyed meeting you at Laura & Paul's. I forgot to ask you if I could give you a copy of my book, in thanks for your help. If you want one, I'll mail it to Horizon Tech address -- the one that's in the book? I'm watching Callum Coat's video done by Laura Lee & Paul, also now have his book on Schauberger. Seems to be supremely important stuff with implications for many sectors. Jeane M From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 12:28:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA12457; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:54:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:54:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: 10 Sep 96 14:51:54 EDT From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Thoughts on antigravity Message-ID: <960910185154_76570.2270_FHU51-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"9zEWn.0.W23.0cRDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/618 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [Chris Tinsley using Gene Mallove's address.] All the following assumes the original Tampere reports are correct - which I am along way from accepting: As I'm beginning to see this, it simply will not work unless there is a strong magnetic field outside the superconductor. And I'm not at all sure if it will work unless there is a strong current running around the disc. The way things stand, I reckon that any attempt at replication which was not a carbon copy of the original would fail. I also suggest that the 'quality' of the superconductor disc would be crucial - if only in that this might alter the magnitude of the effect considerably. Second, the Physica C paper does *not* give reasons for regarding the original papers as experimentally incompetent. I would say that those early papers are pretty damn poor, but there is no clear reason (other than downright fraud or a level of incompetence not apparent from reading them) for rejecting the basic effect. The Physica C paper is essentially nonsense. To state that an 'impossible' effect must conform to the writer's notions of how it should behave (acting as a gravity shield and therefore producing only a small cone of reduced gravity) is just stupid. It does point out that the weight-loss effect is seen in rooms above the experiment, and admits that this reduces the chances of air disturbances and suchlike from the floor below; but it then goes on to say that it is impossible to see such an effect so far above the device. Sheesh, as they do say. As I said earlier, Close referred in a TV programme to one theory of gravity saying that plain gravity may have a little bit on top, and that if that were true then maybe antigravity might be possible. I assume he was talking about 'electrogravity'. I would suggest that if this is correct, then it would be reasonable to suggest that the Tampere effect is electrogravitic. The more I look at the paper trail, the more I see this whole thing as being - well, certainly much more credible than F&P on day one. That's not saying much, but it is at least saying *something*. Whether or not the papers get published is one thing. Whether or not this whole matter gets a replication attempt matters a very great deal more. I would say that at the moment it looks worth a shot. But it is a very expensive experiment to do properly and, before I myself would be willing to suggest a replication effort, there would need to be a more thorough investigation. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 13:36:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA25235; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:49:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:49:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:53:20 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Thoughts on antigravity Resent-Message-ID: <"rc_Cs3.0.6A6.sOSDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/620 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >[Chris Tinsley using Gene Mallove's address.] > [snip] > >The more I look at the paper trail, the more I see this whole thing as being - >well, certainly much more credible than F&P on day one. That's not saying >much, but it is at least saying *something*. > >Whether or not the papers get published is one thing. Whether or not this >whole matter gets a replication attempt matters a very great deal more. > >I would say that at the moment it looks worth a shot. But it is a very >expensive experiment to do properly and, before I myself would be willing to >suggest a replication effort, there would need to be a more thorough >investigation. > >Chris Chris, As usual you are the level headed one. If Dr. Podkletnov's paper should happen not be published in Phs. D, then is it possible maybe you or Gene Mallove could convince Dr. Podkletnov to publish it in Infinite Energy? This is getting a bit convoluted isn't it? Like many here, I would very much like to see the article, and it would be much more difficult for me to see it if published in Physics D than IE, so the net result for me would be a plus. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 15:27:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA22972; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 14:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 14:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 10 Sep 1996 13:44:13 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: Dear Friends! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/10/96 13:44:52 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"HktwH3.0.oc5.u5UDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/621 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: Dear Friends! - I've had a problem with my personal phone. All those Vortexians who might give me a call, I will probably not have a viable phone (technical problem, NOT non-payment or the like!) will not be able to reach me at home until after 9:00PM, CDT, tonight, 9/10/96. Thanks for your patience. If someone needs me, page me at 612-539-0399. Mark Hugo From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 15:36:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA24400; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 14:50:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 14:50:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609102144.OAA00739@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 14:44:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: from "William Beaty" at Sep 10, 96 09:34:23 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: <"yVZD-1.0.6z5.yAUDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/622 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Comments About the Hooper Effect and the Clausius Postulate: Hal Puthoff writes, >Am I missing something? Seems to me that the Clausius postulate is still >true; even though the current carriers are all negative electrons, the >conductor of such electrons and the ion background still consitutes a >neutral conductor overall. Ross Tessien writes, >Seems to me that an excess of charge will indeed exist in a conductor >carrying a current. As you send a current through a wire, there is >a voltage gradient that develops as you get the current going, and >this gradient remains for as long as there is charge flowing. William Beaty writes, >As I understand it, Hooper claimed that a moving line of charges should >be Lorentz contracted, and act as if the density of charge was higher >during a current. This would be a very small effect. A current carrying conductor is clearly neutral overall -- with a zero value of net charge density. None the less, it does not have a zero external electrical field, and from the point of view of how it acts on surrounding space it is NOT electrically neutral. Compared to the electric field of a stationary charge, the electric field of a moving charge is increased in the direction perpendicular to motion, and decreased in the direction of motion. There is a good graphic presenation of this in Feynman Volume 2, Exhibit 26-4. Also see Feynman's derivations of the field of a moving charge (Vol 2, Chapter 21 and Chapter 26), or Jefimenko's derivation of the retarded potential of a moving charge. Or, you can play with the Lienard Wiechart equation and derive the same thing. As Bill comments above, it can also be shown to result from the Lorentz contraction, and the Lorentz transformation. This is true, but possibly overly specific. In a more general sense, it is caused by the finite speed of propagation of the electric field -- i.e. Jefimenko's retarded potential. If a moving negative charge (electron) exists in a background of balanced positive charges, there will be a net electric field surrounding the current carrying conductor which will be negative in the direction perpendicular to current flow, and positive in the direction of current flow. As Ross comments, the positive electric field, can be interpreted as a voltage gradient in the direction of motion. Furthering this interpretation, since the net charge density of the conductor is indeed zero -- the divergence of the electric field around the current carrying conductor must be zero -- and since we know that a voltage gradient exists in the direction of motion -- an opposite potential must exist in the direction perpendicular to motion. So much for theory. A number of experiments have also been done which have confirmed that a negative electric field is produced by a stationary current (see references below, and especially the second paper by Edwards published in 1974 in Physical Review D). Sadly, in my opinion, there is also the paper done by NASA, which was presented at the Joint Propulsion Conference in 1995. The NASA experiment "demonstrates" that the Hooper effect does not exist. In my opinion, Podkletnov is not the only scientist who might be accused of conducting shabby experiments -- except of course Podkletnov's work, until recently, has not been publicized at all, and the NASA article has been well publicized. In any case, Edward's experiments were most carefully done. It is also interesting to note that experimental findings (except for NASA) correspond well to theory. The electric field increases as the square of the amount of current flowing in the perpendicular direction -- independent of the direction of flow. And, the effect also increases, as it should per theory, when the conductor temperature is lowered (higher velocity of charge carriers). Bill comments: This would be a very small effect. In a copper conductor, it is a small effect -- barely measurable. But what of a superconductor? Regards, Robert Stirniman ================================================================== References: 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) 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 18:11:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA09217; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:06:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:06:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3236109E.7DE14518@math.ucla.edu> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:06:38 -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: Thoughts on antigravity References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"IM-aw2.0.xF2.X2XDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/623 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > If Dr. Podkletnov's paper should > happen not be published in Phs. D, then is it possible maybe you or Gene > Mallove could convince Dr. Podkletnov to publish it in Infinite Energy? > This is getting a bit convoluted isn't it? Like many here, I would very > much like to see the article, and it would be much more difficult for me to > see it if published in Physics D than IE, so the net result for me would be > a plus. > > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 That is silly---it just just be put at the physics preprint server, or if they wont have it---send it to me and I'll scan it and put it on my web page. Why stick with the archaic notion of tradional hardcopy publishing when you are trying to get info out fast to a large audience. -- 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 Tue Sep 10 18:30:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA12505; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:19:37 -0700 Message-Id: <199609110119.SAA11555@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"DHPGt3.0.J33.TFXDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/626 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: 9/10/96 I wrote: snip >Barry are you up to doing mass spec and MRI testing on before and >after Brown's gas? > >RWW > > Sorry, Barry M. I thought you were the "Barry" Joe Champion referred to in his post that might help test Brown's gas with a mass spec. RWW From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 18:32:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA11128; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:15:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:15:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:14:06 -0700 Message-Id: <199609110114.SAA08517@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"XFfQa2.0.oj2.iAXDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/625 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: > >[snip] >>Plasma jet cutting devices are widely commercially available. They >>will easily and quickly "cut" the hardest 1" steel. Why reinvent the >>wheel, just use use a commercial model on Lithium oxide or any other >>material. Just call any local welding supply and they will direct you >>to the nearest owner of a machine. Take your Li2O over and blast away. >> >>Barry are you up to doing mass spec and MRI testing on before and after >>Brown's gas? >> >>RWW > >I suspect maybe you missed the point. Does the plasma in commercial units >consist of H and O in a 2 to 1 ratio? > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > 9/10/96 No, the commercial unit uses good old room air. No point missed. I am just expanding the phenomenon of plasma jets as sources of extroidinary concentrated heat. H2O plasmas may be one of many types of plasma jets. I have no opinion that recombinate Brown's gas is a plasma jet phenomenon. RWW From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 18:32:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA10736; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 11:13:31 +1000 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Nice sound effects! Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"8Hn583.0.Wd2.N9XDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/624 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi John, I checked out your page recently with a sound enabled netscape. I liked the Terminator theme music. Good choice! Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 19:39:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA26599; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:22:42 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Ball Lightning Explained in "Nature" Resent-Message-ID: <"2-1Jd3.0.XV6.06YDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/627 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts! A friend sent me the following abstract which may be of interest to some vortexians: Ball lightning explained An explanation for 'ball lightning', the momentary, but rare appearance of flaming, coloured spheres 10-30 cm in diameter during electric storms, is proposed by Ra=F1ada and Trueba. Past attempts to explain ball lightning hav= e variously been based on microwaves, combustion, electrical or nuclear processes, new states of matter. They have even been exlpained away as optical illusions. The authors suggest a solution based on the idea of an 'electromagnetic knot', an electromagnetic field in which any pair of circular or helical electric lines -- or any pair of magnetic lines -- form a link. Magnetic knots are formed by lightning in a storm, when the air is ionized. As the temperature of the knot is at least 30,000 K, it radiates energy. Ra=F1ada and Trueba believe that this radiation explains why the balls appear to flame and shine. But this radiati... Nature 382, 29 (1996) I looked for the article at Nature's website: but could not find it. Maybe not there yet. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 20:54:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA16164; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 20:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 20:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Nice sound effects! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 22:47:11 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: from "Martin Sevior" at Sep 11, 96 11:13:31 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Ygeb03.0.Uy3.APZDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/629 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > I checked out your page recently with a sound enabled netscape. I > liked the Terminator theme music. Good choice! I didn't intend a deep meaning, I just like the tune -- kind of a forlorn moody piece. I'm thinking of putting "theme" music on my various sections, though. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 22:31:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA05698; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 22:25:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 22:25:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 22:20:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609110520.WAA04779@sweden.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: mrandall@mail.earthlink.net (Unverified) 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: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' Resent-Message-ID: <"zcpsT1.0.xO1.iqaDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/630 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At Mon, 9 Sep 1996 23:24:23 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: [snip] >>>Another "unusual effect" of BG can be utilized for nuclear radiation >>>disposal. Cobalt 60 was treated with BG and it reduced the radioactivity >>>from 1000 rads to 40 rads, on many occasions. >>> >>>Michael Randall > >Wow, now that's magical! I assume it didn't vaporize and blow away! :} The above BG "effect" was documented in the ITS journal Jul/Aug/Sep 1993 and published in PACE July 6, 1993 issue. A former Congressman from New York, Dan Haley conducted his own inquiry into the "effect" and the report as follows: "Transmutation of Radioactive Material with Brown's Gas Observations" "On August 6, 1992, a team of five observers led by officials from the San Francisco field office of the Department of Energy (DOE) visted Southwest Concrete Products in Ontario, California, for a demonstration of the effects of Brown's Gas on radioactive materials. The visit resulted from a request to DOE by former Congressman Berkeley Bedell." [snip] "After talking with them [DOE], I called Bob Dzajkich at Southwest Concrete Products. He told me that he showed exactly the same experiment as was shown to the DOE group to the Health Services inspector who before and after the experiment took Geiger Counter readings around the room, finding that, "essentially no Co60 was dispersed into the enviornments - that is, the heating and test chamber and immediate area around the test chambers were contamination free." This statement demolished the DOE people's verbal assertion that radioactivity had been released into the ambient air - one wonders why they didn't take such readings instead of relying on their assumptions. Bob Dzajkich further told me that when he read the the DOE letter asserting encapsulation, he decided to see if they were right. He took Geiger counter readings of the material left from the experiement, ground it to dust, then took Geiger Counter readings of the dust. He found that the readings had not changed at all." [snip] Brown's Gas Generators can be procured from U.S. stock by contacting: Bob Dzajkich or Dave Ennis Southwest Concrete 519 Benson Avenue Ontario, California 91762 (909)983-9789 Fax: (909)983-4187 For those interested in more details about the above experiement could give Southwest Concrete a call. Maybe if enough is interested, another experiment could be given. BTW Brown found out about this "effect" over twenty years ago. Another "effect" researched by Brown, he could _increase_ the rad count by changing the experiment components. What I find interesting in all of this is that this experiment demonstration (and many others like it before) still has not yet made it in print in the "textbooks" so that future generations of students can learn about this new technology and science. Michael Randall From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 22:55:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA10138; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 22:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 22:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32365389.6E8D@interlaced.net> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 01:52:09 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Explained in "Nature" References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Qiaca2.0.KU2.LEbDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/631 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > Gnorts! (Ball Lightning article in Nature ------) > > Nature 382, 29 (1996) > > I looked for the article at Nature's website: > > > > but could not find it. Maybe not there yet. Thanks for the tip, Horace! I'll keep an eye out. Ball Lightning nut ------ Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 10 23:26:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA14864; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 23:22:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 23:22:12 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32365A90.62319AC4@math.ucla.edu> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 23:22:08 -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: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' References: <199609110520.WAA04779@sweden.it.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"oR3b62.0.6e3.JgbDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/632 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael Randall wrote: > > At Mon, 9 Sep 1996 23:24:23 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: > [snip] > >>>Another "unusual effect" of BG can be utilized for nuclear radiation > >>>disposal. Cobalt 60 was treated with BG and it reduced the radioactivity > >>>from 1000 rads to 40 rads, on many occasions. > >>> > >>>Michael Randall Wow, 1000 rads...exactly who was standing around to measure that kind of dose? I seem to recall a ~ 400 rad dose in one shot is fatal. Did they have 6 inch thick lead suits on? Former Congressman's report: > "After talking with them [DOE], I called Bob Dzajkich ... > He told me that ... > Bob Dzajkich further told me that .... > Brown's Gas Generators can be procured from U.S. stock by contacting: > > Bob Dzajkich or Dave Ennis > Southwest Concrete Gee, thats amazing---the guy that distributes these generators disputes the DOE report that they don't remediate radioactivity. He must be telling the truth. :-) Personally, I would take the word of the guy selling these devices, nor would I trust a DOE investiagtion IF it was carried out without instrumentation, control samples etc. -- 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 Tue Sep 10 23:28:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id XAA15415; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 23:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 23:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: gravity calc To: vortex-l@eskimo.com (vortex-l) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 01:23:23 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"EQ1xS1.0.nm3.ohbDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/633 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hey Scott, Here's a starter loop that scans the "earth" sphere inside of a cube of equally spaced points. It is somewhat inefficient in that it must walk through all points in the cube even those outside the radius of the earth (at the corners) but it only turns on the heavy gravity calcs (not yet implemented) for points inside the earth. REM REM This routine scans the "earth" in a cube of REM equally spaced points. The center of the REM earth is at XYZ 0,0,0 (range -1 to +1). REM REM Granularity variable sets the number of points REM along each axis. REM granularity = 1000 // that's a billion points!!! gran2 = 2/granularity FOR z = -1 TO 1 STEP gran2 earthrad = COS(ASIN(z)) FOR y = -1 TO 1 STEP gran2 FOR x = -1 TO 1 STEP gran2 distance = SQR(x*x+y*y) IF distance <= earthrad REM REM xyz point is inside the earth REM do gravity calculation here REM ENDIF NEXT x NEXT y NEXT z -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 02:01:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id BAA04052; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 01:56:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 01:56:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609110856.BAA32112@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: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 01:56:10 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' Resent-Message-ID: <"GU2kK.0.9_.FxdDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/634 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A >Brown's Gas Generators can be procured from U.S. stock by contacting: > >Bob Dzajkich or Dave Ennis >Southwest Concrete >519 Benson Avenue >Ontario, California 91762 > this is really old information. don't bother calling them as they are not involved any longer, or at least as of two years ago were no longer involved. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 02:04:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA04607; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 02:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 02:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 02:01:01 -0700 Message-Id: <199609110901.CAA04910@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: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"KjPd51.0.u71.V_dDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/637 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >I think the potential of a conductor at any point on it is independent of >the current, at least at potentials experienced in everyday life, Not true, just look below at your IR which is equal to Volts. If you increase the I, then you will have also increased the voltage and thus the voltage at the different locations will again be different in kind. but the >potential difference between any two points on a conductor is a function of >the IR drop as you indicate. More complex if heat dynamics are considered. Agreed >Also, every segment of every conductor has a capacitance and inductance >and geometric relationship to other components or at least other segments >of the conductor, so obviously electrodynamics can come into play as well. Capacitance and inductance are only important for currents that are changing. DC currents are not affected by those properties to my knowledge. Though the amount of charge build up would be different on a wire where there was a secondary capacitive coupling to an adjacent wire. But then you normally only have coax or transmission lines for high frequency cables (where high is a function of the cable length, and the wavelength of the energy to be transmitted. If the latter is shorter than the cable, then one should definitely have a coax cable, but again this is AC, and I thought we were talking about DC) >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 02:04:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA04578; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 02:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 02:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 02:00:59 -0700 Message-Id: <199609110900.CAA04904@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: Speculations run amok Resent-Message-ID: <"uRRMU1.0.O71.Q_dDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/636 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A > >If superconducting materials act as feeble gravity shields even when not >being levitated and rotated, it should be possible to demonstrate this >effect via a superconducting chopper-wheel and a force sensor. No >expensive 6" disk is needed. Simply mount any chunk of HTSC ceramic >off-center upon a motorized plastic disk, glue on a counterweight to >reduce any noise or vibration, dunk it in LN2 for awhile, spin it fast, >then use a force sensor to listen for the repetitive passage of the >gravity-shadow above the moving SC chunk. > >Because the signal is AC, the sensor need not be fancy. A simple >microphone should be vibrated enough by the moving gravity-beam. >Maybe a small mass could be glued to the mic diaphragm. Such a system is a spring mass damper system. It is realitively easy and straight forward to design the system to be in resonance with the drill motor at 3K rpm. In this manner, you should be able to get an amplification of any induced oscillation via resonance. That could amplify the signal by 2 to 4 times the single shot energy transmission in an underdamped system. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 02:04:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id CAA04537; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 02:01:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 02:01:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 02:00:55 -0700 Message-Id: <199609110900.CAA04901@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: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"xAnOj2.0.o61.K_dDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/635 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Comments About the Hooper Effect and the Clausius Postulate: > Robert; It makes no sense to me whatever that there would be no net charge in a conductor. If I have net charge, then I measure a voltage, right? So if I measure a voltage, then I have net charge, right? And if I measure no voltage, then I have no net charge. When I launch a 25 ps pulse down a transmission line, I can watch that pulse as it propogates via Time Domain Reflectometry. With this techique, I can watch a dynamic change in the voltage as a function of length down the cable with a resolution of about 0.05 inches. I can see any location where there is an impedance discontinuity via reflected energy and I can measure the electrical length of the cable, the physical length of the cable, and I can get the propogation velocity as a percentage of the speed of light. With that I can get the effective dielectric constant. In the case of high frequency current, the electrons sort of "slosh" back and forth, rather than actually flowing down the entire length of the conductor. But, there is charge motion and it is induced precisely where there is an excess of charge. That excess, in the form of a voltage spike, attempts to disperse, and in so doing acts like a sound pressure wave in air in a sense. The charge initiates a flow down the conductor, and the momentum of that charge (called inductance), precludes that momentum from stopping instantaneously when the excess voltage is shut off, or altered. So the wave propogates down the transmission line and the current is governed by the impedance of the line which is a function of the capicitance and inductance per unit length. This in turn is a function of the physical distance between conductors, and the sizes of the conductors (as well as their cross sectional geometry), and the dielectric separating them. Now, if instead, I use a DC current, then I can measure the voltage at any location along the circuit. Again with a wire, there is a voltage drop according to the voltage divider theory. Also, keep in mind that voltage and water pressure in a pipe are equivalent concepts. To drive either the current, or the water, you must have pressure (or voltage). That comes from an excess of charge (or from stretching the pipe material mechanically in the case of water) It doesn't take very much extra water, or extra charge in order to induce the effect, but, a neutral conductor will not have a current moving through it unless it has zero resistance. I read your post, but it makes no sense to me that there is no charge and I didn't read anything in that post that led me to change my opinion. So, what is it that you think I am missing? Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 05:34:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA28602; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:26:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:26:25 -0700 (PDT) From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 22:25:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Backyard on the moon? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-id: <01I9BVTMZX8Y8X8X53@delphi.com> X-VMS-To: INTERNET"vortex-l@eskimo.com" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Resent-Message-ID: <"7Z4bq2.0.n-6.EDYDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/628 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >What creates the heat that has to be cooled? What you talkn' bout????? Are you suggesting that the lack of heat production by the SC after it's already given up heat to the liquid nitrogen will then cool the liquid nitrogen? Don't really understand this statement, please explain. >A few dollars worth of liquid nitrogen can keep a vacuum insulated dewar >cool for many days. Unless you have a liquid nitrogen well in the backyard, and you might if you live on the backside of the moon, it requires energy to acquire liquid nitrogen. Cost has nothing to do with it, how long it keeps has nothing to do with it. Power in-Power out does. Tell me how you would evaluate an SC system? Would you account for the energy used to cool the SC, no matter what creates the heat or how long you can keep it in a jug, or would you just forget it? If the answer is no, then announce to the scientific and business community that they don't need to search for ambient temp SC's no more, they've already got infinite energy and don't know it. I think what you are suggesting is that you predict energy out would be enough to keep your dewar filled and have energy left to use..Wow, I'll buy a couple of systems. I'd hope you'd agree that the energy required to cool the SC has to be accounted for just as the "loading" power for a Patterson cell has to be paid back before you can start counting power out as anything meaningful. Now it does make me wonder, about the backyard on the moon or any other cold spot out there in space. Wouldn't SC related phenomena be occuring naturally? Joe Flynn Flynn Research Inc. Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 05:49:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA14953; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:11:21 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Speculations run amok Resent-Message-ID: <"fA5Cc3.0.Vf3.YnRDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/619 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >If superconducting materials act as feeble gravity shields even when not >being levitated and rotated, it should be possible to demonstrate this >effect via a superconducting chopper-wheel and a force sensor. No >expensive 6" disk is needed. Simply mount any chunk of HTSC ceramic >off-center upon a motorized plastic disk, glue on a counterweight to >reduce any noise or vibration, dunk it in LN2 for awhile, spin it fast, >then use a force sensor to listen for the repetitive passage of the >gravity-shadow above the moving SC chunk. > >Because the signal is AC, the sensor need not be fancy. [snip] >William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website That is a terrific idea! Affordable and doable. You get an AC signal to amplify. I have some suggestions. The SC is "supposed" to be levitated, but maybe that's not necessary, only the current is necessary. So why not place a magnet or magnets under the rotating SC to provide the current and lift. The nice thing is you can force even more current into the SC than possible when only the magnet weight resists. You can also arrange magnets in a pattern under the rotating SC to generate oscillating currents - maybe also a necessity. As to a control - you could use the same apparatus without cooling it to SC temperatures. For the AC signal pickup you could also consider optics. Then you wouldn't have to worry about the effect of the moving SC magnetic field. Maybe use one of those spy laser microphones you see in Popular Science ads. A separate measurement might involve checking for signal modulation of light through an optical fiber coiled above the device. This would be a check on time dilation and various other effects. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 06:33:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA24521; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 06:28:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 06:28:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 09:26:24 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: neotech@xbn.shore.net cc: Multiple recipients of list NEOTECH , vortex Subject: Re: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"zpBLy1.0.w-5.mvhDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/638 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Evan and Joe, What is the commercial product being sold? Is it a common product ot is an O U type product? Where could someone buy a commercially made Newman product? JHS On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Evan Soule wrote: > > *** NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS *** > Route 1, Box 52 * Lucedale, MS 39452 * (601) 947-7147 > email: josephnewman@earthlink.net > > ************************************************************************** > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > ************************************************************************** > > NEWS CONFERENCE & DEMONSTRATION TO BE HELD: > > --- OIL OBSOLETE AS AN ENERGY SOURCE --- > > *THEFT* OF THE TECHNOLOGY IS NOW A *FACT*! > > Absolute Proof of the Operability of the Energy Machine of Joseph Newman > ANNOUNCING *LEGAL ACTION* TAKEN AGAINST PERPETRATORS > > > The revolutionary, patented ideas of Joseph Newman have been stolen by > certain individuals who have been closely associated with him. This > theft has been effected through these individuals' collaboration with > specific corporations with whom they were associated. > > Commercial products utilizing Joseph Newman's Ideas have been and are > now being produced and have been sold worldwide. These commercial > products have been brought into the marketplace in a controlled manner > that has been designed to attract minimum attention. The intent of > these corporations engaged in this theft is to quietly capture the > worldwide market with these products, but not to attract attention > that their success is a result of the THEFT of Joseph Newman's Energy > Machine Technology and their income from this stolen technology > exceeds hundreds of millions of dollars. > > A lawsuit initiated by inventor Joseph Newman against the theft by > these individuals/corporations of his life's work is now being brought. > > ********************************************************************** > * * > * A NEWS CONFERENCE AND DEMONSTRATION REGARDING THIS THEFT AND * > * PROOF THAT OIL WILL SOON BE OBSOLETE AS AN ENERGY SOURCE * > * WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 * > * 11:00AM * > * * > * ALABAMA BALLROOM -- ADAMS MARK HOTEL * > * 64 SOUTH WATER STREET, MOBILE, ALABAMA * > * 1-800-444-ADAM * > * * > * [Out-of-town visitors: ask for Special Room Rate for * > * Newman Energy Demonstration Attendees] * > * * > * THE PUBLIC IS INVITED. * > * THE SPECIFIC NAMES OF THE COMPANIES AND THE INDIVIDUALS * > * WHO HAVE ENGAGED IN THIS THEFT AS WELL AS SAMPLES OF THE * > * PRODUCTS USING JOSEPH NEWMAN'S IDEAS WILL BE PROVIDED * > * AND DEMONSTRATED. * > * * > * You will be SHOCKED at the OUTRIGHT THEFT and COVER-UP * > * PERPETRATED BY THESE CORPORATIONS! * > * * > ********************************************************************** > > The upside is that the Disclosure of this theft will accelerate the > honest production of Joseph Newman's Technology throughout all aspects > of our civilization. This very theft only serves to underscore the > viability of this revolutionary technology. As a result, humanity --- > rather than just a few greedy individuals and corporations --- will be > served just as Joseph Newman has given his life for over the past > thirty years. > > COME AND BE A PART OF HISTORY BEING MADE! > > --- Joseph Westley Newman > > ______________________________________________________________________ > For more information contact: > Joseph W. Newman, (601) 947-7147 / PR Office (504) 524-3063 > Email: josephnewman@earthlink.net > Website: http://www.angelfire.com/pg8/Newman/index.html > ______________________________________________________________________ > ********************************************************************** > > ************ "AN INVENTION WHOSE TIME HAS COME" ************ > > "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." > --- MAX PLANCK > > ********************************************************************** > > > > > -> Neotech Mailing list > -> Post to: listserv@xbn.shore.net > -> Subscribe neotech > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 06:38:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA25583; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 06:32:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 06:32:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 05:37:02 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"0izJw2.0.dF6.qzhDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/639 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >>I think the potential of a conductor at any point on it is independent of >>the current, at least at potentials experienced in everyday life, > >Not true, just look below at your IR which is equal to Volts. If you >increase the I, then you will have also increased the voltage and thus the >voltage at the different locations will again be different in kind. I am just not communicating effectively here. I am sure you would understand what I mean if I get this across right. The voltage at any point in a conductor is independent of the current. It is only the delta V *between two points* that is a function of current in the conductor. The voltage waveform at a point can go all over the place. Example: --/\/\/\----------------------P1-------P2-----| |-------- open ====== C1 \/\/\/ Primary Suppose this is a Tesla Coil. The voltage at P1 or P2 could be varying wildly by millions of volts, while the delta V between P1 and P2 is a function of a miniscule IR drop due to a small capacitance C1. Similarly, a flashlight sitting on a van de Graff generator at high potential would generate a DC current and delta V having no apparent relation in it's circuit to the high potential at which it may be. > >but the >>potential difference between any two points on a conductor is a function of >>the IR drop as you indicate. More complex if heat dynamics are considered. > >Agreed > >>Also, every segment of every conductor has a capacitance and inductance >>and geometric relationship to other components or at least other segments >>of the conductor, so obviously electrodynamics can come into play as well. > >Capacitance and inductance are only important for currents that are >changing. DC currents are not affected by those properties to my knowledge. >Though the amount of charge build up would be different on a wire where >there was a secondary capacitive coupling to an adjacent wire. But then you >normally only have coax or transmission lines for high frequency cables >(where high is a function of the cable length, and the wavelength of the >energy to be transmitted. If the latter is shorter than the cable, then one >should definitely have a coax cable, but again this is AC, and I thought we >were talking about DC) > >>Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > >Ross Tessien Capacitance and inductance do come into play even on steady state DC current loops, though capacitance less so. Consider a closed circular loop with a current induced by a magnetic flux changing at a constant rate. Suppose the electrons are moving clockwise from our point of view. This means the induced DC current, the circular electron flow about the loop, is generating a North magnetic pole facing us. This magnetic field tends to push the elctrons toward the outside of the loop. If we assume for a moment that the orginal B which is changing to create this situation is 0 or at least in the same direction as the induced magnetic field from the electron flow in the loop, this tendency for the lectrons to move to the outside of the conductive loop creates an electric field which is negative toward the outside of the loop, positive toward the inside. If the loop is a superconductor, the original changing B that generates the DC current can be eliminated. There should be a negative electrostatic field to the outside of a superconducting ring, even though the net charge of the superconductor is still zero, or whatever it was prior to becoming superconducting. There should be a compensating positive electrostatic field in the center of the ring though. Capacitance could play a role that is especially clear if there is more than one loop and the loops are insulated with a dielectric. The greater the dielectric constant of the material surrounding the conductor the more energy that can be put into the field due to the amplification of field strength due to the dielectric re-orientation. The migrationm of the electrons toward the outside of the conductive coil should be greater with a dielectric surrounding it due to the ability of the re-oriented dielectric to "attract" more electrons to a given volume. It is interresting that in both the superconductive and conductive modes (above) the potential around the loop is zero. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 07:48:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id HAA02492; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 07:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 07:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 06:04:31 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Backyard on the moon? Resent-Message-ID: <"15sfq2.0.sc.aOiDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/640 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Horace Heffner wrote: > > >What creates the heat that has to be cooled? > > What you talkn' bout????? Are you suggesting that the lack of >heat production by the SC after it's already given up heat to >the liquid nitrogen will then cool the liquid nitrogen? Don't >really understand this statement, please explain. > The initial cooling of the SC is a one time thing. For ongoing operations the important parameter is the insulation. If you have an SC device totally enlcosed in vacumm insulation there is a very small maintenance cost for cooling. A power genration device would have to be inductively coupled to draw the generated power, but that is not a big deal. The thermally insulated primary could circle an uninsulated core and secondary, for example. Heat from an electric circuit is I^2*R. If R=0 then the heat is zero. Nothing creates any heat that has to be cooled. It all comes through the insulation. I should point out there is enormous economy of size involved in this, due to the fact that volume compared to surface increases as 3/2 power, but if the insulation is also increasing in thickness the R value increases with size so the effectiveness increases with the 5/2 power of size. If *any* SC device is o-u, ignoring cooling costs, then a sufficiently large version should be o-u. So, where is this o-u SC device you are talking about? Let's here about it and let's build a big one! [snip] >Now it does make me wonder, about the backyard on the moon or >any other cold spot out there in space. Wouldn't SC related >phenomena be occuring naturally? > >Joe Flynn >Flynn Research Inc. > > >Horace Heffner Yes - this fact has been noted by astronomers, especially in regard to Pluto. Makes for some great sci-fi also. Strange super fast thinking life forms could evolve .. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 09:01:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA27539; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 08:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 08:47:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: wharton@128.183.46.16 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <960909205218_197961872@emout16.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 11:46:26 -0400 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"3JMG03.0.Ck6.rxjDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/641 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >On Mon, 9 Sep 1996 Puthoff@aol.com wrote: > >> Am I missing something? Seems to me that Clausius postulate is still true; >> even though the current carriers are all negative electrons, the >>conductor of >> such electrons and the ion background still consitutes a neutral conductor >> overall. > >As I understand it, Hooper claimed that a moving line of charges should be >Lorentz contracted, and act as if the density of charge was higher during >a current. This would be a very small effect. Sorry but this effect if it existed would be very large. Starting up your car for example would induce a potential of millions of volts as electrons would be attracted to the coils in the starting motor. Since we do not see these million volt potentials when we run devices with coils in them like electric motors then we know that this effect is non existent at least in the magnitude expected. There are two effects important for moving charges: the electric field will change form and the electrons could possibly change their density due to a Lorentz contraction. The electric potential felt by the electrons will override and Lorentz contraction effects because they are free to flow from a region of higher potential energy to lower potential energy. The only important quantity is the electric potential and that remains exactly the same for electrons flowing around a closed loop. It does not matter what the electron velocity is, it can be zero or any value and the potential remains the same. To see this is a bit difficult. One starts with the electric field of a moving charge which is E =qr/r^3 (1-v*v)/(1-v*v*sin(T))^(3/2) where E is the electric field in the direction of the radius vector r from the charge to the point of evaluation of E, and q is the charge. The velocity v is taken to be the normalized velocity v/c and the angle T is the angle between the vector v and the vector r. Then one must integrate this around the closed loop. The result is different, from the v=0 case, except when the wire is a straight line. But when the electrons are going around a curved wire they are accelerating and accelerating charges produce a 1/r radiation field. When this radiation field is added in then the sum is exactly the same as the zero velocity case. Don't worry about the 1/r dependence as the relativistic correction from the first calculation is also 1/r and it exactly cancels out. I have a computer program which calculates, up to second order, all the relativistic corrections including various alleged forms of the magnetic force such as Ampere's force law. Note the above electric field formula has only the product of two velocities ( v*v). The magnetic force also contains only the product of two velocities and so the lowest contributing relativistic effect on the force is of second order. Before I added in the radiation term I knew that something was wrong as I would get these potentials of many millions of volts for simple electrical devices. There are no second order Hooper effects. That is out of the question, the effect would be much too large and we don't see it. The next contributing relativistic effect would be fourth order (there are no odd terms) and that would be much too small. A typical electron velocity in a wire is a few cm/s so an additional v*v term multiplies the effect by about 1. E -20 and that gets you down to zero effectively. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 10:23:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id JAA13409; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 09:50:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 09:50:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609111643.JAA00389@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 09:43:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <199609110901.CAA04910@smudge.oro.net> from "Ross Tessien" at Sep 11, 96 02:01:01 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: <"Gk4_O1.0.JH3.MtkDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/642 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Ross Tessien writes: >It makes no sense to me whatever that there would be no net charge in a >conductor. If I have net charge, then I measure a voltage, right? So >if I measure a voltage, then I have net charge, right? And if I >measure no voltage, then I have no net charge. >etc. Ross. Maybe we need to try to separate our thinking about the conductor as a "charged" transmission line, and as a current carrying element with an IR voltage drop. As a transmission line charged to some potential -- there is a net charge on the conductor. Yet, it seems to me that a net charge is not required to have current flow in the conductor. Take an electrically neutral conductor loop. Move it far enough from everything else so that it's capacitance is essentially zero. Charge is conserved. The conductor can never acquire any net charge. Transmit a changing magnetic field through the loop. Current will flow in the loop. As for the IR voltage drop along the loop, or along any current carrying conductor -- a voltage gradient (electric field) must exist within the conductor. How is it generated, where are the source charges? I think now that what I wrote yesterday about the positive electric field which exists along the direction of current flow, caused by relativistic effects of the moving electrons is mainly true. But this positive electric field is developed equally in both the forward and the reverse direction. It was probably incorrect to suggest that it is related to the cause (or effect) of the potential gradient within the wire. We are missing something. What? Robert From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 12:59:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA28155; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:39:50 -0700 Message-Id: <199609111939.MAA11889@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: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"lp5eN2.0.kt6.TMnDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/644 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A >>>I think the potential of a conductor at any point on it is independent of >>>the current, at least at potentials experienced in everyday life, >> >>Not true, just look below at your IR which is equal to Volts. If you >>increase the I, then you will have also increased the voltage and thus the >>voltage at the different locations will again be different in kind. > >I am just not communicating effectively here. I am sure you would >understand what I mean if I get this across right. The voltage at any >point in a conductor is independent of the current. It is only the delta V >*between two points* that is a function of current in the conductor. The >voltage waveform at a point can go all over the place. Example: > > >--/\/\/\----------------------P1-------P2-----| |-------- open > ====== C1 > \/\/\/ > Primary > > > >Suppose this is a Tesla Coil. The voltage at P1 or P2 could be varying >wildly by millions of volts, while the delta V between P1 and P2 is a >function of a miniscule IR drop due to a small capacitance C1. Similarly, >a flashlight sitting on a van de Graff generator at high potential would >generate a DC current and delta V having no apparent relation in it's >circuit to the high potential at which it may be. > The voltage drop from P1 to P2 depends on the current from one location to the other and the resistance if we are talking DC. If you bring in coils and resonances, then you have a transmission line and other high f considerations to deal with and the voltage, and the current will vary from one location to the next down the length of the transmission line. I understand that the IR drop from one location to the next does not depend on the voltage of the conductor, ie it might be at 40k volts, but the IR drop might be less than a volt. That said, if you go all the way from the source voltage to the ultimate ground, then you will have a current, and you will have an IR drop as a function of length no matter what the system. For AC, the excess of charge becomes a dynamic thing and we could discuss it, but would be quickly forced into specific details of specific systems. For DC, this is less complicated. Each point along the circuit will have a certain voltage, and that voltage will change from one location to another if there is current flowing. So, the excess of charge is to me, just a measure of the instantaneous voltage at a given point. It is of course possible to get a given current to move with a variety of instantaneous voltages at a given position, and that would depend on the total circuit, ie you could hook the thing up to + 1,000 V and + 500 V. Current will flow according to the 500 V driving potential, but the charge concentration would be additionally boosted by the static voltage. So the whole conductor would have a 500 V baseline, and the current would boost that as a function of position due to the IR drop, such that at the low end the voltage was 500 and at the high end 1,000. > > > >> >>but the >>>potential difference between any two points on a conductor is a function of >>>the IR drop as you indicate. More complex if heat dynamics are considered. >> >>Agreed >> >>>Also, every segment of every conductor has a capacitance and inductance >>>and geometric relationship to other components or at least other segments >>>of the conductor, so obviously electrodynamics can come into play as well. >> >>Capacitance and inductance are only important for currents that are >>changing. DC currents are not affected by those properties to my knowledge. >>Though the amount of charge build up would be different on a wire where >>there was a secondary capacitive coupling to an adjacent wire. But then you >>normally only have coax or transmission lines for high frequency cables >>(where high is a function of the cable length, and the wavelength of the >>energy to be transmitted. If the latter is shorter than the cable, then one >>should definitely have a coax cable, but again this is AC, and I thought we >>were talking about DC) >> >>>Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 >> >>Ross Tessien > > >Capacitance and inductance do come into play even on steady state DC ** Note your comment ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >current loops, though capacitance less so. > >Consider a closed circular loop with a current induced by a magnetic flux >changing at a constant rate. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Note your comment, this is not DC. Capacitance can alter the amount of charge build up I agree. But inductance only alters the ability of the circuit to change the current with respect to time. >Suppose the electrons are moving clockwise >from our point of view. This means the induced DC current, the circular >electron flow about the loop, is generating a North magnetic pole facing >us. This magnetic field tends to push the elctrons toward the outside of >the loop. If we assume for a moment that the orginal B which is changing ^^^(note; Hall effect) >to create this situation is 0 or at least in the same direction as the >induced magnetic field from the electron flow in the loop, this tendency >for the lectrons to move to the outside of the conductive loop creates an >electric field which is negative toward the outside of the loop, positive >toward the inside. Someone check me, but I think the above is the same as being on the inside of a metal container and the electric field would be zero inside of the loop due to cancelation of the vectors arriving from around the loop. This is like gravitational potential inside of a distribution of matter. No net effect. The outside would see the negative excess though. This brings up a distinction I need to look up unless someone has the definitive answer handy. Inside of a conductive sphere, there is no "charge". But is there as well no E field? I have been under the impression the answer is yes, but never split the thing into two separate concepts like this before so does anyone have this answer? I will look for it too. If the loop is a superconductor, the original changing >B that generates the DC current can be eliminated. There should be a >negative electrostatic field to the outside of a superconducting ring, even >though the net charge of the superconductor is still zero, or whatever it >was prior to becoming superconducting. There should be a compensating >positive electrostatic field in the center of the ring though. > >Capacitance could play a role that is especially clear if there is more >than one loop and the loops are insulated with a dielectric. The greater >the dielectric constant of the material surrounding the conductor the more >energy that can be put into the field due to the amplification of field >strength due to the dielectric re-orientation. The migrationm of the >electrons toward the outside of the conductive coil should be greater with >a dielectric surrounding it due to the ability of the re-oriented >dielectric to "attract" more electrons to a given volume. > >It is interresting that in both the superconductive and conductive modes >(above) the potential around the loop is zero. Interesting concept here. This is a bit like our discussion of the force field of the large rolls of plastic. By creating a large number of tiny insulated rings it may be possible to charge each of them and get the current going round and round in an SC. You might be able to do this sort of like the strip coils in an automobile cigarette lighter by using broken segments of the new SC wire. It is a flat ribbon wire and you could wind it into a coil with the edge of the SC to the top and the bottom of the formed disc. By charging the SC wire to a high voltage as you were coiling it, you might be able to trap the charge inside just like in the plastic if the SC material is an insulator when coiled (ie warm). If you have a bunch of breaks in the SC wire strip, and you laminate those in between some high dielectric strength plastic, then you should be able to trap the charges inside that laminate. Once that is accomplished, then you ought to be able to wind the thing up into the coil with the charge trapped and imobile. When you cool the SC down, then the electrons can freely move around and even out their charge distribution, but the total field should be huge due to the very large charge density. And this time, with the SC, the charge would be free to conduct. Seems like a much better gravity mirror to me (yes, I still say gravity is an effect coming from over head and not from under foot). Plus, you could coil such SC wire into a concave or convex or whatever shape you wanted. I lost my notes on who was making that wire, does any one know? > >Horace Heffner Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 13:04:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA28346; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:40:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:40:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:40:06 -0700 Message-Id: <199609111940.MAA11937@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: Backyard on the moon? Resent-Message-ID: <"sTrSZ2.0.qw6.4NnDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/646 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Now it does make me wonder, about the backyard on the moon or >any other cold spot out there in space. Wouldn't SC related >phenomena be occuring naturally? > >Joe Flynn >Flynn Research Inc. Now this is an interesting concept. But it is against the laws of thermodynamics in that by using the cold, plus gravitation, you are getting out energy. Yes, if the gravitational effect is real in Tampere, then on the back side of the moon, with some SC devices, you should be able to run a flywheel by beaming up on one side of the wheel and reducing its weight. And on the back side of the moon, it wouldn't matter if you were heating the SC, you have an infinite 2.7 K heat sink to radiate to. Heck, you could use some low temp SC devices over there if the moon surface is cold enough and you can shield the thermal radiation from it. So, if this device is real, it may not be a source of energy on earth due to our ambient temperature, but it would be a source of net energy on the moon. This would make for another radical alteration in our concepts of physics where a low temp resevoir is a source of energy. Carnot, watch out! Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 13:19:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id MAA28217; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:40:09 -0700 Message-Id: <199609111940.MAA11945@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: Backyard on the moon? Resent-Message-ID: <"prlX61.0.mu6.gMnDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/645 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Horace Heffner wrote: >The initial cooling of the SC is a one time thing. For ongoing operations >the important parameter is the insulation. If you have an SC device >totally enlcosed in vacumm insulation there is a very small maintenance >cost for cooling. Horace, this is where you are repeatedly missing the boat on this one. We do not know that the levitation is not directly coupled to the SC, and thus generating heat in the SC. We don't have the article, and even if we did, it doesn't sound like they have even made any attempt to measure this parameter yet. So we can say nothing about the thermal behavior, even if the levitation is real. I will say it again. If the act of levitation is heating the SC (completely aside from any thermal conduction or radiation losses of the Dewar vessel), then you may have energy balance for the work performed. And if this is so, then the SC is being heated by that interaction with the gravitational field. So your entire subsequent argument falls moot to this point which is what Joe was trying to point out. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 14:03:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA09530; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:26:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:26:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 96 13:26:14 PDT From: Barry Merriman Message-Id: <9609112026.AA25059@joshua.math.ucla.edu> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Explained in "Nature" Resent-Message-ID: <"EHOpA.0.pK2.o1oDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/647 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Take it with a grain of salt---there have been many theories proposed in the past. If it is really explained, then they should be able to duplicate the effect, at leat in priciple Ii.e. with enough funding...) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 14:04:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA12948; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:40:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:40:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:39:15 -0700 Message-Id: <199609112039.NAA23898@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: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"n2wtL1.0.CA3.PFoDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/649 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >And what of the experiments of W.F. Edwards? Have you looked >at this? What do you think it is that he has measured? And why >and how could he have found that the value of a static electric >field measured in the radial direction from a current carrying >conductor, could depend on the square of the DC current in the >conductor? > >Regards, >Robert Stirniman Robert, are you saying that if I measure the E field at a distance R from the center of a coil, and in the plane of the coil, that I will find that if I alter the DC current (via increasing the static voltage driving that current, and thus the IR drop across the circle of the coil, n turns just altering the total current as usual), I will measure an increase in the E field that follows a curve of E = k I^2, where k is just a constant of proportionality, ? Do you know how the field behaved along the axis? And do you know how the magnetic field behaved along each of those two vectors? I will consider this using my concepts as this is very interesting and implies some specific changes to the geometry internal to the conductor IMO. Ross Tessien. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 14:10:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA12763; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:39:17 -0700 Message-Id: <199609112039.NAA23901@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: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"QMvId2.0.G73.hEoDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/648 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > >Ross Tessien writes: > >>It makes no sense to me whatever that there would be no net charge in a >>conductor. If I have net charge, then I measure a voltage, right? So >>if I measure a voltage, then I have net charge, right? And if I >>measure no voltage, then I have no net charge. >>etc. > >Ross. Maybe we need to try to separate our thinking about the >conductor as a "charged" transmission line, and as a current >carrying element with an IR voltage drop. > >As a transmission line charged to some potential -- there is >a net charge on the conductor. Yet, it seems to me that a net >charge is not required to have current flow in the conductor. I would agree with this statement if you state that somewhere in the current loop, there may be a differential element of conductor which has no net charge. However, the differential elements on each side will have a net charge with one being a negative and the other being positive. Thus, at the ends of such a current loop would be a positive and a negative voltage corresponding to an excess and a deficit of electrons. But the motive force for the conduction is still the same, a difference in the voltage, and thus a difference in the amount of charge possessed by the differential elements of the conductor. > >Take an electrically neutral conductor loop. Move it far enough >from everything else so that it's capacitance is essentially >zero. Charge is conserved. The conductor can never acquire >any net charge. Transmit a changing magnetic field through >the loop. Current will flow in the loop. > >As for the IR voltage drop along the loop, or along any current >carrying conductor -- a voltage gradient (electric field) must >exist within the conductor. How is it generated, where are the >source charges? > >I think now that what I wrote yesterday about the positive electric >field which exists along the direction of current flow, caused by >relativistic effects of the moving electrons is mainly true. >But this positive electric field is developed equally in both >the forward and the reverse direction. It was probably incorrect >to suggest that it is related to the cause (or effect) of the >potential gradient within the wire. > >We are missing something. What? > >Robert OK, much better example and well stated. You see my point above, and so now I will see if I can address the meat of your comments in this post. Your question goes beyond current physics it seems to me and so I answer according to what I know about the current status of physics "I don't know what to say". I will now dive into my concepts of space, time, matter, charge and magnetic fields and see if anything falls out. When I consider space and matter and fields, they are acoustic resonances, or they form a 3D nodal structure sort of like a cubic version of a chess board. The white and black cubes correspond to the pulsations of the nodal structure, and the white cubes expand and contract. The black cubes, or acoustic nodes, do so as well, but in phase opposition. So these represent "charge", or more properly, the locations that a specific type of charged particle would be thrust into and confined. To describe this in great detail requires discussion of GR and the curvature of space and of time (space being the distance from node to node where the nodes are spaced at the Planck scale ~E-35 m, and time being the period of the pulsations at the Planck scale, ~E45 Hz, both of which vary from here to there across the universe and account for GR effects of the curvature of space and of time. But this spacetime curvature continues on down into the cores of matter IMO and according to my theory.) OK, so what is a magnetic field that you set the current into motion with? Well, if matter exists not as peas, but rather as pulsating standing waves in aether, then charge is just a measure of the oscillations and of the amplitude and coherency of the waves heading out from a particle wave. Coherency means both phase angle and frequency, and the waves are communicated at the speed of light via compressions in the aether, just like sound. The motion of a particle, then, leads to a precession of the locations of arrival of the waves emitted by that particle. This would be like having a phased array radar, and instead of using a time delay to alter the direction of the radar beam, you alter the locations of the individual speakers. But this is nothing more than tilting the antenna into new directions, just like the old style antennae. If you have a bunch of particles moving around in a circle, and they are each standing waves linked to a common "space" that is the nodal structure to which they are all coupled, then we have a problem. The problem is due to the fact that our charges are being forced to accelerate. Their circular motion is one of constant radial acceleration, and this leads to the emissions of a particle on one side, arriving at the wrong time and position at a different space node on the other side of the coil. The arrival is advanced in time due to the acceleration. This distortion to the emissions of those particles results in all of the nodes of space in the vicinity of such a charge motion winding up with a precessional distortion, and if you look closely, you will find that the precession induces a rotation on individual nodes (at the Planck scale mind you). But if you can visualize both phase angles of nodes, (black and white, negative and positive), you will find out that while one color precesses in a CW direction, the other precesses in a CCW direction. This leads to a system of vortices that are counter rotating about an axis that is what we call the lines of magnetic force. But in this case, the action that induced that set of "field" lines came not at "right angles to the charge", but instead along a line of sight with the pulsating particles. It is true that these are the same line, but the thought concept is dramatically different to think of the effect as being a line of sight connection as opposed to something that mysteriously occurs at right angles to what you consider important, ie the current. It is the three dimensional constructive interference that is very hard for others to visualize, and I don't know if you will get what I have said above. If you do, then you will find out that particles tend to be able to phase and frequency synchronize their motions to any regular arrivals of energy. And thus they will appear to move chaotically and randomly within the conductor when nothing is going on. But I say they are locked to the arrivals of wave energy, and moving in a very organized manner. Which is why a coil resists change to the current. The electrons arrange their pulsations to account for the mis phased energy arriving from the other side of the coil (and indeed all other carriers of charge). But when you alter the current again, you again alter the precessional rate of change of the locations of the nodes. And so the electrons and the protons must alter their motions in order to again synchronize with the new current value. this leads to our observation of inductance, and to our observation of charged particles moving in opposite directions through a magnetic field if they have opposite charges. this is because their pulsations are phase opposed, and the precesion of the nodes are counter rotational as is then the thrust imposed on the standing waves. this means that there is a thrust on the electrons in one direction, and a thrust on the nuclei in the opposite direction. And it means that both are rigidly coupled to space, and thus indirectly, to each other. thus, the current in your coil above should accelrate and induce a torsional stress between the electron and nuclei systems of particles. But the stresses are opposed, so no rotation should manifest. And, there should not be any longitudinal stress for the acceleration of charge in this manner because you are shearing the phase opposed standing waves from one another. I don't know if the above makes any sense at all to you, but what I find very interesting with that example is that there *is no voltage gradient* in the driven coil! There cannot be, because the coil is uniform all the way around. And you cleverly eliminated any excess charge, but that would be irrelvant any way. Any excess or deficit of charge in this example would just remain distributed evenly around the coil. However, there IS a voltage drop. But it was induced in the OTHER coil with which you drove this one. You needed to accelerate the charges in that coil in order to create a changing magnetic field with which you could then affect a change to the charge motions in the secondary coil which remained neutral. But the first coil wound up with a wave of voltage that moved around the coil and accelerated the charge. So, if you consider the view of the pulsations of energy at the second coil as they arrive from the primary, you will see (if you consider slowing the motion to see the light speed affects) that the arriving energy has a helical nature to it where the rotational velocity of the nodes is changing. that rate of change in velocity is what the charge carriers in the secondary coil are reacting to. It is the change in nodal precessional velocity due to altering the motions of the charge carriers in the primary coil. And that was induced by, and accompanied by, a time dependent charge excess in one region of the coil as compared to another. that charge excess is simply an excess of pulsations at the timing of the pulsations of electrons. A deficit is simply an excess of pulsations of waves at the timing of the pulsations of positive particles. So all charge effects are the excess of one phase angle pulsation or another, and those phases are in 180 opposition. So, when the pulsations balance in amplitude, there is no net pulsation, and we say, no E field. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 14:37:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id NAA16968; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:58:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:58:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:58:20 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect In-Reply-To: <199609111939.MAA11889@smudge.oro.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"y2kWT3.0.-84.4WoDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/650 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Ross Tessien wrote: > For DC, this is less complicated. Each point along the circuit will have a > certain voltage, and that voltage will change from one location to another > if there is current flowing. So, the excess of charge is to me, just a > measure of the instantaneous voltage at a given point. > This brings up a distinction I need to look up unless someone has the > definitive answer handy. > > Inside of a conductive sphere, there is no "charge". But is there as well > no E field? I have been under the impression the answer is yes, but never > split the thing into two separate concepts like this before so does anyone > have this answer? I will look for it too. > conduct. > > Seems like a much better gravity mirror to me (yes, I still say gravity is > an effect coming from over head and not from under foot). Plus, you could > coil such SC wire into a concave or convex or whatever shape you wanted. > > I lost my notes on who was making that wire, does any one know? > > > > >Horace Heffner > > Later, Ross Tessien > .....................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 Sep 11 15:14:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA24141; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:33:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:33:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: wharton@128.183.46.16 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 17:33:05 -0400 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"fmwv62.0.7v5.01pDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/651 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I see an error in my previous posting - the electric field of a moving charge is E =qr/r^3 (1-v*v)/(1-v*v*sin(T)*sin(T))^(3/2) where E is the electric field in the direction of the radius vector r from the charge to the point of evaluation of E, and q is the charge. The velocity v is taken to be the normalized velocity v/c and the angle T is the angle between the vector v and the vector r. It doesn't do much good to make hand waving qualatative guesses about the effect. This result plus the radiation terms have to be integrated along the conducting wire. When the conducting loop is closed then there is no effect from the charge motion. Robert Stirniman's references showing an effect for electrons moving through a conductor are quite interesting and should be read. This effect cannot be explained by standard electromagnetic theory or by any relativistic effect. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 15:25:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id OAA24511; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:35:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:35:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:30:12 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect In-Reply-To: <199609111643.JAA00389@shell.skylink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"d2ATm1.0.q-5.U2pDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/652 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Robert Stirniman wrote: > Ross Tessien writes: > > >It makes no sense to me whatever that there would be no net charge in a > >conductor. If I have net charge, then I measure a voltage, right? So > >if I measure a voltage, then I have net charge, right? And if I > >measure no voltage, then I have no net charge. > >etc. > > Ross. Maybe we need to try to separate our thinking about the > conductor as a "charged" transmission line, and as a current > carrying element with an IR voltage drop. Thought experiment for current in a wire but with no net charge: Take a ring of copper wire and place a bar magnet half way through. Wait a sec for things to stabilize. Now yank the magnet out and throw it far away. For a moment there will be a large current in the copper ring, but there will be no net charge anywhere. The current will last for a fraction of a second if the wire is very thick. If a laminated core is wrapped around the wire, the current will last for a couple of seconds. I think part of the communications problem between Robert and Ross is between the physicist's view of voltage, versus the engineer's view. The engineer's view says that different points on a circuit have different voltages. The physicists' view says that absolute voltage doesn't exist, voltage is always relative to something else, and different points on a circuit do not have particular voltages (though they can have voltage *differences between* them.) Can an uncharged object have a large voltage with respect to the earth? Sure! Just put your object inside a VandeGraaff generator sphere and touch it to the sphere's inner surface. The object will have zero surface charge, but will be at high voltage (referenced to earth.) In general, net charge does not determine voltage with respect to earth, and voltage with respect to earch does not determine net charge. We engineers very rarely care about the potential of entire circuits with respect to the earth, so we usually think in terms of voltages at various points in a circuit with respect to a common reference point. But then we ignore the "with respect to a common reference point" part and instead think in terms of "voltages at various points in a circuit," acting like these voltages were *real*, as if the reference point stuff is unimportant and can be ignored. This works as a simplifying shortcut for circuit design, but it's plain wrong from a physics standpoint. Also, the Earth is not at zero voltage. Zero voltage compared to what? .....................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 Sep 11 18:43:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id SAA06822; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:06:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:06:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:03:33 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Modanese article and Podkletnov In-Reply-To: <960910003356_76216.2421_HHB52-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"iO_Eh1.0.Wg1.h8sDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/653 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo., Kind of a general question here. Sort of a quick attempt to take a measure of feeling among Vortexians as to history and ethics of science and 'what works' as opposed to 'what is thought to work'. We all saw a personal piece, and some of you are involved in it, of Pons and F., publishing in peer review, then popular press exposure. Even though the peer process was observed, the NY Times gets delivered faster. SO: Questions: 1) If Pons and F and cold fusion is used in a commercial product, sometime, then do we say "well done" to P and F? 2) If CF product is realized as a result of some lead P and F started do we say "well done to P and F .... and "well done" to the 'OP', or other party that brought it home, say CETI or somthing? 3) nos 1 and 2 are part of a film clip of history that YOU are in, some of us look at the fil, some are actors. Do all of you remember how you felt when you first heard about CF? How do you feel now? Do you remeber or have you taken stock of how your attitudes and perceptions of CF have developed form when you first heard until today. New Film Clip Pod. Actually started in maybe 1990, who knows, something fired PK up enough to want to do this work. 1) How do you feel? How much do you actually know? 2) Some of you hve actually tried to do some CF stuff .... how many have actually tried to do Pk grav stuff? 3) I have watched a heck of a lot of discussion on Pk grav; up, down, back, forth 'works', 'don't work', 'can't work', 'works my way' and 'maybe its a scam' .... but how much bandwidth is used on words based on knowledge? 4) I enjoyed Modanese paper, looking carefully it seems he has been working with Pk and asked and got answers to and published a lot. 5) I don't own scanner but it owuld be nice to be able to call on the Vo and see if we can scan in the papers in the references posted by R. Stirniman, from the NASA types, and others, and compare they to Modanese.... can do? 6) I personally do not 'with my own two hands felt it and own two eyes saw it' KNOW Pk grav is there or not there. 7) I do think I will reserve final judgement until I personally try, or see it done by another. Does not seem THAT tough a replication, not a $ 1.98, but not the moon either. So I will save my dimes, borrow stuff, and then try. 8) Your feelings? 9) My feeling is until I know ... what a glorious thing! JHS On 9 Sep 1996, Rick Monteverde wrote: > Robert Stirniman wrote: > > > So, bury Tampere? Maybe so, it rhymes, you know. > > > > But please first take a hard look at the "obscure" research > > which well documents the fact that William Hooper's > > invention works. Hooper's discovery, along with the > > confirming experiments of W.F. Edwards and others, has > > been buried in obscurity for over twenty five years. And > > isn't it a bit too *huge* to have been buried accidently? > > > > Tampere is much the same invention. How much dirt will it > > take? > > Maybe Hooper's invention is real (i.e. works, is anomalous, etc.), I don't > know. Maybe the Tampere setup works too. But right now it looks like Pod was > either trying to pull a fast one of some sort, or there was some kind of grand > mix-up regarding the submitted paper. IOW, it doesn't look good, and we have no > proof that it's real at all beyond the reported claims made in the original > papers and the recent newspaper article based on those papers. > > How much dirt will it take? So far the only real dirt has come from the author > of the paper, so it probably won't take much. It tends to be pretty heavy when > it originates with the source. He has withdrawn the paper from consideration > for publication in J Phys D, according to the reporter Matthews. It's a little > early to be saying it might be a conspiracy to bury this, as there's no > evidence of that either. If it's not an attempt at fraud at some level, then > it's probably just a conspiracy to screw up. I believe the other possibilities > are rather remote. Your may feel otherwise. > > But is the effect real? Will we ever know? Looks like this one is just slipping > away like someone said early on that these kinds of things tend to do. I'm very > disappointed. > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 20:46:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA07161; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 20:35:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 20:35:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960912034048.006d9768@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: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 20:40:48 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Question about E = I x R and fluids Resent-Message-ID: <"RAvIZ1.0.ll1.FKuDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/654 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Since electricity appears to behave so much like a fluid, and the general concensus is that it obeys E = I x R, has anyone run into an equation governing fluid flow that would be a direct counterpart to Ohm's Law? When I looked for one, I found all sorts of complications, which might be useful for industry, but not necessary IMHO. A water pump generates pressure, the analog to voltage. That pressure causes flow, the analog to electrical current, and there is an overall resistance to the flow, but I could find no quantifiers for that. The overall resistance might be represented as: Pounds per square inch divided by gallons per minute ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ...and I would think there would be some sort of unit to describe that, as I would think it would be a linear relationship. One pound per square inch producing one *ounce* per minute flow, equals a resistance to fluid flow of one ________?. Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 21:24:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA14184; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609120408.VAA17092@serbia.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: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' Resent-Message-ID: <"zQvS12.0.XT3.GpuDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/655 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >>Brown's Gas Generators can be procured from U.S. stock by contacting: >> >>Bob Dzajkich or Dave Ennis >>Southwest Concrete >>519 Benson Avenue >>Ontario, California 91762 >> >this is really old information. don't bother calling them as they are not >involved any longer, or at least as of two years ago were no longer involved. As of June 16, 1996, Southwest Concrete are the ones to procure from U.S. Stock, Brown's Gas Generators, according to Dr. Michrowski at PACE who is now a distributor of the generators. For people who would like to know more about Brown's Gas for nuclear radiation disposal, the experiments on Cobalt 60 or many of the other applications should contact: Dr. Michrowski, President Planetary Society for Clean Energy, Inc. (PACE) 100 Bronson Avenue, #1001 Ottawa, Ontario K1R 6G8 Canada Phone: (613)236-6265 Fax: (613)235-5876 Michael Randall From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 21:29:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA15047; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:12:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:12:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32378D7F.4B65@interlaced.net> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 00:11:43 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Explained in "Nature" References: <9609112026.AA25059@joshua.math.ucla.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"lX4Xy.0.1h3.5tuDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/656 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry Merriman wrote: > > Take it with a grain of salt---there have been many theories > proposed in the past. If it is really explained, then they > should be able to duplicate the effect, at leat in priciple > Ii.e. with enough funding...) I agree, Barry. When someone figures it out, we'll feel about a force- 7 jolt in the kingdom of physics! ---------- Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 11 21:48:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA16938; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:22:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:22:52 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 04:21:33 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32386a8b.4087320@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960909205218_197961872@emout16.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"ECiZz.0.U84.O0vDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/658 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 11:46:26 -0400, Larry Wharton wrote: [snip] > There are no second order Hooper effects. That is out of the = question, >the effect would be much too large and we don't see it. The next >contributing relativistic effect would be fourth order (there are no odd >terms) and that would be much too small. A typical electron velocity in= a >wire is a few cm/s so an additional v*v term multiplies the effect by = about >1. E -20 and that gets you down to zero effectively. > >Lawrence E. Wharton >NASA/GSFC code 913 >Greenbelt MD 20771 >(301) 286-3486=20 This leads to the following question. Which of the three different velocities is the correct one to use? The three being: 1) Velocity of signal transfer through a wire. 2) Momentary velocity of a specific electron. 3) Average drift velocity of all electrons. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 11 21:50:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA16922; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:22:50 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 04:21:28 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <323765a8.2836273@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199609111939.MAA11889@smudge.oro.net> In-Reply-To: <199609111939.MAA11889@smudge.oro.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"QJYCg3.0.J84.N0vDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/657 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:39:50 -0700, Ross Tessien wrote: [snip] >Inside of a conductive sphere, there is no "charge". But is there as = well >no E field? I have been under the impression the answer is yes, but = never >split the thing into two separate concepts like this before so does = anyone >have this answer? I will look for it too. [snip] I would expect the E field to only be exactly zero at the centre of the sphere, just as gravity is only zero at the centre of the Earth. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 11 22:00:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA22675; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3237968E.1F6E@interlaced.net> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 00:50:22 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Question about E = I x R and fluids References: <2.2.32.19960912034048.006d9768@mail.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"h2LG93.0.CY5.LQvDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/660 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gary Hawkins wrote: > > Since electricity appears to behave so much like > a fluid, and the general concensus is that it obeys > E = I x R, has anyone run into an equation governing > fluid flow that would be a direct counterpart to > Ohm's Law? Gary, check out the equations for fluid flow through porous media. If I remember right, if the Reynolds number is very low (way less than 2000, say) the flow rate is proportional to delta pressure. In this flow, the viscous forces rule and there are almost no dynamic forces. Frank Stenger > > When I looked for one, I found all sorts of complications, > which might be useful for industry, but not necessary IMHO. > > A water pump generates pressure, the analog to voltage. > That pressure causes flow, the analog to electrical > current, and there is an overall resistance to the flow, > but I could find no quantifiers for that. > > The overall resistance might be represented as: > > Pounds per square inch divided by gallons per minute > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > ...and I would think there would be some sort of unit to > describe that, as I would think it would be a linear relationship. > > One pound per square inch producing one *ounce* per minute > flow, equals a resistance to fluid flow of one ________?. > > Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 12 01:42:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id BAA26702; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 01:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 01:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: 12 Sep 96 04:36:51 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Message-ID: <960912083651_76216.2421_HHB34-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"2vLn_3.0.8X6.9myDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/661 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin wrote: > "I would expect the E field to only be exactly zero at the > centre of the sphere, just as gravity is only zero at the > centre of the Earth." It's zero everywhere inside a charged hollow sphere. Goes 1/r^2 from any interior space point to all point charges arrayed all around the inner surface - sums out to zero. If I recall, this discovery led to the original derivation of 1/r^2 for charges, in fact. Not the same as gravity inside a solid sphere of constant density, but the same inside a hollow shell of infintessimal thickness for gravity as well - unless this Tampere thing has something to say about it...sheesh - can't get that stuff off my mind. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 12 03:36:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA19848; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32379377.729A@interlaced.net> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 00:37:11 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"hG5Dp3.0.ir4.dEvDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/659 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: William Beaty wrote: > > Inside of a conductive sphere, there is no "charge". But is there as well > > no E field? I have been under the impression the answer is yes, but never > > split the thing into two separate concepts like this before so does anyone > > have this answer? Let's say we have a VdG generator sphere at a potential of 2 megavolts above ground. 1. The potential of the outside of the sphere is 2 megavolts above ground (metal sphere). 2. The potential (voltage) of any point inside the sphere is 2 megavolts above ground. 3. The electric intensity (E = dV/dS) is zero at any point inside the sphere. 4. Outside the sphere, the E-field goes up as we near the sphere and drops to zero as we cross the outer surface - because the first derivative of the potential drops to zero at this point (The first derivative is discontinuous here.). This is about what Horace said with his Tesla coil idea - I think. About 15 feet above ground ----- Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 12 03:47:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id KAA25727; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 10:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 10:37:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609111730.KAA00553@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 10:30:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: from "Larry Wharton" at Sep 11, 96 11:46:26 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: <"OBNHQ.0.tH6.AZlDo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/643 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Lawrence Wharton writes about the Hooper Effect: >Sorry but this effect if it existed would be very large. > etc. Lawrence. Interesting comments. Thanks. Here's some initial reactions to your ideas. The electric field around (along the length) of the conductor is interesting to consider, but it is not the Hooper effect. The Hooper effect is the negative electric field which is developed perpendicular to the conductor. The suggestion that the electric field which results from electron velocity is always and everywhere exactly cancelled by the radiation field which exists from electron acceleration, does not seem right. How can it not depend on the geometry? A round coil. Square coil. Pancake coil, figure eight coil, etc. Take Hooper's multi-turn hairpin coil and give it have a very long length, so that the acceleration of electrons takes place only at the ends and very far away from the center of the coil. And what of the experiments of W.F. Edwards? Have you looked at this? What do you think it is that he has measured? And why and how could he have found that the value of a static electric field measured in the radial direction from a current carrying conductor, could depend on the square of the DC current in the conductor? Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 12 05:07:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA21681; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 05:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 05:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 08:02:54 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Question about E = I x R and fluids In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960912034048.006d9768@mail.eskimo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"b4wg73.0.cI5.mm_Do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/662 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Gary, I think the only thing you have to do is to set up or define some standard conditions for your analogue. Suggestions: Standardize viscosity of fluid, make it water at STP "" flow system, make it straight pipe, with big bore, 12" Call resistance and orifice size. Limit maximum flow rate, ignore turbulence. THROW out those variables! J On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Gary Hawkins wrote: > Since electricity appears to behave so much like > a fluid, and the general concensus is that it obeys > E = I x R, has anyone run into an equation governing > fluid flow that would be a direct counterpart to > Ohm's Law? > > When I looked for one, I found all sorts of complications, > which might be useful for industry, but not necessary IMHO. > > A water pump generates pressure, the analog to voltage. > That pressure causes flow, the analog to electrical > current, and there is an overall resistance to the flow, > but I could find no quantifiers for that. > > The overall resistance might be represented as: > > Pounds per square inch divided by gallons per minute > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > ...and I would think there would be some sort of unit to > describe that, as I would think it would be a linear relationship. > > One pound per square inch producing one *ounce* per minute > flow, equals a resistance to fluid flow of one ________?. > > Gary Hawkins > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 12 05:18:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id FAA23784; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 05:15:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 05:15:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 08:13:39 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: "Francis J. Stenger" cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Wm Barker, Radioactivity, The Hooper Effect In-Reply-To: <32379377.729A@interlaced.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"xwd531.0.Up5.Ux_Do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/663 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > William Beaty wrote: > > > > Inside of a conductive sphere, there is no "charge". But is there as well > > > no E field? I have been under the impression the answer is yes, but never > > > split the thing into two separate concepts like this before so does anyone > > > have this answer? > > Let's say we have a VdG generator sphere at a potential of 2 megavolts > above ground. > 1. The potential of the outside of the sphere is 2 megavolts > above ground (metal sphere). > > 2. The potential (voltage) of any point inside the sphere is > 2 megavolts above ground. > > 3. The electric intensity (E = dV/dS) is zero at any point > inside the sphere. > > 4. Outside the sphere, the E-field goes up as we near the sphere > and drops to zero as we cross the outer surface - because > the first derivative of the potential drops to zero at this > point (The first derivative is discontinuous here.). ^^^^^^^ If you put a small hole in the side of the sphere, you should find you have a sharp gradient at the hole. Barker exploited this in his 1990 patent. > > This is about what Horace said with his Tesla coil idea - I think. > > About 15 feet above ground ----- Frank Stenger > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 12 06:30:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA19613; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 06:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 06:22:28 -0700 (PDT) From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 09:22:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Backyard on the moon? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-id: <01I9DX2L9W2A8X9EA7@delphi.com> X-VMS-To: IN%"vortex-l@eskimo.com" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Resent-Message-ID: <"6Pp_n.0.Mo4.Jw0Eo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/665 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I was thinking more along the line of space phenomena, black holes, gravity shifts, etc. if large scale SC phenomena were occuring naturally and the Tampere observations were correct. Joe Flynn Flynn Research, Inc. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 12 06:42:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA27747 for billb@eskimo.com; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 06:42:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 06:42:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net Thu Sep 12 06:42:50 1996 Received: from norway.it.earthlink.net (norway-c.it.earthlink.net [204.119.177.49]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA27725 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 06:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roshi.corp (roshi.corp.earthlink.net [206.43.129.31]) by norway.it.earthlink.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA15175 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 06:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by roshi.corp.earthlink.net (Amiga SMTPpost 0.88 Feb 28, 1994) id AA01; Thu, 12 Sep 96 18:41:14 Received: by roshi.corp.earthlink.net (Amiga SMTPpost 0.88 Feb 28, 1994) id AA01; Thu, 12 Sep 96 18:40:36 From: roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net (Chuck Davis) Message-Id: <232c1a1e.u8t20e.d21d5-roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: QUANTUM-D:Black holes and decoherence (fwd) Old-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 96 18:40:36 X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: On Sep 11, Lawrence B. Crowell wrote: |-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------| Black holes and decoherence http://www.teleport.com/~rhett/quantum-d/posts/lcrowell_9-11-96.html I have written here concerning the problem of decoherence with respect to black holes and open environments. I argue that the open system approach is much more realistic than the assumption of quantum black holes and the like... --- A central issue for quantum biology is decoherence. In order for a wave function to play a real role in biological systems there must be a mechanism that prevents the phase space volume of the quantum system from being absorbed into the environment. At issue is what the mechanism of decoherence and the process that prevents decoherence, or "recoheres" the system. The Penrose-Hameroff approach invokes the role of quantum black holes as the source of wave function collapse. The result of Stephen Hawking [1] is that a quantum field will scatter off a black hole with a different value for the trace of the square of the density matrix. This is similar to what occurs to a wave function with a measurement. This change in entropy involved with measurements and black holes leads one to question whether there is some common theme involved with the two different processes. This is given some added weight by Wigner's assertion that consciousness is one aspect of nature that can violate the conservation law of quantum mechanics d rho^2/dt = 0. This is not the only manner in which we can get decoherence. Decoherence really means that a system is incapable of entering into a recurrence of behavior. This can be understood according to open systems. Below we briefly discuss these approaches. The origin of black hole thermodynamics results from an asymmetry in the wave propagation of a field into verses out of a black hole. Let a(k) be an operator for a scalar field that annihilates the vacuum a(k)|0> = 0. Now write a field according to phi = sum_k (a(k)f(k) + a^{dag}f^*(k)) where f(k) is a mode expanded in Kruskal coordinates u,v for inward and outward geodesics. Now evaluate the Greens function G(x, x') = <0|phi(x) phi(x')|0>, where the vacuum is defined at an asymptotic region removed from the black hole. Input the specifics of the Kruskal metric and we find that the Green's function is G(x, x') = -(1/2pi) ln(&u&v) & = delta = -(1/2pi) ln(cosh(t-t'/4M) - cosh(r - r'/4M)) + other stuff, M = mass of black hole. The curious thing is that this Green's function is cyclic in t --> t + i(8piM). This thermal Green function has a temperature of T = 1/(8pikM). The origin of this thermal behavior is that u is analytic across the horizon, where v is not. The fields entering the black hole can carry information in, but those fields that tunnel out carry no information that concerns the interior structure. A closed system is one that can enter into Poincare recurrence. Such a closed system has a finite Hilbert space, with modes explicitly defined. However, such perfectly closed systems are a fiction taught to first year graduate students. In reality the system is coupled to an environment. A simple environment to couple to is the QED vacuum {|n(k)>}, for n = 0,1,2,... and k a continuum. Our finite system is described by a Hilbert space of finite dimensions. An often used example is a two state system with a basis {|+>, |->}. An atom with other states can be used with Clebsch-Gordon coefficients. The hapless finite state system is incapable of entering periodic recurrence since it is coupled to this environment with an infinite number of states. This is true even if the coupling to the environment is weak. The environment then can be described according to reservoir operators and the dynamics of the density matrix of our system obeys a master equation for an open system, id rho/dt = [H, rho] + L rho. So here we have two models of decoherence. One that involves black holes and the thermodynamics of quantum fields in their environment, and an approach that involves the breakdown of recurrence by coupling a system to an external environment with an infinite dimensional Hilbert space. Before passing judgement on which process is the most relevant to the issue of quantum biology, assuming experiments bear fruit on this matter, I will first indicate that the two processes are in some way related. The black hole has a Hilbert space associated with the states of quantum gravity, and all other fields. Yet this Hilbert space is coupled to the outside world in an asymmetric manner. Similarly the environment coupled to the finite state system causes information of the finite system to flow in an asymmetric manner into the external environment that system is coupled to. Now for the issues of quantum biomolecules it seems best to take the open systems approach. There are a number of reasons for this. The first is simply one of scale. A model that involves decoherence according to the existence of virtual black holes requires the tie in between physics at the scale of 10^-33cm to that of macromolecules of a cell 10^-7 cm. Physics usually requires that things at a high ultraviolet frequency are cutoff from things at an infrared domain. This involves some things about renormalization group theory, and quantum gravity has not been conclusively shown to be renormalizable. Yet it is at least still reasonable to assume that things on the Planck scale have little to do with biochemistry, molecular biology, and the processes involved communication between cells. The issue is which approach is the most fruitful for problem that involve nonrelativistic wave propagation in a molecular wave guide. To be honest I think the open systems approach is the most reasonable. Further, I am sufficiently familiar with people in the molecular biology field to know that there is little interest in some marriage of quantum black holes to molecular biology. Just getting basic quantum mechanics, Schrodinger equation, density matrices, etc, married into molecular biology is going to be tough enough, without straining things to include black holes, strings, or unification of gauge fields. I think that methods of quantum trajectories, master equations, and the rest are much more likely to bear real fruit. There is nobody in quantum optics that is invoking quantum gravity to understand the problems of decoherence in cavity QED, chaos and measurement. Similarly I think that q-black holes are a domain of theoretical physics that is renomalized, or scaled out, so that this high frequency regime is sealed off from problems of quantum molecular physics. The alpha and beta tubulins linked together in microtubules and centrosomes are subjected to an environment with thermal noise and the QED-vacuum. It is easy enough to sum over these influences as delta function correlated processes in a Langevin equation and its associated Fokker-Planck equation. The processes involved with the quantum gravity vacuum are at such a high frequency end of the scale as to be negligibly apparent. If quantum gravity is involved with this scale of physics then why not SU(5) GUT physics? After all the electron in the hybrid bonds do have some nonzero probability of interacting with a quark in a nucleus. However, that perturbation is vanishingly small, not to mention that SU(5) is not likely to be the right GUT, but the idea is still there. If not GUT physics then why not QCD? After all a self bound field knot of electric and magnetic QCD field lines do have some probability of tunneling out of the nucleus, for only a brief period of time due to Heisenberg, and coupling to the electrons in molecular bonds. Yet these things are ignored as being too small. A microtubule is composed of alpha and beta tubulin that can carry phonons and exhibit polarizations. Microtubule associated proteins (MAPs) bind to microtubules (MT's) to mediate the interaction of MT's with the rest of the cellular structures. As such the MAPs act to pump energy into the MTs. Now let us assert the hypothesis that this energy that is pumped into the MT drives the polarization of the tubulin molecules. These polarizations can be expanded into cylindrical Bessel functions with a mode expansion. P(x,t) = sum_n p_n(x,t) B_n(y,z)e^{iw_n} where the microtubule is oriented with its axis of azimuthal symmetry along the x axis. Now Maxwell's equation gives that the electric field satisfies the equation {grad^2 - (1/c^2)&^2/&t^2}E(x,t) = (4pi/c^2)&^2P(x,t)/&t^2 & = partial. The electric field is expanded in a similar set of modes as the polarization. Now the electric displacement vector D = epsE. Now the medium is a solution ions, and the index of refraction is often for such media intensity dependent n = n_0 + n_2|E|^2. Some analysis leads one to the equation of motion for the envelope of fields in the MT as i&E/&t = -(1/w)((1/2)&^2E/&t^2 - n_2|E|^2 E, which is the cubic Schrodinger equation. Physically this means that the fields within the tube are self focusing for n_2 > 0. For a few number of photons the interactions between the photons are nonlinear. The "gas" of photons forms a quantum wave packet through this self-focusing process. The solution to the cubic Schrodinger equation is E = |E_0|sech(x/d)e^{iw'_n}, for w'_n = (k_0/2)n_2|E|^2 and d = (1/k_0)|E|sqrt(n_0/n_2). The important fact is that the solution is a soliton. This soliton is stable under perturbations. This makes MT's a possible quantum transmission line that utilizes the infinite number of symmetries of a soliton as the fundamental bit, or q-bit, carrier. This part of the problem appears to be in hand, except for the issue of decoherence. This is an issue that I am currently working on. The cubic Schrodinger equation must now have two terms added on. The first is a -Gam E for the dissipation of the field envelope, and the second is a term F = sum_i f_i for a driving force that restores the field envelope. MT's are the communication channels within a cell. They organize the cellular environment by acting as motors and information conveyances. If they are communication channels of quantum information they might provide the "wholeness" that maintains cellular integrity. There is still the issue of how these q-bits are process by the macromolecular machinery at the send and receive end of the MT's. It is at the ends of the MT's that the problem becomes actually quite difficult. It is here that J. Sarfatti's back-action should rear it head, if this hypothesis is correct. Again, this process is likely to involve the quantization of a nonlinear system. Back-action is a process that should initially be examined according to quantum chaos, since back-action implies some degree of emergent complexity or emergent behavior that occurs with chaotic or nearly chaotic systems. Back-action would then be quantum chaotic dynamics with nonlocality that gives rise to emergent behavior and structure that are quantum correlated. In much of my interest in this matter I take the Bohm approach since I think it is highly workable for problems of quantum chaos. Classical chaos is formulated around the separation of particles in a dynamical system, i.e. Lyapunov exponents. Bohr and Bohm are complementary view of quantum mechanics, ala deBroglie's wave particle duality. Bohm's approach garnered bad press since he formulated this approach to find locality in QM. Bell's theorem came about and blew that hope into the wind. Yet Bohm's approach is a largely unexplored method for doing QM. Unexplored areas are to me much more interested than areas that are highly populated. The advantage that Bohm's approach has is that the reduction of the phase space volume of a quantum system can be examined as a dynamical process. The QHF can be modeled to bleed into an environment. If the QHF is completely absorbed by the environment, or measuring apparatus, then the particle is left in a single point in space. This is the end result of all measurement processes. A spot shows up on a photoplate. The Bohr approach involves the use of projector operators and other idempotent operators that stand outside the proper set of quantum operators. This approach is a sort of ad-hoc way of by hand forcing a measurement collapse. My approach has been to look at the quantization of Hamiltonian quantum systems, then to later examine the quantization of strange attractor physics. The notion I have of Jack's back-action is as a property a system has for negative feedback. By quantizing strange attractor physics I am looking for observables that describe the fractal growth of the quantum hydrodynamic fluid (QHF)and the Lyapunov exponent for the particle. To be honest I treat both of these entities as mathematical objects. I am not as concerned with the ontological existence of these things. Anyway I hope to find criteria where the chaotic motion of the particle and the fractal evolution of the QHF exert a negative feedback on each other. From here Jack's case for back-action should have some physical justification. To conclude it should be more reasonable to treat the issue of wave function collapse as a process where a measurement apparatus or environment couples into a quantum system with a finite number of states. The result is that the recurrence of the finite system is prevented and the system is reduced to a single state. This is true if we are talking about coupling a system to a vacuum with an infinite number of unoccupied modes. The result is spontaneous emission. The other environmental impact is that of thermal noise. This more "accessible physics" approach is far more likely to succeed than positing quantum black holes and spacetime foam as the source of collapse. I have been quite involved with the issue of string theories and quantum gravity for some time. Yet the problem with these topics is that they concern a domain of reality that is almost hopelessly removed from the experimental front. This lack of falsifiability of theories of quantum gravity and strings is what gave me the cause to leave these subjects, at least as a future means of support and employment. I see in the future a continual constriction of physics involved with high energy physics, particles, gauge fields, and gravity. I see physics, and science in general, becoming more involved with providing a basis for technological competitiveness for nations in the global economic matrix. Molecular biology and genetics is the largest fundamental science that fits into this emerging political reality. Unfortunately I do not quantum gravity fitting into this, but other aspects of physics might fit in quite well. Lawrence B. Crowell --- this document at http://www.teleport.com/~rhett/quantum-d/posts/lcrowell_9-11-96.html |------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------| -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- roshicorp@roshi.corp.earthlink.net `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 12 08:18:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA14955; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 08:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 08:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 07:08:39 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"jZ3fp2.0.Yf3.FQ2Eo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/666 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >The Hooper effect is the negative electric field which is >developed perpendicular to the conductor. > >The suggestion that the electric field which results from >electron velocity is always and everywhere exactly cancelled >by the radiation field which exists from electron acceleration, >does not seem right. > >How can it not depend on the geometry? A round coil. Square coil. >Pancake coil, figure eight coil, etc. Take Hooper's multi-turn >hairpin coil and give it have a very long length, so that the >acceleration of electrons takes place only at the ends and very >far away from the center of the coil. > >And what of the experiments of W.F. Edwards? Have you looked >at this? What do you think it is that he has measured? And why >and how could he have found that the value of a static electric >field measured in the radial direction from a current carrying >conductor, could depend on the square of the DC current in the >conductor? > >Regards, >Robert Stirniman I would like to suggest that at least one effect is the canellation of the normally compressing magnetic field by the opposed interleaved wires Hooper used. In an isolated wire the self induced circular magnetic field tends to compress or pinch the flowing electrons. However, if an immediately adjacent wire has electrons flowing in the opposite direction, the effect is to create a Lorentz force that drives the electrons in the second wire away from those in the first wire and vice versa. In a packed wire environement each wire, except the outside wires, is encircled by wires with opposing current. The effect should be to cancel the pich, to cancel any lateral effect from the magnetic fields. Therefore the conduction band electrons should be free to move laterally in any direction without magnetic effects. That direction would of course be away from the center of the bundle, resulting in a cumulatively strong negative field on the outside of the bundle. I say cumulatively, because the electrostatic repulsion of wires in inner layers adds to that of subsequent outer layers. Since the pinch effect is proportional to the current squared, and that effect is cancelled, the resulting elctrostatic effect should be proportional to the current squared. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 12 09:05:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id IAA18135; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 08:18:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 08:18:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: wharton@128.183.46.16 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <32386a8b.4087320@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960909205218_197961872@emout16.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:17:46 -0400 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"jJgnC2.0.CR4.yc2Eo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/667 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 11:46:26 -0400, Larry Wharton wrote: >[snip] >> There are no second order Hooper effects. That is out of the question, >>the effect would be much too large and we don't see it. The next >>contributing relativistic effect would be fourth order (there are no odd >>terms) and that would be much too small. A typical electron velocity in a >>wire is a few cm/s so an additional v*v term multiplies the effect by about >>1. E -20 and that gets you down to zero effectively. >> >>Lawrence E. Wharton >>NASA/GSFC code 913 >>Greenbelt MD 20771 >>(301) 286-3486 >This leads to the following question. Which of the three different >velocities is the correct one to use? The three being: >1) Velocity of signal transfer through a wire. >2) Momentary velocity of a specific electron. >3) Average drift velocity of all electrons. > > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk This is an excellent question. In my computer program I have been using the average drift velocity. Since all the lowest relativistic correction terms are second order (contains the square of the velocity) then the average square value (the rms value) of the velocity should be used. There could be some effect there due to variations in the rms value of the velocity. I will modify my program to include that effect and see if there is any result. This effect is potentially very large (like 10 million volts potential on your car starter when you start your car) but it cancels out everywhere. This cancellation is not local, a given part of the current loop cancels out with the rest of the loop. A small perturbation in a given section of the loop could give a significant effect if this cancellation was disturbed. I would think that there is no effect unless the rms variation in the velocity at a given spatial location has a time component. The reason is that the electric field could be evaluated using the retarded potentials and if the velocity was not fluctuating in time it would make no difference if it was retarded in time. If this effect does exist it would be as the alleged experimental measurments indicate. The velocity squared terms would be related to the current squared and as the temperature goes down the rms fluctuations would decrease and decrease the errect. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 12 12:03:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA23061; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:06:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609121731.KAA00599@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 10:31:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <199609112039.NAA23898@li.oro.net> from "Ross Tessien" at Sep 11, 96 01:39:15 pm 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: <"p4gFB2.0.Ee5.F45Eo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/670 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Robert, > > are you saying that if I measure the E field at a distance R from the center > of a coil, and in the plane of the coil, that I will find that if I alter > the DC current (via increasing the static voltage driving that current, and > thus the IR drop across the circle of the coil, n turns just altering the > total current as usual), I will measure an increase in the E field that > follows a curve of > > E = k I^2, where k is just a constant of proportionality, ? Not quite right. The Hooper effect is porportional to the square of the current, and is exhibited in the radial, perpendicular direction. Hooper used pancake coils, and hairpin coils, so that the effect of each separate conductor is additive. If you take a current loop and try to measure the effect in the plane of the loop, it will zero, due to cancellation effects. But, the effect will exist above or below the loop. Regards, Robert From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 12 12:08:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA23033; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:06:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609121743.KAA00624@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 10:43:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: from "Larry Wharton" at Sep 11, 96 05:33:05 pm 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: <"FXnHb1.0.od5.B45Eo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/669 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Lawrence Wharton writes: > Robert Stirniman's references showing an effect for electrons moving > through a conductor are quite interesting and should be read. This effect > cannot be explained by standard electromagnetic theory or by any > relativistic effect. Thanks much, Lawrence. Two coments. First -- I think it is a relativistic effect, but possibly more general than SR. Second -- the statement below is not correct. > When the conducting loop is closed then there is no effect from the > charge motion. It depends on the geometry of the coil, and on where you measure the effect. In a pancake coil or hairpin coil, such as Hooper used, the effect from all current elements is additive, when the effect is measured above or below the plane of the coil. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 12 12:10:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA21829; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:00:44 -0700 (PDT) From: MGEINC@aol.com Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 13:55:25 -0400 Message-ID: <960912135524_100332078@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' Resent-Message-ID: <"gqtQ91.0.vK5.5_4Eo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/668 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 96-09-12 00:22:31 EDT, you write: << >>Brown's Gas Generators can be procured from U.S. stock by contacting: >> >>Bob Dzajkich or Dave Ennis >>Southwest Concrete >>519 Benson Avenue >>Ontario, California 91762 >> >this is really old information. don't bother calling them as they are not >involved any longer, or at least as of two years ago were no longer involved. As of June 16, 1996, Southwest Concrete are the ones to procure from U.S. Stock, Brown's Gas Generators, according to Dr. Michrowski at PACE who is now a distributor of the generators. >> I just spoke with Mr. Ennis (9/12/96) and he says they are just aquainted with Dr. Brown and they do not stock or sell the BG generators.. -mike From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 12 12:20:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA26820; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:25:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:25:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609121825.LAA01293@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: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:24:45 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' Resent-Message-ID: <"RAIMc3.0.-Y6.lM5Eo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/671 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:08 PM 9/11/96 -0700, you wrote: >>>Brown's Gas Generators can be procured from U.S. stock by contacting: >>> >>>Bob Dzajkich or Dave Ennis >>>Southwest Concrete >>>519 Benson Avenue >>>Ontario, California 91762 >>> >>this is really old information. don't bother calling them as they are not >>involved any longer, or at least as of two years ago were no longer involved. > >As of June 16, 1996, Southwest Concrete are the ones to procure from U.S. >Stock, Brown's Gas Generators, according to Dr. Michrowski at PACE who is >now a distributor of the generators. > >For people who would like to know more about Brown's Gas for nuclear >radiation disposal, the experiments on Cobalt 60 or many of the other >applications should contact: > >Dr. Michrowski, President >Planetary Society for Clean Energy, Inc. (PACE) >100 Bronson Avenue, #1001 >Ottawa, Ontario K1R 6G8 >Canada > >Phone: (613)236-6265 >Fax: (613)235-5876 > >Michael Randall > > > Interesting. Thanks for the correction of updated information. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 12 20:03:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id TAA03967; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 19:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 19:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960913020632.006cea84@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: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 19:06:32 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Arc discharge through water drops as ignition Resent-Message-ID: <"Wcxjj.0.sz.b1CEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/674 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I spoke with an old time prospector today about Brown's Gas, and he confirmed that it increases the yield from ore, but... ...what was really interesting is that he told me that Mercedes Benz is working on a new van that will run on water. What they call micro droplets, he said, are injected into a special sparkplug, where a 40 KV pulse explodes the droplet and drives the piston. He said a report of it was on TV. That would mean no storage or piping of hydrogen required, just a water tank. He also said he knows of some guys who built a dune buggy that ran on the hydrogen from water, and that it went 1000 miles one a gallon. Will try and confirm that. He'll send a copy of a writeup, and I'll let you know here. (I found no hint of the Mercedes report at mercedes.com on the web.) Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 12 22:45:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA10170; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609130527.WAA28715@sweden.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: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' Resent-Message-ID: <"1MadH3.0.lU2.w7FEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/678 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At hu, 12 Sep 1996 11:27:15 +0900, you wrote: >At 01:55 PM 9/12/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>I just spoke with Mr. Ennis (9/12/96) and he says they are just aquainted >>with Dr. Brown and they do not stock or sell the BG generators.. >> >>-mike >> >> > >Thanks Mike, that's what I was told 2 years ago. So I guess that the >situation is unchanged and that my info is really valid after all. > >MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing >Michael Mandeville, publisher >mwm@aa.net >http://www.aa.net/~mwm > I guess you are correct and the fax I received from PACE was in error. For those interested in the experiments done by Southwest Concrete back in 1992, my only suggestion would then be call PACE. Michael Randall From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 12 22:45:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA09978; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:31:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:31:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 12 Sep 1996 13:50:13 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: Many thanks to John Schnurer for the Test Bearings To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/12/96 13:50:19 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"e1e5P2.0.qR2.r6FEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/677 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: Many thanks to John Schnurer for the Test Bearings - Tying into the theme of experimental work and intellectual development on the Vortex, I want to thank John S. of Yellow Springs Ohio for his specialized surface treatment work on a set of "Black Hole" bearings supplied to him by me. Hopefully the bearings will be installed on my inline skates tonight, and if they do not seem terribly out of "wack" they will be used, along with a $150 set of "Bankrobber"(TM) wheels to try to assist me, (Mark Hugo) in obtaining an optimum time on a 26 mile in-line "marathon" to be run between Two Harbors MN and Duluth on the 14th of Sept. With a favorable wind behind our backs we are hoping to maintain somewhere between a 14 mph to 16 mph pace for the 26 miles. It can be a very painful hour and 50 minutes depending upon whether one "blows out" during that time. I really want to at least, however, bring it in under 2:10 minutes as that is a typical "winning" time for a running marathon, and despite my not being a competing runner, I personally would feel somewhat embarassed to know someone could RUN that distance faster than I can skate it! We'll see. MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 13 01:18:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA22657; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 20:30:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 20:30:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 23:02:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199609130302.XAA14184@ns1.ptd.net> X-Sender: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net (Jeff Fink) Subject: Re: PAGD Resent-Message-ID: <"bDYDR2.0.pX5.jKDEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/675 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >I have nearly completed the apparatus for PAGD experiments using active control circuitry. The only thing I lack is a vacuum pump that can develope .05 torr. Does anyone have one lying around that I can borrow. The project is getting expensive and I can't afford to buy one. Thanks, Jeff Fink From vortex-l-request@ESKIMO.COM Fri Sep 13 04:39:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id UAA24368; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 20:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 20:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609130327.UAA02811@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, 12 Sep 1996 20:36:14 -0700 To: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM From: Joe Champion Subject: Re: Arc discharge through water drops as ignition Resent-Message-ID: <"ArQAz3.0.Zy5.dQDEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM Reply-To: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/676 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@ESKIMO.COM Status: RO X-Status: At 07:06 PM 9/12/96 -0700, you wrote: >Gary Hawkins: >I spoke with an old time prospector today about >Brown's Gas, and he confirmed that it increases >the yield from ore, but...[snip] With respect, this is old news........ There is a least one person (sleeper) inside this forum who has actively attempted to commercialize Brown's Gas in mineral development through transmutation. Not that I am a name dropper, but you will find Bill Stehl who observers but does not type. In "clean" laboratory conditions, he has proven Brown's Gas an asset for mineral transmutation and radiation reduction. These tests have been accomplished under ambient and vacuum conditions. With years of experience (and yes, he is a good friend) and a phenomenal laboratory he just quietly goes on with his research. Equipped with a brand new Perkin Elmer ICP-ES he would be a excellent choice to enter the quest for the unknown.......... Oh, just one caveat............ I stated that he used Brown's Gas in radiation reduction, but I failed to mention that the gas as a singular does not, nor will not, reduce, nor cause to effectuate, the transmutation of radiative isotopes. However, used as a source of energy, mixed with the proper chemicals, it does do certain tricks. But also, try a microwave or electrolysis, for the bottom line is -- Energy is Energy! And Energy mixed with the proper elements = transmutation! _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 13 05:36:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id FAA25829; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 05:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 05:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 08:26:35 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: neotech@xbn.shore.net cc: Multiple recipients of list NEOTECH , vortex Subject: Public sale of O U device Re: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"hWDVQ3.0.HJ6.NELEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/679 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Folks, I read the 'Immediate Release' article and wrote to ES and JN. I asked if an O U was being sold on open market. They said 'yes'. Below is the reply. Q: If an O U is out there, being sold at 350 m/yr, how is it that none of the users has mentioned O U? Improved in one thing, O U, another. I understand the need for announcement at a specified time but can you give us some cluee as to the genre of the O U being sold in the open market? ALSO: Is this not a prime opportunity for experimenters to acquire a genuine O U device, test it, and prove out as valid, for all, time J. Newman's work? JHS On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Evan Soule wrote: > > > Dear Joe and Evan, > > > > Does this mean someone has been selling and O-U product, at the > >revenue rate mentioned, 350 M/yr ? How come we have not heard of it? > > > > > > Or is it some other technology which is not exploiting the 'tiny > >gyro effect' ?? > > > >On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Evan Soule' wrote: > > > >> > >> > Dear Evan and Joe, > >> > > >> > What is the commercial product being sold? Is it a common > >> >product ot is an O U type product? Where could someone buy a > >> >commercially made Newman product? > >> > > >> > JHS > >> > > To answer your question, yes -- it is a Corporation which "has been selling > and O-U product, at the revenue rate mentioned, 350 M/yr" ... > > As to why you've not heard of it: There are several answers --- one of > which is, "If one had plundered a technology and were making a significant > amount of money using it --- would one "fanfare it as a 'revolutionary > technology' --- or would one just quietly slip it into the existing market > for the product as a 'new, improved system'?" > > ERS > > > > > -> Neotech Mailing list > -> Post to: listserv@xbn.shore.net > -> Subscribe neotech > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 13 06:24:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id GAA12122; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 06:00:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 06:00:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 08:57:44 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: PAGD In-Reply-To: <199609130302.XAA14184@ns1.ptd.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"FDKAC2.0.Gz2.LhLEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/680 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Jeff, There are a few 'cheap and cheerful' ..to free choices to your needs. 1) a number of Classic Scientific American ... as opposed to the ATNTU [at times next to useless] 'new wave' Sci. Am. ...... Amateur Scientist section entries have appeared over the years showing how to 'home brew' vacuum systems. 2) a good compressor for some refridgeration systems will often pull a useful vacuum. Using 2, one to 'rough' and one to pull down may get you there. 3) Best shot here is to make friends with HVAC person, or , better yet, if there is a local trade or vocational school, get them to help build a home brew, this makes it a valuable learning exprience for some students and you get what you want too. J On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Jeff Fink wrote: > >I have nearly completed the apparatus for PAGD experiments using active > control circuitry. The only thing I lack is a vacuum pump that can develope > .05 torr. Does anyone have one lying around that I can borrow. The project > is getting expensive and I can't afford to buy one. > > > Thanks, > > > Jeff Fink > > From vortex-l-request@ESKIMO.COM Sat Sep 14 02:49:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id TAA29462; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 19:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 19:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 16:37:04 -0700 Message-Id: <199609132337.QAA26057@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: PAGD To: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM Resent-Message-ID: <"hbv2w1.0.zB7.gcXEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM Reply-To: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/682 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@ESKIMO.COM Status: RO X-Status: Dear Jeff, Check out Steve Hansen's The Bell Jar. He now has a good web page at http://www.tiac.net/users/shansen/belljar/ RWW From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 14 05:34:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id SAA20585; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 18:56:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 18:56:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:27:48 -0400 Message-ID: <960913122747_101143951@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"mmCK42.0.P15.E0XEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/681 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross asks: "Is there anything wrong with the above thoughts?" (With regard to whether wire with a voltage gradient is electrically charged.) I think so. Just because there is an electric field and charge flowing in response doesn't mean that charge is in excess. Mechanical analog: Think of a pipe full of ping pong balls end to end and touching. The balls are not moving. Now apply a pressure feedback loop that pushes on one end with air and sucks on the other. Now we get a flow of the balls, but the density of the balls in the pipe has not increased. It is true that the hi-pressure end is trying to inject excess charge, but the movement prevents that from occurring. The eq of continuity says that div J = -x(rho)/xt. For a DC flow div J =0 and charge density (rho) stays constant rather than increasing. So the constant (rho) of the negative charge and the positive charge of the background conductor lattice remain balanced, current flowing (finite J) or not. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 14 07:02:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id GAA23717; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 06:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 06:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 06:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609141337.GAA15064@lithuania.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: Arc discharge through water drops as ignition Resent-Message-ID: <"n85Z32.0.Vo5.RNhEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/683 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At Thu, 12 Sep 1996 20:36:24 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: Joe Champion [snip] > In "clean" laboratory conditions, he has proven Brown's Gas an asset for >mineral transmutation and radiation reduction. At least someone sees some value in this Brown's Gas (BG) "effect". Any published data? [snip] >I stated that he used Brown's Gas in radiation reduction, but I failed to >mention that the gas as a singular does not, nor will not, reduce, nor cause >to effectuate, the transmutation of radiative isotopes. However, used as a >source of energy, mixed with the proper chemicals, it does do certain tricks. Yes the ITS article mentioned this also but gave no info on specfic materials mixed with the BG for the radiation reduction. I read your excellent books, "Producing Precious Metals at Home" and your book on the theory of this, (I need to re-read both. Misplaced the theory book and forgot the title, remodeling), has your theory been backed up with the data researched from Bill Stehl or others? Do you have the time to write a book on radiation reduction for the engineer (a "how to build" step by step) so that the nuclear pollution problem, worldwide, can be solved or at least reduced? >But also, try a microwave or electrolysis, for the bottom line is -- > >Energy is Energy! > >And Energy mixed with the proper elements = transmutation! Little research (except CF) in this area due to the info is not being taught in schools or in print in the textbooks. Maybe this forum (electronic information) may inspire the upcoming student generations to research into this area as we communicate what has already been done todate. >_______________________________ >Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com >http://www.netzone.com/~discpub > Thanks for the information and keep up the good work! Michael Randall From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 14 07:14:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id GAA03212; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 06:54:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 06:54:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 06:51:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609141351.GAA15463@lithuania.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: Arc discharge through water drops as ignition Resent-Message-ID: <"_p6AW2.0.zn.RahEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/684 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A At Thu, 12 Sep 1996 19:01:11 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: Gary Hawkins [snip] >I spoke with an old time prospector today about >...what was really interesting is that he told me >that Mercedes Benz is working on a new van that >will run on water. What they call micro droplets, >he said, are injected into a special sparkplug, >where a 40 KV pulse explodes the droplet and >drives the piston. He said a report of it was >on TV. > >That would mean no storage or piping of hydrogen >required, just a water tank. > >He also said he knows of some guys who built a >dune buggy that ran on the hydrogen from water, >and that it went 1000 miles one a gallon. Will >try and confirm that. He'll send a copy of a >writeup, and I'll let you know here. > >(I found no hint of the Mercedes report at >mercedes.com on the web.) I also checked with one of the Internet search engines and didn't come up with anything at Mercedes on the micro droplets. Maybe there are some engineers out there doing "new energy" science work that is finally being applied to practical applications like transportation. >Gary Hawkins > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today > http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA Thanks for the info and hope hear of any follows up! Michael Randall From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 14 08:53:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA27565; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:29:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:29:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960912183431.00702674@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: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:34:31 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Question about E = I x R and fluids Resent-Message-ID: <"LP4TH2.0.Wk6.rP5Eo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/672 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A At 08:02 AM 9/12/96 -0400, you wrote: > > > Dear Gary, > > I think the only thing you have to do is to set up or define some >standard conditions for your analogue. Suggestions: > > Standardize viscosity of fluid, make it water at STP > "" flow system, make it straight pipe, with big bore, 12" > Call resistance and orifice size. > > Limit maximum flow rate, ignore turbulence. > > THROW out those variables! > > I'm pressing for the analogy being more true between electricity and fluid flow, than at first glance. If the relationship is linear, between pressure and flowrate, then all of the variables simply become part of the overall resistance. Temperature is important, I agree. Electricity might also have a certain viscosity to it, and turbulence sounds a lot like electrical eddy currents. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 14 10:54:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id KAA00886; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:39:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:39:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:35:32 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Arc discharge through water drops as ignition In-Reply-To: <199609141351.GAA15463@lithuania.it.earthlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"ZgvzI.0.iD.mpkEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/685 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 14 Sep 1996, Michael Randall wrote: > >He also said he knows of some guys who built a > >dune buggy that ran on the hydrogen from water, > >and that it went 1000 miles one a gallon. Will > >try and confirm that. He'll send a copy of a > >writeup, and I'll let you know here. > > > >(I found no hint of the Mercedes report at > >mercedes.com on the web.) > > I also checked with one of the Internet search engines and didn't come up > with anything at Mercedes on the micro droplets. Is this supposed to be an o/u device, like the "microwave lawn mower engine?" I mean o/u in the sense that mainstream science does not recognize water as a fuel, and if a water-fuel engine existed, its input would be water and its output would be water. .....................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 Sep 14 11:09:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id KAA04446; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960914175031.006df844@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, 14 Sep 1996 10:50:31 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Bell/Hoagland on Gravity--lack thereof. Resent-Message-ID: <"Pu5EF2.0.K51.fykEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/686 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Last night's interview discussed the Podkletnov experiment. The interview will likely be repeated in markets that rerun an Art Bell show, on Sunday night/Monday morning. Recommendable for anyone interested in hearing more about it. For more info: http://www.enterprisemission.com/physics.html For the Art Bell station list: http://www.artbell.com/art/stations.html Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 14 11:44:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id LAA20642; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 11:33:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 11:33:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 11:31:14 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty Reply-To: William Beaty To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Tampere and antigrav page Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"0vlg13.0.R25.xdlEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/687 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I put together a page of links to various Tampere antigravity articles found on WWW, as well as a few other "fringe" antigravity articles and links. http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/antigrav.html .....................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 Sep 14 13:52:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id LAA27591; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:29:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609121827.LAA01658@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: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:27:15 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Wielu Master, ZPE Mysteries, AND Re: Brown's Gas 'temperature' Resent-Message-ID: <"kg0TZ.0.gk6.rP5Eo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/673 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:55 PM 9/12/96 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 96-09-12 00:22:31 EDT, you write: > ><< >>Brown's Gas Generators can be procured from U.S. stock by contacting: > >> > >>Bob Dzajkich or Dave Ennis > >>Southwest Concrete > >>519 Benson Avenue > >>Ontario, California 91762 > >> > >this is really old information. don't bother calling them as they are not > >involved any longer, or at least as of two years ago were no longer >involved. > > As of June 16, 1996, Southwest Concrete are the ones to procure from U.S. > Stock, Brown's Gas Generators, according to Dr. Michrowski at PACE who is > now a distributor of the generators. > >> > >I just spoke with Mr. Ennis (9/12/96) and he says they are just aquainted >with Dr. Brown and they do not stock or sell the BG generators.. > >-mike > > Thanks Mike, that's what I was told 2 years ago. So I guess that the situation is unchanged and that my info is really valid after all. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 14 14:34:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id NAA09573; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 13:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 13:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: 14 Sep 96 16:50:38 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Message-ID: <960914205038_76216.2421_HHB37-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"-q8kr2.0.QL2.QjnEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/688 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robert Stirniman wrote: > "The Hooper effect is porportional to the square > of the current, and is exhibited in the radial, perpendicular > direction." There is little doubt that I'm way out of my depth on these conversations, but couldn't help but wonder: isn't it true that, especially in higher voltages, the charges 'travel' along a path more to the outside of a conductor? So even given that the quantity of the free carriers isn't different as the J=0 balls-in-a-pipe model depicts, the different geometric distribution of the carriers present during conduction should have a noticable electrostatic effect. Double the current, and you have around 2^2 times as many carriers crowded more out towards any given 2 dimensional surface patch under consideration, which would seem to account for the E=I^2 effect. But I don't know why such a simple cause should resist good electrostatic shielding if that's all it is. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 14 15:30:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id PAA03107; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:14:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:14:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:09:17 -0700 Message-Id: <199609142209.PAA30366@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: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"Jwix63.0.Tm.wqoEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/690 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Robin wrote: > > > "I would expect the E field to only be exactly zero at the > > centre of the sphere, just as gravity is only zero at the > > centre of the Earth." > >It's zero everywhere inside a charged hollow sphere. Goes 1/r^2 from any >interior space point to all point charges arrayed all around the inner surface >- sums out to zero. If I recall, this discovery led to the original derivation >of 1/r^2 for charges, in fact. Not the same as gravity inside a solid sphere of >constant density, but the same inside a hollow shell of infintessimal thickness >for gravity as well - unless this Tampere thing has something to say about >it...sheesh - can't get that stuff off my mind. > >- Rick Monteverde Close Rick, but it doesn't need to be "infinitessimal thickness". Any thickness at greater radii lead to the same result. This fact is used in galactic dynamics for calculating the expected circular velocities, and it is what leads to the supposition of dark matter making up 90 percent of the masses of galaxies and in short, the entire universe. The error in this supposition is that the emission of aether in nuclear reactions provides a net thrust radially outward, and so there is a second mechanism at work in stellar and galactic dynamics not currently known or accounted for. When you account for it, by modifying the gravitational laws for stellar systems, then you come to find out that you do not need to have any dark matter, and all of the dynamics work out. This was determined by Milgrom and Bekenstein. The supposition of aether emission, for novices, is speculation on my part based on my theory of the structure of matter being aether resonances. But the gravitational info is commonly known regarding shells, and the Bekenstein Milgrom equation has been shown to remove the dark matter problem, but there is not yet any reason to believe it is a valid equation. So the search continues, (IMO, in vain) Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 14 15:30:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id PAA03079; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:14:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:14:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:09:14 -0700 Message-Id: <199609142209.PAA30363@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: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"EcPfu2.0.0m.sqoEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/689 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:39:50 -0700, Ross Tessien wrote: >[snip] >>Inside of a conductive sphere, there is no "charge". But is there as well >>no E field? I have been under the impression the answer is yes, but never >>split the thing into two separate concepts like this before so does anyone >>have this answer? I will look for it too. >[snip] >I would expect the E field to only be exactly zero at the centre of >the sphere, just as gravity is only zero at the centre of the Earth. >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk If the earth were a spherical shell, at all locations inside of that shell the gravitation would be zero. that is what I was saying is the case in an electric field also. As far as I know this does also apply for the electric case. But I am extremely confident in the accuracy of the gravitational case. For the earth, it is a solid sphere. So yes, the gravitational thrust toward the center of the earth persists all the way to the center. However, in trying to determine what the thrust is (pull if you believe in attractions), you need only consider the amount of mass that is at smaller radii, and the radius you are at, period. The rest of the earth that is over your head you could just as well throw away because there will be no effect. (gravitational that is. The pressure might be a bit of a problem, but that is a different issue) Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 14 15:45:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id GAA16906; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 06:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 06:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 09:16:14 -0400 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199609121316.JAA18562@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: (message from Larry Wharton on Wed, 11 Sep 1996 17:33:05 -0400) Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"LrAr23.0.y74.hq0Eo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/664 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Larry Wharton (wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov): > I see an error in my previous posting - the electric field of a moving > charge is > E =qr/r^3 (1-v*v)/(1-v*v*sin(T)*sin(T))^(3/2) > where E is the electric field in the direction of the radius > vector r from the charge to the point of evaluation of E, and q is > the charge. The velocity v is taken to be the normalized velocity > v/c and the angle T is the angle between the vector v and the > vector r. It doesn't do much good to make hand waving qualatative > guesses about the effect. This result plus the radiation terms > have to be integrated along the conducting wire. When the > conducting loop is closed then there is no effect from the charge > motion. I looked into this a long time ago in connection with another effect. But in any case, the problem with your last statement is that there IS an effect if the velocity of charges around the circut are not constant. (Where did I run into it? One part of the circut in copper, the return in plasma. At the time a computer model was way to complex to even try.) Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 14 18:26:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id SAA04329; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 18:09:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 18:09:10 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 21:05:06 -0400 Message-ID: <960914210503_522746687@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Paper Resent-Message-ID: <"2Zxl41.0.X31.YSrEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/691 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I just got my copy of New Energy News. My paper "The Zero Point Interaction" came out real nice. I believe that it's a premier paper on the subject. If I had to do it again I would mention electron condensations and the wavelength of evanscence. Oh well, I'm not perfect. I have another paper, "The Source of Inertial and Gravitational Mass" at Extraordinary Science since May. Perhaps I should write to them and see how it is going. I would like to thank. Hal Fox, Gene Mallove, Bill Beaty, and David Jonsson for helping me. You gave me a start, in fact you are giving the world the chance for clean abundant energy. Thanks for the break Guys! Its a lot of work with little pay. I have no thanks for Howard Haden Editor for Galliean Electrodynamics. He had nothing nice to say about any of my papers. No thanks Howard. I hope to publish a report of our Johnstown Yusmar results after the first of the year. Howard will have to read of the report in another Journal. Hee Hee Hee Hee!! Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 14 20:34:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id TAA03474; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 19:49:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 19:49:36 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 02:36:45 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <323aa298.40223025@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960913122747_101143951@emout06.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <960913122747_101143951@emout06.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"kDJUZ3.0.-r.qrsEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/692 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:27:48 -0400, Puthoff@aol.com wrote: >Ross asks: "Is there anything wrong with the above thoughts?" (With = regard to >whether wire with a voltage gradient is electrically charged.) > >I think so. Just because there is an electric field and charge flowing = in >response doesn't mean that charge is in excess. Mechanical analog: = Think of >a pipe full of ping pong balls end to end and touching. The balls are = not >moving. Now apply a pressure feedback loop that pushes on one end with = air >and sucks on the other. Now we get a flow of the balls, but the density= of >the balls in the pipe has not increased. It is true that the = hi-pressure end >is trying to inject excess charge, but the movement prevents that from >occurring. The eq of continuity says that div J =3D -x(rho)/xt. For a= DC >flow div J =3D0 and charge density (rho) stays constant rather than = increasing. > So the constant (rho) of the negative charge and the positive charge of= the >background conductor lattice remain balanced, current flowing (finite J)= or >not. > >Hal Puthoff > > This is true as far as it goes. However the wire has a certain capacitance and when the current was originally turned on, there was a change in current while that capacitance became charged. So as far as I can see, there is an excess charge on the wire equal to the voltage drop over the wire, divided by the capacitance of the wire. I believe this is also what Horace was saying. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 14 21:15:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id VAA23946; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 21:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 21:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960915041410.006e4ad4@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, 14 Sep 1996 21:14:10 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Arc discharge through water drops as ignition Resent-Message-ID: <"xqEel3.0.2s5.75uEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/693 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:35 AM 9/14/96 -0700, you wrote: >On Sat, 14 Sep 1996, Michael Randall wrote: > >> >He also said he knows of some guys who built a >> >dune buggy that ran on the hydrogen from water, >> >and that it went 1000 miles one a gallon. Will >> >try and confirm that. He'll send a copy of a >> >writeup, and I'll let you know here. >> > >> >(I found no hint of the Mercedes report at >> >mercedes.com on the web.) >> >> I also checked with one of the Internet search engines and didn't come up >> with anything at Mercedes on the micro droplets. > >Is this supposed to be an o/u device, like the "microwave lawn mower >engine?" I mean o/u in the sense that mainstream science does not >recognize water as a fuel, and if a water-fuel engine existed, its input >would be water and its output would be water. > >.....................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 > > > > There was a paper published in a thick book of reports on misc science findings by a group that meets once a year or something (sorry to be so vague), where it was reported that capacitor discharges through water appear to be delivering more energy than that held in the caps. If there is anything to the droplets injected at the spark plug as fuel--if there is no other fuel on board except a battery for starting--then it would certainly imply o/u. That is, the energy required to generate the current discharge through the droplet is so much less than is delivered by the expansion of the droplet that there is plenty left over to drive the pistons, which would mean the water is acting as a fuel. But more information is needed. Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 14 23:57:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id XAA18723; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 23:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 23:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <323B9E0F.775B@pacbell.net> Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 23:11:27 -0700 From: hank X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect References: <960914205038_76216.2421_HHB37-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"lQPci3.0.Pa4.zrvEo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/694 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick Monteverde wrote: > > Robert Stirniman wrote: > > > "The Hooper effect is porportional to the square > > of the current, and is exhibited in the radial, perpendicular > > direction." > > There is little doubt that I'm way out of my depth on these conversations, but > couldn't help but wonder: isn't it true that, especially in higher voltages, > the charges 'travel' along a path more to the outside of a conductor? So even > given that the quantity of the free carriers isn't different as the J=0 > balls-in-a-pipe model depicts, the different geometric distribution of the > carriers present during conduction should have a noticable electrostatic > effect. Double the current, and you have around 2^2 times as many carriers > crowded more out towards any given 2 dimensional surface patch under > consideration, which would seem to account for the E=I^2 effect. But I don't > know why such a simple cause should resist good electrostatic shielding if > that's all it is. > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HIRick At high frequencies, there is an effect called "skin effect" in which the current concentrates on the outside of conductors. "Litz wire" is used to combat this. It is made by silver plating the outside of many strands of fine wire, to make a cable which efficently carries large high frequency currents, such as radio and TV transmitters. Hank -- 1¾ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 15 06:28:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id GAA22405; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 06:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 06:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 05:27:42 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Question about E = I x R and fluids Resent-Message-ID: <"yKFjD2.0._T5.mC0Fo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/695 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Since electricity appears to behave so much like >a fluid, and the general concensus is that it obeys >E = I x R, has anyone run into an equation governing >fluid flow that would be a direct counterpart to >Ohm's Law? > >When I looked for one, I found all sorts of complications, >which might be useful for industry, but not necessary IMHO. > >A water pump generates pressure, the analog to voltage. >That pressure causes flow, the analog to electrical >current, and there is an overall resistance to the flow, >but I could find no quantifiers for that. > >The overall resistance might be represented as: > >Pounds per square inch divided by gallons per minute >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >...and I would think there would be some sort of unit to >describe that, as I would think it would be a linear relationship. > >One pound per square inch producing one *ounce* per minute >flow, equals a resistance to fluid flow of one ________?. > >Gary Hawkins I am surprized no one has answered this inquiry. Surely there must be some fluid dynamicists handy in a list that deals with the Yusmar, etc? My knowledge of this area is over 25 years old and I have no references handy, so I have been hesitant to respond. However, as usual, if I blurt out some stuff it surely will be corrected, amended, or embellished, as ususal. Fluid flow eqations, for gases and liquids or mixtures, just aren't as simple as for electronics. This is partly because the corrections and considerations needed for fluidics are typically small in the electronics world, so are ignored, even though analogies exist. The basic fluid flow equation analagous to Ohm's law typically (don't forget my knowldege is old) uses friction factors instead of resistance. Friction factors are analagous to conductance (S=1/R) instead of resistance (R). In a conductor with voltages V1 and V2 at the ends (measured with respect to some common reference voltage), or voltage drop of V=V2-V1, the current I is given by I = (1/R) (V2-V1), or I = S*V, where I is positive if current flow is from end 1 to end 2 of the conductor. A similar flow equation exists for pipe sections. However, the form is usually not theoretically derived, but derived by testing and curve fitting. A typical form is: F = K (P2^r - P1^r) where F is flow in vol/sec, P2 and P1 are pressures, and r is a constant determined by curve fitting (vaues for natural gas are typically between 1.8 and 2, for example). The formula used for K can or does involve one or more constants determined by empirical curve fitting, pipe diameter, pipe length, pipe surface conditions, fluid viscosity, fluid density, percentage of pipe filled with liquid, supercompressibility of gas, fluid mixture, etc. Things get a lot more complex when flow is analysed in networks and when dynamics are consididered. Network analysis is typically done by successive approximation of network conditions that involve the recalculation of the friction factors based on flow conditions in each particular pipe section for a given itieration of the successive approximation. Conditions that can change the friction factors in each iteration are mixtures (esp. in sewer lines), turbulent/nonturbulent flow conditions, supercompressibility factors, fluid density/viscosity, etc. Many network analysis programs avoid changes in the friction factors by incorporating the everything into the initial flow equation curve fit. For example, changes in density can be automatically accounted for by changing the choice of r. Elevation of pipe section ends (requiring changes to P1 and P2, or changing the flow equation to account for the pressure gradient due to elevation) can also be important to the analyisis. Kirchhoff's laws have an analogy too: the sum of the fluid flows into and out of a node are zero, and the sum of the pressure drops around any loop is zero. Exceptions can be made by adding elements like compressors or pumps (voltage sources), flow regulators, fixed flow deficits at nodes for network loads, etc. The flow eqation F = K (P2^r - P1^r) is very useful for obtaining solutions using Kirchoff's laws. That is because if you set up by choosing any flow that meets the network flow requirements (law 1), typically by using a spanning tree, then Kirchhoff's pressure drop requirements can be met by successively adjusting (balancing) flows around the loops by a constant flow amount until every loop is satified (sum of pressure drops around each loop is zero). Loop flow adjustments to make the sum of the presuure drops around the loop zero can be solved using the Hardy-Cross method (basically Newton-Rhapson applied to lots of variables). In place of repetitive loop balancing, many network analysis programs use other non-linear multi-variate optimization algorithms involving sparse matrix techniques, etc. That's it in a nutshell. Some food for thought: the fluid flow equation, especially for gasses, is non-linear. This may by some kind of pointer to opportunity for energy non-conservation. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 15 08:11:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id IAA26727; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 08:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 08:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <323BA08A.5C8F@loc100.tandem.com> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 07:22:02 +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: ILENR2 Trip Report Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"h1awA2.0.WX6.Il1Fo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/696 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The second International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions conference (ILENR2) was held on September 13-14, 1996 at College Station, Texas. This is a summary of some of my impressions of the conference. The conference was held at the Holiday Inn instead of the Texas A&M campus because the Chemistry Dept. Advisory Committee voted 12-0 against allowing it on campus. This was announced at the beginning and set the tone for the meeting: a group struggling to gain respectability. The conference had 46 attendees with 22 talks spread over two days. The attendee list was very impressive (over half with PhD's) and included major names in the field -- Miley, Bockris, Mizuno, Storms, George, Kim, Shoulders, Swartz and others. There were many excellent talks, but also several talks that were well below the quality normally seen at a technical conference. This unevenness will need to improve to help the field gain respectability. I cannot summarize all the good talks, but will mention a few. Prof. Miley (U of Illinois) gave an excellent talk on his work in identifying transmutations in thin-film Ni beads. He has detected many products including Si, Cr, Mg, Cu, Fe, Ag, Cd, Pb and has seen isotopic ratio changes. In some experiments, over 50% of the initial metal has been transmuted to other elements, and he has seen very large isotope shifts. The new elements tend to cluster in three bands (by atomic number). He has used different initial metals and has seen three bands of new elements with each, but shifted up in atomic number for heavier initial elements. (This is a good argument against contamination.) He has tried many other ways to rule out contamination. He has analyzed all parts of the cell to look for sources of the new elements, and has spiked the electrolyte with silver to see if that can be detected in the cathodes (it can't). He has looked for null beads but not found a good one. He sees new elements even when there is no excess heat. Dr. Mizuno described his experiments as previously reported in IE and elsewhere. His Pd results also show bands of transmutations similar to MIley's. The major difference is that he sees Xenon, where Miley does not. Miley believes that may be because the Xe can easily escape from his thin films, but not from the thicker Mizuno electrodes. Prof. Dash (Portland State) reported some experiments with thin Pd and Ti foil electrodes. He is seeing 4 deg delta T and 1.2 W excess heat, or 20 Kw/kg. He has also analyzed for reaction products and has seen transmutations and isotope shifts. However, one question indicated that he may have not been as careful as he should have to rule out contamination from the electrolyte. Dash also said that his experiments are very repeatable and he is willing to work with those who would like to replicate the experiments. Anyone with a good calorimeter but no working electrodes would be well-advised to contact him (dash@sbii.sbz.pdx.edu). Dr. Minevski (Lynntech, Texas A&M) also reported transmutations in heavy water Pd electrolysis. The cathodes were carefully prepared to remove impurities, and experiments were run for several different times (1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 3 weeks). This allowed them to identify zones at different depths to distinguish between impurities plated from the cell or electrolyte, and those originating in the bulk of the metal. Transmuted elements were found too deep to have been caused by diffusion. Also, the electrode damage (pinholes) correspond only to the second (deeper) zone, indicating that they are correlated with the transmutations. Russ George (E-Quest) talked about his results with sonofusion. He has done SIMS analysis of his foil both in regions near the micro craters causes by bubble collapse, and in other regions. The analysis near the craters shows many new elements similar to Mizuno's results, while the other regions show standard Pd isotopes. It was also interesting to see that SEM photos of these foils have craters that look very similar to the ones seen in the electrolysis experiments. These five papers taken together gave a very strong impression that the results are real, and not just caused by contamination. There were several theory papers, but I am not qualified to judge them. Best seemed to be by Kim (Purdue), who has a theory (conjecture?) of how the Coulomb barrier may be penetrated at low energies. Be he freely admits that his work does not begin to explain or predict why certain reactions take place and others do not. There were some other good papers, but I will stop my review here. The field seems to be making definite progress and the meeting was worthwhile for both the presentations and the chance to talk with many experts in the field. I am looking forward to the day when such meetings of "dangerous minds" are encouraged rather than shunned by our institutions of higher learning. -- Bob Horst From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 15 10:25:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id KAA14952; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 10:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 10:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 12:15:47 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609151715.MAA19943@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: dash@sbii.sbz.pdx.edu From: Scott Little Subject: cooperation Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"K7vmM1.0.Yf3.Jd3Fo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/697 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Professor Dash, My name is Scott Little. I work for a small research organization known as EarthTech International, headed by H. E. Puthoff, Phd. We are engaged in various areas of energy research and, as a result, have developed some expertise in calorimetry. We presently have a very flexible calorimeter system that is ideally suited for the measurement of CF cells (it was actually designed to measure the CETI cell but we have never been given the opportunity). Our calorimeter is the Newton's Law of Cooling type and the entire CF cell is placed in the measurement chamber, which measures about 12" high x 8" wide x 7" deep. For open CF cells we have provisions for conducting the escaping gasses out to a flow measurement station. We typically achieve 0.1 watt precision on the measured heat output and we have successfully operated the system at heat outputs up to 15 watts. Calibration is empirical (using DC-powere resistors) and is typically tuned by constructing a special calibration cell that closely resembles the real cell. On of our colleagues (on an Internet discussion group known as Vortex-L), Bob Horst, attended the recent conference at Texas A&M and reported: >Prof. Dash (Portland State) reported some experiments with thin Pd and >Ti foil electrodes. He is seeing 4 deg delta T and 1.2 W excess heat, >or 20 Kw/kg. He has also analyzed for reaction products and has seen >transmutations and isotope shifts. However, one question indicated that >he may have not been as careful as he should have to rule out >contamination from the electrolyte. Dash also said that his experiments >are very repeatable and he is willing to work with those who would like >to replicate the experiments. Anyone with a good calorimeter but no >working electrodes would be well-advised to contact him >(dash@sbii.sbz.pdx.edu). We would be delighted to have the opportunity to perform calorimetric measurements on one of your cells. We would prefer you to send us a "known working" cell so that, nominally, there would only be one variable in the experiment: our calorimetry. This would be preferrable to our constructing a cell according to your design because there are would be many new variables introduced in a cell of our own construction. In return for this opportunity, we will provide you with a detailed report of our experimental results and, if we confirm your excess heat measurements, offer to cooperate with you in further research and development. - 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-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 15 10:55:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id KAA29673; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 10:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 10:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <323C4055.2396@interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 13:43:49 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: E= I x R, Horace's fluids, & heat pipes References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"W2Z5h.0.SF7.Y24Fo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/698 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: (response to Gary Hawkin's post) > > >...and I would think there would be some sort of unit to > >describe that, as I would think it would be a linear relationship. > > > >One pound per square inch producing one *ounce* per minute > >flow, equals a resistance to fluid flow of one ________?. > > > >Gary Hawkins > Horace replies: > I am surprized no one has answered this inquiry. Surely there must be some > fluid dynamicists handy in a list that deals with the Yusmar, etc? My > knowledge of this area is over 25 years old and I have no references handy, > so I have been hesitant to respond. However, as usual, if I blurt out some > stuff it surely will be corrected, amended, or embellished, as ususal. > (Horace provides a very good discussion of fluid flow)------------ I tried to answer Gary with my Sept. 12 post, but I guess I missed. If you keep the Reynolds number well below 2000, and keep your flow "circuit" in a horizontal plane to eliminate elevation changes, the Hagen-Poiseuille equation applies (incompressible, steady flow, in circular tubes - mean free path of fluid molecules small compared to the tube diameter, D). The equation says: q = ((g sub c) X pi X D^4 X (delta p)/(128 X mu X L) If you plumb all your circuit with the same tube conductors, then, you can write: q = (delta p)/R where, q = volumetric flow rate (gallons per second? -> fluid current) (delta p) = pressure drop across flow section (psi? -> fluid voltage drop) R = a constant you can call one Gary of fluid flow resistance. Then, (delta p) = q X R just like E = I X R for electric circuits. In other words, use a fluid that's viscous FOR THE FLOW PIPES YOU ARE USING and the "fluid ohm's law" will hold. Watch out for bubbles of gas in your capillary sized flow pipes - they will give rise to surface-tension pressures which can mess up the flow equation! At NASA I demonstrated a capillary-pumped heat transfer loop which could absorb about a kilowatt of heat in a small evaporator section (1 inch dia. by about 6 inches long) and pump the generated water vapor around a condenser loop of 15 or 20 feet of 1/4 inch od tubing. This loop was an extension of the well known "heat-pipe" technology. BTW, this loop and heat pipes are examples of molecular, surface-tension driven heat engines. The loops and pipes all work with a small pressure difference and temperature gradient around the flow paths. Any OU ideas lurking here??????????? All wet in Ohio --------- Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 15 11:53:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id LAA18103; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 11:24:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 11:24:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: 15 Sep 96 14:22:56 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Message-ID: <960915182256_76216.2421_HHB48-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"6Ef7F2.0.mQ4.Vd4Fo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/699 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Hank - You mentioned the skin effect for HF, but I think I recall reading somewhere that there is some effect of the carriers favoring the conductor surface to avoid themselves within a wire even at modest DC levels. Maybe this is related to the capicitance of the wire, as has been suggested. But I was also on shaky ground otherwise as well: I said the the charges in a given patch of surface of the conductor increased as the square of the current, if this was the cause of the Hooper effect. That would only be true if the carriers cut by one half their migration rate through or along the conductor during that increase. That is, if doubling the voltage in order to double the current results in a squaring of the numbers of carriers involved, then the column must move at a net rate of half as fast to convey a 2x current. But why should that happen? Does the Hooper effect's rise as the square of current suggest it does, or is this all something else then? A mere doubling of carriers moving at the same throughput wouldn't seem to square the field created around the wire. Do wires try to resist any increase in power through them by decreasing their electrical permittivity as voltage rises, creating an additional 'backlog' of carriers piling up along them? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 15 15:51:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id OAA07122; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 14:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 14:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: 15 Sep 96 17:16:48 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Arc discharge through water drops as ignition Message-ID: <960915211648_100060.173_JHB167-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"UcwMP.0.9l1.JW7Fo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/700 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gary, This whole business of high voltage discharge in water probably comes from the claims of Stanley Meyer who has been pushing his schemes for years. He claims to have a dune-buggy running on the product of hv electrolysis of water, using modified spark plugs. The engine is started on normal gasoline and is supposed to be switched to water when heated up, and its the recombination of the H2 and O2 in the cylinder which drives it. I know of no-one who has actually witnessed the buggy running on water. Meyer has produced a video tape of his lecture promoting his process which purports to show his process in action, and I have spent weeks and $$$ trying to repeat his process using his many patents as a guide (so have many others) without success. So, either his patent specs are incomplete, or he managed to fool the examiners with his demonstrations. There are still some people who actually give him money to try to develop commercial versions, but to date AFAIK none have worked. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 15 23:50:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id XAA09525; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 23:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 23:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <323CE14E.9C2@rt66.com> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 22:16:02 -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 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: editors@sciam.com, letters@csicop.org, sethnet@efn.org, ceti@onramp.net Subject: Re: cooperation References: <199609151715.MAA19943@natashya.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"LxI0r1.0.eK2.03FFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/706 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Thank you, Bob Horst [bhorst@loc100.tandem.com] for your excellent, timely summary of much of the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Conference, and likewise, Scott Little [little@eden.com], for suggesting that Dr. John Dash [dash@sbii.sbz.pdx.edu] at Portland State U., Physics Dept., Portland, OR 97207-0751, supply one of his CF cells for testing at Scott's lab in Austin. Dash told us that he had a high degree of reproducibility of successful power and nuclear transformations in his cells with palladium and titanium. When I asked him about the specific reasons for this, he told me that he used a slightly acidified electrolyte [.01Ml H2SO4 and .19 Ml D2O, if I jotted down my notes correctly], which he claimed sharply reduced the amount of interfering impurities and provided more protons to be absorbed into the cathode. I think this is extremely important information, for everyone who is trying to replicate electrolytic CF. Let's try this with the various plated bead experiments. Mizuno reported nuclear transformations even in runs that produced no excess heat. This indicates that the cathodes from obstensibly unsuccessful runs should be analyzed for nuclear transformations. Claytor found that in his deuterium gas glow discharge experiments, that very deligent cleaning of his whole flow system led to very fast loading of his thin metal wire cathodes and sharply increased production of tritium. Storms and Bockris, both very experienced electrochemists, strongly recommended adding a removable scavenger electrode to the cell to absorb impurities before the experimental run. Others agreed that very tiny amounts of impurities can strongly influence the success of experiments. Visual microscopic inspection of the cathode almost always reveals pitting and spotting after a run, and microanalysis of these locations shows the concentrated presence of many nuclear products. This makes very convincing evidence indeed. Flakes and particles are readily filtered out of the electrolyte, and then analyzed for nuclear products. Despite much effort, virtually no radiation was detected. Miley reported that his sputtered thin film nickel beads never failed to show results with dozens of runs. CETI plans to soon market kits for doing successful, highly reproducible CF experiments. Successful, widespread replications will generate a storm of activity in the field. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 00:02:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id XAA11174; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 23:18:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 23:18:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <323C7560.1B29@loc100.tandem.com> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 22:30:08 +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: ILENR2 Proceedings Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"i4ps-1.0.Uk2.15FFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/707 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross Tessien asked about how to obtain the proceeding from ILENR2. I should have mentioned in my report that Hal Fox is assembling the proceedings and will publish them soon. I do not yet have a publication date or price, but will post a message to vortex when that information is available. -- Bob Horst From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 00:47:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id AAA08715; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 00:44:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 00:44:47 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 07:43:54 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <323ef633.1357880@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199609142209.PAA30363@li.oro.net> In-Reply-To: <199609142209.PAA30363@li.oro.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"DpGaF3.0.x72.bLGFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/708 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:09:14 -0700, Ross Tessien wrote: [snip] >If the earth were a spherical shell, at all locations inside of that = shell >the gravitation would be zero. that is what I was saying is the case in= an >electric field also. As far as I know this does also apply for the = electric >case. =20 Yes, after being chewed up and spat out by just about everyone on the list, I decided to sit down and work it out for myself. In fact, after a wrong turn or two, it turned out to be quite simple in the end. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 16 00:51:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id AAA09664; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 00:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 00:48:32 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 07:44:00 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <323ff73a.1621494@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960913122747_101143951@emout06.mail.aol.com> <323aa298.40223025@mail.netspace.net.au> In-Reply-To: <323aa298.40223025@mail.netspace.net.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"SZ6lo1.0.ZD2.CMGFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/709 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 15 Sep 1996 02:36:45 GMT, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: [snip] >This is true as far as it goes. However the wire has a certain >capacitance and when the current was originally turned on, there was a >change in current while that capacitance became charged. So as far as >I can see, there is an excess charge on the wire equal to the voltage >drop over the wire, divided by the capacitance of the wire. Oops, that should be multiplied by capacitance of course. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 16 04:23:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id EAA00428; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 04:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 04:21:13 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: cooperation Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:20:54 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32440bb1.6860963@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199609151715.MAA19943@natashya.eden.com> <323CE14E.9C2@rt66.com> In-Reply-To: <323CE14E.9C2@rt66.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"5J2fR.0.X6.dWJFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/710 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 15 Sep 1996 22:16:02 -0700, Richard Thomas Murray wrote: [snip] >Despite much effort, virtually no radiation was detected. [snip] I would be very interested to here of ANY radiation. So exactly what does "virtually" mean? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 16 07:19:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id GAA24954; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 06:56:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 06:56:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 05:59:06 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) Resent-Message-ID: <"BsaK-1.0.o56.ZmLFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/711 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: GENERAL The purpose here is to discuss issues regarding the construction of a Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN). The goal is to design a device that demonstrates that the assumed Second law of Thermodynamics is invalid by showing that it is possible to extract heat from one of two equal temperature compartments to increase the temperature of the second compartment. That is to say, extract kinetic energy from matter in the first compartment, convert it to electrical energy, and heat the second compartment via a joule heater. THE PIEZO-KINETIC APPROACH Let us consider the possiblility of manufacturing a chip with very thin very small piezoelectric crystals on the surface connected to integrated fullwave diode bridges. The output of all the tiny bridges would be collected together, the chip placed into a heavy noble gas. Suppose the chip is placed in a compartment adjacent to which is another compartment at the same temperature. The chip drives a joule heater in the second compartment. At some operating temperature it might be possible to convert kinetic energy from one compartment to electrical energy, which is then transferred to the kinetic energy of the second compartment. The difficulty is making the chip so it will not be destroyed by the operating temperature and the piezoelectric crystals small enough in area compared to the size of the impinging gas molecule, so that the voltage generated by the piezo-compression is sufficient to make it through the diode bridge, i.e. to overcome the diode forward bias potential. The peizo must have a small surface area to prevent the charge being spread over a wide plate, thus reducing the voltage. Any required energy requirement can be met by utilizing a sufficient particle energy, or operating temperature. The main difficulties are achiving a small piezo area, a small integrated fulwave bridge in the same cross section, and low enough diode forward bias. For a rough first cut at this assume an operating temp of 300 K. Since 1 eV = 11,600 K, at 300 K the typical particle in a gas will have an energy of 300/11,600 eV = .026 eV = .026 * (1.602 x 10^-19 J/eV) = 4.166 x 10^-21 J. Let's assume we want to charge a capacitor to .3 V. Since E = .5(C)V^2 we get C = 2E/V^2 = 2*(4.166 x 10^-21 J)/.09 F = 9.76 x 10^-20 F. Now C = Ke (A/w) (8.85 x 10^-12 F) where Ke is the dielectric constant, A is the plate area in m, and w is the thickness of the capacitor in m. For the sake of simplicity and to get scale, let's assume A = w^2, and Ke = 4, so C = 3.54 x 10^-11 F/m * w. So now w = (9.76 x 10^-20 F)/(3.54 x 10^-11 F/m) = 2.76 x 10^-9 m. The structure size for the device should be in the range of about 27.6 Angstroms. The atomic radii of Si, O, and Au are 1.46 A, .65 A, and 1.79 A respectively. So 27 A represents a structure about 7-10 atoms across. However, this assumes a perfectly non-elastic collision every time (estimate optimistic), yet the kinetic energy of a gas is a distribution, so many collisions will be more energetic, some much more so (estimate pessimistic). So, what does this say? The design is infeasible. The structures are too small to be practical or functional. The difficulty centers about the need to focus on a small enough area a sufficient amount of energy to overcome the forward bias of the diode. The forward bias sets a minimumn voltage level, which sets a maximum surface area over which the generated charge is to be distributed. If the forward bias of the diode were zero then there would be no upper limit to the size of the energy trapping structure, but like with browian motion, smaller gives more of a result. What about power? If such a device can be built that works at all, then there is a very good potential for significant energy production. This is because, assuming some of the generated energy is returned to stir the gas, a very large percentage of the molecules will connect with the sides of the container per second. This means a significant portion of the specific heat of the gas could be drained off per second. One problem with the chip might be maintaining balance, not cooling the compartment so much the energy is not transferred and yet not overheating the chip. But those are much easier problems. THE CHARGE-TRANSPORT APPROACH Having seen some of the difficulties of extracting energy from neutral gas particles, it is now easier to appreciate the advantages of extracting energy from an electrolyte. Here, the idea is to use local charge fluctuations, thus indirectly heat, in an electrolyte to drive the chip. Similar particle kinetic energies apply, based on temperature, however, the energy of individual particles (or clusters of particles, or even large brownian type particles) is expended driving a charged particle to an electrode, as opposed to driving a neutral particle to a crystal to generate a piezo electric effect. One adavntage of this approach is that the operation directly results in electrical energy. Other advantages are increased efficiency due to less generation of heat from the resulting collisions, and a reduction in the number of parts to each element on the nano-chip (only a diode and protective covering is required.) The method is to build the chip out of vertical diodes separated, i.e. surrounded by, a lattice of insulating material. Two type of chips could be built, positve exposed end (PEE) and negative exposed end (NEE) diodes, as opposed to NP or PN. The diodes would have one end attached to a shared conducting plane, the other end exposed to the electrolyte. Except for the conducting plane shared in common, the diodes would be electrically isolated from each other except through the electrolyte. The face of each diode would be hardened with a layer of gold. A PEE chip could be manufactured, for example, by building, on top of a substrate, an N doped layer, then a P doped layer, followed by a Gold layer. This could be followed by cutting a lattice of grooves, leaving a matrix of small independent diodes, and then filling the groves with an electrolyte impervious insulating material and then removing the top layer of insulating material sufficiently to expose the gold contact points but not the diode material. The resulting PEE SLVN would look like the following: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HHHHHHHH GGGGGGGG HHHHHHHH GGGGGGGG HHHHHHHH GGGGGGGG HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHH GGGGGGGG HHHHHHHH GGGGGGGG HHHHHHHH GGGGGGGG HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHH PPPPPPPP HHHHHHHH PPPPPPPP HHHHHHHH PPPPPPPP HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHH PPPPPPPP HHHHHHHH PPPPPPPP HHHHHHHH PPPPPPPP HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHH NNNNNNNN HHHHHHHH NNNNNNNN HHHHHHHH NNNNNNNN HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHH NNNNNNNN HHHHHHHH NNNNNNNN HHHHHHHH NNNNNNNN HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHH SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHH SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH E - electrolyte, G - gold or other protective conductor, H - insulating material impervious to electrolyte, N - N type semiconductor P - P type semiconductor S - substrate A PEE type array and a NEE type array would be placed in an electrolyte simulataneously. As the random motion of the liquid would bring charges close, and then move them away, the induced field in the diodes would cause current to flow, but primarily in accord with the diode polarity. Moving the charges away from the exposed diode ends would reduce the kinetic energy of the electrolyte. A charge would be build up on the exposed end of the diode which would eventually attract an ion that would be neutralized. Electrolysis would result. This brings the diode back to a neutral positon to recycle. Three good things happen: the electrolyte cools, current is available, and electrolysis occurs. It seems reasonable that this is a workable idea, based upon the problems and limits of chip miniaturization. One limit is power density, but another is the fact that molecules bouncing off chips produce electric pulses. The fact that the electric pulses can be significant at some level of miniaturization means that impacting molecules are able to generate voltages in excess of the minimum to required to exceed the diode or transistor bias. However, to make the design more practical and immediately implementable, a method is now suggested to overcome the diode bias potential, the PN forward barrier potential, and thus increase the maximum size of the nano-structures required to extract the kinetic energy of the electrolyte. The method suggested is to capacitively bias the interface, to establish a field gradient that increases the ion concentration and charge in the vicinity of the chip surface. Here is a suggested arrangement: ++++++++++++++ ----------------- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE PPPPPPPPPPPPPP EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII + - a positive conductive plate - - a negative conductive plate I - insulating wall of electrolyte container E - electrolyte N - NEE chip P - PEE chip The PEE and NEE chips would be electrically connected via a power extraction device. Such a power extraction device might include a pump of some kind to move the electrolytic fluid. Such movement, in addition to assisting in degassification, would actually increase the electrolysis. It should be noted that such electrolysis resulting strictly from electrolyte flow, i.e. energy extraction from the the fluid flow, is exactly offset by pump power requirements. The movement of charge against a field gradient increases the fluid flow resistance. The main advantage of this approach is to bias the input potential to the diode array by jamming a large number of ions of the correct potential toward the surface of the diode array, thus minimizing the size of fluctuations in potential required to cause current flow across the diode forward potential barrier. Note that no energy is extracted from the charged metal plates which create this bias potential, as they are insulated from the electrolyte. The + plate drives + ions toward the P type semiconductor, which positively biases the the P side of the PN junction. This bias allows the small ionic noise voltage oscillations to generate current across the junction. If a plus charge is lost to the diode current, this creates a plus deficit or net negative charge on the surface of the PEE chip. This charge deficit is made up through electrolyte diffusion, thus heat is extracted from the diffusion processs itself. If the fluid is flowing then this process is further enhanced. Due to the statistical effects of the motion, electrical noise level and the oscillating potentials in an electrolyte, especially a flowing electrolyte, can get fairly high compared to the potential a single charged particle can cause. A kind of macro level thing happens, similar to brownian motion. It could possibly be enhanced with colloids. Of course pumping, H2 extraction, etc., are simply practical matters. The electrical power generated could also be used to heat the theoretically all important second compartment. The important issue here is hope. If the Second Law is dead, there is then solid hope for "the" energy solution. A successful yet very small scale demonstration would be of very great scientific and practical value. The present chip technology keeps getting smaller and smaller, and the diodes and transistors in them work very reliably. Someday nanotechnology will catch up to thermodynamics and change the rules. The question is, are we close enough today? It appears we are. References courtesy of Dr. Hal Puthoff who posted them on the vortex-l list: Yater, Power conversion of energy fluctuations," Phys. Rev. A 10, 1361 (1974); Comments by EerNisse, Phys Rev A 18, 767 (1978); Rebuttal by Yater, Phys Rev A 20, 623 (1979). Articles by Maddox in Nature with titles "Directed motion from random noise," and "Bringing more order out of noisiness," both in vol 369, pp. 181 and 271 (1994). J. Travis, "Making light work of Brownian motion," Science 267, 1593 (1995). Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 07:25:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id HAA01754; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 07:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 07:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 06:13:02 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: vortex problems? Resent-Message-ID: <"y6bmM.0.BR.PzLFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/712 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a test message. I have made a number of postings over the prior day, but none appear to have been disseminated. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 08:26:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id HAA18077; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 07:54:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 07:54:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 16 Sep 1996 07:49:07 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: RACE RESULTS FOR VORTEXIAN, 26 MILES INLINE To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/16/96 07:49:11 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"cGeMV.0.EQ4.maMFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/713 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: RACE RESULTS FOR VORTEXIAN, 26 MILES INLINE - For anyone interest I completed the Two Harbors to Duluth "In-line skating mara thon" in 1:36:20. That's 16.2 mph. As you can see from my previous post, I did it in about the time I wanted. HOWEVER, there is always a new goal. Next year I'm going to try for 18. (That would put me near the top of my age catagory in "citizen". There was a legendary speed skater there, 54 years old, who did it in like 1:10 minutes, I'm not going to try for that! I'm 43...) - The 1st and 2nd place male compeditors did 1:05 minute times with a couple seco nds between them. I'm most impressed with a friend of mine, however, Arne B. who is a full time engineer (3M company), 37, married, children---and did 1:09 minutes. He came in 16th over all, and there were about 10 national level, FULL TIME speed skating (many of them cross over ice/in-line) compeditors who he beat. Shows you CAN do something as a hobby and be good at it! So let's keep doing that with COLD FUSION! MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 08:27:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id IAA21504; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 08:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 08:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609161454.HAA14223@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: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 08:02:59 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Mark Hugo...Did you win???? Resent-Message-ID: <"HEE0p1.0.sF5.ilMFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/714 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You told half of the story regarding the race this weekend.. Yes, we all accept the fact that you had an 18 mile derby, but only a select few (myself included) are aware of the beautiful woman who shared your quarters. Even if you lost the race you are forgiven, but if you didn't score at least a small point at home, there will be talk about it in cyberspace forever!!!!! From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 09:07:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id IAA04180; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 08:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 08:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609161544.IAA12065@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, 16 Sep 1996 08:43:45 +0900 To: bhorst@loc100.tandem.com, vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: ILENR2 Trip Report Resent-Message-ID: <"SBONg.0.E11.YNNFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/715 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:22 AM 9/15/96 +0100, you wrote: >The second International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions conference >(ILENR2) was held on September 13-14, 1996 at College Station, Texas. >This is a summary of some of my impressions of the conference. > excellant report. thank you very much for your efforts at sharing the experience. HISTORY, GENTLEPEOPLE, HISTORY still can be made, is being made!!!! So much for the it's all figured out nonesense. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 10:38:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id KAA27455; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 10:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 10:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:00:07 -0400 From: uban@world.std.com (Jim Uban) Message-Id: <199609161700.AA26212@world.std.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) Resent-Message-ID: <"calGe3.0.vi6.mYOFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/716 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace, I think you could do your calculations for the piezo-electric model at larger sizes than one gas molecule. The gas will fluctuate in larger clumps than one molecule, which perhaps would allow for a workable setup. Jim From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 13:04:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id LAA21471; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:42:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:42:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 10:44:22 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: vortex problems? Resent-Message-ID: <"A-YpE3.0.MF5.LyPFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/717 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: My apologies if some of you receive duplicate posts from me. It appears that some people have received some, some not. In the course of checking this out I noticed the archive is about a week behind. Maybe it has stopped functioning? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 13:40:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id NAA07754; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:01:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:01:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <323DB1F7.5401@interlaced.net> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 16:00:55 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"3Ehqk2.0._u1.O8RFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/718 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > GENERAL > > The purpose here is to discuss issues regarding the construction of a > Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN). The goal is to design a device that > demonstrates that the assumed Second law of Thermodynamics is invalid (snip) > THE PIEZO-KINETIC APPROACH > > Let us consider the possiblility of manufacturing a chip with very > thin very small piezoelectric crystals on the surface connected > to integrated fullwave diode bridges. (snip) > > THE CHARGE-TRANSPORT APPROACH > > Having seen some of the difficulties of extracting energy from neutral gas > particles, it is now easier to appreciate the advantages of extracting > energy from an electrolyte. Here, the idea is to use local charge > fluctuations, thus indirectly heat, in an electrolyte to drive the chip. (snip) Horace! I like this approach to OU! Let's keep it hot. OK, what can we do to check out the ideas without a full-blown chip fabrication: 1. What can we learn from the STM(scanning tunneling microscope) literature? Here we have probes of electrochemically etched tungsten, gold, etc. with ONE ATOM ACTIVE at the tip! 2. Maybe the same piezoelectric scanner idea they use could help in the study of the necessary nano-diodes and/or electrodes? 3. Could we set up a point-junction nano-diode by contacting these sharp points to the "right" solids - maybe one of the semiconductors? 4. Need to determine some super heavy ions - maybe should look at non-aqueous electrolytes. I think battery guys are interested in these for high-energy battery couples. It is often helpful to get the H2O out of the system - its ions are too light anyway - no? 5. How about the tunneling effect itself? Could their be such a thing as directionally-biased tunneling? - Way out of my area! Looking around for nano-points ---------- Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 14:16:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id NAA18883; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:47:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:47:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:47:53 -0600 (MDT) From: -steve ekwall- X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vortex problems? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Ww_ST.0.yc4.PpRFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/719 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Horace Heffner wrote: > Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 06:13:02 -0800 > From: Horace Heffner > > This is a test message. I have made a number of postings over the prior > day, but none appear to have been disseminated. > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 SAME TEST : SAME REASON.. Yours came through OK! -=Steve Ekwall=- POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com 'SLEEP is NOT the wk.1.800.798.1100 303.293.2FAX Brother of DEATH, BUT the CML#41251 ------------------MOTHER of INTERRUPTS!'------------------- ping :) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 15:46:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id OAA03860; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:53:40 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 17:47:42 -0400 Message-ID: <960916174740_523812883@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: cooperation Resent-Message-ID: <"w3PuR.0.8y._iSFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/720 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Reply to R. Murry's thought about putting acid in the cold fusion cells. Acid tends to dissolve metal. Caustic (ammonia & morpholine) is added to boiler water to protect the metal. Caustic is the additive in the antifreeze automobile coolant. Why does antifreeze wear out? The caustic is consumed and the acid that builds up in the system tends to destroy the auto's cooling system. Draino is strong but it does not eat iron pipes. Why, of course, because it is caustic. Caustic is stored in steel tanks. It doesn't attack the pipes. I would never add acid to the Yusmar. If you want metal off of your electrodes and in solution, add acid. If not keep the solution slightly basic. Yuri will be arriving next week to begin the Johnstown Yusmar tests. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 15:46:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id OAA04367; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 16:47:05 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609162147.QAA03728@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: "Dr. John Dash" From: Scott Little Subject: Re: cooperation Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"lYfYa3.0.041.LkSFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/721 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:30 9/16/96 PST, you wrote: >Scott, Thanks for your messages and for your interest in our work. > >I will provide you with a cell to test, but I am very busy right now >and cannot do the necessary work until I return from Japan in late >Oct. Please let me know if this is satisfactory. Yes, that will actually be better for us since we have another (unrelated) project going right now. I'll contact you again in late Oct so we can work out the logistics of getting a "working" cell from your lab to mine in good condition. 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-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 16:04:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id PAA07557; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 15:15:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 15:15:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 16 Sep 1996 15:02:15 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Mark Hugo...Did you win???? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/16/96 15:02:46 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"xV60M3.0.xr1.8ySFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/722 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 09/16/96 08:22 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Mark Hugo...Did you win???? Ahem, cough-cough...I guess we'd better make this clear..."Bridget" is a college aged friend, and mutual friend of a variety of skater friends. There were 4 of us in the two bed room cabin, and Bridget had a room (with a nice DOOR) all to herself for the weekend. But you are right. She is a very charming person, and I would be lying through my teeth if I didn't admit that Bridget's company made the weekend a marvel for myself and my two associates Karl and Larry. I'm sorry, it's true, I am fond of women. And I find that ones who are highly intelligent (3.4gpa, chemistry majors) and highly competant in athletics (Bridget did the race in 1:20, I did it in 1:36:20) are uplifting to associate with. I think that ONLY such an event could have competed against Dr. Bockris' conference for my attention! MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 18:44:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id SAA17566; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 18:22:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 18:22:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 18:13:01 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"tIskg3.0.II4.qiVFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/723 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 15 Sep 1996, Rick Monteverde wrote: > Hank - > > You mentioned the skin effect for HF, but I think I recall reading somewhere > that there is some effect of the carriers favoring the conductor surface to > avoid themselves within a wire even at modest DC levels. Maybe this is related > to the capicitance of the wire, as has been suggested. Bearden's writings are full of assertions that DC flow happens on the wire surface only. For example, in his "final secret" papers, the major effect he discusses is that the charges must migrate to the surface before they can flow, that this causes a time delay between application of voltage and initiation of charge flow, and that the surface impurities cause major nonlinearities in the voltage/current. I can't see why he makes claims like these. Have I misunderstood? If this were true, then thin films would have the same resistance as thick sheets, and we could replace expensive copper bars with aluminized plastic, but this cannot be done. The resistance of a pipe is far higher than that of a rod. Get a pipe, get a rod, measure it. This is no abstract concept; resistance is a measure of what the current is actually doing. And if the same current goes through both a rod and a pipe of equal diameter and composition, the pipe puts out more heat. This stuff about surface-current might also come from a mixup in the description of how circuitry works. Currents in real-world wires are caused by charge imbalance which occurs only on the wires' surfaces. The wire is full of balanced charge, (equal densities of electrons and protons), while the surface has just a tiny imbalance. The non-expert might mistakenly interpret this as meaning there is no charge inside the wire, only on the surface, because the surface is "charged" while the inside of the wire is not. But the current within the wire is a flow of neutralized charge, not net-charge, and the net-charge on the surface doesn't contribute significantly to the total current because there is so little of it in comparison to the neutral charge inside the wire. Maybe Bearden suffers a bit of the above misconception? .....................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 Mon Sep 16 19:12:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id TAA28262; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 19:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 19:00:57 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 22:00:06 -0400 Message-ID: <960916220006_524011153@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Yusmar Resent-Message-ID: <"HLVbT1.0.Qv6.KPWFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/724 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: We are planning to bring Yuri to Johnstown on thursday the 19th. The last minute details on the redesign of the test stand are being completed. Hopefully I will be able to report a postive demonstration of O.U. within a week. Energy out in KW = .145(flow in GPM)(delta T in deg F) Is that correct? I will post progress reports on the vortex. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 20:08:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id UAA12899; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 22:59:44 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex Subject: privacy (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"QnDF4.0.S93.hHXFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/725 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Dear Vo. Spread this far and wide, please. Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 11:25:35 -0500 Privacy is king. You all might want to look into this. Having called, they want you to fax or mail your request in writing... Pass this on to whomever you think would want to know. >Hello all, > >The following email was forwarded to me by a friend that works with >Arthur Anderson Consulting. He had it sent to him by an AA attorney. >It is apparently for real. > >Your name, social security number, current address, previous >addresses, mother's maiden name, birth date and other personal >information are now available to anyone with a credit card through a new Lexis database called P-Trax. As I am sure you are aware, this information could be used to commit credit card fraud or otherwise allow someone else to use your identity. > >You can have your name and information removed from this list by >making a telephone request. Call (800)543-6862, select option 4 and then option 3 ("all other questions") and tell the representative -- Note: I noticed option 9 was the one to use. -- answering that you wish to remove your name from the P-trax databas e. You may also send a fax to (513) 865-7360, or physical mail to LEXIS-NEXIS: >P.O. Box 933 / Dayton, Ohio 45401-0933. Sending physical mail to confirm your name has been removed is always a good idea. > >As word of the existence of this database has spread on the net, >Lexis-Nexis has been inundated with calls, and has set up a special set of operators to handle the volume. In addition, Andrew Bleh (rhymes with "Play") is a manager responsible for this product, and is the person to whom complaints about the service co uld be directed. He can be reached at the above 800 number. Ask for extension 3385. According to Lexis, the manager responsible is Bill Fister at extension 1364. > >I called this morning and had my name removed. The representative will need your name and social security number to remove you from the list. >I suggest that we inundate these people with requests to remove our info from the list and forward this e-mail to everyone we know. ----- End Included Message ----- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 20:12:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id UAA13625; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:04:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:04:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <323E1525.69AC@interlaced.net> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:04:05 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Yusmar References: <960916220006_524011153@emout02.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-LqBm1.0.pK3.xKXFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/726 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > (snip) > > Energy out in KW = .145(flow in GPM)(delta T in deg F) > > Is that correct? Looks OK Frank - but if you guys start hollering about 1% OU, please go to the steam tables to get the slight variation in C-sub-p with temperature accounted for! Pick a value for your temperature range! Good Luck ----- Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 21:11:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id VAA01034; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 21:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 21:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 18:08:24 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vortex problems? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"YVZal3.0.4G.P9YFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/727 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, -steve ekwall- wrote: > On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Horace Heffner wrote: > > > Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 06:13:02 -0800 > > From: Horace Heffner > > > > This is a test message. I have made a number of postings over the prior > > day, but none appear to have been disseminated. > > Regards, > > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > SAME TEST : SAME REASON.. Yours came through OK! Eskimo.com was down for about 1/2 a day friday. Its internet connection was hosed, though the actual system was OK. Looks like it ate some mail from friday, maybe saturday too. .....................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 Mon Sep 16 22:04:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id VAA18457; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 21:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 21:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:44:40 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609170444.XAA10355@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: Yusmar Resent-Message-ID: <"oaaCh2.0.CW4.CpYFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/728 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:00 PM 9/16/96 -0400, Frank wrote: >Energy out in KW = .145(flow in GPM)(delta T in deg F) > >Is that correct? MathCAD sez .14675 using the specic heat of H2O as 1cal/gm*C and the density as 1 gm/mL - 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-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 22:25:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id VAA19510; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 21:51:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 21:51:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Yusmar To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:46:38 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <960916220006_524011153@emout02.mail.aol.com> from "FZNIDARSIC@aol.com" at Sep 16, 96 10:00:06 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"m5AWz3.0.gm4.IrYFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/729 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank Z writes: > Energy out in KW = .145(flow in GPM)(delta T in deg F) I get .145945, so you might want to round up to .146. On the other hand, .145 is conservative by about 7/10's of a percent. :-) -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 23:13:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id WAA15745; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 22:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 22:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 22:01:26 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) Resent-Message-ID: <"oNgNX1.0.qr3.3tZFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/730 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Horace! I like this approach to OU! Let's keep it hot. > >OK, what can we do to check out the ideas without a full-blown chip >fabrication: > > 1. What can we learn from the STM(scanning tunneling microscope) > literature? Here we have probes of electrochemically etched > tungsten, gold, etc. with ONE ATOM ACTIVE at the tip! > 2. Maybe the same piezoelectric scanner idea they use could > help in the study of the necessary nano-diodes and/or > electrodes? I was thinking maybe a single very fine gold or platinum wire connected to a small germainum diode and then to a FET probe might work. The wire could be insulated by imbedding in plastic and then chopping the end with a microtome or something to make a clean cross-section. Pretty cludgey. It can't be all *that* expensive to have a small chip made, can it? Another alternative might be stretching a pipette with a fine platinum wire inside. > 3. Could we set up a point-junction nano-diode by contacting > these sharp points to the "right" solids - maybe one of the > semiconductors? > 4. Need to determine some super heavy ions - maybe should look > at non-aqueous electrolytes. I think battery guys are > interested in these for high-energy battery couples. It is > often helpful to get the H2O out of the system - its ions are > too light anyway - no? I think maybe colloids may provide an answer to that kind of approach, or maybe even bucky balls. It might be possible to engineer a colloid with ions all over the outside. That would really work pretty well. However, maybe just plain old H3+ will work fine. We can't forget that the biggest benefit to be had is really in the electrolysis products. > 5. How about the tunneling effect itself? Could their be such > a thing as directionally-biased tunneling? - Way out of my > area! I think that's not possible by accepted science. If it is - it's a solution in itself! > >Looking around for nano-points ---------- Frank Stenger Maybe the macro side of things is the place to start. I don't want to minimize that even though the diode I/V curve is very flat until the barrier potential is reached, *some current* must be provided to maintain the bias, and that current increases as the barrier potential is approached. Capacitive bias will not do the whole job. That's where fluid motion comes in. I have an idea for a way to prime the pump, so to speak. The idea is to have two tall columns of electrolyte (probably in a well casing in a practical application). Set up a very high voltage bias (e.g. 20,000V) on the capacitive plates. Use a pump to start the electolyte around a loop that inlcudes the two columns - one up - one down. Put the bias electrodes around the up column. Inside the up column is simply a wire, or even a wire connecting the two SLVN chips. Immediately, due to the electrolyte pumping, electrolysis should start. You don't even need chips to do that, just a conductor in the electrolyte opposite to and between the two outside capacitive plates. Now, the gas bubbles will start to rise. As the bubbles rise they will expand as well. The up column will be lighter than the down column. The process will also provide the small bias current needed by the plates to generate electrical energy. The process could become self-sustaining without the pump due to the bubble lift providing the fluid motion. Not a large electrolyte flow is necessary to gain some current flow to maintain the bias, or even to produce the electrolysis products. The place to start may be in quantifying some of this, emperically. It is interresting that John Logajan had some posts at one time about the seeming imperviousness of electrolysis energy requirements to pressure. He had an experiment where hundreds of pounds of pressure were generated by electrolysis at the points of a spark plug mounted in a sealed steal cylinder. The electrolysis products are proportional to current, the current is proportional to the overvoltage. The question then is - at a fixed voltage of electrolysis, is the overvoltage reduced by increasing pressure? If not - there is an opportunity for o-u right there. Instead of a 300 foot well, go for a 2000 ft. well, or maybe the ocean, and really get some energy out of the electrolysis bubble lift! Just some more grist for the grinder. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 16 23:19:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id XAA18433; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:01:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:01:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 22:05:07 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: vortex problems? Resent-Message-ID: <"PyYWQ2.0.wV4.DxZFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/731 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >Eskimo.com was down for about 1/2 a day friday. Its internet connection >was hosed, though the actual system was OK. Looks like it ate some mail >from friday, maybe saturday too. > >.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. >William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 I just noticed that the reply default has now reverted back to the indiviual instead of to vortex. I wonder if something was restored over? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 00:53:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id AAA07774; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 00:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 00:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 01:38:42 -0600 (MDT) From: -steve ekwall- X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vortex problems? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"r8GYm2.0.Dv1.oLbFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/732 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Horace Heffner wrote: > Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 22:05:07 -0800 > I just noticed that the reply default has now reverted back to the > indiviual instead of to vortex. I wonder if something was restored over? > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 Actually that's BETTER!, I had to REsubscribe to get the last response on & received 2 for 1 for ALL MAIL sent, O/U in E-mail-50% OVERLOAD!! (ugh)! UNsubscribe Helped 1/1 only 40-50 messages a day now (again) (wheooo). This ECHO- will be silenced on this end now.. system is in capable HANDS, stand back -read learn- and keep an open mind. :) if i'm not wrong, vortex-l 'bill' gets all these too. (along with the rest of the world!) Sorry guys we're outta here... p.s. I just heard on 'artbell.radio' that anti-grav was 'pulled-off' its showing from finland! (hummm,) c-u-later2 -=Steve Ekwall=- POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com 'SLEEP is NOT the wk.1.800.798.1100 303.293.2FAX Brother of DEATH, BUT the CML#41251 ------------------MOTHER of INTERRUPTS!'------------------- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 01:56:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id BAA05038; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 01:53:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 01:53:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: 17 Sep 96 04:50:39 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Message-ID: <960917085039_76216.2421_HHB35-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"qxbJa1.0.VE1.SRcFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/733 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill - > This stuff about surface-current might also come from a mixup in the > description of how circuitry works. I think my confusion must stem from a combination of that and the high voltage skin effect. My defenses are up well enough when I read that Bearden stuff, but I'm my own worst enemy when it comes to remembering things from lone before that. You usually don't see good explanations of that sort of thing sitting around in standard texts. Still I wonder to what degree charge tends to migrate towards the surface of a conductor at a given voltage in a conductor of a given cross section, if it does tend to do that at all in DC. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 02:27:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id CAA15405; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 02:05:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 02:05:26 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960917090736.006cc2dc@mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 02:07:36 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: HOW TO MAKE HEAVY WATER X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"0Wz342.0.Ym3.9dcFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/734 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** HOW TO MAKE HEAVY WATER IN YOUR GARAGE *** DEUTERIUM OXIDE I am looking for ideas how to separate heavy water D2O and regular water H2O, from let's say sea-water where I heard D20 : H2O ratio is 1:6000. 1) I heard that it D20 can be extracted with H2S (stinky hydrogen sulfide) but H2S is not easy to make. (isn't it ?). What about D2O & H2S separation then ? 2) is centrifuging feasible 3) is evaporating feasible 4) are there any Magnetic or electric methods 5) any other methods (serious only please) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 02:47:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id CAA03379; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 02:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 02:30:10 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960917092952.006ee94c@mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 02:29:52 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"K0Um12.0.cq.TwcFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/735 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ANTI-ENTROPY NANOCHIP Yes I like the idea. I see how such a chip would organize the disorganized energy in a gas or liquid by individualy exctracting the energy from each particle. It would have the effect of cooling the gas or liquid. I conceptulize the the anti-entropy nanochip as a white noise AC/DC rectifier which converts the random movements of molecules in a medium (analogous to white noise) to an organized movements or DC electric charge. I can't help to notice that some of the latest solar panels use such a macro effect of rectyfing the incoming light by tiny antennas coupled to a rectyfying substrate. Others use electroluminescent chemical dyes to do the same on a smaller (molecular) scale. Such solar panels are already in commercial production and are proven to work. COULDN'T a simmilar rectyfying/organizing mechanism be used to accomplish the ANTI-ENTROPY effect in a gas liguid or maybe even solid. Also the magnetic cooling effect comes to mind here. I remember reading somewhere that such cooling is used in near absolute zero cryogenics to extract unwanted energy from a sample. It has to do something with subjecting the sample to magnetic field and then quickly releasing it. At 10:01 PM 9/16/96 -0800, you wrote: > >>Horace! I like this approach to OU! Let's keep it hot. > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 07:58:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id HAA21386; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 07:42:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 07:42:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 06:44:39 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) Resent-Message-ID: <"bwgpM.0.3E5.EXhFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/736 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Here is a single electrode gas separating bubble lift electrolysis device design relating to earlier discussions: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I G G I I G G I I O2 G G I I G G O2 I I G H2 G I I G G I I G G I +I G PP G I+ +I G PP G I+ +I GH3+P G I+ +I G PP G I+ +I PP I+ +I PP I+ +I PP H2 I+ +I PP I+ +IOH- PP I+ +I H3+PP OH-I+ +I PP H3+ I+ +I PP I+ +I PP I+ I I I I I I I ^ ^ IIIIIIIIIIIIII I | | I -------------<----- H2O I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII + - capacitive (no current) anode plates I - insulating tubing (or plates) G - grounded metal tube (or plates) P - PEE type SLVN connected to load and then ground (or even simply a grounded metal electrode, just to get electrolysis) Note that there is no electrolysis current provided, only fluid flow. The grounded metal tube (or plates) has a lateral electric current through it generated by OH- and H3+ charges driven to it my mutual attraction once they are no longer in the capacitor field gradient. It would be possible to make the grounded metal G into two tubes (or plates) separated by an insulator - and then extract and utilize the electrical current between them. Note also that the bubbles generated assist the fluid flow. The up column above this device is lighter than the return column for the H2O. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 08:10:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id HAA25434; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 07:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 07:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 17 Sep 1996 07:51:07 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: HOW TO MAKE HEAVY WATER To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/17/96 07:51:04 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"TegXI1.0.JD6.2ihFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/737 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 09/17/96 02:22 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: HOW TO MAKE HEAVY WATER Hummmm....making heavy water from H2S....I think I'd HIGHLY warn against work- ing on this route. H2S is a deadly, deadly, deadly, poison. You can smell it from the rotting eggs, because you can detect it in parts per billion concentration. In any process chemical application, you will never smell it before it KILLS YOU! That's right, it OVERLOADS your sense of smell, and when it does that, you are DEAD. - I don't know of any other way to say: DON'T EVEN THINK of playing around with H2S in quantity at home. - MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 08:12:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id IAA28279; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 08:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 08:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 17 Sep 1996 07:59:07 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Mark Hugo...Did you win???? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/17/96 07:59:47 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"pAlgI3.0.hv6.MqhFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/738 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 09/16/96 08:22 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Mark Hugo...Did you win???? Whoops, I just noticed that Joe C. wrote something that had a minor error in it, my in-line race was 26.2 miles, same as a running marathon. MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 09:05:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id IAA08380; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 08:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 08:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 07:35:04 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) Resent-Message-ID: <"x_rDB2.0.s22.pIiFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/739 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >ANTI-ENTROPY NANOCHIP > >Yes I like the idea. I see how such a chip would organize the disorganized >energy in a gas or liquid by individualy exctracting the energy from each >particle. It would have the effect of cooling the gas or liquid. > >I conceptulize the the anti-entropy nanochip as a white noise AC/DC >rectifier which converts the random movements of molecules in a medium >(analogous to white noise) to an organized movements or DC electric charge. Good terminology. Maybe reverse entropy (RE) and Reverse-Entropy Chip (REC) are improved terms. > >I can't help to notice that some of the latest solar panels use such a macro >effect of rectyfing the incoming light by tiny antennas coupled to a >rectyfying substrate. >Others use electroluminescent chemical dyes to do the same on a smaller >(molecular) scale. This is interresting. Do you have any references? I was under the impression that the surface conductors were just there to gather charge, liker a metal plate, yet present as small a shadow as possible. Don't know anything about the dyes. > >Such solar panels are already in commercial production and are proven to work. > >COULDN'T a simmilar rectyfying/organizing mechanism be used to accomplish >the ANTI-ENTROPY effect in a gas liguid or maybe even solid. > >Also the magnetic cooling effect comes to mind here. I remember reading >somewhere that such cooling is used in near absolute zero cryogenics to >extract unwanted energy from a sample. It has to do something with >subjecting the sample to magnetic field and then quickly releasing it. > > The effect I am aware of uses the magnetic field to "flip and then eject" energetic particles from a Bose condensate. This makes me wonder if a magnetic field might be used to convert the heat energy of the gas molecules into a bimodal distribution. This effect could then be used to reverse entropy by then subjecting the gas to a thin diffusion barrier, i.e. a van der Walls type barrier. The energetic particles could go through, leaving the cold ones behind. Creating a bimodal energy distribution would also help any kind of reverse entropy chip technology because the effective particles would have a greater share of the energy. It is also interresting that permanent magnets can be used to separate oxygen from air by using the O2 paramagnetism. This is done by creating a magnetic field of increasing intensity by placing two strong permanent magnets together to form a V trough, and then moving air though the V trough. The O2 is enriched at the apex of the V. Here is another thought. Ions moving in a magnetic field radiate photons, or EM energy. This occurs at the expense of the ion slowing down, in other words at the expense of plasma cooling. That radiant energy can be trapped and used effectively, in the form of microwaves, for example. When the electrons and ions reassemble, the energy cost of ionizing is repaid in the form of another EM emission and some kinetic energy, yet the resulting atoms should on average be slower than the similar molecues on a non magnetic environment because the radiant energy has already been given off. A plasma in a strong magnetic field should radiate more and yet stay cooler than one not in a magnetic field. This is non-conservative, true? If two compartments exist in a place where everything is maintained at an ionizing temperature, and they are connected to each other through an EM transmitting thermal barrier (like thermopane glass), and the first compartment is in a permanent magnetic field, then the first compartment should cool while the second compartment abosrbs the emitted radient energy from the first compartment. Maybe there is a flaw in this logic or these assumptions? If there is no flaw, it is possible to build a heat engine based upon moving gas through an ionizing chamber in a magnetic field (call it a magnetron). This can be done by ionizing high presuure gas in the magnetic chamber of the magnetron and collecting the EM energy. The output gas then goes through an energyy extraction cooling cycle releasing any heat retained from the ionization process. This heat can be used as heat or, when combined with ambient cooling to generate electricity via a vaporization (e.g. steam) process, etc. The cooled gas can then be further cooled by letting the pressure drop. This cooled gas can then be used in combination with the hot gas at the outlet of the magnetron to generate electricity. Energy from the magnetron and the electricty generating phase of the cycle can then be used to compress the gass. Waste heat from the compressor plus the heat from compression produce a hot compressed gas for imput to the magnetron, thus completing the cycle. ccccccccc->ccccccccccccccc c c heat to ambient Decompression w C w C .<- energy extraction -> . H | w H | w H | w Magnetron ---EM/ee-+->compressor/heater h ^ | h h | | h h -----<----- h h h h h hhhhhhhhh<-hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh c - cold C - very cold w - warm h - hot H - very hot EM/ee - converts EM radiation into electrical energy energy extraction - converts a delta T into electrical energy heat to ambient - heat exchanger or energy converter Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 09:05:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id IAA12403; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 08:51:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 08:51:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <323EC8DF.764F@loc100.tandem.com> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 08:50:55 -0700 From: Bob Horst Reply-To: bhorst@loc100.tandem.com Organization: Tandem Computers Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: CETI at ILENR2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"1Ny3_.0.h13.AYiFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/740 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: One more tidbit from the conference. I spoke with Jim Reding of CETI about their current status. They now have about 90-95 % reproducability. The cells that do not work produce no excess at all. CETI does not yet understand why these cells do not work. They will make development kits available, but still plan to lease them for 6 months rather than selling them. They also will make the user sign an agreement that the work is for research purposes only, and all improvements must be given back to CETI. And you can have all this for only $5000. I told him he was crazy (not quite this bluntly) and that no one would sign his agreement. I suggested he should just widely distribute the beads and hope that another group does make a major improvment. Then CETI and that group could negotiate cross licenses and both would get to market faster with better products, and both would get rich faster. He did not quite buy my argument, but at least seemed to think about it. One problem is that they are not able to produce large quantities of beads yet. He also said if they distributed only the beads, very few people would have luck in making them produce excess. I thought that even if only a few were successful, it would give valuable information back to CETI. Anyway, we can all hope that they will come to their senses and offer a real development kit soon. -- Bob Horst From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 10:52:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id KAA10696; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 10:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 10:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 10:33:45 -0700 Message-Id: <199609171733.KAA11690@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: HOW TO *buy* HEAVY WATER *from* YOUR GARAGE *phone* Resent-Message-ID: <"02_x32.0.2d2.E4kFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/741 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > *** HOW TO *buy* HEAVY WATER *from* YOUR GARAGE *phone* *** >5) any other methods (serious only please) How about this method; USA and Canada; (800) 558-9160 Aldrich Chemical Company, Inc. part# 15,188-2 99.9%, 25g $18.90 Do the experiment, not the separation. Good commercial techniques exist already and you can also purchase other concentrations of D2O for lower costs if you need lots of it, ie gallons of 40 percent solutions exist elsewhere. Why waste time separating it, we know how to do this? Get on with the experiment you want to use if for. Ross From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 11:52:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id LAA25784; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 11:40:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 11:40:04 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960917183936.006be508@mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 11:39:36 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: HOW TO MAKE HEAVY WATER X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"Jjgjr2.0.hI6.Z-kFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/744 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Yes I know. H2S is nasty. It does extract D20 excellently though. Do you have any other feasible ideas ideas ? At 07:51 AM 9/17/96 PDT, you wrote: >*** Reply to note of 09/17/96 02:22 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: HOW TO MAKE HEAVY WATER >Hummmm....making heavy water from H2S....I think I'd HIGHLY warn against work- >ing on this route. H2S is a deadly, deadly, deadly, poison. You can smell it >from the rotting eggs, because you can detect it in parts per billion >concentration. In any process chemical application, you will never smell >it before it KILLS YOU! That's right, it OVERLOADS your sense of smell, and >when it does that, you are DEAD. >- >I don't know of any other way to say: DON'T EVEN THINK of playing around >with H2S in quantity at home. >- >MDH > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 12:00:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id LAA23323; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 11:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 11:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: 17 Sep 96 14:23:08 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Yusmar Message-ID: <960917182308_100060.173_JHB145-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Z29pV.0.Ii5.wrkFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/743 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, >> Energy out in KW = .145(flow in GPM)(delta T in deg F) << Apart from the .145 / .146 debate, it might be better to measure the flow in mass/unit time rather than gallons. For one thing are we talking about USA or imperial gallons, and for another, the heat content of the output is determined by the mass flow not the volume. Your accuracy as well as your credibility will be better served by weighing rather than volumetric measuring followed by temp. correction for density, IMHO. Good luck! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 12:34:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id MAA08472; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 12:20:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 12:20:03 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960917192328.006cc394@mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 12:23:28 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"5hLPq3.0.I42.NdlFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/745 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Good reflections. Please elaborate more on the magnetic method of extracting energy. The minature rectified antenna and chemical dye to rectify light have been described by Don Lancaster in his Hardware Hacker column.( www.tinaja.com ) I have been playing with my calculator lately and came up with this. The air particles at room temperature at standard atmospheric pressure are moving randomly about at aproximaterly whopping 1078 Mph (483 m/s for O2, 516 m/s for N2). The lighter the gas, the faster it moves. If you took 1 Liter of air at room temperature and somehow were able to persuade all of the air molecules (in 1 liter) to move in unison toward your head, YOU would be struck with the force of a 2LB brick at 40Mph (170 joules of energy). Assuming the energy stored in the diatomic O2 & N2 between liqufication and room temperature. Notice that the ONLY thing that stands between a guy and this energy liberation is the LACK OF ORGANIZATION of movement between the air particles. My mother-in-law is very good at organizing things without asking, perhaps if I give her 25 cubic meters of air she can organize the air molecules to give up 1 kWh of energy. (and some liquid air to freeze her mouth shut). I however would prefer some more elegant solution like: Wall made of 10^23 minature syringes = REVERSE ENTROPY WALL. If you are not bored with such musings, I'll expound some more on this. At 07:35 AM 9/17/96 -0800, you wrote: >>ANTI-ENTROPY NANOCHIP >> >>Yes I like the idea. I see how such a chip would organize the disorganized >>energy in a gas or liquid by individualy exctracting the energy from each >>particle. It would have the effect of cooling the gas or liquid. >> >>I conceptulize the the anti-entropy nanochip as a white noise AC/DC >>rectifier which converts the random movements of molecules in a medium >>(analogous to white noise) to an organized movements or DC electric charge. > > >Good terminology. Maybe reverse entropy (RE) and Reverse-Entropy Chip (REC) >are improved terms. > > > > >> >>I can't help to notice that some of the latest solar panels use such a macro >>effect of rectyfing the incoming light by tiny antennas coupled to a >>rectyfying substrate. >>Others use electroluminescent chemical dyes to do the same on a smaller >>(molecular) scale. > >This is interresting. Do you have any references? I was under the >impression that the surface conductors were just there to gather charge, >liker a metal plate, yet present as small a shadow as possible. Don't know >anything about the dyes. > > >> >>Such solar panels are already in commercial production and are proven to work. >> >>COULDN'T a simmilar rectyfying/organizing mechanism be used to accomplish >>the ANTI-ENTROPY effect in a gas liguid or maybe even solid. >> >>Also the magnetic cooling effect comes to mind here. I remember reading >>somewhere that such cooling is used in near absolute zero cryogenics to >>extract unwanted energy from a sample. It has to do something with >>subjecting the sample to magnetic field and then quickly releasing it. >> >> > >The effect I am aware of uses the magnetic field to "flip and then eject" >energetic particles from a Bose condensate. This makes me wonder if a >magnetic field might be used to convert the heat energy of the gas >molecules into a bimodal distribution. This effect could then be used to >reverse entropy by then subjecting the gas to a thin diffusion barrier, >i.e. a van der Walls type barrier. The energetic particles could go >through, leaving the cold ones behind. > >Creating a bimodal energy distribution would also help any kind of reverse >entropy chip technology because the effective particles would have a >greater share of the energy. > >It is also interresting that permanent magnets can be used to separate >oxygen from air by using the O2 paramagnetism. This is done by creating a >magnetic field of increasing intensity by placing two strong permanent >magnets together to form a V trough, and then moving air though the V >trough. The O2 is enriched at the apex of the V. > >Here is another thought. Ions moving in a magnetic field radiate photons, >or EM energy. This occurs at the expense of the ion slowing down, in other >words at the expense of plasma cooling. That radiant energy can be trapped >and used effectively, in the form of microwaves, for example. When the >electrons and ions reassemble, the energy cost of ionizing is repaid in the >form of another EM emission and some kinetic energy, yet the resulting >atoms should on average be slower than the similar molecues on a non >magnetic environment because the radiant energy has already been given off. >A plasma in a strong magnetic field should radiate more and yet stay >cooler than one not in a magnetic field. This is non-conservative, true? > >If two compartments exist in a place where everything is maintained at an >ionizing temperature, and they are connected to each other through an EM >transmitting thermal barrier (like thermopane glass), and the first >compartment is in a permanent magnetic field, then the first compartment >should cool while the second compartment abosrbs the emitted radient energy >from the first compartment. Maybe there is a flaw in this logic or these >assumptions? > >If there is no flaw, it is possible to build a heat engine based upon >moving gas through an ionizing chamber in a magnetic field (call it a >magnetron). This can be done by ionizing high presuure gas in the magnetic >chamber of the magnetron and collecting the EM energy. The output gas then >goes through an energyy extraction cooling cycle releasing any heat >retained from the ionization process. This heat can be used as heat or, >when combined with ambient cooling to generate electricity via a >vaporization (e.g. steam) process, etc. The cooled gas can then be further >cooled by letting the pressure drop. This cooled gas can then be used in >combination with the hot gas at the outlet of the magnetron to generate >electricity. Energy from the magnetron and the electricty generating phase >of the cycle can then be used to compress the gass. Waste heat from the >compressor plus the heat from compression produce a hot compressed gas for >imput to the magnetron, thus completing the cycle. > > >ccccccccc->ccccccccccccccc >c c >heat to ambient Decompression >w C >w C >.<- energy extraction -> . >H | w >H | w >H | w >Magnetron ---EM/ee-+->compressor/heater >h ^ | h >h | | h >h -----<----- h >h h >h h >hhhhhhhhh<-hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh > >c - cold >C - very cold >w - warm >h - hot >H - very hot >EM/ee - converts EM radiation into electrical energy >energy extraction - converts a delta T into electrical energy >heat to ambient - heat exchanger or energy converter > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 12:37:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id MAA09411; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 12:23:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 12:23:27 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960917192703.006ddc40@mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 12:27:03 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: HOW TO *buy* HEAVY WATER *from* YOUR GARAGE *phone* X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"Sp0qg.0.xI2.iglFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/746 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Thanks for the address. This is the cheapest price I've seen so far. It is however still to expensive since I need 100 liters of it for my giant MR experiment. I am not doing the CF experiment. My question stands: How to separate D20 from water, cheap. Anyone ? At 10:33 AM 9/17/96 -0700, you wrote: >> >> *** HOW TO *buy* HEAVY WATER *from* YOUR GARAGE *phone* *** > > >>5) any other methods (serious only please) > > >How about this method; > >USA and Canada; (800) 558-9160 >Aldrich Chemical Company, Inc. >part# 15,188-2 99.9%, 25g $18.90 > >Do the experiment, not the separation. Good commercial techniques exist >already and you can also purchase other concentrations of D2O for lower >costs if you need lots of it, ie gallons of 40 percent solutions exist >elsewhere. Why waste time separating it, we know how to do this? Get on >with the experiment you want to use if for. > >Ross > > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 13:05:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id MAA18443; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 12:57:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 12:57:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609171957.MAA30812@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: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 12:56:59 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: privacy (fwd) Resent-Message-ID: <"8bqtj2.0.4W4.kAmFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/747 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: If the below information really is accessible, where is it physically? The only thing which we should do is immediately file a criminal complaint with the local sheriff for gross invasion of privacy. Get me the number of the local sherrif, can you? We spread that number around and get everybody calling the local sheriff under the theory that the damn database is a public nuisance. There is no excuse in the line of reasoning that IF you find out about it, you can have your name removed. At the same time we should file a class action suit against Arthur Anderson Consulting for the same thing. This shit needs to be fought collectively to arrive at some collective, public determinations about privacy. Nearly any bank account in far too many banks can be emptied by the combination of info you described below with a simple phone call. Exactly how I am not going to say for obvious reasons but probably most of you already know approximately how. At 10:59 PM 9/16/96 -0400, you wrote: > > Dear Vo. > > Spread this far and wide, please. > > >Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 11:25:35 -0500 > >Privacy is king. You all might want to look into this. Having called, they want you to fax or mail your request in writing... > >Pass this on to whomever you think would want to know. > > >>Hello all, >> >>The following email was forwarded to me by a friend that works with >Arthur Anderson Consulting. He had it sent to him by an AA attorney. > >>It is apparently for real. >> >>Your name, social security number, current address, previous >>addresses, mother's maiden name, birth date and other personal >>information are now available to anyone with a credit card through a new Lexis database called P-Trax. As I am sure you are aware, this information could be used to commit credit card fraud or otherwise allow someone else to use your identity. >> >>You can have your name and information removed from this list by >>making a telephone request. Call (800)543-6862, select option 4 and then option 3 ("all other questions") and tell the representative -- Note: I noticed option 9 was the one to use. -- answering that you wish to remove your name from the P-trax database. >You may also send a fax to (513) 865-7360, or physical mail to LEXIS-NEXIS: >>P.O. Box 933 / Dayton, Ohio 45401-0933. Sending physical mail to >confirm your name has been removed is always a good idea. >> >>As word of the existence of this database has spread on the net, >>Lexis-Nexis has been inundated with calls, and has set up a special set of operators to handle the volume. In addition, Andrew Bleh (rhymes with "Play") is a manager responsible for this product, and is the person to whom complaints about the service could be directed. He can >be reached at the above 800 number. Ask for extension 3385. According to Lexis, the manager responsible is Bill Fister at extension 1364. >> >>I called this morning and had my name removed. The representative will need your name and social security number to remove you from the list. > >>I suggest that we inundate these people with requests to remove our info from the list and forward this e-mail to everyone we know. > > > > > > > > > > >----- End Included Message ----- > > > > > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 13:21:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id NAA20748; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 13:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 13:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 12:08:39 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) Resent-Message-ID: <"Fff_h1.0.045.jHmFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/748 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ccccccccc->ccccccccccccccc c c heat to ambient Decompression w C w C z<- energy extraction -> x H | w H | w H | w Magnetron ---EM/ee-+->compressor/heater h ^ | h h | | h radiation heating of gas h -----<----- h h h h h hhhhhhhhh<-hhhhhh y hhhhhh c - cold C - very cold w - warm h - hot H - very hot EM/ee - converts EM radiation into electrical energy energy extraction - converts a delta T into electrical energy heat to ambient - heat exchanger or energy converter In thinking about this some more, it looks wrong. The primary energy extraction should take place between point x and point y above, not x and z. Also, the decompression step could be combined with a motor prior to y to regain the compression energy and help drive the compressor. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 13:42:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id NAA23499; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 13:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 13:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 12:18:59 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) Resent-Message-ID: <"f3L3a.0.5l5.gSmFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/749 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Good reflections. Please elaborate more on the magnetic method of >extracting energy. > >The minature rectified antenna and chemical dye to rectify light have been >described by Don Lancaster in his Hardware Hacker column.( www.tinaja.com ) Thanks. > >I have been playing with my calculator lately and came up with this. > >The air particles at room temperature at standard atmospheric pressure are >moving randomly about at aproximaterly whopping 1078 Mph (483 m/s for O2, >516 m/s for N2). The lighter the gas, the faster it moves. > >If you took 1 Liter of air at room temperature and somehow were able to >persuade all of the air molecules (in 1 liter) to move in unison toward your >head, YOU would be struck with the force of a 2LB brick at 40Mph (170 joules >of energy). Assuming the energy stored in the diatomic O2 & N2 between >liqufication and room temperature. If you can trap 10 percent of that energy and recycle the liter 10 times a second through a heat exchanger you have 170 joules/ second /liter. If the operating pressure is raised 10 times you would get 10 times the energy per liter processed. > >Notice that the ONLY thing that stands between a guy and this energy >liberation is the LACK OF ORGANIZATION of movement between the air >particles. My mother-in-law is very good at organizing things without >asking, perhaps if I give her 25 cubic meters of air she can organize the >air molecules to give up 1 kWh of energy. (and some liquid air to freeze her >mouth shut). I however would prefer some more elegant solution like: > >Wall made of 10^23 minature syringes = REVERSE ENTROPY WALL. But would it take 10^23 mother-in-laws to operate them? > >If you are not bored with such musings, I'll expound some more on this. > > Let's hear it! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 14:56:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id OAA08695; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 14:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 14:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: 17 Sep 96 17:05:26 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Preliminary summary report on ILENR2 Message-ID: <960917210525_72240.1256_EHB62-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"CY8YV2.0.k72.SFnFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/750 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex by Jed Rothwell Copyright 1996, Cold Fusion Technology Here is my preliminary summary report of The Second International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Conference (ILENR2). Please do not copy this in its present form to other electronic forums because I expect I will have many corrections and additions to make in the next week or so. I will upload a final version which may be copied with permission. A complete list of papers read at the conference is attached. Footnote numbers in square brackets refer to this list. Please note that I was not able to attend all sessions, and I have not received the video tapes or proceedings, so I cannot comment on several of the papers. I am depending on handwritten notes. I have no knowledge of theory, so I have nothing to say about the theory papers [11, 14 - 18]. I hope that some other conference attendee will comment on them here. Here are more sources of information about this conference: 1. Bob Horst posted a summary of the conference here on Sept. 15 ("ILENR2 Trip Report") 2. All sessions were videotaped. I have spoken to Dr. Lin about them. He has arranged to make 10 copies for $600 at my expense. He says the audio quality is good. 3. Hal Fox will publish the proceedings. 4. We will publish summaries and selected papers in the next issue of Infinite Energy, which we hope to have out in time to distribute at ICCF6 (October 14 - 18). VENUE AND THEME OF CONFERENCE This conference was held on September 13-14, 1996 at the Holiday Inn, College Station, Texas, adjacent to Texas A&M University, because it was banned by the university [22]. It was chaired by Distinguished Professor J. O'M Bockris of Texas A&M and G. Miley, University of Illinois. The conference was organized by Dr. G. H. Lin. The focus was transmutations of elements in the cathode (so-called "host metal transmutations"), rather than excess heat, neutrons and other well-known attributes of the cold fusion effect. Most papers described transmutations in conventional electrolysis cold fusion experiments, but other approaches were discussed, including ultrasound loading [7]; arc discharge synthesis of iron, which the author concludes was an artifact [10]; and some variations of ancient alchemical techniques [9, 12]. I consider this one of the most important meetings in the history of cold fusion. These results constitute a major turning point in the search for nuclear ash and a mechanism. I consider it now proven beyond doubt that the Pons-Fleischmann effect often (perhaps always) causes both fission and fusion of heavy elements in the cathode. It is nothing like a light element plasma fusion reaction. DESCRIPTIONS OF MAJOR PAPERS Here are some of my notes about the papers which I considered most important. There are others I would like to discuss after I see the videos. Miley [1] This was the most outstanding paper, and one of the best presentations I have ever seen. Miley began by describing his previous multilayer thin film flat plate reported on at ICCF3. As he said it was a great success insofar as it worked: the thin film heated up anomalously and fell off. He described this as a good example of what Edison called learning "700 things that don't work." Miley personifies the good humored, dogged persistence required to solve big problems like cold fusion. As he said, he started out a plasma physicist in 1989 and he has learned every instrument and technique in cold fusion. He is working CETI-style thin film beads packed in 3 to 5 layers. The beads are fabricated by the Material Science Department at the university. They have devised a new type of sputtering machine that shakes the beads, levitating and rotating them to produce less than 10% deviation in coating thickness. Miley says the sputtering technique simplifies the problem because it does away with the need for a copper flashing, reducing the number of elements at the start. In conversations he has also told me that he thinks the coating is tougher and the beads will generate heat more readily than Patterson's electrodeposited beads. Miley's has made a great effort to prevent contamination in the closed, flow calorimeter. He describes contamination as his greatest worry. He has performed 20 runs to date. He has performed the most extensive analysis on run #8, done in March 1996. The analysis is "very tedious" taking weeks of hard work. He presented voluminous comparative charts comparing data from different runs. He uses four techniques to measure elements and isotopes: NAA, SIMS, EDS and AES (described below). He finds that up to 40% of the Ni is transmuted into a wide variety of other elements including Si, Ti, Cr, Mg, Cu, Fe, Ag, Cd, Pb, Yt, Zr and Zn. (As Dash said of his own results "you see everything but the kitchen sink.") He sees isotopic shifts in many elements, particularly Ag. Unfortunately, the largest shifts were in the low concentration elements, which are the hardest to measure. In one case he measured Cu to within 1% but Ag to within only 5%. Nevertheless, he is sure he is seeing unnatural Ag isotopes. The new elements are not distributed homogeneously through the cathode, the distribution patterns are different for different elements. Zinc is found in about equal density throughout the cathode, while silver is found in the deepest level of the thin film, next to the bead. Miley said "it isn't diffusion -- there are no peaks at the surface." Miley says he is "quite confident of the analysis method" and the only potential error is contamination. In other words, he is sure he is seeing iron instead of nickel, the only question is where did it come from. Some runs that produced little heat but showed massive transmutations. Miley thinks this happens when endothermic nuclear reactions dominate. Miley has succeed too well in finding transmutations. He has found that Pd, Ni, Ti and Au all react to some extent. It is becoming a little difficult to select material suitable for electrolysis in a blank cell that does *not* transmute! He is using conductive sulfonated plastic bead for this purpose. Miley concluded "if fifty percent of what we are talking about is true this revolutionizes nuclear physics." Miley is not the first to report metal transmutations in cold fusion cathodes. I believe that honor goes to Mizuno, who is usually years ahead of everyone else. But Miley's data is the most extensive, and his experimental technique and exposition are brilliant. Mizuno [2] This was similar to the Infinite Energy article, but with more detail. He described the cell and answered questions it. He talked about the recombiner, the heater wire around the cell and other aspects of the static calorimetry. The cathode is carefully prepared, and cleaned by being heated to 200 deg C for 16 hours. The levels of contamination measured in the cathode and cell components are carefully measured before the experiment, and this data proves that contamination could not possibly account for the elements found in the cathode. One of the cathodes used in this work underwent heat after death, in the first recorded instance of this in the literature. The Delta T temperature spontaneously rose 30 deg C and remained hot for three days. Dash [3] Dash has been working with Ti cathodes and slender resources. He reports excess heat and transmutations. He uses two air-cooled static calorimeters in series, attached to a data acquisition computer. One cell contains a blank, one a Ti cathode. The electrolyte is 0.99 mole D2O and 0.01 mole H2SO4. These are closed cells with recombiners. The wires leading into the cells for electrolysis and the sensors pass through wax, which is not a very good method of sealing a closed cell. The cells weigh a little less after experimental runs because some gas is lost through the wax. In a typical excess heat run, the cold fusion cell consumes 20% less energy than the control, yet it is 4 deg C hotter. This represents a 1.2 watt excess with a 0.6 gram cathode. After he washes away galvanized contamination from the surface with an ultrasonic jewelry cleaner in de-ionized water, Dash finds that most of the surface highly pure Ti. This shows the cleaning method works well. But in the material that had erupted from below he found a mixture of different elements, which were surprising unevenly distributed within the ejecta. The SEM photos Dash showed during his lecture did not clearly show that the lumps on the surface of the cathode were ejecta; they looked like clumps of debris that had been deposited onto the surface. However, evidence in his Fusion Technology paper demonstrates that it comes from inside. He said that Ti damages more easily than Pd, and it is highly reactive. To search for transmuted elements, Dash uses an instrument that measures only about 1 part per hundred, "so if you see anything, it has increased ten to the fourth." He has had a more sophisticated analysis done by a contractor, and he would like to do more, but it takes a week and it costs $5,000, which is far more than he can afford. Swartz [6] Swartz described meticulous multi-ring calorimetry of a unique design, featuring multiple envelopes within envelopes. This allows high accuracy while persevering the isolation and cleanliness necessary to finding transmutations, where Miley and Claytor trade off calorimetric precision for cleanliness. Impressive as it is, I am not sure I see any necessity for such accuracy in the first place. Whether the excess is 2 watts or 2.102 watts hardly matters as far as I can see. Swart's calorimetry is as conservative. He measures I*V input and makes no adjustments for gas losses. His electrochemistry is unique in many ways: he uses no salts in the electrolyte, and he reports some of his best excess heat results with natural light water and a gold cathode, which produces 3 to 6 times input. Swartz hypothesizes that some nuclear ash might be in the form of hydrogen transmuted into deuterium, in a multi-body reaction. This would be extremely difficult to find because deuterium is not radioactive and because there is a great deal of it the ordinary water electrolyte to start with. A great deal, that is, compared to the amounts that would be synthesized in a nuclear reaction. It would take a megajoule to increase the deuterium content of the water by a few percent. He plans to verify the hypothesis with new in-situ spectroscopes he is now installing. I wonder if it would help if he used purified light water. That technique is difficult, because pure light water rapidly absorbs deuterium from the atmosphere when it is exposed to air. Swartz describes what he calls the "pi-notch" graph of excess heat with Ni H2O. This has been noted by many others, especially Mills, Thermacore and CETI. You get the most heat with low current density. As current increases, the heat peaks, and it declines as a percent of total input. With Pd, higher current density usually increases loading, which increases the heat geometrically. The cause of the Ni drop-off is a mystery. After Swartz spoke, Miley suggested that perhaps at higher power endothermic reactions predominate, producing more transmutations but less heat. Swartz thought this is an interesting idea. Claytor [20] Claytor continues to report progress in tritium generation by plasma discharge (sparking) through deuterium gas. His best results to date have been with palladium alloys Pd (90%) Rh (5%) Co (5%). In 12 runs this worked well four times. When he adds a small amount of CO2 (<1%) to the deuterium gas, the plasma wire often soaks up a larger volume of gas more quickly, and it produces more tritium. Most impurities poison the reaction, but some enhance it tremendously. The configuration of the anode and cathode in Claytor's device are a little surprising. Bockris pointed out the configuration is inefficient and it will cause uneven loading. This is deliberate. One end of the wire hangs in the deuterium gas, pointing one end towards the anode. Deuterium loads into about half the wire only, it never reaches the other end which is anchored into the rest of the device. (I presume this means the highly loaded, active area is only a fraction of the loaded half.) This is done so that the spark touches only the cathode wire. In previous configurations the spark caused sputtering of other materials, which contaminated the wire. Let me point out here that this is the kind of vital detail about the anode - cathode geometry is the sort of thing that often fails to make it into a formal paper. A person attempting to replicate the experiment might miss the point, and choose another configuration that gets contaminated easily. The subject came up in the question and answer session after the lecture. This illustrates why we need more meetings, and more open discussion and give-and-take. Claytor pointed out potential economic value of this research. The Defense Department needs tritium to maintain nuclear weapons. It plans to build a $3 billion dollar reactor to replace the Savannah River Plant, which has produced the U.S. supply of weapons grade tritium until now. Tritium generated by conventional methods costs $30,000 per gram. It is difficult to say what it would cost with cold fusion methods, but it would be at least one and possibly two or three orders of magnitude cheaper. Claytor mentioned in passing that the U.S. State Department is paying Russian Scientists to do cold fusion experiments. I find this hilarious yet infuriating. Apparently, the U.S. Government subsidizes academic freedom and cutting edge physics in other countries while it suppressed them things at home. In conversation, Claytor described a CETI replication he is performing. He is using a small number of beads, which limits input to a fraction of a watt. The cell appears to be producing about 300% excess heat, but both input and output are close to the noise. Like Miley, he has sacrificed calorimetry for cleanliness, because the purpose of the experiment is to look for transmutations, not heat. RESULTS COMMON TO MANY EXPERIMENTS Here are some general statements about the results seen in the electrochemical cells and in the ultrasound loaded metal sample. The results from different experiments in different labs were remarkably similar, something we must admit we are not used to seeing in this field. Damage was seen at the same depth as the transmutations. SEM photos of many cathode surfaces showed eruptions of material from inside, looking like the surface of the moon. [2, 3, 21] It was *this damaged material* and the areas around it that was transmuted. In cases where the transmutations occurred well below the surface the material was not ejected but damage was seen when the outer layers were removed. [5] The transmuted elements were not uniformly distributed. Areas with no damage often remained highly purified metal (Pd, Ni, Ti or Au). This is a large effect, easily detected. In many cases, large amounts of the metal were transmuted. Miley [1] reported up to 40% of the total metal was transmuted, where the starting metal was better than 99% pure. Minevski said that in the layers where transmutations occurred, up to 70% of the material was no longer palladium. Mizuno reported three peaks of new elements: light, medium and heavy elements. Miley said he saw the same pattern, with the three peaks moving up or down the spectrum depending on the metal he started out with (Pd or Ni). COMMON METHODOLOGIES A variety of different detection instruments must be used to verify the transmutations. These include Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA), X-ray spectroscopy (EDX or EDS), Auger electron spectroscopy (AES), secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS). The speakers all emphasized the importance of cross checking with different methods. As Miley puts it, with SIMS "the absolute calibration is lousy." In other words, with SIMS you can detect tiny differences between very close isotopes and species (like D2 molecules and helium-4), but when you first start out you never know where on the spectrum you will land. Other methods are more accurate but less precise. This problem should not be exaggerated. Any instrument will verify that 40% of the nickel cathode has turned into silver, silicon, copper, and so on. Indeed, if Miley ever runs a cell with a liter of beads for six months, he will be able to refine the material and make the new elements visible to the naked eye. He will have more silver and gold than you would find in all the contamination in the building. You do not need high precision to verify nickel has turned into iron. You need it to find out whether the isotopes distributions are unnatural, and to draw useful conclusions about the nuclear transformations at each step. The NAA has the useful property of analyzing many atoms over a large mass simultaneously (4 or 5 beads, in the case of the CETI device). This is important because the material is inhomogeneous. SIMS looks at only one tiny spot on a sample. People will argue that the excess heat might be caused by chemical reactions, even when it is a hundred thousand times too big for that. But nobody will say that chemical processes convert nickel to iron. Dash, who had the smallest budget and the least sophisticated instruments, was concerned that some of what appeared to be elements might have been oxides of other metals, which he could not distinguish, but all other speakers expressed confidence that they could identify specific elements. The only question was, where did the elements come from, contamination or transmutation? Obviously, contamination is the biggest concern. It is well known that a cathode will attract many impurities in the electrolyte, and the electrolyte will, in turn, leach new impurities out of the cell wall. (This is sometimes referred to as the "galvanized gunk" problem.) Indeed, one of the best methods of producing ultra purified electrolyte is to run for a long time with a scavenger electrode which picks up dirt. The steps taken to reduce contamination and to distinguish between contamination and *in situ de novo* synthesis are based on common sense: 1. Rigorous cleanliness and isolation. In some cases, precision calorimetry was sacrificed to ensure cleanliness. Teflon coated vessels are recommended to prevent leaching from cell walls and tubes. [1, 2, 20] Glass should also be avoided. The electrolyte should never be exposed to metal container surfaces. 2. Pre-testing of all materials including cathode, anode, electrolyte, plastic bead cores and so on to inventory contaminants. Ohmori, for example, to show that the mass of transmuted material in the cathode was 100 times greater than 3. Some workers [2, 21] used scavenger cathodes to purify electrolyte. Bockris recommends this method. 4. In bulk cathodes, transmutations were seen well below the deepest diffusion level galvanized material reached. Even with thin film beads, Miley found elements at lower levels that were absent from the surface, particularly silver. This fact alone defeats all contamination hypotheses, since the beads are tested before the experiment and significant levels of silver are never found. The metal is always more than 99% pure to start with, whereas after the experiment nearly half of it is something else. If this is contamination from outside the cathode it has worked its way under the surface layers without leaving a trace. 5. The effect is not caused by diffusion; no peak in total mass seen at surface. The isotope shifts cannot be caused by diffusion separation; the heavier isotopes of a given element are not always at the surface -- indeed, sometimes they are altogether missing. 6. Miley has spiked the cells with silver to see if it works its way deep into the cathode. It doesn't. 7. In bulk cathodes xenon gas is captured within the metal lattice. It cannot be pushed in by electrolysis, which has no effect on it, and it is never found as contamination in measurable amounts in the electrolyte or cell material. Xenon is not found in the thin film cathodes. It might be generated and then escape. MEETING BANNED FROM TEXAS A&M, OTHER SOUR NOTES Last year's conference (ILENR1) was held on the grounds of the university, but this year a 12-person Chemistry Department advisory committee voted unanimously to ban the meeting, so it was moved to the hotel. The Department Head refused to state the reason why the meeting should be banned. According to a memo circulated by Bockris [22], a committee member said the reason was that the field of cold fusion does not exist and that "any suggestion it does constitutes fraud" and that a conference is "a joke." Committee members were given Storm's 1996 review, information on the Reifenshweiler experiments, and references to the peer reviewed literature, but this did not sway their opinions. While the meeting was productive and exciting, the fact that it was banned by the chemistry department did leave a sour taste. During the discussion period, we discussed patents, always a depressing subject in this field, and we heard another sour note from a "skeptic." Dr. Natowitz, head of the university Synchrotron Department was asked to summarize his impressions. He dismissed all findings except the tritium work at Los Alamos, which he refused to comment on. (However, the previous evening in private conversation he also vehemently rejected all reports of tritium.) He suggested that the elements found in the cathodes come from contamination. I pointed out that the workers rigorously exclude contaminants; for example, Ohmori reports that there is 100 times more transmuted material in the cathode than all contamination in the electrolyte and all other cell components. Natowitz suggested that the isotopic anomalies are caused by electrolytic diffusion separation of elements. I pointed out that this method of separating isotope requires thousands of passes for light elements and millions of passes for heavier elements; and that this separation always leaves heavy isotopes on the surface and lighter ones deeper in the lattice, whereas much of this data shows no isotopes on the cathode surface, or heavier isotopes lying deeper than light ones. In other words, the mechanism he proposes is millions of times too small to explain some data, and it is flatly contradicted by the rest. He did not respond to my comments, or to similar remarks by Bockris. MY IMPRESSIONS & SPECULATION I believe we have turned the corner in the long search for the mechanism of the Pons-Fleischmann effect. Host metal transmutation is the key. Years ago, everyone assumed the effect must be caused by the fusion of light elements. Miles, E-Quest and others found helium ash commensurate with conventional deuterium fusion. No doubt they did see helium; we cannot dismiss these earlier results. Yet many others made heroic efforts to look for helium, but found none. I conclude that sometimes helium is produced, and sometimes it is not. The effect produces fission and fusion of both light and heavy elements, in both exothermic and endothermic reactions. All these reactions occur simultaneously in different spots in the cathode. The transmuted elements are not uniformly distributed. No doubt various complex parameters like current density, loading, and pre-existing dopants cause the reaction to produce different products at different stages, in different layers of the metal. Perhaps we shall someday discover a simple law that governs the process, but perhaps not. Chris Tinsley speculates that the process is as complex as biochemistry, so we will discover more and more ramifications and complex reaction paths, and ever-increasing detail. He points out that cell metabolism of sugar is much more complicated than what happen when you burn sugar in a dish, even though the basic processes (oxidation) are the same. Perhaps someday we shall learn to "tune" the reactions to produce concentrated excess heat or transmutations that produces rare and expensive elements. How these transmutations might occur is, of course, a total mystery. On the face of it, room temperature transmutation of stable elements without radiation would appear to overthrow a great deal of established theory. That is none of my concern, and I have no opinion as to whether this will require wholesale changes to the textbooks. My point is, the evidence that such transmutations *do occur* is now overwhelming. In some experiments, the total mass of reaction products approaches macroscopic levels: if Miley runs the experiments much longer he will produce visible traces of gold, mercury and other elements transmuted from nickel. The possibility of contamination has already been eliminated by the sheer volume of rare elements produced by the reaction: you cannot find that much gold, mercury, xenon, tritium, or mono-isotopic copper in the whole cell, or even the entire experimental apparatus, or for that matter, in the whole building. It is becoming analogous to the excess heat, which in some cases would produce thousands of times more chemical ash than you could fit into the cell. The fact that both endothermic and exothermic reactions occur explains why the heat varies so much -- some reactions must be swallowing up heat as quickly as others produce it. Somehow the energy is transferred through the lattice. The mechanism is imperfect, because the metal lattice often heats up and self destructs. I suppose the exothermic reactions must occur in order to release the prodigious energy needed to drive the endothermic ones, but if that is not the case then perhaps it would be possible tune a cold fusion device so that endothermic reactions alone take place, making it into a miniature refrigerator. It would be a great way to cool a computer chip. The self-destruction leads to eruptions of molten metal. It might even be vaporized metal. It quickly solidifies, leaving pinholes in the material, craters and dramatic, porous frozen ejecta. Miley's thin film frequently sheds chunks. The cathodes are rough after the experiments, and bits of metal are trapped in the circulation filters. This damage makes me wonder if cold fusion can be made into a practical heat-generating technology. Ken Shoulders thinks that these problems can be fixed with some clever engineering, even self-repairing devices. He points to the example of the tungsten incandescent lamp filament. The tungsten constantly boils off, but the vapor settles back and condenses on the filament itself. That's fine for a filament, but cold fusion cathodes apparently require special metal lattices. It is hard for me to envision a cathode undergoing continuous repair *in situ*. I predict that unorthodox theories about ZPE or shrinking hydrogen atoms will fade. I believe there is now enough nuclear ash in cathode to account for all of the heat, and it may also explain the lack of heat in some cases. Chris Tinsley predicts that whether there actually is enough ash or not, people will jump to conclusions and assume there is, and they will drop ZPE and other far-out theories like a hot potato. He fears they may rush to anoint host metal transmutation, because the evidence for it is so clear. They may "raise assumptions to the status of proven fact," and forget to look for evidence of other processes and non-nuclear processes. After all, we spent the last seven years looking only for light element transmutations. This lead to a question that has been haunting me for many months, ever since I first heard Mizuno's results. Why did it take so long? D. Rolison reported evidence of heavy element transmutation years ago. Why was there no follow-up? Mizuno says the other Japanese researchers have completely ignored his and Ohmori's findings. I hope they pay attention to Miley when he reports his results at ICCF6. For that matter, why did it take so many years before people did a serious replication of Ni H2O cold fusion? The pace of this research is still much too slow, and the scope of investigations is still much too cramped by our preconceptions about what must be happening. Let me close by nominating John Dash for the greatest contributions to cold fusion. Mizuno was first to with transmutations, and his results and Miley's are more conclusive, but Dash has done something truly wonderful. When the University is in session, he recruits undergraduates to work on the experiments, and he gets ten applicants for every spot. During summer vacation, he puts high school students to work at the lab bench. They become madly enthusiastic about cold fusion, and they go around telling their friends about their adventures. This is what we need more than anything else: new blood, new ideas, and the boundless enthusiasm of youth. FOOTNOTES This is a list of all papers presented at the conference in the order they were presented, plus a memo circulated by Bockris. 1. G. Miley (University of Illinois), Nuclear Reaction in Palladium-Hydrogen System 2. T. Mizuno (Hokkaido Nat. University), Reaction Products Induced by Isotopic Changes of Electrolysis. See also Infinite Energy, Issue 4, p. 9. 3. J. Dash (Portland State University), Excess Heat and Unexpected Elements from Electrolysis of Acidified Heavy Water with Titanium Cathodes 4. S. Szpak (COSC, Navy), Nuclear and Thermal Events Associated with Pd + D Codeposition 5. Z. Minevski (Lynntech), Two Zones of "Impurities" Observed After Prolonged Electrolysis of Deuterium on Palladium. See also: Infinite Energy, combined issues 5 and 6, p. 67. 6. M. Swartz (JET Energy Tech.), Deuterium Production and Light Water Excess Enthalpy Experiments Using Nickel Cathodes 7. R. George (E-Quest Sciences), Isotopic Ratio Anomalies Induced in Palladium by the Application of Intense Ultrasound 8. H. Fox (Fusion Info Center), Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions in an Electrolytic Cell 9. G. H. Lin (Texas A&M University), Anomalous Radioactivity and Unexpected Elements as a Result of Heating Oxide Mixtures 10. T. Grotz (Wireless Engineering), Synthesis of Iron via Arc Discharge through Activated Carbon 11. K. Shoulders, Observations on the Role of Charge Clusters in Nuclear Cluster Reactions 12. R. Monti & E. Bauer (Burns Development Ltd.), Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: Experimental Evidence for the Alpha-extended Model of the Atom 13. A. Michrowski (Planetary Clean Energy Association), Advanced Transmutation Processes 14. Y. E. Kim (Purdue University), Nuclear Physics Mechanisms for Gamow Factor Cancellation in Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions 15. A. Cau, Natural Nuclear Synthesis of Superheavy Elements 16. G. S. Rabzi (Ukrainian International Academy of Original Ideas), Natural Cold Fission - Natural New Energy - Natural New Physics 17. E. Lewis, Novel Hypotheses Concerning the Production of Elements, Superconductivity and Anomalous Radiation 18. H. Fox (Fusion Info Center), Possible Palladium-Related Nuclear Reactions 19. D. Nagel (Naval Research Laboratory), "Cold Fusion" Experiment, Theory & Management at the Naval Research Laboratory 20. T. Claytor (Los Alamos National Laboratory), Tritium Production From Palladium and Palladium Alloys. See also: Infinite Energy issue 7, p. 39 and http://wwwnde.esa.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.htm 21. T. Ohmori (Hokkaido Nat. University), Isotopic Distributions of Heavy Metal Elements Produced During the Light Water Electrolysis on Au Electrode 22. J. O'M. Bockris (Texas A&M University), Why We are Not Meeting at Texas A&M University (memo) [End] From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 15:08:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id OAA14164; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 14:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 14:33:24 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 17:31:20 -0400 Message-ID: <960917173119_287045267@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: HOW TO MAKE HEAVY WATER Resent-Message-ID: <"pFHug1.0.8T3.WZnFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/751 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: That's not so easy to do. If you have heavy water you do not need enriched uranium to start a nuclear reaction. That's why the Germans in WW2 and Sadam Husain tried to produce heavy water. They failed. Once you get a reactor going with regular run of the mill uranium the plotonium may be separated chemically. Plotonium is one of the most potent poisons know to man and its also radioactive. If you figure out an easy way to make heavy water in you bacement, don't tell anyone..the world does not need home built atomic bombs. Frank From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 15:32:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id OAA19108; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 14:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 14:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 14:51:00 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Lexis/Nexis warning is a net-virus? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Resent-Message-ID: <"Fkjia.0.Qg4.mrnFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/752 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Internet meme-viruses take the form of email which says "spread this wonderful/horrible news to all your friends immediately", and often also says "if you dont take the following action, you should be ashamed." The classic example is "send a postcard to the kid with brain cancer." The kid has grown up, yet the damned postcards pour in. The lexis/nexis one doesn't match the standard, yet it is a virus. See below. I was going to call that number myself, but fortunately saw this message go by on another group. It's the antivirus! Send it to all your friends, or you'll have broken the chain and bad luck will follow! (Bad luck for who? Lexis/Nexis, of course.) ;-) =2E....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,...........................= =2E. 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 >http://www.lexis-nexis.com/lncc/about/ptrak.html > >> [LEXIS-NEXIS Communication Center] >> [About LEXIS-NEXIS] >> >> Statement on the P-TRAK file from LEXIS-NEXIS >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> LEXIS-NEXIS markets the P-TRAK file to the legal community for use >> by general legal practitioners, litigators and public attorneys, as >> well as law enforcement agencies and police departments. These >> professionals use the P-TRAK file to assist in locating litigants, >> witnesses, shareholders, debtors, heirs and beneficiaries. >> >> It's important to note that LEXIS=AE-NEXIS=AE is a business-to-business >> service and is not a consumer online service. The LEXIS-NEXIS >> service is targeted to and used by attorneys, businesses and >> government agencies. >> >> LEXIS-NEXIS is aware of the sensitivities regarding the potential >> misuse of information. While business competitors of LEXIS-NEXIS >> have for some time made Social Security numbers available to users >> of their services, and continue to do so, LEXIS-NEXIS discontinued >> the display of Social Security numbers in the P-TRAK file as of June >> 11, 1996, eleven days after the product was introduced. >> >> There has been much erroneous information distributed on the >> Internet regarding the data displayed in the P-TRAK file. The >> displayed record may, but not always, include the name of the >> individual, the individual's maiden and assumed names, current as >> well as up to two previous addresses, month and year of birth and >> telephone number. That is the only information displayed in the >> P-TRAK file. >> >> Contrary to some messages that have been posted to some Internet >> discussion and news groups, the P-TRAK file does not contain any >> credit histories, bank account information or other personal >> financial data, or medical histories. >> >> The information displayed in the P-TRAK file is an aggregation >> readily available from public information sources such as telephone >> directories (in print and CD-ROM format) and public records >> maintained by government agencies. >> >> Through its actions, LEXIS-NEXIS is balancing the privacy concerns >> of the public with the legitimate needs of legal, business and >> government professionals for access to accurate sources of publicly >> available information. By discontinuing the display of Social >> Security numbers in P-TRAK and only providing information that is >> already available to the public from other sources, LEXIS-NEXIS >> believes it has responsibly met the expressed concerns of the >> public. >> >> Please direct any comments to pr@prod.lexis-nexis.com. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 16:28:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id PAA27980; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 15:37:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 15:37:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: "MHUGO@EPRI" , Vortex-L Subject: RE: HOW TO MAKE HEAVY WATER Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 15:29:00 -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: <"9Yk0r.0.yq6.cQoFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/754 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mark and everybody Professional chemists working with H2S in a quality hood are still endangered. Your nose is the key, if you ever do not smell it when you are working with it, get the hell out, its the last chance you have. When I was at GE research lab this was one over their standard safety tips. Much better to leave it alone. Hank Scudder ---------- From: MHUGO@EPRI To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: HOW TO MAKE HEAVY WATER Date: Tuesday, September 17, 1996 7:51AM *** Reply to note of 09/17/96 02:22 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: HOW TO MAKE HEAVY WATER Hummmm....making heavy water from H2S....I think I'd HIGHLY warn against work- ing on this route. H2S is a deadly, deadly, deadly, poison. You can smell it from the rotting eggs, because you can detect it in parts per billion concentration. In any process chemical application, you will never smell it before it KILLS YOU! That's right, it OVERLOADS your sense of smell, and when it does that, you are DEAD. - I don't know of any other way to say: DON'T EVEN THINK of playing around with H2S in quantity at home. - MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 17:22:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id QAA11122; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>, Vortex-L Subject: Stress Corrosion Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 16:33:00 -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: <"HONvt.0.hj2.JMpFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/755 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Thank you for a fine report. Maybe there is some light at the end of the tunnel. As a sail boat owner, I am well aware of corrosion, especially stress corrosion. When sea water gets into fittings such as the tangs on stays and shrouds, that kind of corrosion happens, and it is blamed on electrolysis. Is it possible that transmutation is also occurring as in cold fusion, and the heat production combined with the high stress causes rapid degradation of the stainless, eventually leading to failure. It would be interesting to examine some stress corrosion with X-ray fluorescent analysis or other types to see if any new elements are appearing. It would also be interesting to see if mechanical stress would have any effects on cold fusion experiments. Hank Scudder From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 17:49:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id RAA18469; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 17:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 17:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 17:14:42 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Is this new? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"U0jO-2.0.QW4.SypFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/756 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You have reached the Information Page Lynx Version 2.6 File that you are currently viewing Linkname: Rumpelstiltskin Does Cold Fusion URL: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~zcapl61/rumple.html Owner(s): None size: 380 lines mode: normal No Links on the current page .....................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 Sep 17 18:07:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id RAA22476; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 17:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 17:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <323F433F.41C67EA6@math.ucla.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 17:33:03 -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: Preliminary summary report on ILENR2 References: <960917210525_72240.1256_EHB62-2@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"RD2ID.0.2V5.TDqFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/757 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > To: Vortex > > by Jed Rothwell > Copyright 1996, Cold Fusion Technology > > Here is my preliminary summary report of The Second > International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Conference I too was at the conference. I am too busy to give a detailed account, but Jed has done a good job of recounting most of the interesting presentations. But, let me make a few comments. First, the organizers allowed a several people to speak who had no business presenting at any sort of scientific meeting. Anyone present can readily identify those folks, who particularly dominated the entire afternoon session. That they were allowed to speak is an act of charity that denigrates the serious work of Miley, Mizuno, etc---not to mention that these researchers could have used much more than 25 minutes to present their quite interesting results. In future meetings, they really need to exercise quality control. Second, I think that I and Dr.Natowitz, head of the university Synchrotron Department, were the only non-believers present. At times, we both voiced the obvious objections about contamination, isotope seperation via diffusion through the metal lattice, etc. I don't know if Natowitz used these onjections to dismiss the results or not (I was out of the room for 20 minutes during the final 2 hour discussion period having my own discussion, so maybe I missed something.) Personally, I feel these objections do not _obviously_ explain the results. They are simply possibilities that must be addressed. On the face of it, they would appear inadequate, since Miley, Mizuno and Ohmori were attemtping to take great care to prevent contamination, and since the distribution of elements is too deep inside the metal lattice to get their by classical diffusion. BUT, on the other hand, none of the researchers has yet found a good blank (because they see effects with all metals and both heavy and light water (?!?), and they have done only limited controls as well at this point. Also, for example, Miley's setup was run without a peristaltic pump (!), so there was some metallic contact with the electrolyte. (It is inconceivable to me why they would do this, but it seems to have been a historical artifact and a budgetary limitation according to Miley). Rather than dismiss the results as Jed claims Natowitz is prone to do, all I would say is that they are extremely interesting, and at this point what is needed is to establish rigorous, detailed control experiments---not blanks, since they seem to not exist---so that one can quantify the background effects. I spent a great deal of time discussing possible controls with Miley, and I feel there are controls that would be adequate to prove the reality of the effect. The possibilties to watch out for are unanticipated contamination, and perhaps some form of anomalous diffusion of isotopes throguh metals. (Not as bizarre as it may seem: one russian fellow in the audience mentioned that in plasma ion implantation, one does see huge anomalous transport of ions through the lattice, since the resulting lattice defects act as carriers, and defects are mobile. Also, in the hot fusion world, if it were not for the anomalous diffusion of deuterium through the plasma material, we would have had cheap, working hot fusion reactors 30 years ago. The possibility of some form of greatly enhanced diffusion cannot be lightly dismissed.) Bottom line is: very interesting, but I want tighter controls. I have a lot of respect for Miley in particular, since I have known him for years from his hot fusion research, where he has consistently done innovative, quality work. I am confident the necessary controls will be done, and we will know wether it is transmutation or contamination + anomalous diffusion. -- 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 Tue Sep 17 18:40:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id SAA27652; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:00:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:00:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: 17 Sep 96 20:52:39 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: RE: HOW TO MAKE HEAVY WATER Message-ID: <960918005238_100433.1541_BHG34-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"RQVnD1.0.wl6.rXqFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/759 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hank writes: > Professional chemists working with H2S in a quality hood are still > endangered. Your nose is the key, if you ever do not smell it when > you are working with it, get the hell out, its the last chance you > have. When I was at GE research lab this was one over their > standard safety tips. Much better to leave it alone. Correct. At school we frequently pointed out to the teacher that we could smell no H2S in the lab, and must therefore vacate immediately. This was never well-received. Reminds me of the time he went into the small back room, and there was this terrible crash. When the white fumes started pouring through the door, we realised he'd dropped a 2-litre glass bottle of SO2 - and he had asthma. Getting in there, dragging him into fresh air and getting the stuff out of his lungs was 'a non-trivial problem'. He was OK after a few weeks, though. Chris PS Do NOT attempt ANY chemical procedures more dangerous than dissolving NaCl in water alone or without proper lab facilities and a thorough knowledge of what you are doing - and even when dissolving salt watch out for your hands freezing onto the vessel. Even the most experienced chemists make errors, and errors can be FATAL. You want D2O - you buy D2O. Even D2O needs to be treated with respect - it is a poison and a dessicant. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 18:40:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id RAA25082; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 17:50:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 17:50:24 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 20:43:23 -0400 Message-ID: <960917204322_524710092@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, GeorgeHM@aol.com Subject: Yusmar Resent-Message-ID: <"K9t2j1.0.l76.jNqFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/758 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Yury arrives in Johnstown this thursday at 9:00 Am. The meeting with our local translator Anatoney Premick went well tonight. Everything is a go. Antoney and I are going to pick Yury up at the train station. He is coming by train. Johnstown is along the mainline and its a direct shot from Toledo. The air trip involves a transfer in Pitttsburgh and Yury doesn't speek english at all. I wish Peter Glueck could be here for this. Good results are just around the corner. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 19:10:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id SAA06496; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 21:35:12 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960917213348.27df3eb4@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: Preliminary summary report on ILENR2 Resent-Message-ID: <"C5GBU2.0.Nb1.kBrFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/761 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bob Horst, Barry Merriman and Jed Rothwell have been very helpful in summarizing a very good meeting on a subject which may be developing compelling data, and deserve thanks. At 05:33 PM 9/17/96 -0700, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> Here is my preliminary summary report of The Second >> International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Conference > Jed should not only be commended for writing his long summary but he has also attempted to work with at least some of the authors to improve his understanding of the situation in this complex field. > The cause of the Ni drop-off is a mystery. I will make one slight correction where he reviewed my work. IMHO the fall-off from the pi-notch along the input power drive curve is no mystery, as was discussed in the lecture. Nickel and palladium are quite different because of internal redistributions. Those interested can find info on the two portions of the pi-notch as follows. The initial portion: The quasi-1-dimensional model of isotope loading predicts it as was discussed in the session. The mathematics begins in a series of articles "QUASI-ONE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF ELECTROCHEMICAL LOADING OF ISOTOPIC FUEL INTO A METAL", Fusion Technology, 296-300 (1992). "Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled to Reactions at an Electrode", Vol. 4, Proceedings: "Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion", p 33 (1994); "ISOTOPIC FUEL LOADING COUPLED TO REACTIONS AT AN ELECTRODE", Fusion Technology, 26, 4T, 74-77 (December 1994) The final portion: Discussed as the model is continued in the "The Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena is Consistent with the Quasi-1-Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading into a Material" pending in Fusion Technology. The mathematics is complicated but allows a nonequilibrium examination of the materials. Hope that helps. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 19:26:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id SAA06311; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 21:35:02 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960917213338.27df1088@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: Preliminary summary report on ILENR2 Cc: Barry Merriman Resent-Message-ID: <"ij6ic3.0.UY1.zArFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/760 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:33 PM 9/17/96 -0700, Barry Merriman wrote: >Bottom line is: very interesting, but I want tighter controls. >I have a lot of respect for Miley in particular, since I have >known him for years from his hot fusion research, where he >has consistently done innovative, quality work. I am confident >the necessary controls will be done, and we will know wether it >is transmutation or contamination + anomalous diffusion. > > True, but must add as show by some samples, and the Q1D model: cathodic insertion from the electrolyte, anodic decomposition (as the brown auric hydroxides, and green nickel hydroxides and carbonates demonstrated), and separation factors. transmutation or contamination + anomalous diffusion + anodic decomposition + separation factors. addition to Barry's bottom line: what is quite interesting are the monotonicly increasing depth alterations in isotopic distributions. although the volume integral of available isotopes were not clearly presented, nor the additional issues discussed above on a semiquantitative basis, if they are, then this will then have become a convincing demonstration that excess enthalpy, and helium-4 production, are now joined with possible nucleosynthesis in certain fully loaded active electrodes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 19:27:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id SAA10311; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 21:51:19 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960917214955.27df7840@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: From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: RE: HOW TO MAKE HEAVY WATER Cc: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"M90uE2.0.vW2.mPrFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/762 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 08:52 PM 9/17/96 EDT, Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> wrote: > Even D2O needs to be treated with >respect - it is a poison and a dessicant. > >Chris > > Chris: FYI D2O is NOT a poison. Try some books, or call me or someone knowledgable first if you are uncertain. The body can tolerate small amounts of D2O with no problem. The military and civilian uses of the material are one thing, but small amounts of D2O are not toxic. False and potentially idiotic rumors are not needed in the radiation medicine field where D2O is called a "poison" now by some and T2O is called "benign" on s.p.f. by some who should have been trained to know better. T20 has low toxicity. Please folks, library cards are between cheap and free. Also, the answers to several of the questions in this thread will be answered in the Proceedings paper, if time isn't wasted with Rumor Control of these impt issues. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz MD ScD From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 19:55:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id TAA20643; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <323F6018.41C67EA6@math.ucla.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:36:08 -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: Preliminary summary report on ILENR2 References: <2.2.16.19960917213348.27df3eb4@world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"3vOT82.0.O25.a0sFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/763 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > > Bob Horst, Barry Merriman and Jed Rothwell have been > very helpful in summarizing a very good meeting on a subject > which may be developing compelling data, and deserve thanks. > One personal note: of the people I met at the meeting, the one who least matched my expectations was Mitchell Swartz. He has done a great deal of experimental CF research that he seldom mentions on the Internet, and he also has an entire other research profession in medicine that he never seems to mention. The reality of CF aside, he's quite an interesting fellow. -- 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 Tue Sep 17 20:28:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id UAA01078; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 20:16:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 20:16:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960918111633.2307b616@po.pacific.net.sg> X-Sender: mpowers8@po.pacific.net.sg 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: Mpower Subject: The World is a Dangerous Place (was: how to...heavy water) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 11:14:57 +0800 Resent-Message-ID: <"RKNRs3.0.bG.AbsFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/764 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Sounds like you folks need to get a life ! Whether you get out of bed or stay in bed in the morning, your life is at risk for the whole day. If you want to cower in fear at the mere discussion of performing some hazardous task, you had best spend your time studying for a career in insurance or some other mundane existance. My life has always been at risk trudging through jungles, deserts, tundras and mountains trying to coax temperamental electronics gear into indicating (properly!) the subsurface geology so that some wise-guys like you can have the petroleum you need to cruise the highways taking up bandwidth talking about risk and the need to avoid it ! I subscribe to this list-serv because it discusses >technical< risk-taking. The whole spirit amongst those of us who experiment with the methods posted here is that of people _willing_ to risk our reputations, and possible failure in the quest for a better source of energy. I agree that that there are risks and that we should be careful not to poison/incinerate/irradiate ourselves and our neighborhoods, but this is not the forum to be scare-mongering readers who are here to study technique and substance. cheers, pa [PS - you want a good description of 'hazardous' ? I've got several...] At 20:52 1996.09.17 EDT, you wrote: >Hank writes: > > > Professional chemists working with H2S in a quality hood are still >... > > standard safety tips. Much better to leave it alone. >... >PS Do NOT attempt ANY chemical procedures more dangerous than dissolving NaCl >in water alone or without proper lab facilities and a thorough knowledge of what >you are doing - and even when dissolving salt watch out for your hands freezing >onto the vessel. Even the most experienced chemists make errors, and errors can >be FATAL. You want D2O - you buy D2O. Even D2O needs to be treated with >respect - it is a poison and a dessicant. > >Chris > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 17 22:35:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id WAA11861; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 22:25:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 22:25:24 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: IE #8 page 30 Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 05:22:00 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3240a593.53763952@mail.netspace.net.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"jhLUW1.0.9v2.kSuFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/765 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In IE#8 on page 30, Paul Rowe reports on early evidence of transmutation involving nitrogen etc. These would appear to be the result of the following reactions: 7N14 + 7N14 -> 0n1 + 14Si27 + 10.040 MeV 7N14 + 7N14 -> 1H1 + 13Al27 + 15.634 MeV 7N14 + 7N14 -> 1H2 + 13Al26 + 4.800 MeV 7N14 + 7N14 -> 2He3 + 12Mg25 + 3.987 MeV 7N14 + 7N14 -> 2He4 + 12Mg24 + 17.235 MeV 7N14 + 7N14 -> 3Li5 + 11Na23 + 3.578 MeV 7N14 + 7N14 -> 2*2He4 + 10Ne20 + 7.925 MeV 7N14 + 7N14 -> 6C12 + 8O16 + 10.463 MeV These are the only reactions of N14 with itself that are exothermic. Note that the most energetic reactions produce: He, C, O, H, neutrons, and Ne. All nicely consistent with the reported products of He, Ne, H, and "oxides of carbon". It is unlikely that these early experimenters would have detected neutrons, and the other reaction products (Al, Si, and Mg) would have been indistinguishable from the Al &/or Mg cathodes/anodes used. I suspect that the reason this works in an atmosphere containing oxygen, is that the oxygen oxidises the nitrogen, forming positive nitrogen ions, a necessity if fusion is to occur (see Charles Cagle's general case theory, and my web page). When hydrogen is added ISO oxygen, no reaction takes place, as hydrogen tends to reduce nitrogen, rather than oxidising it. With this in mind, one might expect similar results with halogen replacements for oxygen, especially in the case of a nitride layer on the metal.=20 A further complication with the heavier halogens, is that they themselves may undergo fusion/fission reactions, muddying the picture with other end products. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 18 00:41:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id PAA23912; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 15:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 15:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 15:12:29 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex Subject: Re: Lexis/Nexi is a net-virus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"CgpGi3.0.Yr5.WAoFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/753 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >I called this morning and had my name removed. The representative > >will need your name and social security number to remove you from the > >list. > > >I suggest that we inundate these people with requests to remove our > >info from the list and forward this e-mail to everyone we know. Whups, I missed this part of the message. I guess it does follow the standard form for a net-virus: "spread theis message to all your friends, also mailbomb these nasty people at this address." These messages are sometimes started by hoaxers who wish to harness a net-full of well intentioned people into mailbombing some poor victim. This one appears to have arisen spontaneously. But if someone had it in for Lexis/Nexis, this is exactly the sort of thing that would cause grief for that company without the perpetrator having to do much work. Sort of like arson, where one tiny "flame" can trigger an immense conflagration. I've sometimes entertained the idea of starting one of these rumors just to see what happens. "Warn all your friends about an email virus called Bill-times, which erases hard drives, causes impotence, and prints out postcards which cause brain cancer." But I suspect it would be all too sucessful, and I'd end up on the evening news. .....................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 Sep 18 01:26:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id BAA10449; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 01:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 01:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 01:16:40 -0700 Message-Id: <199609180816.BAA23676@dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: On transmutation To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"buF6a.0.4Z2.b0xFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/766 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Sept 18, 1996 Just a historical note on low energy nuclear reactions. High energy particle accelerators were developed in 1932. I guess this is when 'high temp' fusion work started. Low energy nuclear reactions started when Nitrogen was transmuted into Oxygen with alpha 'rays' from Radium by Rutherford, 1912. Transmutation was accepted then as legitimate science, why not now? I think the work of Kevin Wolf is recognized as ground breaking although it took Dr. Passell to finally release the information. See IE Vol. 1 issue 2. It seems the Chemistry Dept. of Texas A&M University is forgetting history when they refused the reality of ILENR2. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 02:33:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id CAA01922; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 02:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 02:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Sep 96 04:57:01 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Mitchell Swartz , Subject: RE: HOW TO MAKE HEAVY WATER Message-ID: <960918085700_100433.1541_BHG114-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"xIMct1.0.pT.-vxFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/768 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell, > The body can tolerate small amounts of D2O with no problem. Yes, I know. I was using the term 'poison' loosely, but deliberately, being somewhat concerned at the idea of anyone considering H2S as a home project!!! > False and potentially idiotic rumors are not needed in the > radiation medicine field where D2O is called a "poison" now by > some and T2O is called "benign" on s.p.f. by some who should have > been trained to know better. Potential idiocy is indeed well known to be one of my major problems. > Please folks, library cards are between cheap and free. Most helpful, Mitchell. Thank you. > Hope that helps. Tremendously. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 02:36:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id CAA01805; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 02:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 02:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Sep 96 04:57:06 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: The World is a Dangerous Place (was: how Message-ID: <960918085706_100433.1541_BHG114-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"e74C91.0.4S.rvxFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/767 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > If you want to cower in fear at the mere discussion of performing > some hazardous task, you had best spend your time studying for a > career in insurance or some other mundane existance. I'll take my own chances. It is just that I am less enthusiastic about recommending others to take theirs. > My life has always been at risk trudging through jungles, deserts, > tundras and mountains trying to coax temperamental electronics > gear into indicating (properly!) the subsurface geology so that > some wise-guys like you can have the petroleum you need to > cruise the highways taking up bandwidth talking about risk and > the need to avoid it ! How nice. > The whole spirit amongst those of us who experiment with the > methods posted here is that of people _willing_ to risk our > reputations Timely words indeed to non-experimentalist moral cowards like myself. > ...this is not the forum to be scare-mongering readers who are here > to study technique and substance. Nor is it one on which to acquiesce to bizarre and possibly dangerous techniques for use by those who may not be fully familiar with the risks. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 04:22:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id CAA23160; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 02:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 02:44:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609180944.CAA09057@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: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 02:43:59 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Lexis/Nexis warning is a net-virus? Resent-Message-ID: <"y4_YY2.0.nf5.GIyFo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/769 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:51 PM 9/17/96 -0700, you wrote: > >Internet meme-viruses take the form of email which says "spread this >wonderful/horrible news to all your friends immediately", and often also >says "if you dont take the following action, you should be ashamed." > >The classic example is "send a postcard to the kid with brain cancer." >The kid has grown up, yet the damned postcards pour in. > >The lexis/nexis one doesn't match the standard, yet it is a virus. See >below. I was going to call that number myself, but fortunately saw this >message go by on another group. It's the antivirus! Send it to all your >friends, or you'll have broken the chain and bad luck will follow! (Bad >luck for who? Lexis/Nexis, of course.) ;-) > > damn, fooled again ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 09:04:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id IAA04298; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 08:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 08:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:59:52 +1000 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Preliminary summary report on ILENR2 In-Reply-To: <323F433F.41C67EA6@math.ucla.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"D50Z63.0.231.QO1Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/773 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > Second, I think that I and Dr.Natowitz, head of the university > Synchrotron Department, were the only non-believers present. > At times, we both voiced the obvious objections about contamination, > isotope seperation via diffusion through the metal lattice, etc. > I don't know if Natowitz used these onjections to dismiss > the results or not (I was out of the room for 20 minutes > during the final 2 hour discussion period having my own discussion, > so maybe I missed something.) Personally, I feel these objections > do not _obviously_ explain the results. They are simply possibilities > that must be addressed. On the face of it, they would appear > inadequate, since Miley, Mizuno and Ohmori were attemtping > to take great care to prevent contamination, and since the > distribution of elements is too deep inside the metal lattice to get > their by classical diffusion. BUT, on the other hand, none of the > researchers has yet found a good blank (because they see > effects with all metals and both heavy and light water (?!?), > and they have done only limited controls as well at this point. > Also, for example, Miley's setup was run without a peristaltic > pump (!), so there was some metallic contact with the electrolyte. > (It is inconceivable to me why they would do this, but it seems > to have been a historical artifact and a budgetary limitation > according to Miley). > An interesting point but one would be hard pressed to come up with a contamination source for Silver. Where could it come from? Any idea of numbers or concentrations? I agree it seems a bit strange to go all lengths to avoid contamination but to include a metal pump in the electrolyte circuit. I find the fact that Miley finds transmutations in all metals quite worrisome. It sounds like an artifact of a plating out process. For controls or blanks did you suggest Scott's plated glass beads? They seem quite effective at producing no excess heat... Did you try for some Miley sputtered beads to try in your own calorimeter? Anyway thanks to Barry, Jed, Mitch and Bob Horst for their very intriguing accounts of the meeting. The field continues to produce very interesting results. Now we have excess heat plus transmutations from at least one well respected Physicist. That's no mean feat after working in cold fusion! Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 10:35:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id KAA26020; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:52:54 -0400 From: uban@world.std.com (Jim Uban) Message-Id: <199609181652.AA01452@world.std.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: IE #8 page 30 Resent-Message-ID: <"6sxtH2.0.SM6.Jc2Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/777 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin, Here are a couple other exothermic reactions for 7N14+7N14 that you skipped. (This program only looks at stable isotopes as output). Element Z N ------- --- --- H 1 1 H 1 1 Mg 12 26 Total amu out = 27.998243 Delta amu out = 0.007905, mev out = 7.363507 ------- --- --- H 1 1 He 2 4 Na 11 23 Total amu out = 28.000192 Delta amu out = 0.005956, mev out = 5.548014 ------- --- --- He 2 4 C 6 12 C 6 12 Total amu out = 28.002600 Delta amu out = 0.003548, mev out = 3.304962 ------- --- --- He 2 4 He 2 4 He 2 4 O 8 16 Total amu out = 28.002715 Delta amu out = 0.003433, mev out = 3.197839 ------- --- --- There are many more endothermic possibilities as well. Jim From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 10:45:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id KAA28866; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Sep 96 13:06:46 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: When all hypotheses appear impossible . Message-ID: <960918170646_72240.1256_EHB136-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"4wk0P1.0.s27.-r2Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/779 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Let me add something to my previous message. We have two impossible hypotheses: 1. A nuclear physicist might say that transmutations at room temperature are impossible by the known laws of science. Some say that, while others devise theories showing why it is possible after all. 2. Anyone, from a nuclear scientist to a short-order cook, will say that contamination cannot leap through stainless steel and Teflon and then burrow its way into a cathode leaving no trace on the surface. Nobody has devised any theory to explain how that would work. I think #2 is even more unlikely than #1. Mr. Nuclear Physicist might hold out for #1. But the Impossibility Index does not matter. We should not ask which is more impossible. The question should be: Which fits the data better? All the data. We cannot ignore the excess heat, peculiar isotopes and tritium. A useful hypothesis has to explain everything, or at least everything very likely to be real. Miley has no doubt that his excess heat is real, and neither do I. Nobody in his right mind could question McKubre's data. Contamination does not make things hot, and it certainly cannot make a match burn for a week. Nuclear reactions *can* do that. A sample of uranium sitting by itself will remain palpably hot for centuries. It will also remain dangerously radioactive, so this mysterious CF cell is not *exactly* like chunk of uranium, but it looks a lot more like uranium than a lump of random contaminants. Please bear in mind that I am describing hypotheses, not theories. A hypothesis does not have to explain anything in detail, it just has to fit the main body of high sigma results. A theory calls for a higher standard of proof. We must not forget there are alternatives to hypotheses #1 and #2. Perhaps the Pons-Fleischmann effect is caused by ZPE, which somehow triggers transmutations, heat, 20 KEV X rays and all the rest, making it look a lot like a funny new kind of nuclear reaction. I wouldn't bet on that, but who knows? - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 11:14:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id KAA09575; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:55:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:55:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: "Schaffer@gav.gat.com" , Vortex-L Subject: Re: On transmutation Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:53:00 -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: <"GS_Hh3.0.UL2.IT3Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/781 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Occording to a physics text I looked at the other day, (name forgotten now at work) Rutherford was using about 7 MeV alphas Hank Scudder ---------- From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: On transmutation Date: Wednesday, September 18, 1996 10:01AM >Sept 18, 1996 > >Just a historical note on low energy nuclear reactions. > >High energy particle accelerators were developed in 1932. I guess this >is when 'high temp' fusion work started. > >Low energy nuclear reactions started when Nitrogen was transmuted into >Oxygen with alpha 'rays' from Radium by Rutherford, 1912. > Correction: In the context of nuclear reactions, alpha particles from radium decay have "HIGH" energy (several MeV, I think), not "low". 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-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 11:27:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id KAA10631; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:58:13 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The World is a Dangerous Place (was: how to...heavy water) In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960918111633.2307b616@po.pacific.net.sg> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"4BkBX.0.yb2.5X3Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/782 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Mpower wrote: > Sounds like you folks need to get a life ! > Whether you get out of bed or stay in bed in the morning, > your life is at risk for the whole day. > If you want to cower in fear at the mere discussion of performing some > hazardous task, you had best spend your time studying for a career > in insurance or some other mundane existance. I think you might be mistaking fear for wisdom. Suppose I were to experiment with hazardous materials without first learning all the ways they can kill me, and without first putting together the proper equipment and learning the proper skills. Would you call me brave? If it killed me, would it be a heroic death? I'd say I was killed by my own stupidity. It's brave to take necessary risks in pursuit of an important goal. Dying from HS poisoning because you fear no danger, and because you are too cheap to buy the D2O, is plain stupid. Also, many people use "afraid of" to mean "respect the danger of." Experimenters SHOULD be "afraid" of HS gas. If they don't respect the danger, they won't take precautions, and will die from stupidity. .....................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 Sep 18 11:28:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id KAA03127; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:37:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:37:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3240310F.5463@interlaced.net> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:27:43 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: HOW TO *buy* HEAVY WATER *from* YOUR GARAGE *phone* References: <1.5.4.32.19960917192703.006ddc40@mail.localaccess.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"d_YGm3.0.hm.253Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/780 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: epitaxy@localaccess.com wrote: > > Thanks for the address. This is the cheapest price I've seen so far. It is > however still to expensive since I need 100 liters of it for my giant MR > experiment. I am not doing the CF experiment. > > My question stands: How to separate D20 from water, cheap. Anyone ? > Hello Epitaxy: Quote from "Applied Nuclear Physics" by Pollard & Davidson, 1951 "On the basis of some incomplete experiments the Germans decided in 1941 that a chain reaction could not be established in natural uranium with graphite as moderator. Therefore they turned their attention to large-scale production of D2O as the only feasible means of obtaining a moderator for a pile. THIS PROVED TO BE A HERCULEAN TASK AND DELAYED THE GERMAN ATOMIC ENERGY PROJECT BY AT LEAST THREE YEARS. --------" It seems that one of the best methods for D2 isotope separation is by electrolysis. (also, distillation or ion exchange) BUT, I am not sure of the details - whether the H2 product gas is higher or lower in D2 concentration - but either way, the separation per stage is LOW - I think. You probably need umpteen stages to get high D2 concentration - it's no accident that many heavy water plants are at cheap hydroelectric sites! Unless you have FREE energy in your garage, it might be wise to take Ross' advice and buy the stuff. Born to be supportive - if not helpful, Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 11:30:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id LAA11810; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 11:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 11:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 18 Sep 1996 11:02:11 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: Barry Merriman's Quality Control Request... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/18/96 11:02:32 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"bPefR.0.Qu2.1c3Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/783 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: Barry Merriman's Quality Control Request... - Barry (and all): Although I was not at this presentation, I was at ICCF3 (and 1, and 2!) And I had the same complaint about ICCF3. Particu- larily odious was the Eastern European fellow who showed up with the "demonstration" apparatus, where he hydrated and de-hydrated Sumarium Colbalt magnetic material and claimed Kilowatt-hours of excess energy. - His own write ups include the detailed description of how he received his inspiration from the "glowing being" which came to him aside his bed one troubled night several years before. Hummmm.... - But I think I have a cure for (if not the common cold, the common clod) by simply asking that the next conference include ONLY SUCH THEORY PAPERS as attempt to fit REAL DATA! That will get rid of a lot of the "theory" hanger's on...That boils down things to the experimentalists...and here's a clue about experimentalists: AT LEAST THEY HAVE TRIED SOMETHING IN THE REAL WORLD! And please note this, experimental observations are RARELY in error. Their interpretation is OFTIMES in error. This error can include not only that of erronous cause and effect, but also that of erronous "statistical significance". The latter error I will also content covers that of "inadequate controls". Ergo, experimental work and associated observations, even if poorly done, CAN have SOME value. Whereas, pure theory-- until fit to experiment and used to predict or explain (fully) has in essence the value of the paper it is written on. - MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 11:47:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id LAA18448; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 11:33:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 11:33:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <305DBBCB.5366@localaccess.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 11:34:56 -0700 From: Nancy Reply-To: warlord@localaccess.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: HEAVY WATER Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"FMbcT2.0.8W4.q14Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/785 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: What is going on... !? I have asked a simple question about the TECHNICAL aspects of extracting D20 from water and I so far I am getting almost anything bu technical info. Everybody is trying to warn and dicourage. Whatever happend to free, do it yourself spirit? This is a scientific LISTSERV not a social, whatch what your doing, paranoid one. My mention of H2S use in D2O extraction was only one of several points. The other methods like the magnetic ones should be really stimulating to minds on this group. No more obvious stuff on the H2S nastyness, it's not ON SUBJECT. Hello: D20 is not a poison and it has the same chemical properties as regular water. My buddies fed large quantities of the stuff to mice in order to foul up MRI medical scans (Deuterium resonates at slightly different frequency). The mice were on steady D2O diet for 40 days and are doing fine except being little heavier. As far as I am concerned you can drink the stuff if it is pure. D2O is not EVIL. Hello: D20 is not radioactive and it is NOT synonymous with nuclear reactors and home made a-bombs. D20 can be bought and sold without any restrictions - it is NOT a subject to national security concerns or other paranoias. Some of you also replied: "..if you want D20 you buy D20..." Maybe you are all made out of money but $3000 per gallon is a littles steep for me. Do you buy everything you want in the store ? I wonder when they will have some antigravity blanket's in soon ;-) I am not interesting in any of the BUGABOO above or stupid flamewars, just STICK TO THE TECHNICAL SUBJECTS. Let's hear some intelligent technical ideas how to separate D2O and H2O. For example using different diffusion velocities or Magnetic Resonance or boiling points or mass or whatever else your great minds can think of. Also could somedy explain why the H2S has the D20 extraction properties ? Is H2S the only one ? From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 11:50:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id LAA14294; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 11:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 11:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Sep 96 14:13:18 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Not *all* metals Message-ID: <960918181318_72240.1256_EHB35-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"q65zy2.0.BV3.xn3Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/784 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Martin Sevior writes: "I find the fact that Miley finds transmutations in all metals quite worrisome." Well not *all* metals, as far as I know. Only FCC metals. I believe that includes Ti, Pd, Au, Al . . . (what others?) I have never heard of anyone getting CF effects with Fe, W, Cu or Sn . . . but I have not looked for that either. I believe Miley mentioned he used tin plated beads for a null and it has worked so far. Cravens had that bad experience with birdshot, which is tin plated iron. It is tough to find something that can stand up to electrolysis for weeks. Metal corrodes when you leave it warm salt water. Frankly, I don't find this a bit worrisome in any case. Practically any material will burn if you heat it enough, in the presence of oxygen. So why shouldn't any metal transmute when you cram it full of hydrogen? People have never made the effort to cram in hydrogen and look carefully at the result. We have known since 1989 that CF works with Pd and Ti. Ni was tested a few years later. Ohmori began testing Au two years ago. Maybe everything works, but we just haven't got around to testing the others yet. It takes months of hard work to test one material. Many chemical and nuclear processes work with a broad range of materials. "It sounds like an artifact of a plating out process." That's impossible. The stuff is not in the cell or the beads in the first place. It cannot "plate out" unless it is leaking in from a parallel universe. Either that or Miley, Mizuno, Dash, Bockris and Ohmori are incredibly bad at measuring impurities before they start an experiment. "For controls or blanks did you suggest Scott's plated glass beads?" Miley uses his own sulfonated plastic beads for a blank. As I said, I think he mentioned tin ones too. "They seem quite effective at producing no excess heat..." Ah, but some of the ones that produce no heat show massive transmutations instead! You have to look for both. Of course, some of Miley's beads do nothing. Particularly the ones that get dirty from contamination. As I said, in real life, if you dump a mixture of silver, mercury, iron and other contamination into a cell, amounting to 40% of the mass of metal, that's a guaranteed null. You will get no heat, no transmutations, no funny isotopes, and none of the silver will find its way deep into the cathode, leaving no trace at the surface. Instead you will find the whole mess galvanized onto the beads. You can't miss it! "Now we have excess heat plus transmutations from at least one well respected Physicist. That's no mean feat after working in cold fusion!" No, we have that from three well respected physicists (Rolison, Miley and Dash) and four electrochemists (Mizuno, Ohmori, Bockris, Minevski). If you count tritium and helium as transmutations -- as of course you should! -- then we have heat plus transmutations from hundreds of respected, world-class physicist, including Szpak and Claytor at this meeting. You cannot look at these results alone, cut off, and out of context from All Those Other Papers. You cannot cut up cold fusion results and eliminate them piecemeal with ad hoc explanations. You have to explain the heavy metal transmutation AND the light element transmutation AND the heat. It has all be proved repeatedly at high sigma. It is all part of the same picture. The tritium is the product of a transmutation, surely not contamination. As Storms showed in his analysis, if there was that much tritium contamination in the labs at Los Alamos they would have torn down the buildings by now. This business of cutting the problem up and eliminating evidence piecemeal was described by Drasin in his wonderful how-to manual for pathological skeptics: Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals reductionism. You can apply the reductionist approach in any situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge. - D. Drasin, "Zen. . . and the Art of Debunkery" - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 12:01:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id LAA21056; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 11:44:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 11:44:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Sep 96 14:41:14 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Merriman's comments on ILENR2 (Copy 2) Message-ID: <960918184113_72240.1256_EHB51-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Citkg2.0.v85.eB4Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/786 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex [I posted this in the morning, but it never appeared. I apologize if it now appears twice.] Barry Merriman writes: ". . . Miley's setup was run without a peristaltic pump (!), so there was some metallic contact with the electrolyte." I believe you have that backwards. It is a peristaltic pump (the kind that squeezes like a toothpaste tube), and there is no contact with metal. That is what Miley told me months ago, and again at the conference during conversation. I will check with him again, just in case *I* am the one who is mixed up. "First, the organizers allowed a several people to speak who had no business presenting at any sort of scientific meeting. Anyone present can readily identify those folks . . ." No, I cannot. Please identify them for us. "That they were allowed to speak is an act of charity that denigrates the serious work of Miley, Mizuno, etc---not to mention that these researchers could have used much more than 25 minutes . . ." No, I do not think it was charity. I would call it open minded respect for other people's hard work and ideas. We have learned some lessons from the tragedy of cold fusion. One is that you should not censor people or lock them out of scientific meetings just because their ideas sound Mighty Strange and Unlikely. I agree it would have been better to give Miley and some of the others more than 25 minutes, but in a meeting that lasts all day, even Miley will run out of things to say. We can always spare some time to hear the oddballs. "In future meetings, they really need to exercise quality control." The establishment has been exercising ruthless quality control over us for seven years. We have seen how destructive that is. "Second, I think that I and Dr. Natowitz, head of the university Synchrotron Department, were the only non-believers present." Non-believer? Dr. Natowitz is true believer if ever I have met one. He is quite convinced that all results are wrong, but he has no quantitative, rational reason to think that. The hypotheses he uses to explain them away are quantitatively impossible by 6 orders of magnitude. (40 according to Bockris.) Natowitz is a man with a political agenda. He is Kevin Wolf's boss, and he has been fighting for years to keep a lid on Wolf's transmutation results. "At times, we both voiced the obvious objections about contamination, isotope separation via diffusion through the metal lattice, etc. I don't know if Natowitz used these objections to dismiss the results or not . . . He did use them. These objections are not "obvious." They are physically impossible. Contamination cannot multiply itself 100 times over and then sneak into the center of cathode leaving no traces on the outside. There is no mono-isotopic copper sitting around the labs at Hokkaido University waiting to jump through the stainless steel and Teflon walls of the calorimeters. Merriman says he is in favor of excluding people with crackpot theories from the afternoon session, but in the next sentence he says that the contamination and isotope separation ideas should be taken seriously! Of all the weird notions I heard at the conference, these are the craziest. Nevertheless, I am fully in favor of letting Natowitz or anyone else advocate them. Compared to the afternoon crowd of alchemists and people who say matter is made of electricity, Natowitz lacks rigor, he has not done his homework, and he makes no effort to defend his thesis. He cannot be taken as seriously as the alchemists, but there is no harm in letting him talk. "Personally, I feel these objections do not _obviously_ explain the results. They are simply possibilities that must be addressed." Yes, they were addressed years ago. "On the face of it, they [contamination & separation] would appear inadequate, since Miley, Mizuno and Ohmori were attempting to take great care to prevent contamination, and since the distribution of elements is too deep inside the metal lattice to get there by classical diffusion." Yes, and also because there are no elements left on the outside of the lattice, and there are isotopes missing, and there are radioactive elements, and noble gasses that never penetrate metal lattices, and because the elements are accompanied by a plethora of nuclear effect like excess heat 100,000 times beyond chemistry, neutrons, charged particles and so and so forth. Yes, there are lots of good reasons to dismiss these hypotheses, and as far as I know there is not one reason -- anywhere -- to take them seriously. How can contamination cause excess heat? How can it generate tritium and other short-lived radioactive isotopes? As far as I can see, the only hypothesis that even *begins* to fit the data is that nuclear reactions occur in hyperloaded metal hydrides. These reactions transmute the metal. "BUT, on the other hand, none of the researchers has yet found a good blank . . ." This is only marginally relevant. It is a little like saying we have not found any kind of wood that will not burn, so fire may not exist. A good blank is any piece of metal. You never find mono-isotopic copper or short lived radioisotopes in metal that has been left on the table. You have to load lots of hydrogen (or deuterium) into it. If you want a blank, leave out the hydrogen, or just load a little bit. "Also, in the hot fusion world, if it were not for the anomalous diffusion of deuterium through the plasma material, we would have had cheap, working hot fusion reactors 30 years ago. The possibility of some form of greatly enhanced diffusion cannot be lightly dismissed." It cannot be lightly dismissed, but it must to be heavily defended if it is to be taken seriously. Come now Barry, are you seriously comparing the transport of deuterium through plasma gas to the transport of solid silver through solid nickel?!? Conditions inside of the sun are not like conditions inside a coin. There is no detectible level of silver anywhere in Miley's cell when the experiment starts. When it ends, he finds up to 6% of *deepest levels of the metal* are silver, with very peculiar isotopes. Where did it come from, and how did it sneak past the outer layers of nickel? Where did those other isotopes go? How did this diffusion cause excess heat? Why do similar experiments generate tritium and neutrons? Show us how the hypothesis fits the facts. Natowitz (and Merriman too, perhaps) appears to think that contamination and diffusion are the "default" or automatic explanations of the phenomena. He appears to think that contamination should be taken seriously just because it sounds mundane, and just because contamination is a constant problem in experiments. But it does not fit the facts. Contamination cannot go through 5 mm thick stainless steel, and you never find mono-isotopic copper contamination. We know what contamination does to experiments: it clobbers them, it prevents excess heat and all other effects. It does not produce miracles. Just because an idea sounds normal or believable, that does not make it believable. A mundane explanation requires as much proof as any other! (That's an oft' forgotten principle of science. I might assume that a UFO or a crop circle is fake -- that is a mundane and likely-sounding hypothesis -- but I cannot *prove* that until I show who faked it, when, where and how they did it.) There is no proof for these mundane ideas about contamination, and many reasons to dismiss them. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 12:27:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id MAA29090; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32404825.167EB0E7@math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:06:13 -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: Barry Merriman's Quality Control Request... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"uk_Uc.0.N67.se4Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/789 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mark Hugo, Northern wrote: > > From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. > Subject: Barry Merriman's Quality Control Request... > - > Barry: I had the same complaint about ICCF3. Particu- > larily odious was the Eastern European fellow > His own write ups include the detailed description of how he received > his inspiration from the "glowing being" which came to him aside his > bed one troubled night several years before. Hummmm.... > - Well, at this meeting we had one presentation from a group who receives their techniques by direct divine inspiration, and a soviet fellow who quoted a number of biblical passages. There were a couple others as well, and also those who depend rather heavily on ancient alchemical texts. (Sure, the ancient alchemists _could_ have been right...but I wouldn't dwell on them too much in a scientific presentation). Anyway, the field is not likely to gain much respectability until they clean up the line up and recognize that there are many kooks in the vicinity. If I were a speaker, I would complain about having to precent my work along side such blatantly wacko company. -- 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 Wed Sep 18 12:34:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id MAA26751; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 07:46:13 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: On transmutation In-Reply-To: <199609180816.BAA23676@dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"jcjXM1.0.vX6.YV4Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/787 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Akira Kawasaki wrote: > High energy particle accelerators were developed in 1932. I guess this > is when 'high temp' fusion work started. > > Low energy nuclear reactions started when Nitrogen was transmuted into > Oxygen with alpha 'rays' from Radium by Rutherford, 1912. > > Transmutation was accepted then as legitimate science, why not now? But the 'rays' from radium are high-energy particles, and if they cause any transmutation, it's a high-energy effect, same as the ones in particle accelerator targets. Low energy reactions are chemistry (including fire, electrolysis, plasma tubes at KV levels, etc.) Claim that chemistry causes transmutation, and you'll attract derision from those who know that it's impossible and was disproved long ago. The very important question is, how do they know? Was there ever an intensive investigation into ancient claims of alchemical transmutation, and did this investigation fail to find any effects? I'm not aware of one. I don't think one exists. I think that researchers universally make an assumption about an area which is actually unknown, and then elevate this assumption to the status of a well-proven fact. And then a twisted psychology takes over: researchers go into denial that they are participating in the elevation of assumptions to factual status. After all, science is a high calling, the pinnacle of human achievment, and if any of the widely accepted results of science were actually just consensus beliefs which somehow became adopted and propagated by scientists, then science would be seen as much less high. If we "know" that modern science is a subject set above all others, then we "know" that the low-energy transmutations of alchemy were disproved long ago. And convenient blindness and unconscious denial take the place of intellectual honesty and scientific integrity. .....................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 Sep 18 12:41:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id MAA26772; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:05:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:05:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 07:58:33 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Antigravity skeptic Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Resent-Message-ID: <"IRVRJ2.0.9Y6.ZV4Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/788 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Below is a newsgroup message I found on Dejanews. Here's an Einstein quote which puts it in perspective: The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradel of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed.=20 =2E....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,...........................= =2E. 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 Subject: Re: Tampere Anti-Gravity Experiments From: Anthony Potts Date: 1996/09/05 References: <322BC0C4.4408@skypoint.com> <50j1vb$gui@newsbf02.news.aol.co= m> < Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics Newsgroups: sci.physics On 5 Sep 1996, John Logajan wrote: > No need for me to think twice, since I got it right the first time. > > Air molecules just outside the shadow have an additional force (gravity) > pulling them down which is not experienced (to the same degree) by air > molecules inside the shadow. Enmass, as a column, these shadowed air > molecules have a buoyancy just as if they were lighter due to being > hydrogen or helium, for example. > This argument is a little bit silly. There is no such thing as gravitational shielding, so arguing about the effects of it is meaningless. You may as well argue how many pixies you would need to turn a turbine in a power station, as you are just as able to use pixie power as gravitational shielding. There are too many real and valid problems in physics for physicists to waste their time thinking ideas out of star trek. I suggest that you leave the science fiction to the writers, and look at something a little more pertinent to today's problems. _________________________________________________________________ =20 [Previous] [Next] [Hitlist] [Get Thread] [Author Profile] [Post] [Post] [Reply] _________________________________________________________________ =20 Home Power Search Post to Usenet Ask DN Wizard Help Why use DN? | Advertising Info | New Features! | Policy Stuff Copyright =A9 1996 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 13:00:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id MAA02204; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:33:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:33:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Sep 96 15:24:52 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Preliminary summary report on ILENR2 Message-ID: <960918192451_100433.1541_BHG61-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"XhIDh1.0.KY.Bq4Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/791 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, Thanks for the interesting summary. I do very much like to see the alternative point of view. One matter which interests me, and which seems unclear from the reports that I've seen is the initial and final mass of the bead platings - in fact, a reasonable estimate could be obtained simply by microscopy, if the plating is not too badly damaged by 'the process'. Because it would appear to me that if we have two apparent anomalies: 1. Excess energy release 2. New elements present in the metal ...then if we have the third, namely that the mass of metal is effectively unchanged, this would have to be considered to be serious since metal cathodes of nickel and palladium do not commonly reduce in mass. Did Miley report on initial and final mass of cathode metal? If not, will somebody please ask him if he has this answer? I hate to labour this point too hard, but it appears to me both fundamental and one which has not been addressed clearly. Or perhaps my nodule of nerver tissue is more jet-lagged than I thought. Should the mass be 'unchanged' - that is that any excess mass be at least one order of magnitude below that of the 'new' elements - then I suggest that the ball has moved into the other court. Would you tend toward agreement with this? Finally, we must not forget that if the reports from Miley and others are correct then we are left with two further anomalies - the reactions themselves and the apparent lack of any ionising radiation. Did any of the theorists present make any convincing proposals for these? Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 13:03:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id MAA00430; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:23:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:23:19 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-ID: <305DC41F.138B@localaccess.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 12:10:23 -0700 Reply-To: epitaxy@localaccess.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"aHZ7_3.0.c6.ak4Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/790 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I do not understand this method. (Apparently my lack of knowledge or the ASCII art). Could you take the time and explain this like for a child ? (Don't overdo it :-) Horace Heffner wrote: > > ccccccccc->ccccccccccccccc > c c > heat to ambient Decompression > w C > w C > z<- energy extraction -> x > H | w > H | w > H | w > Magnetron ---EM/ee-+->compressor/heater > h ^ | h > h | | h radiation heating of gas > h -----<----- h > h h > h h > hhhhhhhhh<-hhhhhh y hhhhhh > > c - cold > C - very cold > w - warm > h - hot > H - very hot > EM/ee - converts EM radiation into electrical energy > energy extraction - converts a delta T into electrical energy > heat to ambient - heat exchanger or energy converter > > In thinking about this some more, it looks wrong. The primary energy > extraction should take place between point x and point y above, not x and > z. Also, the decompression step could be combined with a motor prior to y > to regain the compression energy and help drive the compressor. > > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 13:05:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id MAA07272; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:48:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:48:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Sep 96 15:45:36 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Merriman's comments . . . (Partial Copy Message-ID: <960918194535_72240.1256_EHB149-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"cXa-03.0.On1.U75Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/792 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I don't know what it is with the e-mail today, but this message got squashed coming through. I have also been getting copies of this crazy spam e-mail ad for "New Hot Adult Web Sites!!! Check them Out Now" followed by a series of nasty letters written by other people back to the spammer that somehow came to me instead! What a day! This isn't anything important, but I am a fanatic computer programmer type, and glitches drive me nuts. Anyway, here is the paragraph FWIW: "BUT, on the other hand, none of the researchers has yet found a good blank . . ." This is only marginally relevant. It is a little like saying we have not found any kind of wood that will not burn, so fire may not exist. A good blank is any piece of metal. You never find mono-isotopic copper or short lived radioisotopes in metal that has been left on the table. You have to load lots of hydrogen (or deuterium) into it. If you want a blank, leave out the hydrogen, or just load a little bit. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 13:17:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id MAA10054; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:58:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:58:05 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-ID: <305DCF8A.6330@localaccess.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 12:59:06 -0700 Reply-To: epitaxy@localaccess.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"q_qR32.0._S2.6H5Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/793 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: 10^23 SYRINGES AND MOTHERS-IN-LAW Hey Horace, the following may be a little simplistic. I am writting this for the whole group. The 2nd Newton law pretty much says: "You can brake even only on a very cold day" When this law is applied to a gas above its liquification (boiling) temperature it means that you can extract the thermal energy in that gas only if you have something COLDER to transfer the energy to. This limitation can be defeated in theory by considering a hypotetical wall out of many many parallel ratcheting syringes with the plungers all sticking out in one direction. These are special ratcheting syringes meaning that once the plunger is pushed in it gets locked in place and cannot be pushed out again. The nipple of each syringe has a valve on it and is connected to all the others with little pipes. Each syrenge has air in it that can be compressed. At the beginning of this experiment all of the plungers ar fully extended (out) We now subject this wall (or box) built of this multitude of syrenges to a myriad of rubber boucing balls in all directions. Normally these bouncing balls bounce off each other and other stationary objects perfectly without loosing any speed (energy). These rubber balls move in random directions and it is very improbable that by some chance thay will all move in the same direction. However, when 1 ball strikes the syringe wall, it pushes in the ratcheting plunger and bounces back much waker because part of the energy of the bouncing ball has been transferred to the compressed air under the plunger. The plunger stays pushed in because it is ratcheting (latched). The compressed air stays under the plunger because the valve at the syringe nipple is closed. After some time all of the bouncing ball are going to slow down, because each time one of them randomly encounteres the syringe plunger, it looses some of its speed (momentum energy) to it. At the end all of the random movements of the bouncing balls are going to be converted to an ORGANIZED air pressure under the multitude of syringe plungers. At this point notice that we have BEATEN ENTROPY and extracted FREE ENERGY from the random movements of the bouncing balls. We have built a SELF ORGANIZING SYSTEM. (REVERSE ENTROPY) WE CAN USE this energy by opening all of the little walves at the nipples of the syringes and releasing all the combined compressed air in to a common main pipe to do useful work. In order to reset our REVERSE ENTROPY WALL made of syringes, we can leave some of the pressure under the plungers to extend them all out when they are not being hit by a moving ball (i.e revesing the ratcheting action in the opposite direction). The above described system is analogous to any gas like oxygen, nitrogen or air where each of the gas molecules are equivalent to the bouncing balls and the average speed of the bouncing balls is equivalent to temperature of the gas above boiling point. Of course it is a tad difficult to construct syringes of atomic dimentions, and this is where the real challange is. We might use single moving atoms to absorb and store the energy and then have to think how to extract it all at once. We might use the electrons in place of the compressed air. We might use magnetic fields to organize the moving particles in one direction. All we need now is a shrink :-) Trivia: If all of the particles in 1 Gallon of Air moved in unison and hit you head you would be hit with the force of 2LB brick moving 150 MPH. All you have to do is tell them to ORGANIZE. SO, IS THE 2nd LAW DEAD or what ? Let's hear from you. Horace Heffner wrote: > > > >Notice that the ONLY thing that stands between a guy and this energy > >liberation is the LACK OF ORGANIZATION of movement between the air > >particles. My mother-in-law is very good at organizing things without > >asking, perhaps if I give her 25 cubic meters of air she can organize the > >air molecules to give up 1 kWh of energy. (and some liquid air to freeze her > >mouth shut). I however would prefer some more elegant solution like: > > > >Wall made of 10^23 minature syringes = REVERSE ENTROPY WALL. > > But would it take 10^23 mother-in-laws to operate them? > > > > >If you are not bored with such musings, I'll expound some more on this. > > > > > > Let's hear it! > > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 13:47:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id NAA17321; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Sep 96 16:22:18 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: HEAVY WATER Message-ID: <960918202218_100433.1541_BHG21-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"zXJaj.0.UE4.1k5Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/794 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > D20 is not a poison and it has the same chemical properties as > regular water. My buddies fed large quantities of the stuff to > mice in order to foul up MRI medical scans (Deuterium resonates > at slightly different frequency). The mice were on steady D2O > diet for 40 days and are doing fine except being little heavier. Fascinating, if true. This goes against what all the books say about cellular chemistry, and sounds like a very interesting experiment. The books say that only a few very primitive organisms can survive with significant D2O in their systems. I recall seeing a note in Mallove's writing in one book, wondering if complex organisms could survive with zero D in their water... Note that I am not denying what you say, merely cautious of accepting it. > D20 is not radioactive and it is NOT synonymous with nuclear > reactors and home made a-bombs. D20 can be bought and sold > without any restrictions - it is NOT a subject to national > security concerns or other paranoias. I don't think any of us were suggesting otherwise. And I really would be surprised if any home process for making a commercially available basic product - be it PVC or D2O - would ever give as good a product at a comparable cost. Certainly I can't think of one, and I am notorious for trying any imaginable trick which might save any money. It's all very well saying that we lack the spirit of adventure, or are lacking in courage. I suspect you don't know the individuals on this list very well as yet. There are some extremely adventurous and tough people here, and also many very knowledgeable ones. Personally, I read *very* carefully what these people say. For sheer courage, consider Rick Monteverde. He tells us that he conducts all his Tesla Coil experiments stark naked and with an earthing cable clamped to his privy member. Now, that *is* courage. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 13:49:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id NAA17354; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Sep 96 16:22:00 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: When all hypotheses appear impossible . Message-ID: <960918202200_100433.1541_BHG21-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"pP_JM1.0.4F4.9k5Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/795 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed, > But the Impossibility Index does not matter. We should not ask > which is more impossible. The question should be: Which fits the > data better? All the data. I agree with much that you say, but not that. I know I keep hammering away at this, but the correct procedure is to assume that "entities may not be multiplied beyond necessity." We know of processes which release heat. We know of processes which cause the migrations of atoms. We also know about experimental error. This is why I want to know whether the mass of the cathode metal changes. We are permitted to raise hypotheses without evidence, that is the basis of the scientific method. The problem then is that science has a nasty habit, when without a satisfying hypothesis, to grab feverishly at the first one that comes along, and start believing in it as soon as the first wisp of evidence appears - evidence which may support it, but which may equally support other, more correct ones. In this case, there is *no* explanation for the heat - except error. The conventional explanations for the apparent transmutations are very weak indeed - as you point out. We are therefore driven to postulate nuclear processes, of a kind not previously found. Processes which require little overall energy to initiate (although energy could be concentrated locally, as when a slowly-stretched rubber band finally snaps). But these processes are not producing the expected radiation either. As for me, I would not even accept that any anomalous nuclear processes happening here necessarily will produce 'vanilla' atoms. They might perhaps have slightly anomalous mass (for a short or longer period). That may sound absurd, but once the known is left behind one would be unwise to make assumptions: "If we assume we make an ass out of you and me." > A hypothesis does not have to explain anything in detail, it just > has to fit the main body of high sigma results. A theory calls for > a higher standard of proof. Actually, the harder I look at the terms 'theory' and 'hypothesis', the muddier the distinction becomes. But a hypothesis does not have to do what you say; what it *does* have to do is give a testable prediction - otherwise it is useless for science purposes. In this case, the hypothesis predicts and requires that there will be no significant change in the mass of the cathode metal. If that prediction is found to be correct, then the hypothesis has passed its first test - and we must search for other predictions and test those. Please, an answer to prediction #1; and more predictions required if the answer to #1 serves the transmutation hypothesis. Chris (still jet-lagged and irritable) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 13:52:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id NAA17384; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:29:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:29:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Sep 96 16:22:21 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Merriman's comments on ILENR2 (Copy 2) Message-ID: <960918202220_100433.1541_BHG21-4@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"4vXhn.0.WF4.Ek5Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/796 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed, Do cool down, there's a good chap. That is what you are supposed to do when life deals you a hand which looks like all aces. The aim of this game - to advance the field - tends to get lost if we waste time arguing. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 14:09:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id NAA22939; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Sep 96 16:45:18 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Antigravity skeptic Message-ID: <960918204517_100433.1541_BHG98-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"e8U8j.0.Lc5.d06Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/797 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill, > There is no such thing as gravitational shielding, so arguing > about the effects of it is meaningless. Yummy. One for the books, I think. Actually, I think I agree. I've not thought it through, but as a wild guess this thing (if real) would be a kind of antigrav, not 'shielding' - because there is no 'cone' as might be expected. My present theory on the psychology is that in fact we have not got 'true believers' and 'sceptics', but neophiles and neophobes. Which camp is the more attractive to an individual reflects more on his emotional structure than upon his competence or lack of it. Neophobes assume neophiles are all whacky and incompetent, while in fact many competent neophobes are more concerned with pedagogy and scholarship than with progress, and others of that kind are simply wanting to be in a 'club' which their lack of knowledge or competence would otherwise debar them. For some reason, the name 'Randi' springs to mind here. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 14:15:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id NAA24525; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:55:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:55:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: "epitaxy@localaccess.com" , Vortex-L Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:51:00 -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: <"zLiDH2.0.3_5.H76Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Unidentified subject! Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/798 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: epitaxy(is that a name? :>) The second law of thermo involves the complete system the room of gas, the syringes, the rest of the world. The total entropy increases, even if one component decreases. The entropy of the contents of the syringes increases at least as much as the entropy of the room decreases. Image how much entropy increase 10^23 mother-in-laws would produce. :>{ Hank Scudder From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 14:50:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id OAA26982; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 14:05:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 14:05:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Sep 96 16:45:09 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Beads get smaller Message-ID: <960918204509_72240.1256_EHB211-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"SfLgC1.0.Vb6.WG6Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/799 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Chris Tinsley writes: "One matter which interests me, and which seems unclear from the reports that I've seen is the initial and final mass of the bead platings - in fact, a reasonable estimate could be obtained simply by microscopy, if the plating is not too badly damaged by 'the process'." The plating is badly damaged. The beads get beat up. They get scratched and they shed chunks of thin film. Little quadrangular chunks, often. It looks like the film cracks, and then bits flake off between two cracks. This can be seen in the photos he showed. The metal that comes off the beads is captured in filter paper, which turns greyish and sometimes plugs up. I think it would be difficult to measure the mass of metal remaining in a bead. But it is worth asking him about this. He has a method of measuring the depth of the metal film. He shoots it with a beam of some kind, I don't recall the details. Based on this, he reported that the film depth varies by less than 10%, and it is far more even than Patterson's own electrolytic deposition thin film. It is also thinner. Beads do not get bigger, that's for sure. If that 40% element change you see in the mass spec readings is contamination that attaches to the beads from the electrolyte, I suppose about half of original Ni has flaked off and gone away, and it has been replaced with Si, Fe, Ag and whatnot. It makes you wonder why Ni flakes off and the rest of the stuff sticks around, and even burrows down to the core. They tested the flakes of metal caught in the filter paper, and found that they often consist of the same goulash of weird elements found in the bead. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 16:24:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id PAA19442; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:37:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:37:38 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-ID: <305DF3B2.2909@localaccess.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:33:22 -0700 Reply-To: epitaxy@localaccess.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"z1wc-1.0.gl4.HZ7Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/806 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: <305DEA96.AF6@localaccess.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:54:30 -0700 From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Reply-To: epitaxy@localaccess.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael J. Schaffer" Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I made a mistake and stand corrected. I was reffering to 2nd law of thermodynamics Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > > Comments on epitaxy's post: > > >The 2nd Newton law pretty much says: "You can brake even only on a very > >cold day" > > You mean 2nd law of thermodynamics, not one of Newton's laws. > > >At this point notice that we have BEATEN ENTROPY and extracted FREE > >ENERGY from the random movements of the bouncing balls. We have built a > >SELF ORGANIZING SYSTEM. (REVERSE ENTROPY) > > NO. We have converted internal (thermal) energy into external work, ie. > the gas cooled to do the work. Entropy remained constant. (But you gave > an interesting description of gas kinetic behavior that applies equally > well to gas expansion against a moving wall (piston). > > >In order to reset our REVERSE ENTROPY WALL made of syringes, we can > >leave some of the pressure under the plungers to extend them all out > >when they are not being hit by a moving ball (i.e revesing the > >ratcheting action in the opposite direction). > > Resetting to the initial state will require exactly as much work (in an > ideal, lossless system) as we got out of it in the first part. The gas > will be heated back up to its initial temperature. > > The only way to get net work out of a CLOSED cycle (a cycle that can be > repeated ad infinitum) is to make the gas colder during the reset > (compression) stroke. But this requires a thermal sink at some lower > temperature. Trapped again by the 2nd law. > > 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-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 16:28:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id PAA19200; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:39:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:39:11 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-ID: <305DF3C6.211A@localaccess.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:33:42 -0700 Reply-To: epitaxy@localaccess.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"CYFWO.0.qh4.9Y7Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/804 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: <305DEBDF.438E@localaccess.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:59:59 -0700 From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Reply-To: epitaxy@localaccess.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael J. Schaffer" Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, we have converted internal (thermal) energy into external work, BUT without heating anything up in the process. (ie. no colder body was required). After the external work is performed the entropy will be what it was. Practical example. Considel two bottles of gas. First bottle - Cold, Second bottle - Hot. If you connect these bottles with a Negative Entropy device based on the model of the syringe wall you can render the Hot bottle cold, and the Cold bottle hot (completely transferring the energy). You cannot do this in a normal system like connecting the bottles with pipe where the temperature of both bottles will simply equalize to the average of the two bottle temperatures. You must admit that these two systems are different. Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > >At this point notice that we have BEATEN ENTROPY and extracted FREE > >ENERGY from the random movements of the bouncing balls. We have > >built a SELF ORGANIZING SYSTEM. (REVERSE ENTROPY) > > NO. We have converted internal (thermal) energy into external work, ie. > the gas cooled to do the work. Entropy remained constant. (But you gave > an interesting description of gas kinetic behavior that applies equally > well to gas expansion against a moving wall (piston). > > >In order to reset our REVERSE ENTROPY WALL made of syringes, we can > >leave some of the pressure under the plungers to extend them all out > >when they are not being hit by a moving ball (i.e revesing the > >ratcheting action in the opposite direction). > > Resetting to the initial state will require exactly as much work (in an > ideal, lossless system) as we got out of it in the first part. The gas > will be heated back up to its initial temperature. > > The only way to get net work out of a CLOSED cycle (a cycle that can be > repeated ad infinitum) is to make the gas colder during the reset > (compression) stroke. But this requires a thermal sink at some lower > temperature. Trapped again by the 2nd law. > > 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-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 16:28:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id PAA19214; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:38:51 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-ID: <305DF3E5.4E59@localaccess.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:34:13 -0700 Reply-To: epitaxy@localaccess.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"dh3JJ3.0.6i4.BY7Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/805 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: <305DEFC1.1D7C@localaccess.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:16:33 -0700 From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Reply-To: epitaxy@localaccess.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael J. Schaffer" Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In order to avoid giving the energy back to gas I specified reversing the ratcheting action of the plunger so the plunger moves out only when there is no ball hitting it. If ther is no ball hitting it, it doesn't take any energy to push out the plunger. This regauging (resetting) must happen between the ball bounces. Another thing. Even if we push out all the plungers at the same time without paying attention wheter the ball is in contact with it or not, we will impart an organized movement of balls in one direction, this movement will still be very organized and very different from the random natural Brownian thermal movement. We will still have high ball (or air particle) ORGANIZATION (low entropy). Temperature into cold wind. Mmore criticism please. So far only 3 people replied. >>>Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > >In order to reset our REVERSE ENTROPY WALL made of syringes, we can > >leave some of the pressure under the plungers to extend them all out > >when they are not being hit by a moving ball (i.e reversing the > >ratcheting action in the opposite direction). > > Resetting to the initial state will require exactly as much work (in an > ideal, lossless system) as we got out of it in the first part. The gas > will be heated back up to its initial temperature. > > The only way to get net work out of a CLOSED cycle (a cycle that can be > repeated ad infinitum) is to make the gas colder during the reset > (compression) stroke. But this requires a thermal sink at some lower > temperature. Trapped again by the 2nd law. > > 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-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 17:00:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id QAA26778; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:15:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:15:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:06:17 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: On transmutation Resent-Message-ID: <"N-ZHD3.0.JY6.O08Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/807 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >>Sept 18, 1996 >> >>Just a historical note on low energy nuclear reactions. >> >>High energy particle accelerators were developed in 1932. I guess this >>is when 'high temp' fusion work started. >> >>Low energy nuclear reactions started when Nitrogen was transmuted into >>Oxygen with alpha 'rays' from Radium by Rutherford, 1912. >> >Correction: In the context of nuclear reactions, alpha particles from >radium decay have "HIGH" energy (several MeV, I think), not "low". > >Michael J. Schaffer Yes, despite the large number of Ra isotopes the alpha energies vary only from 5.047 MeV (224Ra) to 9.349 MeV (216Ra) according to the CRC Handbook. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 17:22:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id QAA00655; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:27:26 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) Resent-Message-ID: <"Dsi1x1.0.7A.cH8Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/809 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Message-ID: <305DEFC1.1D7C@localaccess.com> >Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:16:33 -0700 >From: epitaxy@localaccess.com >Reply-To: epitaxy@localaccess.com >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: "Michael J. Schaffer" >Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) >References: >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >In order to avoid giving the energy back to gas I specified reversing >the ratcheting action of the plunger so the plunger moves out only when >there is no ball hitting it. If ther is no ball hitting it, it doesn't >take any energy to push out the plunger. This regauging (resetting) >must happen between the ball bounces. > >Another thing. Even if we push out all the plungers at the same time >without paying attention wheter the ball is in contact with it or not, >we will impart an organized movement of balls in one direction, this >movement will still be very organized and very different from the random >natural Brownian thermal movement. We will still have high ball (or air >particle) ORGANIZATION (low entropy). Temperature into cold wind. > >Mmore criticism please. So far only 3 people replied. This is my first look at any of this discussion quoted below. I didn't see the post on how the syringes were supposed to work either. Either vortex, my service provider, or somewhere in between is messed up. My stuff doesn't always post and a I don't get everything everyone else posts. Please excuse any double posts on my part if they should show up eventually. This communication problem has been going on since about the time this thread was started. Some material is showing up a day or so out of synch. For example, I saw references to Jed's summary a day before it arrived. Maybe this will all unravel eventully, or maybe the vortex is in a time warp ... :) > > >>>>Michael J. Schaffer wrote: > >> >In order to reset our REVERSE ENTROPY WALL made of syringes, we can >> >leave some of the pressure under the plungers to extend them all out >> >when they are not being hit by a moving ball (i.e reversing the >> >ratcheting action in the opposite direction). >> >> Resetting to the initial state will require exactly as much work (in an >> ideal, lossless system) as we got out of it in the first part. The gas >> will be heated back up to its initial temperature. >> >> The only way to get net work out of a CLOSED cycle (a cycle that can be >> repeated ad infinitum) is to make the gas colder during the reset >> (compression) stroke. But this requires a thermal sink at some lower >> temperature. Trapped again by the 2nd law. >> >> Michael J. Schaffer >> General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA >> Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 17:23:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id QAA00243; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:20:06 -0700 Message-Id: <199609182320.QAA28021@dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: Transmutation and Joe Champion To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"I1t0D1.0.f3.xF8Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/808 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: > >At 07:51 AM 9/8/96 -0700, you wrote: >>9/8/96 >> >>Hafnium. Has there been independent confirmation of Dan York's amazing >>claim? >> >>RWW > >At this time samples are at three different laboratories. Emission and mass >studies "should" be available this week. > >Other studies on the material are also being completed and I will be >reported priopr to 13 Sept 96. > > >_______________________________ >Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com >http://www.netzone.com/~discpub > > 9/19/96 Hey Joe, Any report yet? RWW From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 17:34:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id QAA04733; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:46:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:46:45 -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: Heavy Water Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 23:39:52 +0000 Message-ID: <19960918233950.AAA26432@LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"s4N8i1.0.q91.WY8Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/810 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: When Fleischman and Pons announced their discovery of excess heat (over that of what could be expected form an electrolysis ) I became interested in doing the experiment to see if I could replicate their results. In gathering equipment and chemicals I encountered an immediate problem. Aldrich Chemical (The chemist's friend) would not sell me deuterium oxide nor any other chemical. Other chemical supply houses also refused to sell to me. I knew the U.S Government made heavy water so I called the Department of Energy to see how I could get some. No one there knew what I was talking about, even though I told them that they make the stuff under the Tennessee Valley Authority's jurisdiction. They suspected I was some sort of a crank as deduced from their question "Are you serious?" I called The Tennessee Valley Authority and I was able to talk to a kind physicist (He had an Australian accent) who told me that the U.S. Government does not sell deuterium oxide to its citizens. He said that the Canadian government did sell heavy water and in a round about way found that Isotec in the U.S. sold it in bulk amounts. They sold me one kilogram for $385.00 plus $22.93 for transportation and Michigan Sales Tax. Purity is 99.9%. Before I got to the stage of calling TVA, I looked into the process of obtaining it in the lab. This was several years ago so I don't remember too much about these processes. There are several ways to get deuterium oxide from ordinary water. Electrolysis of water concentrates the D2O and by using a cascade of electrolytic cells 99.8% D2O can be obtained (G. Milazzo, Electrochemistry, 1963, p.575). Hydrogen can be fractionally distilled and the resulting deuterium fraction can be burned to D2O. Water can be exchanged with H2S (not and extraction process) or ammonia and the resulting D2S (or ND3) is separated from ordinary H2S (or NH3) and reconverted to D2O (by burning?). These processes require huge investments in plant and equipment and would not be practical to do for an individual or even a small group of individuals. To produce one metric ton of D2O 41,000 tons of water must be processed. Much more information can be obtained by consulting Kirk-Othmer. 3rd ed. Vol 7, pp.539-553. Isotec, Inc. 3858 Benner Road Miamisburg, Ohio 45342 1992 Telephone Numbers: 513 859 1808 800 448 9760 fax: 513 859 4878 Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 17:43:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id RAA12359; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 17:23:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 17:23:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609190010.RAA25094@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: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 17:19:57 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Re: Transmutation and Joe Champion Resent-Message-ID: <"G2mc93.0._03.w59Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/811 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:20 PM 9/18/96 -0700, you wrote: >You wrote: >> >>At 07:51 AM 9/8/96 -0700, you wrote: >>>9/8/96 >>> >>>Hafnium. Has there been independent confirmation of Dan York's >amazing >>>claim? >>> >>>RWW >9/19/96 > >Hey Joe, > >Any report yet? > >RWW Barry Merriman found Hf in a mass spec analysis. However, I must add this caveat, he also found Ce, Au and Mo. He is concerned that the Mo may indeed be Zr (even though there is a shift of four mass units), which would make the Hf = W. Let's wait until he completes other tests......... _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 18:18:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA04717; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 18:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 18:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32409887.59E2B600@math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 17:49:11 -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: Antigravity skeptic References: <960918204517_100433.1541_BHG98-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"bvx0s1.0.U91.4x9Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/812 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: > > Bill, > > > There is no such thing as gravitational shielding, so arguing > > about the effects of it is meaningless. > > Yummy. One for the books, I think. > My present theory on the psychology is that in fact we have not got > 'true believers' and 'sceptics', but neophiles and neophobes. Personally, my theory is that if two modestly intelligent people disagree, it is usually as a result of miscommunication rather than fundamental disagreement. Clarifying exactly what each one means can usually dissolve the apparent dispute, if the parties involved are so inclined (therein lies the psychological component). -- 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 Wed Sep 18 18:48:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA09182; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 18:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 18:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 18:37:22 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Radium and e-fields Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Nv5HG1.0.MF2.eFAGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/813 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Here is a great message from Wes Crosiar on freenrg-L. How about his idea: the next best thing to free energy is direct extraction of energy from unstable elements. Little tiny nuke plants hidden inside historical o/u devices. Radium super-batteries! .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 09:21:03 -0700 (PDT) From: wesly crosiar Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Field Generators Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 09:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com At 12:42 AM 9/18/96 +0200, you wrote: >I have added a paper called "Field Generators" to my home-pages. >To make up to 25 watt of free energy. > >In them you will find text about Fibonacci-series. 1,1,2,3,5,8,13... >Take fib(N)/fib(N+1) and you will come closer and closer to the >godlen ratio. (2/(1+sqrt(5))). > >Notice also the idea I got that maybe that N TESLA's powerbox that he >made around 1930, used 12 vaccumtubes. Conny: The vacuum tubes tesla used had the emmiter dopped with radium chloride, I have patent numbers around here somewhere, that show how it was done. When you pulse a radioactive source with electrostatic energy, excess energy is produced. This is what hubbard, hendershot, and probably morrey did. On one of the patents I have it shows a settup just like the field generator, with a radioactive tube in the place of the field generator, this patent was between 1916 and 1935. Of course this was not the real secret to the tesla box. the tubes only put out a small amount of energy, which was multiplied. If you want to read a long detailed description of how henershot and hubbard did it go to freenrg-l@eskimo.com and read through the last couple of months discussion where I describe in detail how it is done. The problem of using radioactive materials is that the halflife is shortened from hundreds of years to a few months, at best! crosiar@GOLDRUSH.COM THANKS WES WESLEY CROSIAR PO BOX 268 SAN ANDREAS, CA. 95249 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 19:24:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA19574; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:21:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:21:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:21:07 -0700 Message-Id: <199609190221.TAA02089@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: Antigravity skeptic Resent-Message-ID: <"gXuGj.0.mn4.YuAGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/816 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Bill, > > > There is no such thing as gravitational shielding, so arguing > > about the effects of it is meaningless. > >Yummy. One for the books, I think. Actually, I think I agree. I've >not thought it through, but as a wild guess this thing (if real) would >be a kind of antigrav, not 'shielding' - because there is no 'cone' as >might be expected. >Chris 1) Gravitational sheilding as the primary effect is mathematically equivalent to assuming gravitational attractions. 2) Attractions presume that a sub atomic particle in my pinky finger, for some reason and some how has tentacles reaching to each sub atomic particle in the earth, the sun, the Milky Way, the Andromeda and other galaxies. Some how there is an effect imposed on space that those objects can "feel", and unless you believe in instantatneous far action, that results in believing in some connection, through a fluidic universe. Further, that those connections are not all tangled up by rotations. 3) If instead you go for it and get rid of the concept of a pull, then you must look upward for the origin of the effect. In this case, the more matter in the way, the greater the sheilding effect becomes. If one thinks in terms of mass or aether or other flux, then when you consider this further you will rule it out because E in vs E out results in no net thrust downward. 4) However, if you instead consider the mechanisms of wave interactions that thrust a piece of driftwood toward shore due to an interference in the bobbing frequency of the log, and the arrival frequency of the waves (and chopped up waves), then you find a mechanism for a net thrust with E in and E out the same. All you need do is to assume a frequency shift in the energy spectrum of incident and transmitted (or reflected back out from inside the earth or other body) energy. If the outward bound frequency spectrum interferes with the wave resonances of matter less than the inward bound frequency spectrum, then there will be a net thrust. Pendulums placed side by side, know this as do guitar strings. They interfere and that interference forces them to frequency lock together. 5) If you adopt the above opinion, and then you reconsider the Tampere experiment, then you are forced to consider the disk not as a shield, but rather as a reflecting mirror. 6) Mirrors, as is well known in astronomy, do create columnar beams of reflected energy spectra. 7) Finally, moving matter distorts spacetime according to SR. Also, accelerations do the same. The greatest velocity and the greatest accelerations in the matter in the Tampere disks are at the perimeter where the circular velocity is greatest. Thus, if space is distorted to a greater degree with increasing radii, and if that distortion is propotional to the accelerations, then the disk forms a parabolic distortion to spacetime. ERGO, a lens for quantum vacuum fluctuations. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 19:25:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA19514; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:20:58 -0700 Message-Id: <199609190220.TAA02081@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: When all hypotheses appear impossible . Resent-Message-ID: <"FBsp-2.0.lm4.OuAGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/814 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: When you are confused, and it appears that what you see is impossible, then it is always that you are blinded by your own preconceptions. Good advice is always to look somewhere else for the answer to resolve the quandry. In instances like the one at hand, one is additionally perplexed when one looks elsewhere for advice and finds a preponderance of knowledge that additionally "proves" that the observations are indeed impossible. Faced with such a situation, it becomes time to follow instruction 1, and to look somewhere else as prescribed. In this case, however, it requires looking into dark corners where one is not supposed to go. Expect no support, and plenty of resistance to such a quest. This time (and this is not usually the norm), I think that the quest has been rewarded. And what remains is to sway the concensus. I have repeatedly asked for any chemical mechanism that would give off beta decay or any form of decay that could expose x-ray film for weeks as has been shown in many CF tests. This evidence, so simple, and seemingly insignificant was the evidence that converted me. I saw the exposed films in a report and what little doubt remained vaporized. This conference seems to be a turning point to me. But it will be a while yet before the popular physics journals and chemistry journals accept these papers (I am guessing here based on the Texas A&M attitude toward the conference. If they have already been accepted please let me know where and when). Behind the scenes, a number of people are *biting their tongues* at the words written in this group and running to keep ahead of the suppositions floating around. Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 19:26:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA19540; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:21:05 -0700 Message-Id: <199609190221.TAA02086@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: Studly Rick, Re: HEAVY WATER Resent-Message-ID: <"ntr8U1.0.En4.SuAGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/815 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >It's all very well saying that we lack the spirit of adventure, or are >lacking in courage. I suspect you don't know the individuals on this >list very well as yet. There are some extremely adventurous and tough >people here, and also many very knowledgeable ones. Personally, I read >*very* carefully what these people say. > >For sheer courage, consider Rick Monteverde. He tells us that he >conducts all his Tesla Coil experiments stark naked and with an earthing >cable clamped to his privy member. Now, that *is* courage. > >Chris Hey Rick, is this true? My hat is off if it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'll need to send you a couple of gold nuggets to clamp on with for good conductivity! I'll take a step back on the airfoil attractions on that account alone (not). Glad to hear the group has gusto, but let's get this guy some ideas, I tossed in a couple in a post along with this group. Ross From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 19:50:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA24721; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Sep 96 22:43:25 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Miley comments on pump Message-ID: <960919024324_72240.1256_EHB173-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"WqM-l2.0.926.ZFBGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/817 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex George Miley wrote to me: "Jed - Barry is correct - I chnged pumps later and found no difference, so I don't feel this is a key issue, but I don't want to put it under the rug -- thus the data shown has this uncertainy. More data to come in Japan." Barry earlier told me I was right insofar as Miley is presently using a peristalic pump, but he was using another type earlier. I suppose it isn't so bad that he has changed the calorimeter configuration in various ways and he still sees the effect. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 20:01:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA26752; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:53:17 -0700 (PDT) From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 22:53:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Subj: RE: Lexis\Nexi is a net-virus To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-id: <01I9N34VBUVM8WW6JK@delphi.com> X-VMS-To: INTERNET"vortex-l@eskimo.com" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Resent-Message-ID: <"D6CwE.0.rX6.SMBGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/818 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I think this would be a good way for Lexis/Nexi to build a database by those responding to remove their name from a non-exsistant database. Get a lot of names, addresses, Phone numbers and Soc Sec No.s. A good mailing list of internet users to sell. Joe Flynn From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 22:09:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id FAA03367; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 05:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 05:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Sep 96 08:45:58 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: ILENR2 video tapes Message-ID: <960918124558_72240.1256_EHB99-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"jI8CA.0.Wq.b--Fo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/771 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Dr. Bockris informs me that the ILENR2 video tapes will be made available for $125 per set. That is a full set of all lectures, with six tapes I think. You can get them directly from Dr. Lin at TAMU, or contact Gene Mallove or Hal Fox. Maybe we can put together a "Best of ILENR2" single tape for less money. Contact: Gene Mallove 76570.2270@compuserve.com Guang H. Lin ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu Commenting on the meeting, Bockris writes: "It seems to have been a Conference with very significant results. Perhaps the most remarkable are the endothermic reactions." - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 22:59:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id FAA03222; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 05:52:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 05:52:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Sep 96 08:45:44 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: CETI at ILENR2 Message-ID: <960918124544_72240.1256_EHB99-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"17hee.0.Co.0--Fo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/770 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Bob Horst reported on CETI's latest plans to sell kits: "They will make development kits available, but still plan to lease them for 6 months rather than selling them. They also will make the user sign an agreement that the work is for research purposes only, and all improvements must be given back to CETI. And you can have all this for only $5000. I told him he was crazy (not quite this bluntly) and that no one would sign his agreement." I tell him he is crazy. Lots of people do. This marketing scheme sounds so bizarre, you might think Bob is kidding or exaggerating but unfortunately he isn't. "I suggested he should just widely distribute the beads and hope that another group does make a major improvement. . . . He did not quite buy my argument, but at least seemed to think about it." Yes, he does seem to think about these things, but he never buys them, I am afraid. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 18 23:12:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id KAA28208; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: William Beaty , Vortex-L Subject: RE: Is this new? Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:04:00 -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: <"Mj-hy3.0.Uu6.Mo2Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/778 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill URL: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~zcapl61/rumple.html this is a great story. Thanks for making my day Hank Scudder ---------- From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Is this new? Date: Tuesday, September 17, 1996 5:14PM You have reached the Information Page Lynx Version 2.6 File that you are currently viewing URL: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~zcapl61/rumple.html Linkname: Rumpelstiltskin Does Cold Fusion Owner(s): None size: 380 lines mode: normal No Links on the current page .....................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 Sep 18 23:33:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id OAA08382; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 14:53:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 14:53:26 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-ID: <305DE94E.3329@localaccess.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:49:02 -0700 Reply-To: epitaxy@localaccess.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: HEAVY WATER References: <960918202218_100433.1541_BHG21-3@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"nO66U1.0.r22.wt6Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/800 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I understand you caution. Do you remember what were the chemical reasons for cellular malfunction with D20. I would like to read more about physiological effect of D2O consumption by living organisms. Do you remeber any of the references ? Chris Tinsley wrote: > > > D20 is not a poison and it has the same chemical properties as > > regular water. My buddies fed large quantities of the stuff to > > mice in order to foul up MRI medical scans (Deuterium resonates > > at slightly different frequency). The mice were on steady D2O > > diet for 40 days and are doing fine except being little heavier. > > Fascinating, if true. This goes against what all the books say about > cellular chemistry, and sounds like a very interesting experiment. The > books say that only a few very primitive organisms can survive with > significant D2O in their systems. I recall seeing a note in Mallove's > writing in one book, wondering if complex organisms could survive with > zero D in their water... > > Note that I am not denying what you say, merely cautious of accepting > it. > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 00:17:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA12814; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 23:17:10 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Barry Merriman's Quality Control Request... Resent-Message-ID: <"YhnjC3.0.783.b9FGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/821 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Ergo, experimental work and associated >observations, even if poorly done, CAN have SOME value. Whereas, pure theory-- >until fit to experiment and used to predict or explain (fully) has in >essence the value of the paper it is written on. > >- >MDH Let's not forget that the data has to come from an experiment, and the experiment from a design. What is the value of chosing the "right" experiment to do? Surely more than just paper. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 00:17:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA12802; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 01:13:04 -0600 (MDT) From: -steve ekwall- X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Studly Rick, Re: HEAVY WATER In-Reply-To: <199609190221.TAA02086@li.oro.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"GIhCc2.0.y73.a9FGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/820 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Ross Tessien wrote: > From: Ross Tessien > >For sheer courage, consider Rick Monteverde. He tells us that he > >conducts all his Tesla Coil experiments stark naked and with an earthing > >cable clamped to his privy member. Now, that *is* courage. > >Chris > Hey Rick, is this true? My hat is off if it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'll need > to send you a couple of gold nuggets to clamp on with for good conductivity! > > I'll take a step back on the airfoil attractions on that account alone > (not). Glad to hear the group has gusto, but let's get this guy some ideas, > I tossed in a couple in a post along with this group. > > Ross D20 may be toxic (may be NOT!), BUT in each and every case when your unsure of where your current experiment could lead.. ALWAYS 'Earth Ground' Your FAVORITE PARTS for tomorrow's ( I KNOW THIS WORKS! EXPERIMENTS! ) -=Steve Ekwall=- POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com 'SLEEP is NOT the wk.1.800.798.1100 303.293.2FAX Brother of DEATH, BUT the CML#41251 ------------------MOTHER of INTERRUPTS!'------------------- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 00:18:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id PAA18898; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:38:52 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-ID: <305DF37A.7B08@localaccess.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:32:26 -0700 Reply-To: epitaxy@localaccess.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN)] Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"E4DmG3.0.Ad4.sW7Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/802 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: <305DC277.76CB@localaccess.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 12:03:19 -0700 From: Nancy Reply-To: epitaxy@localaccess.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) References: <2.2.32.19960918063209.0070be70@mail.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have made these velocity and energy calculations personaly using the ideal gas laws, Boltzman constant, diatomic mases. I am very sure of the correctnes of these calculations. I can post the boring calculations if you wish. 1 liter of air at room temperature has the energy of 2LB brick moving at 40 Mph (170 J) 25 cubic meters of air = 1 kWh THIS IS ALL WASTED BY THE LACK OF ORGANIZATION (ENTROPY). Gary Hawkins wrote: > > At 12:23 PM 9/17/96 -0700, you wrote: > > >The air particles at room temperature at standard atmospheric pressure are > >moving randomly about at aproximaterly whopping 1078 Mph (483 m/s for O2, > >516 m/s for N2). The lighter the gas, the faster it moves. > > Where did this come from? I found something on it in a > science textbook at the library that said something like > 20 miles per hour for oxygen, and others in that range. > If there is better data more impressive, would be very > interested in changing my web page where it is mentioned. > > [The kinetic energy there, supplied by the sun, perhaps provides > for heat pumps to be able to do the 11 to 1 coefficient > of performance sometimes claimed. Or at least that energy > should be harnessable in some way]. > > gary > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today > http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 00:29:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id PAA14041; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Sep 96 18:06:56 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Beads get smaller Message-ID: <960918220656_100433.1541_BHG79-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ZI0Nu2.0.CR3.5E7Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/801 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed, Thanks for the extra comments. > They tested the flakes of metal caught in the filter paper, and > found that they often consist of the same goulash of weird > elements found in the bead. Fine, OK. So, surely he must know the initial mass of the bead plating and its final mass too - because he can weigh what is in the filter paper as well as on the beads. For the initial weight, a reasonable estimate could be made from either the details of the fabrication process, a study of the mean bead size before and after plating, or by chemically dissolving the metal off a small random sample of the beads and quantifying the metal salts found. In fact, all three methods should give good agreement. A similar process could then be done on (a sample of) the beads and collected fragments after a run which appeared to be giving the effect. It seem to me that there just might be a little too much 'high science' with all the (excellent) analytical techniques described. A bit of old-fashioned chemistry, known to be highly accurate in the assay of metals of whatever kind, appears to me to be essential. I do very much respect Miley and some of the others, both because of their willingness to study this in so hostile a climate and because of the praise given here and elsewhere to the quality of their scientific work. I would therefore be most surprised if Miley has not done much as I suggest. Perhaps he thought this too obvious to bring up in such a talk, yet I certainly regard this as a first test of the nuclear hypothesis. Without that basic test, arms will wave like propellor blades. With it, if it shows no significant gain in the mass of metal, there would be a very serious difficulty for those seeking to show a conventional explanation. Come on guys, let's not be seduced by something akin to a smart, computerised thermometer. Those are important, but we always make basic confirmations - even by feeling or with Hg thermometers. The bottom line here is the mass of metal before and after. If it is low, then that might be because gaseous or water-soluble elements were made. If it is high by anything like the amount of the 'new' elements, then we have some bizarre contamination effect. It really is just as simple as that, I think. At the 40% 'transmutation' level, the results would be clear as day. Somebody ask Miley? Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 00:36:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA18103; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Sep 96 03:32:58 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Antigravity skeptic Message-ID: <960919073257_76216.2421_HHB34-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"UXvJl2.0.cQ4.YUFGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/822 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris - > I've not thought it through, but as a wild guess this thing (if > real) would be a kind of antigrav, not 'shielding' - because > there is no 'cone' as might be expected. Have you thought about this in terms of equivalence? Inertial frames don't need cones. For instance if frame #1 at 1g straight that-a-way were to have a hole in it, there'd be no convergence of the surrounding acceleration values into the gap. The gap is just undefined for that frame. You could even insert a second frame with .98g acceleration in that hole as a cylinder poking right through frame #1, and watch your pipe smoke get caught up in it. Doesn't prove anything, and hardly even says anything. But I thought it was at least subtle nod in a direction not necessarily *away* from the parallel "rays" or whatever notion, so at least it made the concept a little easier to grasp. Hey, you want to hear a *really* crackpot theory? Jillions of gravitons spewing from every infintessimal little bit of mass in the universe, passing through most but somehow accurately landing on every other infintessimal little bit of mass in the universe. Is nature so stoopid as to endorse that kind of network topology to communicate a notion as important as gravity? Gravity is an acceleration. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 00:39:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA18133; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Sep 96 03:32:53 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: HEAVY WATER Message-ID: <960919073252_76216.2421_HHB34-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ZAjlY.0.ER4.gUFGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/823 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris - > For sheer courage, consider Rick Monteverde. He tells us that he > conducts all his Tesla Coil experiments stark naked and with an earthing > cable clamped to his privy member. Now, that *is* courage. Sorry Chris, that's only for cheap little thrills. *Courage* is required to try such experiments during an electrical storm. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 00:47:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA20891; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3240F9F3.ABD322C@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:44:51 -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: When all hypotheses appear impossible . References: <960918170646_72240.1256_EHB136-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"EWK692.0.F65.pdFGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/824 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > 2. Anyone, from a nuclear scientist to a short-order cook, > will say that contamination cannot leap through stainless steel > and Teflon and then burrow its way into a cathode leaving > no trace on the surface. Nobody has devised any > theory to explain how that would work. > Here's my latest possible theory: IF the impurities are in the system already, here is a means by which they might get anomalously deep into the cathode: surface recycling. Simply put, cathode material is lost into solution (erosion, or flaking of a defective bead, or just as ions going into solution near the surface) and then is replated back onto the surface later. In so doing, it buries a layer of impurites with it, resulting in impurities deep and well mixed within the cathode surface. Co-deposition could ensure good mixing as well. Surface recycling is a well known effect for plasmas in contact with a surface. An electrolyte is a weak plasma, so it is not such a stretch of the imagination to imagine redeposition and subsequent impurity codepostion occuring here. If it does occur to a great extent, there were probably be some detectible sign on the electron micrographs of the surface. I suggested the process to Miley, and he said at this point he did not have anything to either confirm or deny this effect, but that he would look into it in the future. Obviously this cannot in any case ever explain the whole puzzle. But it may explain one piece through prosaic means, even if some other pieces do turn out to be anomalous. Bottom line is if you don't look for normal explanations, you are not likely to find them. -- 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 Sep 19 01:06:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id JAA15426; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 09:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 09:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 09:17:47 -0800 To: Vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: On Carrel's On Correa Resent-Message-ID: <"FKEpD.0.qm3.X22Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/774 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: 1. Figure 4 Pulse The "drive" and "charge" voltage and current data from one of the Correa pulsed abnormal glow discharges, presented and discussed in Carrell's article in Infinite Energy, vol 2, no 8, do NOT prove over-unity energy. The data presented in Fig. 4 span only 150 ms in time, during which a pulse occurs that adds more energy to the "charge" battery than it removes from the "drive" battery. The operating period of the device is 2000 ms at the stated frequency of 0.5 Hz. No data are presented for the remaining 1850 ms. Therefore, the data string is seriously incomplete, and no conclusion can be drawn one way or the other concerning over-unity energy. Capacitors store and release energy. A 0.0347 F capacitor (C3 or C5) at 500 V stores over 5 kJ. Even a tiny fraction of this energy moving during the 1850 ms missing interval would drastically change the full cycle energy account. For example, if there were an average current of 0.4 A from the drive pack, corresponding to over 200 W or about 400 joule during the missing interval, it would charge the capacitors by an amount comparable to the discharge pulse displayed in the 150 ms interval, and there would be no OU. Note that 0.4 A is about the width of the line used to draw the current traces in Fig. 4. Logically, the pulse data shown in Fig. 4 only prove that the charge POWER greatly exceeds the drive power during a BRIEF INTERVAL. This is exactly what is expected if the capacitors periodically discharged some energy they had accumulated between pulses. No mystery, no proof of OU. A final caution: Digitizers have their limitations, which must be understood and heeded to get accurate waveforms, especially when, as here, the duty factor is so short, the peak-to-average (dynamic range) current is so large, and current(s) are measured at circuit potentials considerably removed from ground. Old hot fusioneers like myself (just crossed 55 y) have seen lots of wierd waveforms acquired by lots of super-high-tech instruments. In fact, since it is almost impossible for the user (or sometimes even the designer) to know all the limitations of a beautifully packaged and complex digital instrument, digital instruments are more likely to produce false readings. You don't have to believe something just because Dr. Experimenteur seys, "It's digital." (I'm not accusing the Correas of misusing their instruments; I'm just cautioning all you out there.) 2. Battery Discharge Method This method works only if the both battery packs have highly reproducible discharge curves, even when the load cycle is varied. This is typically not true of lead-acid batteries. The Correas use lead acid batteries. In particular, a reference discharge characteristic for each battery was first determined by a lengthy discharge into a fixed resistor. However, in the test the drive pack discharge is different from the reference discharge. More seriously, the charge pack actually gets charged, instead of continuing to discharge. After the test run, both batteries are again discharged into their respective fixed resistors. However, both batteries, but especially the charge pack, are now on different discharge curves than the reference curve, because they have had different histories. To make matters worse, the test shown in Fig. 5 and the text in the article say that the discharges were not run to completion to the reference end point, but EXTRAPOLATED to it from data on brief segments of the altered discharge curves. By this point the data are meaningless. Furthermore, the technique involves the subtraction of large numbers to calculated the final small numbers, energy used and energy stored, a procedure that magnifies measurement errors. 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-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 01:13:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id PAA19062; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:39:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:39:08 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-ID: <305DF39F.118F@localaccess.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:33:03 -0700 Reply-To: epitaxy@localaccess.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"Mk3_q.0.kf4.bX7Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/803 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: <305DE833.39E1@localaccess.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:44:19 -0700 From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Reply-To: epitaxy@localaccess.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Scudder,Henry J" Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree that the compression of air in ONE syringe increases its entropy. In this hypotetical system the air in the syringe only plays a role of freezing energy of the bouncing ball in order to release ALL of the accumulated momentums stored in ALL syringes at the same point in time. It is not the INDIVIDUAL energy storage but the overall organization of random energy SHARED among ALL of the syringes that produces the negative entropy. This energy accumulator (organizer) can be implemented without compressed gas as energy storage (That is the problem with simple macroscopic analogies). For example in practical reverse entropy system if the momentum of each gas particle is used to increase the organization of electrical charges (like charge separation in chemical battery) we would end up with cold liquid gas (low energy) and energetic electrons as an electrical power source (high energy). These electrons could then perform useful work by loosing energy. All of this without using a cold body to extract energy from hot gas. (direct thermal to electrical) I agree that when considering the total entropy of a system of hot gas and the reverse-entropy thermoelectric device the total entropy does not decrease, it remains constant. I wonder why it is said that the entropy of the universe always increases anyway. Practical example. Considel two bottles of gas. First bottle - Cold, Second bottle - Hot. If you connect these bottles with a Negative Entropy device based on the model of the syringe wall you can render the Hot bottle cold, and the Cold bottle hot (completely transferring the energy). You cannot do this in a normal system like connecting the bottles with pipe where the temperature of both bottles will simply equalize to the average of the two bottle temperatures. You must admit that these two systems are different. >From the point of view of average Joe, the idea of converting room temperature air to electrity in invaluable. Do you agree that the "syringe wall" model would do exactly that. I'd like more constructive criticism. >From others too, not just Henry Scudder,Henry J wrote: > The second law of thermo involves the complete system, the room of gas, > the syringes, the rest of the world. The total entropy increases, even > if one component > decreases. The entropy of the contents of the syringes increases. Image > how much > increase 10^23 mother-in-laws would produce. :>{ > Hank Scudder > > ---------- > From: epitaxy@localaccess.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) > Date: Monday, September 18, 1995 12:59PM > > 10^23 SYRINGES AND MOTHERS-IN-LAW > > Hey Horace, the following may be a little simplistic. I am writting > this for the whole group. > > The 2nd Newton law pretty much says: "You can brake even only on a very > cold day" > When this law is applied to a gas above its liquification (boiling) > temperature it means that you can extract the thermal energy in that gas > only if you have something COLDER to transfer the energy to. > > This limitation can be defeated in theory by considering a hypotetical > wall out of many many parallel ratcheting syringes with the plungers all > sticking out in one direction. These are special ratcheting syringes > meaning that once the plunger is pushed in it gets locked in place and > cannot be pushed out again. > > The nipple of each syringe has a valve on it and is connected to all the > others with little pipes. > > Each syrenge has air in it that can be compressed. At the beginning of > this experiment all of the plungers ar fully extended (out) > > We now subject this wall (or box) built of this multitude of syrenges to > a myriad of rubber boucing balls in all directions. > > Normally these bouncing balls bounce off each other and other stationary > objects perfectly without loosing any speed (energy). > > These rubber balls move in random directions and it is very improbable > that by some chance thay will all move in the same direction. > > However, when 1 ball strikes the syringe wall, it pushes in the > ratcheting plunger and bounces back much waker because part of the > energy of the bouncing ball has been transferred to the compressed air > under the plunger. The plunger stays pushed in because it is ratcheting > (latched). The compressed air stays under the plunger because the valve > at the syringe nipple is closed. > > After some time all of the bouncing ball are going to slow down, because > each time one of them randomly encounteres the syringe plunger, it > looses some of its speed (momentum energy) to it. > > At the end all of the random movements of the bouncing balls are going > to be converted to an ORGANIZED air pressure under the multitude of > syringe plungers. > > At this point notice that we have BEATEN ENTROPY and extracted FREE > ENERGY from the random movements of the bouncing balls. We have built a > SELF ORGANIZING SYSTEM. (REVERSE ENTROPY) > > WE CAN USE this energy by opening all of the little walves at the > nipples of the syringes and releasing all the combined compressed air in > to a common main pipe to do useful work. > > In order to reset our REVERSE ENTROPY WALL made of syringes, we can > leave some of the pressure under the plungers to extend them all out > when they are not being hit by a moving ball (i.e revesing the > ratcheting action in the opposite direction). > > The above described system is analogous to any gas like oxygen, nitrogen > or air where each of the gas molecules are equivalent to the bouncing > balls and the average speed of the bouncing balls is equivalent to > temperature of the gas above boiling point. > > Of course it is a tad difficult to construct syringes of atomic > dimentions, and this is where the real challange is. We might use > single moving atoms to absorb and store the energy and then have to > think how to extract it all at once. We might use the electrons in > place of the compressed air. We might use magnetic fields to organize > the moving particles in one direction. All we need now is a shrink :-) > > Trivia: If all of the particles in 1 Gallon of Air moved in unison and > hit you head you would be hit with the force of 2LB brick moving 150 > MPH. All you have to do is tell them to ORGANIZE. > > SO, IS THE 2nd LAW DEAD or what ? Let's hear from you. > > Horace Heffner wrote: > > > > > >Notice that the ONLY thing that stands between a guy and this energy > > >liberation is the LACK OF ORGANIZATION of movement between the air > > >particles. My mother-in-law is very good at organizing things without > > >asking, perhaps if I give her 25 cubic meters of air she can organize the > > >air molecules to give up 1 kWh of energy. (and some liquid air to freeze > her > > >mouth shut). I however would prefer some more elegant solution like: > > > > > >Wall made of 10^23 minature syringes = REVERSE ENTROPY WALL. > > > > But would it take 10^23 mother-in-laws to operate them? > > > > > > > >If you are not bored with such musings, I'll expound some more on this. > > > > > > > > > > Let's hear it! > > > > Regards, > > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 01:14:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.8.Beta.3/8.6.12) id HAA19438; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 07:49:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 07:49:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: 18 Sep 96 10:41:46 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Merriman's comments on ILENR2 Message-ID: <960918144146_72240.1256_EHB121-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"wSxVP3.0.Zl4.1i0Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/772 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Barry Merriman writes: ". . . Miley's setup was run without a peristaltic pump (!), so there was some metallic contact with the electrolyte." I believe that's incorrect. It is a peristaltic pump (the kind that squeezes like a toothpaste tube), and there is no contact with metal. That is what Miley told me months ago, and again at the conference during conversation. I will check with him once again, just in case *I* am the one who is mixed up. "First, the organizers allowed a several people to speak who had no business presenting at any sort of scientific meeting. Anyone present can readily identify those folks . . ." No, I cannot. Please identify them for us. "That they were allowed to speak is an act of charity that denigrates the serious work of Miley, Mizuno, etc---not to mention that these researchers could have used much more than 25 minutes . . ." No, I do not think it was charity. It was curiosity, and open minded respect for other people's hard work and ideas. We have learned some lessons from the tragedy of cold fusion. One is that you should not censor people or lock them out of scientific meetings just because their ideas sound Mighty Strange and Unlikely. I agree it would have been better to give Miley and some of the others more than 25 minutes, but in a meeting that lasts all day, even Miley will run out of things to say. We can always spare some time to hear the oddballs. "In future meetings, they really need to exercise quality control." The establishment has been exercising ruthless quality control over us for seven years. We have seen how destructive that is. "Second, I think that I and Dr. Natowitz, head of the university Synchrotron Department, were the only non-believers present." Non-believer? Dr. Natowitz is true believer if ever I saw one. He is convinced that all results are wrong, but he has no quantitative, rational reason to think that. The hypotheses he uses to explain them away are quantitatively impossible by 6 orders of magnitude. (40 according to Bockris.) Natowitz is a man with a political agenda. He is Kevin Wolf's boss, and he has been fighting for years to keep a lid on Wolf's transmutation results. "At times, we both voiced the obvious objections about contamination, isotope separation via diffusion through the metal lattice, etc. I don't know if Natowitz used these objections to dismiss the results or not..." He did use them. These objections are not "obvious." They are physically impossible. Contamination cannot multiply itself 100 times over and then sneak into the center of cathode leaving no traces on the outside. There is no mono-isotopic copper sitting around the labs at Hokkaido University waiting to jump through the stainless steel and Teflon walls of the calorimeters. Merriman says he is in favor of excluding people with crackpot theories from the afternoon session, but in the next sentence he says that the contamination and isotope separation ideas should be taken seriously! Of all the weird notions I heard at the conference, those are the craziest. Nevertheless, I am fully in favor of letting Natowitz or anyone else advocate them. Compared to the afternoon crowd of alchemists and people who say matter is made of electricity, Natowitz lacks rigor, he has not done his homework, and he makes no effort to defend his thesis. He cannot be taken as seriously as the alchemists, but there is no harm in letting him talk. "Personally, I feel these objections do not _obviously_ explain the results. They are simply possibilities that must be addressed." Yes, they were addressed years ago. "On the face of it, they [contamination & separation] would appear inadequate, since Miley, Mizuno and Ohmori were attempting to take great care to prevent contamination, and since the distribution of elements is too deep inside the metal lattice to get there by classical diffusion." Yes, and also because there are no elements left on the outside of the lattice, and there are isotopes missing, and there are radioactive elements, and noble gasses that never penetrate metal lattices, and because the elements are accompanied by a plethora of nuclear effect like excess heat 100,000 times beyond chemistry, neutrons, charged particles and so and so forth. Yes, there are lots of good reasons to dismiss these hypotheses, and as far as I know there is not one reason -- anywhere -- to take them seriously. How can contamination cause excess heat? How can it generate tritium and other short-lived radioactive isotopes? As far as I can see, the only rational hypothesis that even *begins* to fit the data is this: nuclear reactions occur in hyperloaded metal hydrides. These reactions transmute the metal. "BUT, on the other hand, none of the researchers has yet found a good blank . . ." This is only marginally relevant. It is a little like saying we have not found any kind of wood that will not burn, so fire may not exist. A good blank is any piece of metal. You never find mono-isotopic copper or short lived radioisotopes in metal that has been left on the table. You have to load lots of hydrogen (or deuterium) into it. If you want a blank, leave out the hydrogen, or just load a little bit. "Also, in the hot fusion world, if it were not for the anomalous diffusion of deuterium through the plasma material, we would have had cheap, working hot fusion reactors 30 years ago. The possibility of some form of greatly enhanced diffusion cannot be lightly dismissed." It cannot be lightly dismissed, but it must to be heavily defended if it is to be taken seriously. Come now Barry, are you seriously comparing the transport of deuterium through plasma gas to the transport of solid silver through solid nickel?!? Conditions inside of the sun are not like conditions inside a coin. There is no detectible level of silver anywhere in Miley's cell when the experiment starts. When it ends, he finds up to 6% of *deepest levels of the metal* are silver, with very peculiar isotopes. Where did it come from, and how did it sneak past the outer layers of nickel? Where did those other isotopes go? How did this diffusion cause excess heat? Why do similar experiments generate tritium and neutrons? Show us how the hypothesis fits the facts. Natowitz (and Merriman too, perhaps) appears to think that contamination and diffusion are the "default" or automatic explanations of the phenomena. He appears to think that contamination should be taken seriously just because it sounds mundane, and just because contamination is a constant problem in experiments. But it does not fit the facts. Contamination cannot go through 5 mm thick stainless steel, and you never find mono-isotopic copper contamination. We know what contamination does to experiments: it clobbers them, it prevents excess heat and all other effects. It does not produce miracles. Just because an idea sounds normal or believable, that does not make it believable. A mundane explanation requires as much proof as any other! (That's an oft' forgotten principle of science. I might assume that a UFO or a crop circle is fake -- that is a mundane and likely-sounding hypothesis -- but I cannot *prove* that until I show who faked it, when, where and how they did it.) There is no proof for these mundane ideas about contamination, and many reasons to dismiss them. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 02:17:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA02621; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 02:14:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 02:14:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Sep 96 04:37:20 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: When all hypotheses appear impossibl Message-ID: <960919083720_100433.1541_BHG130-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"GDaAE.0.se.EyGGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/826 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, > Bottom line is if you don't look for normal explanations, you are > not likely to find them. Very true. And if you don't look for anomalies, you won't find *them* either. Happens I disagree with your assessment of the psychology, it isn't just a communications thing - we all have our emotional biases, and if we cannot see that in ourselves, no amount of communication is going to help. One thing I meant to put in my post yesterday but eventually succeeded in sending only to myself (sheesh) was: -------------------------------------------------------------------- If I can add just one more item to this 'chemical analysis' I'm suggesting, it would be to suggest that the totals of Ni and Pd (or whatever the plating metals are) in the system are not difficult to measure. It is not enough to say, "Oh, there is less," because some might (I suppose) break off and land on an anode and get dissolved. But it really is quite straightforward to find out if the total original cathode metal in the entire system (inc electrolyte) has fallen substantially. Barry, how would you view a full quantitative analysis of the beads, the electrolyte and the filter - the whole system? If that showed a 40% reduction of the initial quantity of cathode metals, would you see it as highly significant? Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 02:18:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA02637; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 02:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 02:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Sep 96 04:37:17 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: HEAVY WATER Message-ID: <960919083717_100433.1541_BHG130-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"UkcBY3.0.te.EyGGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/825 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > I would like to read more about physiological effect of D2O > consumption by living organisms. Do you remeber any of the > references ? Not something I've followed up. From memory, one description was in the book "Polywater" by Flick or Fluck or some such name. Jed will know, this is one of the more important books for those studying the history of error in science. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 03:09:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA07633; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 03:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 03:08:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609182302.QAA24382@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:05:57 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Possible CF reactions Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"Clpr93.0.At1.9kHGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/827 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I noticed on Vortex reference to a "program" to calculated reaction energy balance for various fusion reactions yeilding stable products. Is this program available.Or perhaps simply a table of outputs. Of course the important consideration in CF reactions is the addition of either protons or deuterons to other nuclei. I'd be quite interested in seeing a table with all the possible reactions resulting in stable products with both postive and negative energy balance. Once one builds things up then it is possible that some come apart. It would be equally interesting to see the possible reactions from additions of protons and deuterons to various nuclei and a subsequent fission of this new parent to stable products. For instance if one adds either a deuteron or proton to the various Pd atoms what kinds of fissions are possible. The fission products ought to range from alphas on up. I'd also allow an alpha or two plus two stable daughters. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 03:53:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA10578; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 03:51:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 03:51:19 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Not *all* metals Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:51:05 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <324ae43b.27510787@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960918181318_72240.1256_EHB35-1@CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <960918181318_72240.1256_EHB35-1@CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"_o5tl.0.Cb2.cMIGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/831 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 18 Sep 96 14:13:18 EDT, Jed Rothwell wrote: >To: Vortex > >Martin Sevior writes: > > "I find the fact that Miley finds transmutations in all metals = quite > worrisome." > >Well not *all* metals, as far as I know. Only FCC metals. I believe that >includes Ti, Pd, Au, Al . . . (what others?) I have never heard of = anyone As far as I know, Ti is hexagonal, Pd can be either fcc or bcc, >getting CF effects with Fe, W, Cu or Sn . . . but I have not looked for Cu is fcc. [snip] I would like to add a small erratum to one of my previous postings at this point. I previously mentioned that the difference in shortest distance between nuclei, and shortest possible sonic wavelength for an fcc lattice cell, was 2%. This should have been 2% for a *bcc* lattice cell. The difference for an *fcc* lattice cell is only about 0.5%. The implication here being that fcc lattices are even more likely to support the formation of high temperature BE condensates than bcc lattices. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 19 03:54:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA10554; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 03:51:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 03:51:16 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: When all hypotheses appear impossible . Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:51:01 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3249e227.26978817@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960918170646_72240.1256_EHB136-1@CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <960918170646_72240.1256_EHB136-1@CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"CJ3sp.0.na2.YMIGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/830 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 18 Sep 96 13:06:46 EDT, Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip] >Pons-Fleischmann effect is caused by ZPE, which somehow triggers >transmutations, heat, 20 KEV X rays and all the rest, making it look a = lot Where did the 20 keV X rays suddenly come from? >like a funny new kind of nuclear reaction. I wouldn't bet on that, but = who >knows? > >- Jed > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 19 03:54:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA10510; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 03:51:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 03:51:08 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: IE #8 page 30 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:50:54 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3248d9fb.24886787@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199609181652.AA01452@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <199609181652.AA01452@world.std.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"1Bcrq1.0.8a2.RMIGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/829 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 12:52:54 -0400, Jim Uban wrote: Thanks Jim, for posting the reactions with more than 2 products. I should have mentioned that as a caveat. I don't suppose you would be prepared to make your program available would you? >Robin, > Here are a couple other exothermic reactions >for 7N14+7N14 that you skipped. (This program only >looks at stable isotopes as output). > >Element Z N >------- --- --- > H 1 1 > H 1 1 > Mg 12 26 >Total amu out =3D 27.998243 >Delta amu out =3D 0.007905, mev out =3D 7.363507 >------- --- --- > H 1 1 > He 2 4 > Na 11 23 >Total amu out =3D 28.000192 >Delta amu out =3D 0.005956, mev out =3D 5.548014 >------- --- --- > He 2 4 > C 6 12 > C 6 12 >Total amu out =3D 28.002600 >Delta amu out =3D 0.003548, mev out =3D 3.304962 >------- --- --- > He 2 4 > He 2 4 > He 2 4 > O 8 16 >Total amu out =3D 28.002715 >Delta amu out =3D 0.003433, mev out =3D 3.197839 >------- --- --- > >There are many more endothermic possibilities as well. Despite the apparent evidence to the contrary, I suspect strongly that actual endothermic reactions do not take place. What I am currently trying to do is figure out reactions that have both multiple input as well as multiple output products, such that the reaction in its entirety is exothermic, yet capable of producing heavier nuclei, without too many intervening steps. IOW, it isn't difficult to produce heavier nuclei by successive additions of light isotopes, combined with e.c. reactions to convert protons to neutrons, however these would appear at first glance to result in production of all the elements in between as well. Though I don't as yet have access to actual results as reported by the experimenters themselves, all the second hand evidence seems to suggest that many intermediate products are missing. This gives the impression that either the heavy product is formed in an "m" to "n" reaction, or is formed from a heavy isotope present in the reactor already. I am particularly concerned about the "third group" of products, in the neighbourhood of Pb, in Ni light water reactors. If these are not formed by addition of hydrogen isotopes to Pt, then I see only an "m" to "n" reaction as possible. [snip] BTW Does anyone know if e.c. reactions following proton capture produce gamma rays (i.e. not the proton capture itself, just the consequent e.c.), or is all the energy carried away by the neutrino? During beta decay, where both (anti)neutrino and electron (or positron) are produced, the energy of the reaction is shared by both. However in an e.c. reaction, no electron or positron is created, hence one might well expect all energy to be carried by the neutrino. Given that these are barely detectable, this might result in an entire class of radiation-free reactions. (Unfortunately also "energy-free", as it all leaves with the neutrino :(. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 19 03:55:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA10677; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 03:51:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 03:51:40 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: When all hypotheses appear impossible . Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:51:11 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <324df5c8.32004190@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199609190220.TAA02081@li.oro.net> In-Reply-To: <199609190220.TAA02081@li.oro.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"C4UAy1.0.kc2.wMIGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/833 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:20:58 -0700, Ross Tessien wrote: [snip] >Behind the scenes, a number of people are *biting their tongues* at the >words written in this group and running to keep ahead of the = suppositions >floating around.=20 > > >Later, Ross Tessien This is one of the reasons I keep posting :). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 19 03:55:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA10713; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 03:51:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 03:51:46 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: When all hypotheses appear impossible . Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:51:14 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <324ef722.32350160@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960918202200_100433.1541_BHG21-1@CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <960918202200_100433.1541_BHG21-1@CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"wvECh3.0.Fd2.0NIGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/834 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 18 Sep 96 16:22:00 EDT, Chris Tinsley wrote: [snip] >I agree with much that you say, but not that. I know I keep hammering >away at this, but the correct procedure is to assume that "entities may >not be multiplied beyond necessity." > >We know of processes which release heat. We know of processes which >cause the migrations of atoms. We also know about experimental error. > >This is why I want to know whether the mass of the cathode metal >changes. Actually the cathode mass will probably increase in both cases, though more if contamination is the cause, than if fusion is the cause. The reason being that fusion probably means that some of the hydrogen (or other positive metal ion from the salt in the electrolyte e.g. Li), has been ab(d)sorbed by the metal, and fused with other ions present, thus adding to the overall mass. It seems this would need to be correlated with the actual amount of "activity" that had taken place. [snip] >not producing the expected radiation either. As for me, I would not >even accept that any anomalous nuclear processes happening here >necessarily will produce 'vanilla' atoms. They might perhaps have >slightly anomalous mass (for a short or longer period). That may sound >absurd, but once the known is left behind one would be unwise to make >assumptions: "If we assume we make an ass out of you and me." Congratulations on having the courage to mention this! I was going to wait until it was the only option left :). [snip] >In this case, the hypothesis predicts and requires that there will be no >significant change in the mass of the cathode metal. If that prediction In light of my musings above, please explain. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 19 03:57:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA10628; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 03:51:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 03:51:28 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Transmutation and Joe Champion Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:51:08 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <324cf2b2.31214717@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199609190010.RAA25094@nz1.netzone.com> In-Reply-To: <199609190010.RAA25094@nz1.netzone.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"du01k2.0.wb2.kMIGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/832 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 17:19:57 -0700, Joe Champion wrote: [snip] >Barry Merriman found Hf in a mass spec analysis. However, I must add = this >caveat, he also found Ce, Au and Mo. He is concerned that the Mo may = indeed >be Zr (even though there is a shift of four mass units), which would = make >the Hf =3D W. While I am no expert, a superficial examination of isotopes shows that there is considerable overlap between stable isotopes of Mo and Zr. There is however only one stable isotope that Hf and W have in common (180). Furthermore, if it is W, then W180 is only .14% of natural tungsten, so we are looking at a huge anomaly anyway. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 19 03:58:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA10486; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 03:51:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 03:51:05 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Preliminary summary report on ILENR2 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:50:51 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3247d8a9.24548340@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"Lt7_O2.0.hZ2.OMIGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/828 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:59:52 +1000 (EST), Martin Sevior wrote: [snip] >An interesting point but one would be hard pressed to come up with a=20 >contamination source for Silver. Where could it come from? Any idea of=20 Silver solder perhaps? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 19 04:11:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA14759; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 04:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 04:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 04:09:17 -0700 Message-Id: <199609191109.EAA26737@dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: On transmutation To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"7oZe9.0.Wc3.5eIGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/835 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sept. 19, 1996 I believe Rutherford (1919, not 1912) used naturally occuring 226Ra from the pitchblende ore of Curie fame rather than some 30 Ra isotopes synthesized from the many particle accelerators developed after his transmutation experiment. 226Ra has a half life of 1,599. years. CRC 76th ed. has decay mode/energy of 4.870 MeV for alpha particles coming out of 226Ra. For a particle of alpha's mass of 2 neutrons and 2 protons, I gather(Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia) that its speed at 4.870 MeV is slow and low, relatively speaking that is. Particle accelerators were developed to boost the MeVs artificially above those that occurs naturally to facilitate nuclear studies. I do not know what MeV Crockcroft and Walton achieved with their voltage multiplier (1932) but the Van de Graaf electrostaic generator (1931) reached about 7 MeV's. Today, top line accelerators range in Gevs. The historical note posted was to shed light to the fact that transmutation occurance and discovery was old, accepted historically, and happens naturally. So what's with A&M rejecting the ILENR2 conference as smacking of fraud? To consider Ra radiation high or low is relative. It is certainly not healthy to be exposed to its radiation, long term. The Curies died from its consequences. -AK- You wrote: >Yes, despite the large number of Ra isotopes the alpha energies vary >only from 5.047 MeV (224Ra) to 9.349 MeV (216Ra) according to the CRC Handbook. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 04:40:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA02087; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 04:30:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 04:30:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 14:02:18 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <32413651.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Re: Possible CF reactions Resent-Message-ID: <"uUmES.0.XW.ixIGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/836 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 19 Sep 1996 03:08:10 -0700 (PDT), vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > I noticed on Vortex reference to a "program" to calculated reaction > energy balance for various fusion reactions yeilding stable products. > Is this program available.Or perhaps simply a table of outputs. > Dear Russ, One of the best computerised programs is made by W J M F (Bill) Collis, Strada Sottopiazzo 18, 14056 Boglietto (AT) Italy Phone +39 (141) 968602. 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 Sep 19 05:38:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA08056; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 05:36:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 05:36:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Sep 96 08:32:14 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: When all hypotheses appear impossibl Message-ID: <960919123214_100433.1541_BHG100-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Ig9Tz.0.nz1.RvJGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/837 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin, Yes, I appreciate that H or D may be absorbed. Maybe some of it fuses too. The H or D absorbed will not appear in the analysis, which breaks the lattice. The fusion possiblity is why I suggest a full assay of the original cathode metals. Anyway, the point I made was that the total metals assay still should be reasonably close to the original mass, even with a bit of H/D fused in. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 07:23:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA24545; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:06:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609191403.HAA10574@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: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:03:24 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: When all hypotheses appear impossible . Resent-Message-ID: <"LyA2x.0.Q_5.SDLGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/839 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:06 PM 9/18/96 EDT, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >Let me add something to my previous message. We have two impossible >hypotheses: > >1. A nuclear physicist might say that transmutations at room temperature are >impossible by the known laws of science. Some say that, while others devise >theories showing why it is possible after all. > >2. Anyone, from a nuclear scientist to a short-order cook, will say that >contamination cannot leap through stainless steel and Teflon and then burrow >its way into a cathode leaving no trace on the surface. Nobody has devised any >theory to explain how that would work. > >I think #2 is even more unlikely than #1. Mr. Nuclear Physicist might hold out >for #1. But the Impossibility Index does not matter. We should not ask which >is more impossible. The question should be: Which fits the data better? All >the data. We cannot ignore the excess heat, peculiar isotopes and tritium. A >useful hypothesis has to explain everything, or at least everything very >likely to be real. Miley has no doubt that his excess heat is real, and >neither do I. Nobody in his right mind could question McKubre's data. >Contamination does not make things hot, and it certainly cannot make a match >burn for a week. Nuclear reactions *can* do that. A sample of uranium sitting >by itself will remain palpably hot for centuries. It will also remain >dangerously radioactive, so this mysterious CF cell is not *exactly* like >chunk of uranium, but it looks a lot more like uranium than a lump of random >contaminants. > >Please bear in mind that I am describing hypotheses, not theories. A >hypothesis does not have to explain anything in detail, it just has to fit the >main body of high sigma results. A theory calls for a higher standard of >proof. > >We must not forget there are alternatives to hypotheses #1 and #2. Perhaps the >Pons-Fleischmann effect is caused by ZPE, which somehow triggers >transmutations, heat, 20 KEV X rays and all the rest, making it look a lot >like a funny new kind of nuclear reaction. I wouldn't bet on that, but who >knows? > >- Jed > > In the last paragraph you are getting a lot closer. Follow the alphas. Follow the metals. Forget the frickin theories. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 07:29:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA26533; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 06:19:45 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: On transmutation Resent-Message-ID: <"SXRE83.0.SU6.pLLGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/841 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Sept. 19, 1996 > >I believe Rutherford (1919, not 1912) used naturally occuring 226Ra >from the pitchblende ore of Curie fame rather than some 30 Ra isotopes >synthesized from the many particle accelerators developed after his >transmutation experiment. 226Ra has a half life of 1,599. years. CRC >76th ed. has decay mode/energy of 4.870 MeV for alpha particles coming >out of 226Ra. Yes, I stand corrected. It was a clerical error on my part - I didn't note the alpha from 228 "hiding" down there amongst the beta emissions on page 11-126 of the 74th edition. For a particle of alpha's mass of 2 neutrons and 2 >protons, I gather(Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia) that its >speed at 4.870 MeV is slow and low, relatively speaking that is. It's definitely high temperature, and high energy when it comes to fusion reactions which are characterized by KeV barriers. >>Sept 18, 1996 >> >>Just a historical note on low energy nuclear reactions. >> >>High energy particle accelerators were developed in 1932. I guess this >>is when 'high temp' fusion work started. >> >>Low energy nuclear reactions started when Nitrogen was transmuted into >>Oxygen with alpha 'rays' from Radium by Rutherford, 1912. >> >Correction: In the context of nuclear reactions, alpha particles from >radium decay have "HIGH" energy (several MeV, I think), not "low". > >Michael J. Schaffer >General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA >Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 > >Particle accelerators were developed to boost the MeVs artificially >above those that occurs naturally to facilitate nuclear studies. I do >not know what MeV Crockcroft and Walton achieved with their voltage >multiplier (1932) but the Van de Graaf electrostaic generator (1931) >reached about 7 MeV's. Today, top line accelerators range in Gevs. > >The historical note posted was to shed light to the fact that >transmutation occurance and discovery was old, accepted historically, >and happens naturally. Couldn't agree more. So what's with A&M rejecting the ILENR2 >conference as smacking of fraud? To consider Ra radiation high or low >is relative. It is certainly not healthy to be exposed to its >radiation, long term. The Curies died from its consequences. > >-AK- > >You wrote: >>Yes, despite the large number of Ra isotopes the alpha energies vary >>only from 5.047 MeV (224Ra) to 9.349 MeV (216Ra) according to the CRC >Handbook. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 07:31:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA26485; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 06:19:38 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: On Carrel's On Correa Resent-Message-ID: <"ldqk8.0.kT6.hLLGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/840 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: [snip] > >Capacitors store and release energy. A 0.0347 F capacitor (C3 or C5) at >500 V stores over 5 kJ. [snip] > >Michael J. Schaffer Not that it's important to the rest of your argument, which makes much sense, but J = 0.5 * C * V^2 = 0.5 * 0.0347 F * (500 V)^2 = 4337.5 J < 5 kJ. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 07:32:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA26889; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:17:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:17:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609191416.HAA11295@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: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:16:05 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: On transmutation Resent-Message-ID: <"SrtiX2.0.-Z6.UNLGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/842 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 07:46 AM 9/18/96 -0700, you wrote: >On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Akira Kawasaki wrote: > >> High energy particle accelerators were developed in 1932. I guess this >> is when 'high temp' fusion work started. >> >> Low energy nuclear reactions started when Nitrogen was transmuted into >> Oxygen with alpha 'rays' from Radium by Rutherford, 1912. >> >> Transmutation was accepted then as legitimate science, why not now? > >But the 'rays' from radium are high-energy particles, and if they cause >any transmutation, it's a high-energy effect, same as the ones in particle >accelerator targets. Low energy reactions are chemistry (including fire, >electrolysis, plasma tubes at KV levels, etc.) Claim that chemistry >causes transmutation, and you'll attract derision from those who know that >it's impossible and was disproved long ago. > as you know, it is impossible to disprove any instance of anything. transmutation is held to be impossible only because of the seeming impossibility to get the required energy, required energy for which is calculated from a provably incomplete (can super conductivity be inferred from extent models, no, then so much for your quantum quack) thus inadequate model of the balance vectors of what is so-called atom; thus no basis has even been available for the impossibility of such things as transmutation. Humanity understands atom like child understands Sun. It always seems to be there, and that is quite comforting, but just what is it really? >The very important question is, how do they know? Was there ever an >intensive investigation into ancient claims of alchemical transmutation, >and did this investigation fail to find any effects? I'm not aware of >one. I don't think one exists. I think that researchers universally make >an assumption about an area which is actually unknown, and then elevate >this assumption to the status of a well-proven fact. And then a twisted >psychology takes over: researchers go into denial that they are >participating in the elevation of assumptions to factual status. After >all, science is a high calling, the pinnacle of human achievment, and if >any of the widely accepted results of science were actually just consensus >beliefs which somehow became adopted and propagated by scientists, then >science would be seen as much less high. If we "know" that modern science >is a subject set above all others, then we "know" that the low-energy >transmutations of alchemy were disproved long ago. And convenient >blindness and unconscious denial take the place of intellectual honesty >and scientific integrity. > > >.....................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 > > > You really are quite a rascal aren't you? Your inferences are getting rabidly dangerous. Did you ever read Louis Mumfords work, I believe the title is The Pyramid of Power...about as thorough a trashing of institutional/professional mindsets as can be put on paper. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 07:32:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA27540; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 06:24:26 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Possible CF reactions Resent-Message-ID: <"EUQzJ.0.Ck6.AQLGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/843 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 8:05 AM 9/18/96, Russ George wrote: >I noticed on Vortex reference to a "program" to calculated reaction >energy balance for various fusion reactions yeilding stable products. >Is this program available.Or perhaps simply a table of outputs. > The first such program posted here was from Robin van Spaandonk who, I think, made it available from his web page . It's an interresting place anyway. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 07:32:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA28191; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 19 Sep 1996 07:21:07 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: On Carrel's On Correa To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/19/96 07:21:42 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"5u0ll3.0.Ou6.iSLGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/845 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 09/19/96 01:11 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: On Carrel's On Correa As Mike Schaffer points out, all the fancy dancing around the charging/discharing curves, all the waveform profiles, etc., are essentially MEANINGLESS! The ONLY viable method of succinctly presenting an "O/U" case is the "battery swap" method. And this, ALAS, must be performed by some agency other than the Correa's to be credible. That is a "human factor" matter, sad--but true. MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 07:35:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA27826; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:21:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:21:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609191420.HAA11520@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: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:20:04 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Radium and e-fields Resent-Message-ID: <"iiPUL.0.bo6.ARLGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/844 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:37 PM 9/18/96 -0700, you wrote: > >Here is a great message from Wes Crosiar on freenrg-L. How about his >idea: the next best thing to free energy is direct extraction of energy >from unstable elements. Little tiny nuke plants hidden inside historical >o/u devices. Radium super-batteries! > > >.....................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 > > These ideas have been around for a long time. Let me remind you that the "discoverer" of radium, Madam Curie, died of cancer, er, radium poisening. Even her cookbooks were radioactive. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 07:36:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA29179; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:27:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:27:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609191426.HAA11862@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: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:26:04 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Merriman's comments on ILENR2 Resent-Message-ID: <"4fUnc.0.p77.oWLGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/846 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thanks for the brilliant rejoinders re below. I am looking forward one of these days to hearing you up on a podium in a snake pit of the most mentally scurrilous obstructionists, giving them hell. Barry, I am not equating you to that, that just popped out here to reward Jed for an hour well spent. At 10:41 AM 9/18/96 EDT, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >Barry Merriman writes: > > ". . . Miley's setup was run without a peristaltic pump (!), so there > was some metallic contact with the electrolyte." > >I believe that's incorrect. It is a peristaltic pump (the kind that squeezes >like a toothpaste tube), and there is no contact with metal. That is what >Miley told me months ago, and again at the conference during conversation. I >will check with him once again, just in case *I* am the one who is mixed up. > > > "First, the organizers allowed a several people to speak who had no > business presenting at any sort of scientific meeting. Anyone present > can readily identify those folks . . ." > >No, I cannot. Please identify them for us. > > > "That they were allowed to speak is an act of charity that denigrates > the serious work of Miley, Mizuno, etc---not to mention that these > researchers could have used much more than 25 minutes . . ." > >No, I do not think it was charity. It was curiosity, and open minded respect >for other people's hard work and ideas. We have learned some lessons from the >tragedy of cold fusion. One is that you should not censor people or lock them >out of scientific meetings just because their ideas sound Mighty Strange and >Unlikely. I agree it would have been better to give Miley and some of the >others more than 25 minutes, but in a meeting that lasts all day, even Miley >will run out of things to say. We can always spare some time to hear the >oddballs. > > > "In future meetings, they really need to exercise quality control." > >The establishment has been exercising ruthless quality control over us for >seven years. We have seen how destructive that is. > > > "Second, I think that I and Dr. Natowitz, head of the university > Synchrotron Department, were the only non-believers present." > >Non-believer? Dr. Natowitz is true believer if ever I saw one. He is convinced >that all results are wrong, but he has no quantitative, rational reason to >think that. The hypotheses he uses to explain them away are quantitatively >impossible by 6 orders of magnitude. (40 according to Bockris.) Natowitz is a >man with a political agenda. He is Kevin Wolf's boss, and he has been fighting >for years to keep a lid on Wolf's transmutation results. > > > "At times, we both voiced the obvious objections about contamination, > isotope separation via diffusion through the metal lattice, etc. I don't > know if Natowitz used these objections to dismiss the results or not..." > >He did use them. These objections are not "obvious." They are physically >impossible. Contamination cannot multiply itself 100 times over and then sneak >into the center of cathode leaving no traces on the outside. There is no >mono-isotopic copper sitting around the labs at Hokkaido University waiting to >jump through the stainless steel and Teflon walls of the calorimeters. >Merriman says he is in favor of excluding people with crackpot theories from >the afternoon session, but in the next sentence he says that the contamination >and isotope separation ideas should be taken seriously! Of all the weird >notions I heard at the conference, those are the craziest. Nevertheless, I am >fully in favor of letting Natowitz or anyone else advocate them. Compared to >the afternoon crowd of alchemists and people who say matter is made of >electricity, Natowitz lacks rigor, he has not done his homework, and he makes >no effort to defend his thesis. He cannot be taken as seriously as the >alchemists, but there is no harm in letting him talk. > > > "Personally, I feel these objections do not _obviously_ explain the > results. They are simply possibilities that must be addressed." > >Yes, they were addressed years ago. > > > "On the face of it, they [contamination & separation] would appear > inadequate, since Miley, Mizuno and Ohmori were attempting to take great > care to prevent contamination, and since the distribution of elements is > too deep inside the metal lattice to get there by classical diffusion." > >Yes, and also because there are no elements left on the outside of the >lattice, and there are isotopes missing, and there are radioactive elements, >and noble gasses that never penetrate metal lattices, and because the elements >are accompanied by a plethora of nuclear effect like excess heat 100,000 times >beyond chemistry, neutrons, charged particles and so and so forth. Yes, there >are lots of good reasons to dismiss these hypotheses, and as far as I know >there is not one reason -- anywhere -- to take them seriously. How can >contamination cause excess heat? How can it generate tritium and other >short-lived radioactive isotopes? > >As far as I can see, the only rational hypothesis that even *begins* to fit >the data is this: nuclear reactions occur in hyperloaded metal hydrides. These >reactions transmute the metal. > > > "BUT, on the other hand, none of the researchers has yet found a good > blank . . ." > >This is only marginally relevant. It is a little like saying we have not found >any kind of wood that will not burn, so fire may not exist. A good blank is >any piece of metal. You never find mono-isotopic copper or short lived >radioisotopes in metal that has been left on the table. You have to load lots >of hydrogen (or deuterium) into it. If you want a blank, leave out the >hydrogen, or just load a little bit. > > > "Also, in the hot fusion world, if it were not for the anomalous > diffusion of deuterium through the plasma material, we would have had > cheap, working hot fusion reactors 30 years ago. The possibility of some > form of greatly enhanced diffusion cannot be lightly dismissed." > >It cannot be lightly dismissed, but it must to be heavily defended if it is to >be taken seriously. Come now Barry, are you seriously comparing the transport >of deuterium through plasma gas to the transport of solid silver through solid >nickel?!? Conditions inside of the sun are not like conditions inside a coin. >There is no detectible level of silver anywhere in Miley's cell when the >experiment starts. When it ends, he finds up to 6% of *deepest levels of the >metal* are silver, with very peculiar isotopes. Where did it come from, and >how did it sneak past the outer layers of nickel? Where did those other >isotopes go? How did this diffusion cause excess heat? Why do similar >experiments generate tritium and neutrons? Show us how the hypothesis fits the >facts. > >Natowitz (and Merriman too, perhaps) appears to think that contamination and >diffusion are the "default" or automatic explanations of the phenomena. He >appears to think that contamination should be taken seriously just because it >sounds mundane, and just because contamination is a constant problem in >experiments. But it does not fit the facts. Contamination cannot go through 5 >mm thick stainless steel, and you never find mono-isotopic copper >contamination. We know what contamination does to experiments: it clobbers >them, it prevents excess heat and all other effects. It does not produce >miracles. Just because an idea sounds normal or believable, that does not make >it believable. A mundane explanation requires as much proof as any other! >(That's an oft' forgotten principle of science. I might assume that a UFO or a >crop circle is fake -- that is a mundane and likely-sounding hypothesis -- but >I cannot *prove* that until I show who faked it, when, where and how they did >it.) There is no proof for these mundane ideas about contamination, and many >reasons to dismiss them. > >- Jed > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 07:39:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA23725; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:02:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609191400.HAA10345@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: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:00:10 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: On transmutation Resent-Message-ID: <"EpSZz.0.Zo5.9ALGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/838 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:01 AM 9/18/96 -0800, you wrote: >>Sept 18, 1996 >> >>Just a historical note on low energy nuclear reactions. >> >>High energy particle accelerators were developed in 1932. I guess this >>is when 'high temp' fusion work started. >> >>Low energy nuclear reactions started when Nitrogen was transmuted into >>Oxygen with alpha 'rays' from Radium by Rutherford, 1912. >> >Correction: In the context of nuclear reactions, alpha particles from >radium decay have "HIGH" energy (several MeV, I think), not "low". > >Michael J. Schaffer >General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA >Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 > > > I've always wondered what the exact number is which divides low from high... ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 07:49:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA03020; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:41:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:41:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 19 Sep 1996 07:40:07 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Re: Transmutation and Joe Champion To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/19/96 07:40:47 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"IdGsn2.0.6l.DkLGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/847 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 09/18/96 16:56 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Transmutation and Joe Champion One of those reports is coming from a commercial lab on MY end. They have PLENTY of work to do, and since this was labled "non-priority" to get the most reasonable $$$, it may not be done this week, and perhaps end of next week. MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 08:33:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA14808; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:29:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:29:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Sep 96 11:27:51 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Co-deposition hypothesis Message-ID: <960919152751_72240.1256_EHB157-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"lqP-r1.0.Bd3.qRMGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/848 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Barry Merriman writes: "Here's my latest possible theory: IF the impurities are in the system already, here is a means by which they might get anomalously deep into the cathode: surface recycling. Simply put, cathode material is lost into solution (erosion, or flaking of a defective bead, or just as ions going into solution near the surface) and then is replated back onto the surface later. In so doing, it buries a layer of impurities with it, resulting in impurities deep and well mixed within the cathode surface." The impurities are not in the system already. They are nowhere near the system. Many of them, with peculiar isotopic ratios, do not exist on planet earth before the run. At least, that is what the scientists claim. They say they have rigorously reduced impurities, and measured impurities before the run, and they find some cases the mass of the anomalous elements found in the cathode is 100 times greater than all the contamination in the cell. Now that may or may not be the case. I am no expert in measuring contamination, but I do note that Mizuno and Ohmori use scavenger cathodes and other recommended methods to purify the electrolyte. The workers have solid, leak-proof containers, with Teflon walls impervious to the electrolyte. (Dash did not, but the others do.) Why didn't the scavenger cathodes draw out all this mono-isotopic copper and other impossible contamination? If anyone is going to seriously critique these experiments it seems to me he must begin by looking for a weakness in the methods used to reduce and account for contamination. Nobody raised a hand and suggested anything during the conference. Furthermore, the xenon gas cannot stick the to surface to be buried later by replating chunks of Ni. Furthermore again, some elements are distributed evenly through the Ni while others are concentrated in specific spots. And this replating mechanism has to work not just with thin film (which clearly did flake off to some extent), but with the bulk metal cathodes used by Bockris, Mizuno, Ohmori and Dash, which did not flake off and which show no sign of massive damage (except for eruptions in some areas). The bulk metal certainly does not appear to have been peeled apart and re-assembled. "Burying deep" is fine, but can it really account for putting all of the Ag on the bottom, next to the bead, while leaving Zn evenly distributed through the Ni? It all sounds highly improbable to me! You postulate leaks that nobody observes. The leaks admit contamination that does not exist on earth before the experiment: funny isotope metals and short-lived radioisotopes in some cases. The nickel all pops off the bead, allowing the silver to coat the bead at the bottom, and then the nickel hops back on in stages spreading zinc and other elements evenly throughout, while it packs in chemically inert gasses. The nickel isotopes shift (some isotopes do not hop back on?). And all of this is accompanied by anomalous excess heat, X-rays and other evidence of a nuclear energy release. Can a chemical recycling process do all of this?!? Barry concludes: "Obviously this cannot in any case ever explain the whole puzzle. But it may explain one piece through prosaic means, even if some other pieces do turn out to be anomalous. Bottom line is if you don't look for normal explanations, you are not likely to find them." My point is that even if something like surface recycling does "explain" this one piece, it is an enormous stretch! You have to assume the recycling works more powerfully anyone has ever observed it before in an electrochemical cell. You have to assume there is contamination of a most peculiar nature that nobody can see before the experiments, in run after run. You have to explain the bulk cathodes and inert gas. By the time you stretch this "prosaic" "normal" explanation to accommodate a fair fraction of the data, it is no longer prosaic -- it is more like science fiction! "Normal" explanations do not get a free pass; they require as much rigorous proof as exotic explanations, and this one is extraordinarily difficult to defend. Furthermore, as I said yesterday, it is not good scientific technique to cut the problem into small pieces and try to explain them away one at a time. I will grant this sometimes leads to the truth: coincidental, unrelated phenomena do occur in experiments. Sometimes you *do* have to explain things one at a time. But I think that when we see these thing occurring together in 20 tests at U. Chicago and dozens of other tests at Hokkaido and TAMU, it is unwise to assume the heat has no causal connection with the unexpected elements, peculiar isotopes, and other evidence. My hypothesis requires a much smaller stretch. I say it is transmutation, not invisible contamination plus recycling. As far as I am concerned, it has long been an established fact that CF cells can transmute light elements to create tritium. I do not see how anyone can argue with, say, Bockris, Fritz Will, or Claytor on that score. So all I am saying is that CF cells transmute heavy elements too. I realize this is even more difficult for nuclear physics to accommodate, because heavy, stable elements are harder to fuse or fission, but even with hydrogen we are already some 40 orders of magnitude into the realm of impossible reactions according to Tom Passell. If it takes another ten orders of magnitude (five, ten?) to make nickel into silicon, so what? The tritium and excess heat already force us to believe "six impossible things before breakfast" as the White Queen put it, so why not make it seven things by midmorning? I have a hunch that before we reach the end of this day, we will have to believe a hundred things not only impossible, but unimaginable. If you are not yet at the stage where you accept the tritium findings from Bockris, Will and Claytor then you have a ways to go before you catch up with me. People who have not reached this stage should go back and read Fritz Will's papers carefully. You have to prepare your mind for the heavy metal transmutation hypothesis. To a person not already familiar with the larger body of CF literature, it would be unscientific to suddenly believe that Miley is seeing transmutation. The hypothesis only makes sense *in the larger context of other CF experiments*. That's a key point. Barry's term "normal explanation" is interesting: normal means what you are used to, not what you understand. Nobody understands hummingbird brains or aspirin, but we accept them as normal. My hypothesis is a small stretch to a person who has already moved 40 orders of magnitude in this direction. Transmutation is already a "normal explanation" to me. To make an analogy, it would not be difficult to convince a person in 1980 that a laptop computer might someday perform a hundred million operations per second. But you could never have convinced Babbage of that, back in 1842. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 08:37:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA15450; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:32:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:32:22 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-ID: <324167F4.42EF@localaccess.com> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:34:12 -0700 Reply-To: epitaxy@localaccess.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: 2nd Thermo law is DEAD References: <199609191420.HAA11520@big.aa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"8ptfL3.0.Hn3.5UMGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/849 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: EXPERIMENT Consider two equal bottles of air, with equal pressures and different temperatures. First bottle - 100 deg. Second bottle - 0 deg. If you connect these bottles together with pipe, the temperatures in the two bottles will equalize yelding: First bottle - 50 deg. Second bottle - 50 deg. For each of the above cases (before and after mixing) answer this: What is the combined Energy of the 2 bottles ? What is the combined Entropy of the 2 bottles ? What is the difference between energy and entropy ? Do you agree that AFTER the temperature equalization these 2 bottles can not perform any work (neglecting anything outside the bottles and the connecting pipe) (Y/N) ? HOW ABOUT THIS: If you connect these 2 unequalized bottles with a Reverse Entropy device based on the model of the Syringe Wall (described in previous posts) you can render the Hot bottle cold, and the Cold bottle hot (completely transferring the energy) without any external energy input. Furthermore, even after the temperatures in the 2 bottles have equalized to 50 deg., you can use the Reverse Entropy device to SEPARATE (organize, concentrate...) the 50 deg. air in the 2 bottles, back into 100 deg. in the First bottle and 0 deg in the Second bottle. Without external energy input. What would you say about both the Energy and Entropy now ? Do you agree that after the above separation, useful work can be performed in this 2 bottle system by exploiting the air temperature difference between the 2 bottles ? TRIVIA: Air molecules on the average move with speeds of approximately 1000 MPH at room temperature. The energy in one Gallon of air under atmospheric pressure at room temperature is equal to a 2LB brick traveling at 150 MPH. (646 J for 200 deg.K temp differential). Somebody better prove me wrong here. Any criticism will be greatly appreciated. P.S. If you missed the previous posts on this subject they are available from VORTEX-L listserv starting in September, 1996. Archives of Vortex-L are available at http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html. Look for subjects SLVNC - Second Law violating nanochip, 2nd Thermo law is DEAD, entropy & energy, etc... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 08:55:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA19727; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 11:48:41 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: epitaxy@localaccess.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: 2nd Thermo law is DEAD In-Reply-To: <324167F4.42EF@localaccess.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"G4vuB2.0.8q4.alMGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/850 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Can you give us a 2 cent how-to on the 'deamon' to run the air. Nuts and bolts, please. Thanks, J On Thu, 19 Sep 1996 epitaxy@localaccess.com wrote: > EXPERIMENT > > Consider two equal bottles of air, with equal pressures and different > temperatures. > > First bottle - 100 deg. > Second bottle - 0 deg. > > If you connect these bottles together with pipe, the temperatures in the > two bottles will equalize yelding: > > First bottle - 50 deg. > Second bottle - 50 deg. > > For each of the above cases (before and after mixing) answer this: > > What is the combined Energy of the 2 bottles ? > What is the combined Entropy of the 2 bottles ? > What is the difference between energy and entropy ? > > Do you agree that AFTER the temperature equalization these 2 bottles can > not perform any work (neglecting anything outside the bottles and the > connecting pipe) (Y/N) ? > > HOW ABOUT THIS: > > If you connect these 2 unequalized bottles with a Reverse Entropy device > based on the model of the Syringe Wall (described in previous posts) you > can render the Hot bottle cold, and the Cold bottle hot (completely > transferring the energy) without any external energy input. > > Furthermore, even after the temperatures in the 2 bottles have equalized > to 50 deg., you can use the Reverse Entropy device to SEPARATE > (organize, concentrate...) the 50 deg. air in the 2 bottles, back into > 100 deg. in the First bottle and 0 deg in the Second bottle. Without > external energy input. > > What would you say about both the Energy and Entropy now ? > Do you agree that after the above separation, useful work can be > performed in this 2 bottle system by exploiting the air temperature > difference between the 2 bottles ? > > TRIVIA: Air molecules on the average move with speeds of approximately > 1000 MPH at room temperature. The energy in one Gallon of air under > atmospheric pressure at room temperature is equal to a 2LB brick > traveling at 150 MPH. (646 J for 200 deg.K temp differential). > > > Somebody better prove me wrong here. Any criticism will be greatly > appreciated. > > P.S. > If you missed the previous posts on this subject they are available > from VORTEX-L listserv starting in September, 1996. Archives of > Vortex-L are available at http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html. > Look for subjects SLVNC - Second Law violating nanochip, 2nd Thermo law > is DEAD, entropy & energy, etc... > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 08:55:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA19782; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 11:49:59 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex Subject: VME Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"mcJ3U1.0.yq4.jlMGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/851 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Looking for a little guidance in learning the ins and outs of VME bus system, anyone want to tutor a lay VME, mildly up IDE ? J From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 09:39:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA27359; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 09:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 09:25:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:29:30 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) Resent-Message-ID: <"hXWF91.0.Gh6.QFNGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/852 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Good reflections. Please elaborate more on the magnetic method of >extracting energy. > Just to be explicit, there is no "*the* magnetic method of extracting energy." This is just meant to be an impromtu brainstorming session while the Tampere issue is on low embers. Also, since you are an unidentified newbie you should be aware that I am just an amateur who feels that if someone stimulates this group in the right way, says the right thing at the right moment, the energy problem will be solved in a big way, by a giant leap. A good place to attack the problem on basic principles is the second law of thermodynamics. After all, it *is* just an assumption. That is the objective here to kick around potential methods of showing the principle is invalid in order to stimulate experimentation that would otherwise not be done. The suggested magnetic basis for violating the second law is this, that charged particles in motion through a magnetic field experience angular acceleration which at times causes photon emission at the expense of particle momentum. The idea is to transfer the energy content of emissions from a box in a magnetic field to one that is not in a magnetic field, and which is tuned to receive the cyclotron radiation of the transmitting box. This makes the radiative link betweeen the two boxes non-symmetric, thus the heat flow non-symmetric. Since momentum is conserved, and the photon has momentum, the particle emitting the photon loses momentum. The photon is emitted tangentially to the circle of motion, the cyclotron orbit of the particle in the magnetic field. The photon is emitted forward in reference to the charged particle's instantaneous direction of motion. Partcles shot down the barrel of a wiggler, i.e a device with permanent magnetic fields alternating left to right then right to left, convert some the momentum of the charged particles to photons shooting out the barrel. If this momentum conversion did not occur, then a wiggler could be used to create purpetual energy, by cycling the charged particles around a track and back through the wiggler over and over again, creating energy each cycle in the form of photon emissions. Now the issue in question: can imposing a permanent magnetic field in a gas containing ions change the radiation emission spectrum of that gas (or liquid for that matter)? If so, then the recieving box can be constructed to selectively absorb the special bands emitted by the radiating box. The radiative energy thus accumulated is at the expense of the kinetic energy of the gas in the radiating box. The heat of the receiving box should rise until the infrared radiation from the receiving box rises to match the energy flow from one way radiation from the transmitting box, and simultaneously the infrared emissions from the transmitting box fall due to the temperature drop caused by the cyclotron radiation. However, the temperature difference of the two boxes can be used to extract energy even before the radiation equilibrium is reached. Other perturbations of the radiation spectrum occur due to magnetic fields, even at low temperature and in non-ionized gas or liquids. For example, resulting Rydberg electron orbitals can cause the emission of continuous spectrum photons. The importance of the change in emission spectrum is the creation of asymmetry in the spectrum without expending energy. Asymmetry is the key violating the second law of thermodynamics. It is assumed that using permanent magnets does not require energy, an assumption which has some flaws, but should not discount the ideas too much. One difficulty is that some means of generating radiation require very high temperature plasmas. However, the electrical energy put into creating the ions in the plasma can be recovered as heat when the plasma de-ionizes. The suggestion I am making is the possibility that a Carnot type cycle can be devised to improve the utilization of the radiation imbalance created at the expense of a gas temperature drop. One strategy to improve efficiency of the magnetic method of extracting energy is to use a radiating low pressure gas to transfer energy into a high temperature high pressure gas, then extract the energy resulting from the pressure and delta temperature increases. Another method may be creating resonant cavities in magnetic fields. This method may be more applicable to electrolytes. The idea is to establish some order to the thermal motion of ions in solution in a magnetic field via resonance, "stochastic resonance". The principle of stochastic resonance is that a weak signal can be amplified in the presence of noise. I suggest the weak signal could be introduced by inducing the cylclotron frequency on thermal particles in a resonance cavity by simply imposing a static permanent magnetic field. This situation then combines the effects of spectrum alteration with stochastic resonance, i.e. using ambient noise to amplify the altered spectrum, the signal. In other words, to some degree, ordered ionic motion should result. This ordered motion assists capturing the energy electrically via diode arrays as discussed earlier. The sychronization might be helped along by inducing a small a/c signal or superimposing a small alternation of flux. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 10:10:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA03419; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 09:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 09:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960919165607.006d01f0@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: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 09:56:07 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: The World is a Dangerous Place (was: how to...heavy water) Resent-Message-ID: <"3EZOp.0.Kr.6dNGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/853 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:58 AM 9/18/96 -0700, you wrote: >I think you might be mistaking fear for wisdom. Suppose I were to >experiment with hazardous materials without first learning all the ways >they can kill me, and without first putting together the proper equipment >and learning the proper skills. Would you call me brave? If it killed >me, would it be a heroic death? I'd say I was killed by my own stupidity. Indeed, tis a fine line between bravery and stupidity, delineated only by the results. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 10:22:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA05789; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 09:59:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 09:59:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 12:52:35 -0400 From: uban@world.std.com (Jim Uban) Message-Id: <199609191652.AA16998@world.std.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: IE #8 page 30 References: <199609181652.AA01452@world.std.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"CR-mF2.0.GQ1.hlNGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/854 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin, Per your search: "What I am currently trying to do is figure out reactions that have both multiple input as well as multiple output products, such that the reaction in its entirety is exothermic, yet capable of producing heavier nuclei, without too many intervening steps." I could probably upload my program, maybe to Bill B's web page, if he has room. With it one can specify various input possibilities, and output energy range, and if desired a target output product. The program tries all combinations of the inputs (with multiples if specified), while looking for 2 outputs, then 3 outputs, on up to 10 outputs. The user can stop it at each level. Although it's pretty well optimized, it's easy to bog down a computer with too many input possibilities. I could tweak it to allow only exothermic reactions. But, I wonder why you focus on those particularly? One way that little energy output could happen and still lots of transmutations, is for endothermic and exothermic reactions to balance each other. Also, my program only looks at stable isotopes, plus 1H3. The record of 'cold fusion' seems to be a paucity of standard nuclear products (gammas and neutrons). This being the case, why not hypothesize that nature, in the case of low-energy transmutations, doesn't want to make high-energy products. Along these lines, I tend to run the program with the energy production set to 100Kev or less for any reaction. I'm guessing this is even high for 'cold fusion' reactions. Jim From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 10:58:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA14430; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:38:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:38:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 13:33:21 -0400 From: uban@world.std.com (Jim Uban) Message-Id: <199609191733.AA15397@world.std.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: VME Resent-Message-ID: <"fOxnM3.0.LX3.WKOGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/855 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The tricky thing about VME bus is that it's evolved over many years, and been stretched to accomodate advancing technology. On the other hand, it's got the hooks to allow this, so that's good. In particular, there are a variety of different address-size/data-size combinations that can happen on VME. For instance, A16/D16, A24/D32, A32/D32. There are even 64-bit extensions now, but I'm not experienced with them. An 'address modifier' specifies which address size is being referenced. An A16 and A24 address may be exactly the same (with upper 0 bits), but in fact refer to two different 'spaces'. Any given VME board (ther are thousands, and there is an industry guide available [I don't have the info just now] which lists VME boards by function) will respond in certain of the address/data ranges. 'Data bits' specify the data width for the bus operation. A block mode transfer is available for which the address is only presented once every block [I think], and then multiple cycles will transfer subsequent data items without releasing the bus. At the next block, a new arbitration for bus ownership takes place, and the DMA may stall till a higher priority board takes over. There is more than one arbitration scheme available as well. A bus access request can specify priority. Interrupts can also specify priority (0-7). Writing device drivers for a given OS to use a given VME board need to account for the A/D issue as the first level of hassle. If you are using some sort af bus adapter, such as PCI-to-VME, then there will be address 'mapping registers' to deal with to get from one bus address/data scheme to the VME scheme. Then there programmed I/O versus DMA operations. That's a quick overview (hopefully somewhat accurate). But, what do you need to do exactly? Jim From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 11:29:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA20069; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:57:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:57:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: "MHUGO@EPRI" , Vortex-L Subject: RE: On Carrel's On Correa Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:55:00 -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: <"FTWwf2.0.Sv4.XcOGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/856 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mark, Mike, other Vortexans The digital sampling must be at a rate of more then twice the highest frequency of the signal of interest. The usual way of doing this is to install an analog anti-aliasing low-pass filter as part of the input to the A/D converter. It will also cut down unwanted high frequency noise. In the case of the PAGD negative resistance oscillator, the bandwidth is quite large because of the short pulses which occur. In general, you want at least two A/D samples in the width of the pulse, better yet three or four. More than ten is a waste of computer space. This means that the bandwidth of the filter should be greater then 2/T, preferably 3/T or 4/T where T is the pulse width. In Michael Carrell's article in Infinite Energy V2 #8, 1996 he says that the capacitors charging time is about 3.2 ms. They are sampling at 80us, which is about 40 samples during the 3.2 ms pulse. The bandwidth of the anti-aliasing filter for 80 us sampling should be less than 6.25 kHz. The 80 usec sample rate is more then adequate if that is the only pulse occurring. Michael Schaffer's point that at least one full cycle of the waveform needs to be taken is important. It would be good if a complete cycle of this relaxation oscillation could be published, showing both the full current and voltage waveforms at the source battery, DP, and the battery being charged, CP. The article states the period is 2 seconds, so one cycle would involve 25000 data points. You could also multiply the current and voltage waveforms together to show the instantaneous power, and plot the input and output power waveforms on the same diagram so comparisons can be made. I would be glad to write a 'C' program to do this if you send me the necessary data. Hank Scudder ---------- From: MHUGO@EPRI To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: On Carrel's On Correa Date: Thursday, September 19, 1996 7:21AM *** Reply to note of 09/19/96 01:11 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: On Carrel's On Correa As Mike Schaffer points out, all the fancy dancing around the charging/discharing curves, all the waveform profiles, etc., are essentially MEANINGLESS! The ONLY viable method of succinctly presenting an "O/U" case is the "battery swap" method. And this, ALAS, must be performed by some agency other than the Correa's to be credible. That is a "human factor" matter, sad--but true. MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 12:20:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA07264; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 12:10:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 12:10:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Sep 96 15:09:07 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Bockris memo Message-ID: <960919190907_72240.1256_EHB161-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"MCjpK2.0.Qn1.2hPGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/857 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Here is the memo written by Distinguished Professor John O'M. Bockris and distributed at The Second International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Conference (ILENR2), September 13-14, 1996 at the Holiday Inn, College Station, Texas. WHY WE ARE NOT MEETING AT TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY I applied to the Department Head, who had sanctioned last year's Meeting. He referred it to the newly formed Chemistry Department Advisory Committee. I supplied each member of the Committee with a copy of Storm's 1996 review before the Meeting at which a vote was to be taken. I briefly addressed the Committee at the Meeting. The vote was 12 to zero negative, no abstentions. I asked the Department Head in two memos why he had voted against having the Meeting. He did not reply to this question. I spoke with a Member of the Committee and he said that the opinion was that the field did not exist, that any suggestion that it did must constitute fraud and the idea of having a Meeting to discuss it, a joke. I sent him references to the Reifenshweiler experiments described in Physics B, and refered to publications exceeding 1000 in number. He did not reply. Texas A&M ranks number 2 in the country in respect to the facilities for nuclear research within a University, (e.g., as in the Cyclotron Institute). J. O'M B 6 September 1996 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 13:18:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA19366; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 13:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 13:06:57 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-ID: <3241A832.1A78@localaccess.com> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 13:08:18 -0700 Reply-To: epitaxy@localaccess.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"6ylUP1.0.Qk4.WVQGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/858 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hey Horace, thanks for the treatise on creating asymetry with PM fields in order to organize scattered energy (reverse entropy). It just occured to me that the old principle of passing electrical current through resistor to create heat (disperse energy), also works in reverse (albeit not as well). It is well known that resistors suffer from so called thermal noise proportional to the ambient temperature. This noise is a tiny electrical AC signal, which if rectified (by a pipe dream diodes) would organize the the ambient thermal energy into nice DC electrical current, rendering the resistor cold in the process. The AC/DC bridge would be the organizing component while the resistor is merely a collector (transducer) of thermal agitation into electrical fluctuation. Now if we could identify the cause responsible for the thermal noise of the resistor and increase this effect to rectyfiable voltage levels, we would have the SLVN. What do you think ? Simple is beautiful, but often unachievable. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 14:03:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA27815; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 13:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 13:43:54 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-ID: <3241B105.1305@localaccess.com> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 13:45:57 -0700 Reply-To: epitaxy@localaccess.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: 2nd Thermo law is DEAD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"bkAqN2.0.Xo6.92RGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/859 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: My realization is that in order to organize system of chaotic particles, it is not necessary to know which particles are hot or cold. A nonlinear chemical material or EM system (as described by Horace Heffner on Vortex-L) that absorbs any energy indiscriminantly from any moving gas particle and stores this energy in a organized pattern without returning it back to the hot gas, will beat the 2nd Thermo law. Organization does not require work. ABSORB - ORGANIZE - RELEASE ...... ABSORB - ORGANIZE - RELEASE ... I have hypothesized a macroscopic mechanical analogy of such a system in the form of a wall or box built out of myriad of ratcheting syringes that store the individual particle energy INDIVIDUALY for future organized release. (look at previous post to this list) Practical application of this method may include: *mechanical nano-engineering *rectifying the electrical thermal noise of a resistor *piezoelectric chemical compounds *creating asymetry in ionized gas by the use of magnetic fields *collecting EM radiation from moving ionized particles in a PM field. *wall of electrons or ions that absorb the kinetic energy of a moving gas particle and then release it in one giant pulse like a pumped laser Living organisms organize scattered energy all the time. I'll gladly answer more specific questions. Any criticism will be appreciated. John Schnurer wrote: > > You have discussed a way to move or work with fluid particles. > Many years ago Maxwell, the scientist said 'if you had a demon, a little > tiny non energy using intelligent being which could tell the difference > between a hot particle of gas or liquid and a cold particle, and could > send the hot one down one path and the cold one down another, then you > could beat the 2nd law' ... well sort of what he said, Bill Beatty > would have said it better. > > You want to do this Bill? > > You said to look at discussion from September about this. > > I was asking would you summarize the realization or physical seyt > up on what you discussed. In a simple manner. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 14:37:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA09832; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 14:29:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 14:29:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Sep 96 17:25:22 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: ILENR2 video tapes Message-ID: <960919212522_100060.173_JHB37-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"7eBqA1.0.VP2.JjRGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/860 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed, >> Maybe we can put together a "Best of ILENR2" single tape for less money. Contact: Gene Mallove 76570.2270@compuserve.com Guang H. Lin ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu << A very good idea! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 16:11:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA00730; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:59:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:59:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:03:35 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN) Resent-Message-ID: <"YS_uU1.0.EB.E1TGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/862 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Hey Horace, thanks for the treatise on creating asymetry with PM fields >in order to organize scattered energy (reverse entropy). > >It just occured to me that the old principle of passing electrical >current through resistor to create heat (disperse energy), also works in >reverse (albeit not as well). It is well known that resistors suffer >from so called thermal noise proportional to the ambient temperature. >This noise is a tiny electrical AC signal, which if rectified (by a pipe >dream diodes) would organize the the ambient thermal energy into nice DC >electrical current, rendering the resistor cold in the process. The >AC/DC bridge would be the organizing component while the resistor is >merely a collector (transducer) of thermal agitation into electrical >fluctuation. > >Now if we could identify the cause responsible for the thermal noise of >the resistor and increase this effect to rectyfiable voltage levels, we >would have the SLVN. > >What do you think ? > >Simple is beautiful, but often unachievable. This is a great idea, except the noise level is way down below the forward bias potential of the resistor. This is just like the electrolytic cell, except you don't have the big atoms getting pushed around by heat, just the little electrons. Not so easy as to push the big atoms over to the diodes so when electronation occurs bingo, the gas is out of here one-way with lift energy to boot. The resistor is just too symmetrical. However, maybe there is still something to work on here. Suppose the resistor is placed in a strong magnetic field and the cyclotron frequency for that field B is used (in small measure, at least initially) to stimulate the resistor. Suppose also that the resistor is made very long in an attempt to utilize stochastic resonance to amplify the signal. Once current flows it provides it's own DC bias, just like the bubbles going up the tube provide the continuing fluid flow, thus current flow, in the prior model. A nifty way to provide some signal feedback may be to attach a ferrite core to the resistor and put one or more loops around it (and maybe the resistor also) carring the current to feed back to the input side of the resisitor. This would have the effect of acting as a sonic and magnetic transducer simultaneously, converting some of the feedback signal into a perturberance of B and some into an accoustical vibration of the resistor. Assming the resistor is carbon, this should cause a microphone effect. If such a device should work at all it would tend to "run away", so would need control circuitry like a voltage or current controlled power drain. The advantage is it's all solid state and simple. The disadvantage is it's less likely to work than the electrolysis model due to insufficient asymmetry, and you don't get storable energy. No problem with storing, though, you can simply run an electrolysis unit. Some of the energy would have to be used to drive a fan or other device for re-heating the resistor, but that's a small problem. Much of the re-heating is taken care of by the current. Just a little more grist. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 16:17:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA00679; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:03:28 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: 2nd Thermo law is DEAD Resent-Message-ID: <"1vVNi1.0.XA.31TGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/861 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >My realization is that in order to organize system of chaotic particles, >it is not necessary to know which particles are hot or cold. A >nonlinear chemical material or EM system (as described by Horace Heffner >on Vortex-L) that absorbs any energy indiscriminantly from any moving >gas particle and stores this energy in a organized pattern without >returning it back to the hot gas, will beat the 2nd Thermo law. >Organization does not require work. > >ABSORB - ORGANIZE - RELEASE ...... ABSORB - ORGANIZE - RELEASE ... > >I have hypothesized a macroscopic mechanical analogy of such a system in >the form of a wall or box built out of myriad of ratcheting syringes >that store the individual particle energy INDIVIDUALY for future >organized release. (look at previous post to this list) > >Practical application of this method may include: > >*mechanical nano-engineering >*rectifying the electrical thermal noise of a resistor >*piezoelectric chemical compounds >*creating asymetry in ionized gas by the use of magnetic fields >*collecting EM radiation from moving ionized particles in a PM field. >*wall of electrons or ions that absorb the kinetic energy of a moving >gas particle and then release it in one giant pulse like a pumped laser > >Living organisms organize scattered energy all the time. > >I'll gladly answer more specific questions. Any criticism will be >appreciated. > I think you have the problem reversed. If you were to design such a ratchet (i.e. that would work without the mother-in-laws, :), you would find that it will not work with thermally driven fluctuations, or "white noise", at least according to "The Feynman Lectures in Physics". The problem is actually the other way around - to create an asymmetry in the noise to permit a ratchet to work. It appears to me that electrolysis plus diodes can do just that, provide the assymetry plus the ratchet. It is ironic that such an effect would occur to some degree in a patterson power cell (involving a rectifier in the power supply), and would *cool* the electrolyte, even though the bubble lift etc. would increase the evolved gasses and electrolysis current. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 16:58:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA11748; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3241DB9F.7DE14518@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:47:43 -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: Bockris memo References: <960919190907_72240.1256_EHB161-2@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"tCPJC1.0.Qt2.AlTGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/865 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: While I personally object to the way TAMU has treated Bockris, I don't feel their motives have anything to do with scientific dogma, or biases against unusual research per se. In this case, I think its clear they want to distance themselves from Bockris & co because of the ``scandal'' related to transmutation work Bockris did with Monti and Champion in the early 90's, the fallout of which was two of the principals went to jail, the results were not replicated, and undoubtedly there was a inquiry into how the university handled funds that were received, due to the severe missappropriations of funds that occured. Probably Jed could fill us in on precisely what happened. I just point it out to note that there are some understandable reasons why TAMU is not on good terms with Bockris. -- 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 Sep 19 17:00:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA10999; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:45:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:45:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:49:53 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: 2nd Thermo law is DEAD, SLVN, etc. Resent-Message-ID: <"qfsFu3.0.ih2.jiTGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/863 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Well I found where some of my problem is with my lost posts. epitaxy has "reply to" set to himself, while most other posts have "reply to" set to vortex. my replies are going directly to epitaxy only unless I do a "reply to all" at my end. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 17:05:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA11076; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:49:58 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: SLVN Summary Resent-Message-ID: <"adh112.0.vi2.xiTGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/864 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >Now if we could identify the cause responsible for the thermal noise of >the resistor and increase this effect to rectyfiable voltage levels, we >would have the SLVN. > >What do you think ? > >Simple is beautiful, but often unachievable. I think a potentially working SLVN and it's environment is already pretty fully specified. Of course there are lots of possible variations, like making the substrate a P (or N) material instead of having PN (or NP) above the substrate, use of various electrolytes, magnetic fields, etc. Let me consolidate the material to make it more clear: GENERAL The purpose here is to discuss issues regarding the construction of a Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN). The goal is to design a device that demonstrates that the assumed Second Law of Thermodynamics is invalid by showing that it is possible to extract heat from one of two equal temperature compartments to increase the temperature of the second compartment. That is to say, extract kinetic energy from matter in the first compartment, convert it to electrical energy, and heat the second compartment via a joule heater. THE PIEZO-KINETIC APPROACH Let us consider the possiblility of manufacturing a chip with very thin very small piezoelectric crystals on the surface connected to integrated fullwave diode bridges. The output of all the tiny bridges would be collected together, the chip placed into a heavy noble gas. Suppose the chip is placed in a compartment adjacent to which is another compartment at the same temperature. The chip drives a joule heater in the second compartment. At some operating temperature it might be possible to convert kinetic energy from one compartment to electrical energy, which is then transferred to the kinetic energy of the second compartment. The difficulty is making the chip so it will not be destroyed by the operating temperature and the piezoelectric crystals small enough in area compared to the size of the impinging gas molecule, so that the voltage generated by the piezo-compression is sufficient to make it through the diode bridge, i.e. to overcome the diode forward bias potential. The peizo must have a small surface area to prevent the charge being spread over a wide plate, thus reducing the voltage. Any required energy requirement can be met by utilizing a sufficient particle energy, or operating temperature. The main difficulties are achiving a small piezo area, a small integrated fulwave bridge in the same cross section, and low enough diode forward bias. For a rough first cut at this assume an operating temp of 300 K. Since 1 eV = 11,600 K, at 300 K the typical particle in a gas will have an energy of 300/11,600 eV = .026 eV = .026 * (1.602 x 10^-19 J/eV) = 4.166 x 10^-21 J. Let's assume we want to charge a capacitor to .3 V. Since E = .5(C)V^2 we get C = 2E/V^2 = 2*(4.166 x 10^-21 J)/.09 F = 9.76 x 10^-20 F. Now C = Ke (A/w) (8.85 x 10^-12 F) where Ke is the dielectric constant, A is the plate area in m, and w is the thickness of the capacitor in m. For the sake of simplicity and to get scale, let's assume A = w^2, and Ke = 4, so C = 3.54 x 10^-11 F/m * w. So now w = (9.76 x 10^-20 F)/(3.54 x 10^-11 F/m) = 2.76 x 10^-9 m. The structure size for the device should be in the range of about 27.6 Angstroms. The atomic radii of Si, O, and Au are 1.46 A, .65 A, and 1.79 A respectively. So 27 A represents a structure about 7-10 atoms across. However, this assumes a perfectly non-elastic collision every time (estimate optimistic), yet the kinetic energy of a gas is a distribution, so many collisions will be more energetic, some much more so (estimate pessimistic). So, what does this say? The design is infeasible. The structures are too small to be practical or functional. The difficulty centers about the need to focus on a small enough area a sufficient amount of energy to overcome the forward bias of the diode. The forward bias sets a minimumn voltage level, which sets a maximum surface area over which the generated charge is to be distributed. If the forward bias of the diode were zero then there would be no upper limit to the size of the energy trapping structure, but like with browian motion, smaller gives more of a result. What about power? If such a device can be built that works at all, then there is a very good potential for significant energy production. This is because, assuming some of the generated energy is returned to stir the gas, a very large percentage of the molecules will connect with the sides of the container per second. This means a significant portion of the specific heat of the gas could be drained off per second. One problem with the chip might be maintaining balance, not cooling the compartment so much the energy is not transferred and yet not overheating the chip. But those are much easier problems. THE CHARGE-TRANSPORT APPROACH Having seen some of the difficulties of extracting energy from neutral gas particles, it is now easier to appreciate the advantages of extracting energy from an electrolyte. Here, the idea is to use local charge fluctuations, thus indirectly heat, in an electrolyte to drive the chip. Similar particle kinetic energies apply, based on temperature, however, the energy of individual particles (or clusters of particles, or even large brownian type particles) is expended driving a charged particle to an electrode, as opposed to driving a neutral particle to a crystal to generate a piezo electric effect. One adavntage of this approach is that the operation directly results in electrical energy. Other advantages are increased efficiency due to less generation of heat from the resulting collisions, and a reduction in the number of parts to each element on the nano-chip (only a diode and protective covering is required.) The method is to build the chip out of vertical diodes separated, i.e. surrounded by, a lattice of insulating material. Two type of chips could be built, positve exposed end (PEE) and negative exposed end (NEE) diodes, as opposed to NP or PN. The diodes would have one end attached to a shared conducting plane, the other end exposed to the electrolyte. Except for the conducting plane shared in common, the diodes would be electrically isolated from each other except through the electrolyte. The face of each diode would be hardened with a layer of gold. A PEE chip could be manufactured, for example, by building, on top of a substrate, an N doped layer, then a P doped layer, followed by a Gold layer. This could be followed by cutting a lattice of grooves, leaving a matrix of small independent diodes, and then filling the groves with an electrolyte impervious insulating material and then removing the top layer of insulating material sufficiently to expose the gold contact points but not the diode material. The resulting PEE SLVN would look like the following: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HHHHHHHH GGGGGGGG HHHHHHHH GGGGGGGG HHHHHHHH GGGGGGGG HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHH GGGGGGGG HHHHHHHH GGGGGGGG HHHHHHHH GGGGGGGG HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHH PPPPPPPP HHHHHHHH PPPPPPPP HHHHHHHH PPPPPPPP HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHH PPPPPPPP HHHHHHHH PPPPPPPP HHHHHHHH PPPPPPPP HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHH NNNNNNNN HHHHHHHH NNNNNNNN HHHHHHHH NNNNNNNN HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHH NNNNNNNN HHHHHHHH NNNNNNNN HHHHHHHH NNNNNNNN HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHH SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHH SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH E - electrolyte, G - gold or other protective conductor, H - insulating material impervious to electrolyte, N - N type semiconductor P - P type semiconductor S - substrate A PEE type array and a NEE type array would be placed in an electrolyte simulataneously. As the random motion of the liquid would bring charges close, and then move them away, the induced field in the diodes would cause current to flow, but primarily in accord with the diode polarity. Moving the charges away from the exposed diode ends would reduce the kinetic energy of the electrolyte. A charge would be build up on the exposed end of the diode which would eventually attract an ion that would be neutralized. Electrolysis would result. This brings the diode back to a neutral positon to recycle. Three good things happen: the electrolyte cools, current is available, and electrolysis occurs. It seems reasonable that this is a workable idea, based upon the problems and limits of chip miniaturization. One limit is power density, but another is the fact that molecules bouncing off chips produce electric pulses. The fact that the electric pulses can be significant at some level of miniaturization means that impacting molecules are able to generate voltages in excess of the minimum to required to exceed the diode or transistor bias. However, to make the design more practical and immediately implementable, a method is now suggested to overcome the diode bias potential, the PN forward barrier potential, and thus increase the maximum size of the nano-structures required to extract the kinetic energy of the electrolyte. The method suggested is to capacitively bias the interface, to establish a field gradient that increases the ion concentration and charge in the vicinity of the chip surface. Here is a suggested arrangement: ++++++++++++++ ----------------- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE PPPPPPPPPPPPPP EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII + - a positive conductive plate - - a negative conductive plate I - insulating wall of electrolyte container E - electrolyte N - NEE chip P - PEE chip The PEE and NEE chips would be electrically connected via a power extraction device. Such a power extraction device might include a pump of some kind to move the electrolytic fluid. Such movement, in addition to assisting in degassification, would actually increase the electrolysis. It should be noted that such electrolysis resulting strictly from electrolyte flow, i.e. energy extraction from the the fluid flow, is exactly offset by pump power requirements. The movement of charge against a field gradient increases the fluid flow resistance. The main advantage of this approach is to bias the input potential to the diode array by jamming a large number of ions of the correct potential toward the surface of the diode array, thus minimizing the size of fluctuations in potential required to cause current flow across the diode forward potential barrier. Note that no energy is extracted from the charged metal plates which create this bias potential, as they are insulated from the electrolyte. The + plate drives + ions toward the P type semiconductor, which positively biases the the P side of the PN junction. This bias allows the small ionic noise voltage oscillations to generate current across the junction. If a plus charge is lost to the diode current, this creates a plus deficit or net negative charge on the surface of the PEE chip. This charge deficit is made up through electrolyte diffusion, thus heat is extracted from the diffusion processs itself. If the fluid is flowing then this process is further enhanced. Due to the statistical effects of the motion, electrical noise level and the oscillating potentials in an electrolyte, especially a flowing electrolyte, can get fairly high compared to the potential a single charged particle can cause. A kind of macro level thing happens, similar to brownian motion. It could possibly be enhanced with colloids. Of course pumping, H2 extraction, etc., are simply practical matters. The electrical power generated could also be used to heat the theoretically all important second compartment. The important issue here is hope. If the Second Law is dead, there is then solid hope for "the" energy solution. A successful yet very small scale demonstration would be of very great scientific and practical value. The present chip technology keeps getting smaller and smaller, and the diodes and transistors in them work very reliably. Someday nanotechnology will catch up to thermodynamics and change the rules. The question is, are we close enough today? It appears we are. Maybe the macro side of things is the place to start. I don't want to minimize that even though the diode I/V curve is very flat until the barrier potential is reached, *some current* must be provided to maintain the bias, and that current increases as the barrier potential is approached. Capacitive bias will not do the whole job. That's where fluid motion comes in. I have an idea for a way to prime the pump, so to speak. The idea is to have two tall columns of electrolyte (probably in a well casing in a practical application). Set up a very high voltage bias (e.g. 20,000V) on the capacitive plates. Use a pump to start the electolyte around a loop that inlcudes the two columns - one up - one down. Put the bias electrodes around the up column. Inside the up column is simply a wire, or even a wire connecting the two SLVN chips. Immediately, due to the electrolyte pumping, electrolysis should start. You don't even need chips to do that, just a conductor in the electrolyte opposite to and between the two outside capacitive plates. Now, the gas bubbles will start to rise. As the bubbles rise they will expand as well. The up column will be lighter than the down column. The process will also provide the small bias current needed by the plates to generate electrical energy. The process could become self-sustaining without the pump due to the bubble lift providing the fluid motion. Not a large electrolyte flow is necessary to gain some current flow to maintain the bias, or even to produce the electrolysis products. The place to start may be in quantifying some of this, emperically. It is interresting that John Logajan had some posts at one time about the seeming imperviousness of electrolysis energy requirements to pressure. He had an experiment where hundreds of pounds of pressure were generated by electrolysis at the points of a spark plug mounted in a sealed steal cylinder. The electrolysis products are proportional to current, the current is proportional to the overvoltage. The question then is - at a fixed voltage of electrolysis, is the overvoltage reduced by increasing pressure? If not - there is an opportunity for o-u right there. Instead of a 300 foot well, go for a 2000 ft. well, or maybe the ocean, and really get some energy out of the electrolysis bubble lift! Here is another single electrode gas separating bubble lift electrolysis device design relating to earlier discussions: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I G G I I G G I I O2 G G I I G G O2 I I G H2 G I I G G I I G G I +I G PP G I+ +I G PP G I+ +I GH3+P G I+ +I G PP G I+ +I PP I+ +I PP I+ +I PP H2 I+ +I PP I+ +IOH- PP I+ +I H3+PP OH-I+ +I PP H3+ I+ +I PP I+ +I PP I+ I I I I I I I ^ ^ IIIIIIIIIIIIII I | | I -------------<----- H2O I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII + - capacitive (no current) anode plates I - insulating tubing (or plates) G - grounded metal tube (or plates) P - PEE type SLVN connected to load and then ground (or even simply a grounded metal electrode, just to get electrolysis) Note that there is no electrolysis current provided, only fluid flow. The grounded metal tube (or plates) has a lateral electric current through it generated by OH- and H3+ charges driven to it my mutual attraction once they are no longer in the capacitor field gradient. It would be possible to make the grounded metal G into two tubes (or plates) separated by an insulator - and then extract and utilize the electrical current between them. Note also that the bubbles generated assist the fluid flow. The up column above this device is lighter than the return column for the H2O. The operating outer plate voltage might operate at a potential of 20 KV. References courtesy of Dr. Hal Puthoff: Yater, Power conversion of energy fluctuations," Phys. Rev. A 10, 1361 (1974); Comments by EerNisse, Phys Rev A 18, 767 (1978); Rebuttal by Yater, Phys Rev A 20, 623 (1979). Articles by Maddox in Nature with titles "Directed motion from random noise," and "Bringing more order out of noisiness," both in vol 369, pp. 181 and 271 (1994). J. Travis, "Making light work of Brownian motion," Science 267, 1593 (1995). Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 17:15:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA14709; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:57:50 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Reports of unusual phenomena Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"HSjYl1.0.gb3.uvTGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/867 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I've been futzing with CGI and have set up a primitive database using a "guestbook" script. It lets WWW users post descriptions of unusual phenomena they've witnessed. http://www.halcyon.com/sciclub/cgi-pvt/unusual/unusual.html ...or follow the UNUSUAL PHENOMENA link on WEIRD SCIENCE page. .....................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 Sep 19 17:16:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA14436; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3241DE2E.4487EB71@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:58:38 -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: ILENR2 video tapes References: <960919212522_100060.173_JHB37-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ERzUu1.0.RX3.1vTGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/866 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed said: > > Maybe we can put together a "Best of ILENR2" single tape for > less money. and in response to my comment: the organizers allowed a several people to speak who had no business presenting at any sort of scientific meeting. Anyone present can readily identify those folks . . ." Jed also said: >No, I cannot. Please identify them for us. Uh, If you have no idea which speakers were giving the totally flaky presentations, exactly what criteria are you going to use to put together this highly condensed ``best of'' tape? Since you seem to need guidance, I suggest the ``best of'' tape should consist of the fellow who delivered the sermon on the wonders of Brown's gas, the fellow who believes everything is a plasmoid, the russian who thinks everything reduces to some sort of electron and postitron interaction and is fond of biblical quotes, the cincinati group who eliminate radioactivity through divine guidance, and, oh, say the french alchemist who is creating superheavy elements with classical alchemy. I think it also important to include the parts where it is made clear that chickens tranmute Mg into Ca to make eggs. Doesn't everyone agree thats worth the price? ;-) -- 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 Sep 19 17:48:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA22678; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 17:38:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 17:38:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 17:38:25 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: vortex users list Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"P0yFE3.0.BY5.7UUGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/868 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Here is the file of Vortex-L users and contact info. It's at http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/vortex/vuser.html This is for the convenience of the group, and isn't linked elsewhere. If you want your name and personal info added to this list, send me your blurb. .....................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 Up to SCIENCE HOBBYIST | Up to VORTEX-L Vortex-L Discussion Group _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Beaty Electrical engineer, programmer, science 7040 22nd Ave NW exhibit designer. Currently at Eaton/ Seattle, WA 98117 Cutler-Hammer Optoelectronics. Long time email: billb@eskimo.com fascination with science teaching, hobby http://www.eskimo.com/~billb physics, and the damp, dark underbelly of phone: 206-781-3320 (USA) science from whence comes creativity, lists: vortex-L, freenrg-L crackpots, and earthshaking new discoveries. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Butcher email: michael@enterprise.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Huffman email: Knuke@aa.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mandeville Electronic publisher at MetaSyn Media all contact information for me is at http://www.aa.net/~mwm email:mwm@aa.net Primary focus: paradigm shift in Physics, Archeology, Life Extension, Spirituality, & Cyberspace Bringing home the bacon by web page construction, internet consulting, and information filtering for a variety of clients; work in progress to create a full service website with deep layers of support software for publishing and commercial grade services. My favorite hobby besides geology is a book to be called "Flight of the Phoenix", which is an interpretative study of the oldest message on Earth, the ancient Egyptian's valient effort to warn all succeding generations about the inevitability of "The Event", which is a major, sudden tectonic movement of the Earth's crust which continually re-occurs every so often, often enough that humanity has a collective but very dim memory of at least three such "Events". -------------------------------------------------------------------------- R & D Nafziger email:nafziger@wat.hookup.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gudmund Rapp email:grappo@bahnhof.se -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Henry J. Scudder email: hjscudde@pacbell.com(home), hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com>(work) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- William A. Stehl 708 Rocky Trail Road Henderson, NV 89014 email:wstehl@intermind.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Strojny email: edstrojny@worldnet.att.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robin van Spaandonk email: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ This page is on the Eskimo North service, in Seattle, WA. Try the Main Eskimo home page, and users' Individual home pages too. _________________________________________________________________ Mail me at: billb@eskimo.com If you are using Lynx, type "c" to send me a comment. billb@eskimo.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 18:05:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA27253; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 18:00:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 18:00:05 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 20:58:03 -0400 Message-ID: <960919205803_526192560@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, GeorgeHM@aol.com, CldFusion@aol.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, 72240.1256@compuserve.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, Puthoff@aol.com, RMCarrell@aol.com, fstenger@interlaced.net, 101544.702@compuserve.com, RVargo1062@aol.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov Subject: Yusmar day #1 Johnstown data. Resent-Message-ID: <"TdUJO3.0.if6.IoUGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/869 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Yury & Sammone arrived at 9:00 A.M. in Johnstown Pa. onboard amtrack. I picked them up and took them to breakfast . I also found them a room near our shop. John Barron worked all night reading the test stand. At first we had some problems with leaks that were promptly corrected. The Yusmar was run steady state with heat exhausted through a water / water heat exchangers. These heat exchanger are of a type used on hydraulic after coolers. INPUT Input power was measured by a ITT MX/1200s single phase watt meter. The meter's electrical inputs were connected phase to phase on the 3 phase 460 volt circuit. The phase lead was wrapped twice around the current transformer. I was advised that this method allows a single phase watt meter to read 3 phase power on a balanced 3 phase load. The meter read 7.1 kilo watts. Input voltage was measured at 460 volts and input current was measured at 11 amps. These measurments were taken with seperate meters. 1.73 x 460 x 11 x .8 = 7 KW The input powers as determined by the two methods were consistant. Flow from the heat exchanger to waste was measured by filling a gallon bucket and timing the flow with a stop watch. The flow was 1.6 gallons per minute. Delta T was measured with mechanical thermometers mounted to the heat exchangers. These readings were double checked with a liquid filled lab thermometer. The mechanical thermometers read within 2 deg F of the lab thermometer. The steady state delta T was at 30 deg F .15 x 30 x 1.6 = 7.2 KW Yury made many adjustments. We let the device run for six hours. The assembly came to thermal equalibrium within an hour. Measurements were taken after thermal equalibrium was obtained. We found that with the heat exchangers valved out the temperature of the rig rose at 2 deg f / minute. This rise was consistant thouughout the day and consistant in athe range from 90 to 150 deg f. We did not allow the device to exceed 150deg F due to the fact that the pump motor is glycol filled and it would boil and ruin the motor if we let it get hotter. I guess our measurements were accurate to within 8%. A day of tests are planned for tomorrow. I don't expect anything much different. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 18:44:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA01548; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 18:25:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 18:25:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 18:22:27 -0700 Message-Id: <199609200122.SAA20330@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: Antigravity skeptic Resent-Message-ID: <"dFPxe3.0.6O.z9VGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/870 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Hey, you want to hear a *really* crackpot theory? > >Jillions of gravitons spewing from every infintessimal little bit of mass in >the universe, passing through most but somehow accurately landing on every >other infintessimal little bit of mass in the universe. Is nature so stoopid as >to endorse that kind of network topology to communicate a notion as important >as gravity? > >Gravity is an acceleration. > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > That's ok, all of those little gravitons are still bombarding it! Crackpot theory huh??? HMMMM??? Guess that make me a crackpot alright. Well, if you think of the gravitons not as little things that know where to go and how hard to pull, but instead you think of us as being fish in a huge ocean we call "universe", then it is not so far fetched. And if you consider yourself as a log in that ocean, then it is not so hard to see that such a log would be thrust toward shore due to interference with the waves transiting the ocean. So, here I sit, slammed into the ground by waves in aether. Sure wish I knew how to swim. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 18:52:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA05885; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 18:44:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 18:44:42 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: When all hypotheses appear impossible . Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 01:43:47 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3252337c.47803128@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960918170646_72240.1256_EHB136-1@CompuServe.COM> <3240F9F3.ABD322C@math.ucla.edu> In-Reply-To: <3240F9F3.ABD322C@math.ucla.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"faAiD1.0.qR1.8SVGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/871 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:44:51 -0700, Barry Merriman wrote: [snip] >Here's my latest possible theory: IF the impurities are in the=20 >system already, here is a means by which they might get=20 >anomalously deep into the cathode: surface recycling. > >Simply put, cathode material is lost into solution (erosion,=20 >or flaking of a defective bead, or just as ions going into solution >near the surface) and then is replated back onto the surface later. In >so doing, it buries a layer of impurites with it, resulting in=20 >impurities deep and well mixed within the cathode surface. >Co-deposition could ensure good mixing as well. [snip] Wouldn't this lead to a more or less uniform layer of impurities from the surface down to a given depth?=20 Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 19 19:07:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA09416; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 18:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 18:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3241FA47.62319AC4@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 18:58:31 -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: ILENR2 video tapes References: <960919212522_100060.173_JHB37-1@CompuServe.COM> <3241DE2E.4487EB71@math.ucla.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"dzQo83.0.yI2.FfVGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/872 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > and in response to my comment: > > the organizers allowed a several people to speak who had no > business presenting at any sort of scientific meeting. > Anyone present can readily identify those folks . . ." > > Jed also said: > > >No, I cannot. Please identify them for us. > One more minor point. I think the organizers may have made rather liberal use of the title ``Dr.'' when listing the participants and speakers. For example, I'd be surprised if the speaker Dr. Lewis were a doctor of anything, since he said he had never given a presentation at a conference (or anywhere?) before, and he seemed to have little technical knowledge to speak of. Personally, wether a person has a PhD doesn't mean a great deal to me. However, I am suspicious when the title is bestowed on those who _don't_ have one. -- 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 Sep 19 19:12:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA11745; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3241FC9C.63DECDAD@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:08:28 -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: When all hypotheses appear impossible . References: <960918170646_72240.1256_EHB136-1@CompuServe.COM> <3240F9F3.ABD322C@math.ucla.edu> <3252337c.47803128@mail.netspace.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"RfntU.0.Rt2.VoVGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/873 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:44:51 -0700, Barry Merriman wrote: > [snip] > >Here's my latest possible theory: IF the impurities are in the > >system already, here is a means by which they might get > >anomalously deep into the cathode: surface recycling. > > > Wouldn't this lead to a more or less uniform layer of impurities from > the surface down to a given depth? > Hard to say. In the real world, folks such as I work with do detailed Monte-Carlo simulations to find out where redepostied material ends up, and how the elements involved are distrubuted. Even experimentally it is a complicated process to understand if several elements are present. -- 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 Sep 19 19:21:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA13757; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:17:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:17:22 -0700 (PDT) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 22:16:38 -0400 Message-ID: <960919221637_288904844@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Carrell, Mike on Correa Resent-Message-ID: <"GMLst.0.pM3.nwVGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/874 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gentlemen: I applaud the recent comments on my article because it shows someone actually read it, and read it thoughtfully. The points are well taken, but I should have given greater emphasis to the statement at the top of page 14: "Actual measurements...show that no current flows out of the DP or into the CP except from the PAGD energy pulses." Analysis of the charge energy in C3 and C5 is irrelevant; they are coupling capacitors intended to convey the discharge energy to the load. The reactor simply shuts down between pulses and no current flows. The following four paragraphs elaborate on this point. The circuit shown exists to collect the energy from the PAGD and does not actually cause the energy to appear. In the last paragraph cited above I paraphrase Correa: "The PAGD phenomenon, with its energy yield, can be evoked without C3, C5, or any of the attached circuitry..." This effectively answers the first point raised by Michael Schaffer. He is correct in that the pulse waveforms in Fig. 4 are not comprehensive proof of o/u without the additional datum that the reactor goes quiet and no current flows out of the DP or into the CP. Mark Hugo raised the question about the possibility of the arrangement being an elaborate strobe oscillator about the same time I was asking myself the same question. My analysis of the question is covered on the last column of Page 13 and the beginning of Page 14, cited above. I can't give any better answer as to *why* the reactor shuts down than that given in the article. As for the digitizer, of course it can be misused. I just finished talking to Correa and I asked him again to identify the equipment and he again refused because a) he didn't want to give an endorsement, and b) he didn't want to give hints as to the current direction of his research. Keep in mind that the patents, and the article, reflect his work in the 1992 time period. He did assure me that the instrument has differential probes. In sidebar conversation with a member of the vortex community, the question was raised about the simultaneity of the voltage and current measurements in a floating system using high voltages. I pointed out that it is completely within the state of the art to build a multichannel sampling instrument with four or more differential amplifiers capable of measuring the currents and voltages effectively simultaneously. I have at hand a 1982(!) Analog Devices handbook listing a 16 bit A/D converter with a 35us conversion time. That gives you 90 db dynamic range. The measurements of Fig. 4 were made with an 80 us sampling time. The original curves sent by Correa show discrete steps at 1.6ms time increments, which probably reflects the granularity of the plotting program, rather than the granularity of the measured data. The curves of Fig. 4 are smoothed but faithful replicas of the furnished data. If anyone seriously wants to see photocopies of the originals, I will charter a USPS snail to carry them. There are three pages; the other two show data for other conditions which were not useful for the article. I should reiterate that the curves of Fig. 4 are for specific conditions, not necessarily those of any of the other data shown, and will vary considerably with the operating pulse rate. There is obviously no magic in "digital" or "computer" -- er, sorry, digital computers can produce a very convincing representation of President Kennedy shaking hands with Forrest Gump. However, I find no reason to question the authenticity of the curves of Fig. 4. There are three errors, all ones of my computation or transcription. One was pointed out by Mitchell Swartz and I posted a correction and new approximation a few days ago. The detailed corrections to charge and energy yield estimates will be published as errata in IE #9. The corrections do not change the conclusion which is self-evident on inspection of the curves themselves. As for the battery tests, the points are well taken. I thought I meade it clear in the article that the Correas are also acutely aware of the hazards of using batteries as integrators. The whole purpose of Fig. 5 is to illustrate in a graphical, "time line" way the procedure which was used in obtaining the data presented as Table 8 in the '989 patent, reproduced in part in IE# 7. The purpose of Table 8, by the way, was not to demonstrate o/u but to show a body of tests of different reactor constructions and operating modes. Some worked better than others, using a common measurement protocol. Remember that the purpose was to establish a patent position, not to satisfy a thesis committee. I would ask the EE's among us what they would have done with limited resources, seeing the energy burst waveforms on storage scopes, but needing to measure overall energy yield? The Correas didn't have the digital instrumentation when the patents were applied for. The most important o/u test is the one for which there is the least numerical data, the battery swapping experiment schematically shown in Fig. 7. I asked Correa for further information, he said simply that he switched the battery positions every hour for eight hours. Numerical data was taken, but these are in reports which are confidential. He did say that both battery packs gained energy in the test. One can cut apart the four sets of evidence (Figs. 4,5,6,7), find flaws in each, and conclude that an air-tight case has not been made. However, the four sets of data each support the same conclusion by somewhat different means. I believe I have made an appropriate response to the comments on vortex. If there are loose ends, I will endeavor to tidy up in public or private. I've provided an overview, but if you want to really grapple with the PAGD phenomenon, wade through the patents and bone up on the works of Harold Aspden. In particular, look up "The Law of Electrodynamics" in the Journal of the Franklin Institute, Feb. 1969, V.287 #2. I am part way through three of his books and his aether science is beginning to make sense, or perhaps it is simply that I'm getting used to the words. Gentlemen, this is a vacuum energy device, not a fancy strobe relaxation oscillator. The actual phenomena in the discharge vortex is quite complex. It gradually dawns on you that carriers of greatly different mass -- ions and electrons -- are involved, and Aspden's law of electrodynamics (cited above) demonstrates that very strong longitudinal forces can result. Now we are into new physics, wherein there can be coupling between the vacuum energy and a useful circuit. I won't pretend to understand -- much less defend -- this now, but I see some very interesting scenery through the window of the tour bus. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 19:46:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA19253; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <324204CC.13728473@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:43:24 -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: Carrell, Mike on Correa References: <960919221637_288904844@emout05.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"dZtp32.0.ji4.KJWGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/875 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: RMCarrell@aol.com wrote: > > Gentlemen, this is a vacuum energy device Gee, you seemed to have reached amazing conclusion pretty quickly, expecially when the inventor will not divulge key information to you. I have one question. I don;t claim to understand the device, since I have been out of the loop. But it was discussed at dinner somewhat at the conference. My question, and that of M Swartz as well, is: why can;t they put a simple resistive load between the battereis as well, and integrate up the I*V losses in it to show, after many cycles, that it has dissipated, say, 10 times the energy that could have possibly been stored in the batteries. Forget battery swapping---adding a simple known load would suffice. -- 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 Sep 19 20:01:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA22271; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960920030354.006da754@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: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 20:03:54 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: 2nd Thermo law is DEAD (not) Resent-Message-ID: <"qdKGU3.0.vR5.jWWGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/876 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >> TRIVIA: Air molecules on the average move with speeds of approximately >> 1000 MPH at room temperature. The energy in one Gallon of air under >> atmospheric pressure at room temperature is equal to a 2LB brick >> traveling at 150 MPH. (646 J for 200 deg.K temp differential). >> >> >> Somebody better prove me wrong here. Any criticism will be greatly >> appreciated. Where did you get 1000 mph at room temperature? I heard 100 somewhere, and then read in a book 20 mph for oxygen at 20 degrees centigrade. Hardly 1000 mph but would like to check the source. >> Furthermore, even after the temperatures in the 2 bottles have equalized >> to 50 deg., you can use the Reverse Entropy device to SEPARATE >> (organize, concentrate...) the 50 deg. air in the 2 bottles, back into >> 100 deg. in the First bottle and 0 deg in the Second bottle. Without >> external energy input. This is unproven. The glory is in the proving rather than the musing. Back to the research Egore. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 20:56:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA01066; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 20:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 20:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Sep 96 23:51:59 EDT From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: More on Plant Power for Power Plants Message-ID: <960920035159_76570.2270_FHU45-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"B9no02.0.ZG.7LXGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/877 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Vortexians: When Nature magazine takes something "weird" very seriously, what does one make of that? The following article appeared in NATURE * VOL 383 12 SEPTEMBER 1996, 112. Complete with a wonderful color photo of the inventor making his brew. This artiocle provides more details than the original newspaper article. Shades of Gunnerman, indeed! Gene Mallove ****** 'Petrol from plants' claim baffles Indian scientists New Delhi. Indian scientists have been baffled by the claims of a 30-year-old selftaught chemist from the southern state of Tamilnadu that he is able to power a scooter using 'petrol' produced by adding leaves and bark extracts from a native herb to tap water. Ramar Pillai demonstrated his backyard experiments to a scientific audience last week in the chemistry laboratory of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in New Delhi. Scientists who watched the water turn into an yellowish, inflammable liquid admit that they have no explanation at present. But they remain convinced by the demonstration. "It is just unbelievable but true," says N. K Jha, head of the chemistry department. Valangiman Ramamurti, the secretary of the Department of Science and Technology (DST), who himself performed the experiment said: "Like everyone else I was sceptical, but we now know it is not an Indian rope trick." Pillai's curiosity had initially been stimulated as a schoolboy when a spark from a camp-stove ignited the leaves of a distant plant during a school picnic. Ten years later, he tracked down the 'burning plant' and started experimenting with it, using knowledge picked up from chemistry textbooks. The process he developed to make the fuel involves cooking the leaves of this plant -although other parts will do-for about ten minutes in hot water to which a little salt and a few drops of lemon juice or citric acid have been added. As the liquid cools, certain chemicals-believed to be catalysts-are added, and the contents allowed to settle. Because it is lighter than water, the herbal fuel rises to the top, and is filtered off. Pillai says his fuel would cost one rupee (3 US cents) a litre. Commercial production should not be a problem, because the plants involved grow like tea bushes, with leaves continuing to grow to replace those that have been plucked. Last week's experiment started with 55 grams of the herbal leaves and bark, and 1,000 millilitres of tap water. Just over half an hour later, this had produced 460 millilitres of a liquid that burned and smelled like kerosene, and on distillation yielded a fraction boiling at 170*C). According to the National Chemical Laboratory in Pune, analysis of the fuel has shown it to be a pure hydrocarbon, although no details have been published for fear of prejudicing patent applications. Tests at the mechanical engineering department of IIT Madras found the fuel to be "better than [real] petrol" in terms of economy. Furthermore, being of plant origin, it contains no sulphur and the resulting exhaust is therefore cleaner. "We have no doubt that we are sitting on something very big, but we want to proceed cautiously and systematically," says Ramamurti. Officials at the DST strongly believe that the herbal process, if commercialized, could have a major impact on the Indian economy. The DST has already agreed to provide funds for a pilot plant at Rajapalayam, capable of producing 300 litres a day. At the same time, India's leading chemists will try to understand how the process works, as plans are drawn up for a production capacity of one million litres a day. According to Ramamurti, all of India's main scientific agencies will be provided with the necessary funding to participate. Scientists who have watched the experiment accept that the process generates a hydrocarbon fuel. But they describe this as a 'miracle' in the absence of accepted experimental protocols, and lack of details of the herb and catalysts used. Two factors in particular remain baffling. "The process is too fast," says Ratna Choudhury, a chemist at IIT who has been studying methods of extracting hydrocarbons from the so-called 'petro-crops' such as jojoba. Second, although the hydrogen could, in principle, be provided by the water, they have no explanation for the presence of large quantities of carbon; a suggestion that it might be 'sucked in' from the air is widely considered to be implausible. Pillai says that he will disclose the secrets only after his invention is patented. DST hopes that the patenting process will be completed within two months, at which point controlled experiments will be able to start. K. S. Jayaraman Caption: Liquid gold? Pillai produces his 'fuel' using leaves of a native herb and water. NATURE * VOL 383 12 SEPTEMBER 1996 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 20:59:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA01900; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 20:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 20:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Sep 96 23:55:07 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: ILENR2 oddball science Message-ID: <960920035507_72240.1256_EHB175-4@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"H8zTO.0.bT.IOXGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/879 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Barry Merriman's comments illustrate where he and I part ways. This boils down to a difference in backgrounds, motivations, and cultures. I do not think we could ever reconcile our points of view, and there is no need for us to do so, because the world is wide and there is plenty of room for both of us, and plenty of common ground we do agree on. I do not want to start any arguments, but I thought it would be interesting to go over the list of things he condemned as fringe science unworthy of the ILENR2 conference: "Since you seem to need guidance, I suggest the ``best of'' tape should consist of the fellow who delivered the sermon on the wonders of Brown's gas" I could not begin to understand that one. I have heard lots of rumors about BG, but I cannot make head or tail of them. It might be a good idea for scientists to sort these claims out someday. It might be useful to have this fellow's name, address, claims, and list of contacts in the ILENR2 proceedings. Right? "the fellow who believes everything is a plasmoid" That's theory. It is completely over my head. "the Russian who thinks everything reduces to some sort of electron and postitron interaction and is fond of biblical quotes Theory again. Completely over my head. But so what if he quotes the Bible? I quote Shakespeare. "the cincinnati group who eliminate radioactivity through divine guidance." Again, so what if they quote the Bible? Scientists like Newton used to quote the Bible all the time. It isn't fashionable any more, but that's a cultural thing. Some people are a hundred years behind the times . . . so what? It has nothing to do with the scientific claims. The Cincinnati Group's radioactivity remission experiment has been tested by some sharp people and found to work. I haven't seen the details so I cannot judge, but I take it seriously. Tinsley tested their other claims and found: 1. The process appears to work; that is, it behaves exactly the way they say, and the reaction is extraordinary, violent, unmistakable, and weird. I jumped a foot when it went off! 2. Preliminary estimates indicate over unity performance. Unfortunately we do not have the $5000 it would take to wire down a real answer. 3. When we substituted materials that were chemically similar to the recommended stuff, the effect did not turn on at all. It is highly specific. When you use the right materials, it turns on and you blast right through the tiles. When you use slightly different chemicals, nothing happens. ", and, oh, say the french alchemist who is creating superheavy elements with classical alchemy." Have you tried that experiment? Have you read the literature on it? I have not, so I have no idea whether it works or not. I *never* pass judgement on subjects I have not studied. "I think it also important to include the parts where it is made clear that chickens transmute Mg into Ca to make eggs." As far as I know, by all accounts, this experiment works. I have not seriously investigated it, or talked to anyone, or read the reports, so I do not have a firm opinion, but indications are that the experiments work as described. I have heard the work is rigorous, and carefully done. That makes the people doing it good scientists, by definition, no matter what the outcome, no matter how incorrect they might be. When someone does good work, that makes him a good scientist and You Must Never Make Fun of Good Scientists. It is noble calling. To say "he should not be working on that because it is probably nonsense" is barbaric. That is like saying "the doctor should not bother treating AIDS patients because we know there is no cure." I know many problems, like machine translation, where we know *nothing* and we have made no progress for 30 years, but I still admire and respect people who are batting away at it. I do not know enough about the chicken experiment protocols to judge whether this work is good enough to show a real anomaly. This is the kind of thing that deserves serious attention. I am sure that whatever else it may be -- right, wrong, or unprovable -- it is every bit as "scientific" as the search for quarks, machine translation, or the business of spinning untestable theories about 11 dimensional string space, or whatever they call it. What passes for mainstream science appears to include a lot of kookiness and much dead-end, time-wasting nonsense. It is fashionable nonsense, so it gets funded. Chicken transmutation goes against the pet theories of many people high up in the American Physical Society, so it does not get funded. There is no objective, scientific reason why one subject is considered lofty and the other crackpot. I am told that some ideas fit the theories better than others, but whenever I start asking questions about those theories, it appears to me the theories do not even fit one-another, and they cannot begin to answer such basic questions as: why do some radioactive elements decay faster than others. Obviously, mainstream theory cannot come to grips with cold fusion. I conclude that theory today must be mistaken, incomplete, and misguided, just as it was back in 1850, or 1750. I guess history is not over yet! Theory is at best a rough guide; a work in progress. In the year 2096 people will say our theories were entirely wrong about a many things and they did not even touch whole areas of science. That's what we say about people 100 years ago. If you look through the back issues of Sci. Am. to 100 years ago and 150 years or, or even 30 years ago, you will find many subjects now considered crackpot nonsense were funded and considered legitimate science. Alchemy, for example, was still going strong and still considered legit until the 1920s. I don't know much about science, but I do know one thing for sure about people: We are NO SMARTER today than we were 30 years ago, or 150 years ago. Never forget that! In my opinion all subjects and all serious investigations of nature should be considered legitimate parts of science. You never know what might be true, and the only way to find out is by experiment. Some subjects are excluded because of politics, power, funding and fashion. Theory has nothing to do with it. It is not scientific to poke fun at people who investigate alchemy or look for transmutations in chickens. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 21:01:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA01889; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 20:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 20:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: 19 Sep 96 23:54:45 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Bockris memo Message-ID: <960920035445_72240.1256_EHB175-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"PZqax3.0.NT.HOXGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/878 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Barry Merriman writes: "While I personally object to the way TAMU has treated Bockris, I don't feel their motives have anything to do with scientific dogma, or biases against unusual research per se." Their motives are stated quite plainly in the memo. They say that cold fusion is fraud and not fit for the campus of the university. They have said this over and over again, in public, on the record, and in the newspapers. Their motives and opinions are 100% clear. Heck, they brag about it! "In this case, I think its clear they want to distance themselves from Bockris & co because of the ``scandal'' related to transmutation work Bockris did with Monti and Champion in the early 90's, the fallout of which was two of the principals went to jail, the results were not replicated, and undoubtedly there was a inquiry into how the university handled funds that were received, due to the severe missappropriations of funds that occurred. Probably Jed could fill us in on precisely what happened." Yes, I can fill you in, but first let me say you should have talked to the university or to Bockris before posting that statement. It is completely unfounded and false, and it is a serious insult to the University, Bockris and Monti (who has nothing to do with any of this, as far as I know). Here are the facts: 1. There was no scandal, period. The transmutation work was described during the conference. Whether it was replicated or not is an open question, I think. Lin and Bockris explained the technical difficulties and the problems with changing personnel. I would say it is still an open question as to whether there is a real anomaly or not, but I lean towards the negative. 2. The two principals, Tealander and Champion, did go to jail but the charges had nothing remotely to do with the research at TAMU. It was not in any way, shape, or form "fallout" from that research. I do not know whether Monti had anything to do with the TAMU research or not, but in any case he has never been sent to jail as far as know. 3. There was an inquiry into how the university handled the funds. There were several inquiries over a period of years into the funding, the experiments, and Bockris' role in it. These inquiries were conducted more like witch hunts than ordinary academic enquiries of this nature. There were also -- and there continue to be -- incidents of petty harassment and vandalism directed against Bockris and his property. The last enquiry was finally called off when Bockris complained to an association of university professors. 4. In the end, every single panel and investigation came to the same conclusion. The university officially exonerated Bockris, and declared for the record that the funding was 100% legitimate, and that all appropriate rules had been followed when the money was accepted, and that it was spent for legitimate scientific purposes. Let me repeat: not one penny was *ever* misappropriated. No rule was ever broken, or even bent. Every single step was officially recorded. Bockris has guts, but he is not foolhardy. He would never accept outside funding for such controversial research without strictly following the rules, informing all university officials, and leaving a paper trail. The panel that examined the academic validity of the work ruled that is legitimate scientific research that should be protected according to the usual norms of academic freedom. The facts about these rulings and the official university statements were reported in academic journals and in the local Texas newspapers. I have copies of the official statements exonnerating Bockris on my disk, if anyone would like to see them. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 21:09:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA04330; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: 2nd Thermo law is DEAD (not) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 23:08:01 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960920030354.006da754@mail.eskimo.com> from "Gary Hawkins" at Sep 19, 96 08:03:54 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9CJo4.0.a31.hYXGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/881 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gary Hawkins writes: > >> TRIVIA: Air molecules on the average move with speeds of approximately > >> 1000 MPH at room temperature. > > Where did you get 1000 mph at room temperature? I heard 100 somewhere, > and then read in a book 20 mph for oxygen at 20 degrees centigrade. > Hardly 1000 mph but would like to check the source. The speed of sound is roughly determined by the average speed of air molecules, thus something on the order of 740+ mph. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 21:09:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA03742; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960920041120.006e4d98@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: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:11:20 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Pool Devils and Tornados Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"-46bq.0.Ow.wVXGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/880 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >From Bill's website: >The whole surface of the pool was covered by little zipping "V" shape >wakes! They were barely visible directly, but as projected on the pool >bottom by sunlight they were totally obvious. It was also possible to see >the cause of the wakes: the mist above the water surface was occasionally >swirling in patterns resembling small dustdevil tornadoes. > >I don't think we can escape the conclusion that the phys-L group's >speculation is correct. The "v" shaped wakes are caused by the moving >mouths of small "dustdevil" vortices. If the water is warmer than the >air, then the rising heated air provides energy to drive numerous >vortices. And if conditions across the landscape instead are generating >fairly large "dustdevils," occasionally one may pass over water and >generate not only a "V" shaped wake, but a small travelling patch of spray >where the low pressure of the vortex core sculpts the water's surface into >a point which emits droplets. Same as when the sun heats the ground in the dry southwest. Dust-devils. However, I expect that it will eventually be found that official trailer-park-hungry tornados are wrapped inextricably with electrostatics, a missing element in understanding these beasts. In moist air, relatively minor electrical flow between clouds and the ground are not necessarily going to erupt into a lightning bolt. That flow can easily focus to an area, and develop into a swirling funnel without sudden discharge in moist air. To see the effect, position two v-shaped wine glasses about 1/4" apart, fill them with oil, lay a wire in each one, and apply 35 or 40 KV DC. Like: http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/images/oilbridg.jpg An oil bridge will develop across the air gap, with vortexian movement, and yet neither wine glass overflows from the flow. There appears to be a flow one direction inside the bridge, and the other direction outside, although I would say the amount is likely uneven. A more careful determination needs to be done, letting it run for hours, at levels which will support the flow, lose nothing down the side, and not have oil torpedo droplets flying out in all directions from both glasses. Turn that upright, and you've got an analogy for a tornado. With pool devils and dust devils, the flow is driven by heat. With this experiment, the flow is driven by electricity, as will likely be found regarding tornados. Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 21:16:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA05607; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960920041942.006fad9c@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: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:19:42 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN)] Resent-Message-ID: <"EwDuJ3.0.FN1.odXGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/882 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:32 PM 9/18/95 -0700, you wrote: > >I have made these velocity and energy calculations personaly using the >ideal gas laws, Boltzman constant, diatomic mases. I am very sure of >the correctnes of these calculations. I can post the boring >calculations if you wish. Wish you would please. Other sources disagree with your results. Btw, you spelled 'correctness' wrong. >> >moving randomly about at aproximaterly whopping 1078 Mph (483 m/s for O2, From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 21:37:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA09691; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: 20 Sep 96 00:29:42 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Antigravity skeptic Message-ID: <960920042942_76216.2421_HHB55-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"e9whu3.0.KN2.juXGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/883 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross - > "Crackpot theory huh??? HMMMM??? Guess that make me a crackpot alright." I was thinking of the new non-newtonian theories, not yours. Yours may offer a solution to this, I don't know. >From Graneau & Graneau's "Newton vs. Einstein": * "The weight our feet have to support is due to the gravitational * pull between the atoms of our body and every other atom on the * planet earth. Some of the earth atoms are situated under miles * of rock, or at the center of the earth, if not on the other side of * it. Still the attraction of all earth atoms is felt by our body. * Rocks and all other material substances are ineffective gravity * shields. Is this not sufficient grounds to reject gravity theories * which are based on field-contact forces and must rely on the * flight of energy from one body to another?" This flying energy is supposed to be mitigated by gravitons, if they exist. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 21:55:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA14337; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960920045840.0071f0dc@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: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:58:40 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Resent-Message-ID: <"GodI-2.0.tV3.ICYGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/884 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >I think it also important to include the parts where it is >made clear that chickens tranmute Mg into Ca to make eggs. I thought it was Silica, not Mg, from the book - "Biological Transmutations", (Kervran). According to the book, when chickens were denied any calcium, their eggs were fine, when denied Silica in their diet, bad eggs. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 23:11:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA02757; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 23:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 23:08:22 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960920061232.006faf7c@mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 23:12:32 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SLVN Summary Cc: hheffner@anc.ak.net X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"R6wgy1.0._g.LJZGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/885 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear Horace. I read your SLVN summary and the practical application with great interest. I noticed that the forward semiconductor diode bias is a real limiting factor. What would you say if we retarded ourselves back to 1940s where vaccum tube diodes were popular. (Newer is not always better) What would you think of utilizing the cloud of electrons above a cathode as an efficient energy sink. My impromptu vision of this is: Hot gas particles knocking (through a barrier) free electrons "hovering" above cathode into anode thus giving their energy to these electrons which are then carried away and trapped (stored). Just a quick rough idea to keep you awake at night. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 19 23:44:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA07790; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 23:42:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 23:42:38 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Possible CF reactions Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 06:42:12 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3248326e.25517387@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"r9BdP.0.ev1.TpZGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/886 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 19 Sep 1996 06:24:26 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >The first such program posted here was from Robin van Spaandonk who, I >think, made it available from his web page >. It's an interresting place anyway. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 Why thank you Horace! Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 19 23:44:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA07827; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 23:42:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 23:42:45 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: When all hypotheses appear impossible . Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 06:42:14 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <324932cf.25615154@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199609191403.HAA10574@big.aa.net> In-Reply-To: <199609191403.HAA10574@big.aa.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"0GNfp.0.9w1.ZpZGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/887 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:03:24 +0900, Michael Mandeville wrote: [snip] >>Pons-Fleischmann effect is caused by ZPE, which somehow triggers >>transmutations, heat, 20 KEV X rays and all the rest, making it look a = lot >>like a funny new kind of nuclear reaction. I wouldn't bet on that, but = who >>knows? >> >>- Jed >> >> > >In the last paragraph you are getting a lot closer. Follow the alphas. >Follow the metals. Forget the frickin theories. >____________________________________ >MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing >Michael Mandeville, publisher >mwm@aa.net >http://www.aa.net/~mwm Michael, are you implying that you know something we don't? If so, why not share it with us? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 19 23:44:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA07857; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 23:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 23:42:48 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: IE #8 page 30 Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 06:42:05 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32450950.14989684@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199609181652.AA01452@world.std.com> <199609191652.AA16998@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <199609191652.AA16998@world.std.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.289 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"umOfA.0.dw1.cpZGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/888 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 19 Sep 1996 12:52:35 -0400, Jim Uban wrote: [snip] > I could probably upload my program, maybe to >Bill B's web page, if he has room. With it one can If he doesn't, you can put it on mine. Just attach it to=20 an email to me, and I will put it there and publish the address=20 on vortex. [snip] > I could tweak it to allow only exothermic >reactions. But, I wonder why you focus on those >particularly? One way that little energy output >could happen and still lots of transmutations, is >for endothermic and exothermic reactions to balance >each other. =46or these reactions to balance each other would require some form=20 of energy transfer between them. Because each reaction happens so fast, energy from the exothermic reaction would escape, making the endothermic reaction impossible, if they aren't strongly coupled=20 together. If they are strongly coupled, then one might just as well=20 consider them to be a single (larger) reaction. I think the latter approach has the advantage of eliminating a set of possible reactions and products, making it essentially easier to predict possible outcomes. > Also, my program only looks at stable isotopes, >plus 1H3. The record of 'cold fusion' seems to be a >paucity of standard nuclear products (gammas and neutrons). >This being the case, why not hypothesize that nature, in >the case of low-energy transmutations, doesn't want to >make high-energy products. Along these lines, I tend >to run the program with the energy production set to >100Kev or less for any reaction. I'm guessing this is >even high for 'cold fusion' reactions. > Jim Uranium is a heavy element. Among other things this means that it has a high ratio of neutrons to protons. If an extra neutron is added (to initiate fission), the ratio gets even higher. All of which means that the daughter products will also be high in neutrons. So much so in fact that the fission of U236 usually produces a couple of extra free neutrons. However the situation with fusion is very different. Because the nucleus being added is from the "low" end of the periodic table, it tends to be relatively speaking rich in protons, rather than neutrons. This means that the product of such a fusion reaction tends to be on the "low" side of the isotopes range for the given product. e.g.=20 H + Ni58 -> Cu59. Cu59 is unstable and on the "low" end of the copper isotopes, and will soon undergo e.c. to become Ni59. I suspect that with Pd reactions, fission can follow fusion, usually resulting in stable products and no neutrons for two reasons: 1) By definition stable products occupy the lowest energy positions in the chart. (Out on a limb here a bit?) Thus tend to be where reactions end up. 2) The addition of H to Pd helps ensure that the starting product (e.g. Ag) is on the light side prior to fission, so that no free neutrons will be produced. The flip side is of course that fusion with D ISO H is more likely to allow the production of free neutrons during fission. The other obvious conclusion is that the heavier the initial nucleus, the more likely transmutation is to result, with possibly little energy release. This immediately says, that if you want energy, not transmutation, then start with relatively light elements, and fuse them with H (preferably not D, as you are more likely to get neutrons with D). Ideal in this regard might be: H + Al27 -> He4 + Mg24 + 1.6 MeV. or=20 H + Al27 -> Si28 + 11.6 MeV. (for conservation of momentum see my web page). No neutron production is possible (this is a slight gamble without Jim's program), all isotopes are stable, and the initial substances (H and Al) are both plentiful. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 20 00:34:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA15162; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 00:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 00:31:20 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960920073530.006df980@mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 00:35:30 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN)] X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"RwFZH.0.pi3.7XaGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/889 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Ok, here are the boring calculations of particle velocity in gases and gas energy: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- [average speed in m/s ]^2 = [degrees of freedom] * [1.38*10^-23 J/deg.K] * [deg. Kelvin] / [mass of particle in kg] (Notice, the velocity is squared) [1.38*10^-23 Joule/deg.Kelvin] == the Boltzman constant [1.66*10^-27 kg] = Mass of Hydrogen O mass = [16] * [1.66*10^-27 kg] = [2.66*10^-26 kg] O2 mass = [32] * [1.66*10^-27 kg] = [5.31*10^-26 kg] Temperature = 300 deg. Kelvin Thus O2 moving in 3 dimentional space has an average velocity of 484 m/s (1045 MPH) (In the air mixture the N2 moves faster and the CO2 slower, Helium much faster and H2 moves at whopping 4175 MPH - enough to escape from earth's orbit) According to ideal gas law: [moles]=12.2 * [liters] * [atmospheres] / [deg.Kelvin] Thus 1 liter of ANY gas at 1 atmosphere pressure at 300K temperature contains 0.0407 moles of that gas. [Energy in a gas, Joules] = [degrees of freedom] * 0.5 * [moles] * [8.31 J/ mole Kelvin] * [deg. Kelvin] [8.31 Joule / mole * deg.Kelvin] == the Universal gas constant O2 has 5 degrees of energetic freedom because it is diatomic 1 liter of O2 at 300K and 1 atmosphere contains .0407 moles of O2 The temperature differential between O2 boiling point and room temperature is apx. 200K. If somebody is ambitious, plese calculate the energy down to absolute zero (watch out for the phase change) Thus the above 1 liter of O2 has 170 Joules of energy [velocity m/s] = SQR ( 2 * [Joules] / [kg]) Thus 170 Joules = 1kg moving at 18 m/s (2LB moving at 40MPH, assuming 1kg = 2LB) 1 gallon = 3.8 liters so 1 gallon of the above air will be equivalent to 2LB moving at 152 MPH. That means 1000 gallons of air could accelerate a 1 ton car to 150 MPH (leaving a lot of liquid air behind) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- I might have gone a little overboard with rounding between the Metric and English sytems, please forgive me. The energy is out there. It just needs to be ORGANIZED. At 09:19 PM 9/19/96 -0700, you wrote: >At 03:32 PM 9/18/95 -0700, you wrote: >> >>I have made these velocity and energy calculations personaly using the >>ideal gas laws, Boltzman constant, diatomic mases. I am very sure of >>the correctnes of these calculations. I can post the boring >>calculations if you wish. > >Wish you would please. Other sources disagree with your results. >Btw, you spelled 'correctness' wrong. > >>> >moving randomly about at aproximaterly whopping 1078 Mph (483 m/s for O2, > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 01:22:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA22418; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 01:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 01:21:13 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN)] Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:20:40 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32425236.5800917@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <2.2.32.19960920041942.006fad9c@mail.eskimo.com> In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960920041942.006fad9c@mail.eskimo.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.294 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"NyIQt3.0.7U5.tFbGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/891 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:19:42 -0700, Gary Hawkins wrote: >At 03:32 PM 9/18/95 -0700, you wrote: >> >>I have made these velocity and energy calculations personaly using the >>ideal gas laws, Boltzman constant, diatomic mases. I am very sure of >>the correctnes of these calculations. I can post the boring >>calculations if you wish. > >Wish you would please. Other sources disagree with your results. >Btw, you spelled 'correctness' wrong. I believe that should be "wrongly" :). > >>> >moving randomly about at aproximaterly whopping 1078 Mph (483 m/s for O2, > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 20 01:22:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA22388; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 01:21:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 01:21:03 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: 2nd Thermo law is DEAD (not) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:20:35 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32434b76.4073134@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.294 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"etUOU3.0.jT5.kFbGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/890 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 19 Sep 1996 23:08:01 -0500 (CDT), John Logajan wrote: >Gary Hawkins writes: >> >> TRIVIA: Air molecules on the average move with speeds of approximately >> >> 1000 MPH at room temperature. >> >> Where did you get 1000 mph at room temperature? I heard 100 somewhere, >> and then read in a book 20 mph for oxygen at 20 degrees centigrade. >> Hardly 1000 mph but would like to check the source. > >The speed of sound is roughly determined by the average speed of air >molecules, thus something on the order of 740+ mph. Setting the kinetic energy of an O molecule equal to 3/2kT where T is 293K yields a speed of 1069 mph. I suspect that this is where the original number came from. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 20 02:14:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA27402; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 02:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 02:11:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609200911.CAA18020@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, 20 Sep 1996 02:11:09 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Barry Merriman's Quality Control Request... Resent-Message-ID: <"GwC0n3.0._h6.I_bGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/892 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:06 PM 9/18/96 -0700, you wrote: >Mark Hugo, Northern wrote: >> >> From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >> Subject: Barry Merriman's Quality Control Request... >> - >> Barry: I had the same complaint about ICCF3. Particu- >> larily odious was the Eastern European fellow > >> His own write ups include the detailed description of how he received >> his inspiration from the "glowing being" which came to him aside his >> bed one troubled night several years before. Hummmm.... >> - > >Well, at this meeting we had one presentation from a group >who receives their techniques by direct divine inspiration, >and a soviet fellow who quoted a number of biblical passages. >There were a couple others as well, and also those who depend >rather heavily on ancient alchemical texts. (Sure, the >ancient alchemists _could_ have been right...but I wouldn't >dwell on them too much in a scientific presentation). > >Anyway, the field is not likely to gain much respectability >until they clean up the line up and recognize that there are many >kooks in the vicinity. If I were a speaker, I would complain >about having to precent my work along side such blatantly wacko company. > > >-- >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 > > Barry, does it really matter, other than purported "appearances" to "the other"? The problem with selection is that nobody wants to do it, so the dumbest guy in the org gets stuck with it and does the stupidest possible job doing it. Then a committee has to be formed... and so on and so on. It is strictly a self-defeating proposition. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 02:23:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA28484; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 02:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 02:21:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609200921.CAA18387@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, 20 Sep 1996 02:20:55 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: When all hypotheses appear impossible . Resent-Message-ID: <"fSRHc2.0.-y6.O8cGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/893 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 07:20 PM 9/18/96 -0700, you wrote: >When you are confused, and it appears that what you see is impossible, then >it is always that you are blinded by your own preconceptions. Good advice >is always to look somewhere else for the answer to resolve the quandry. In >instances like the one at hand, one is additionally perplexed when one looks >elsewhere for advice and finds a preponderance of knowledge that >additionally "proves" that the observations are indeed impossible. > >Faced with such a situation, it becomes time to follow instruction 1, and to >look somewhere else as prescribed. In this case, however, it requires >looking into dark corners where one is not supposed to go. Expect no >support, and plenty of resistance to such a quest. > >This time (and this is not usually the norm), I think that the quest has >been rewarded. And what remains is to sway the concensus. > >I have repeatedly asked for any chemical mechanism that would give off beta >decay or any form of decay that could expose x-ray film for weeks as has >been shown in many CF tests. This evidence, so simple, and seemingly >insignificant was the evidence that converted me. I saw the exposed films >in a report and what little doubt remained vaporized. > >This conference seems to be a turning point to me. But it will be a while >yet before the popular physics journals and chemistry journals accept these >papers (I am guessing here based on the Texas A&M attitude toward the >conference. If they have already been accepted please let me know where and >when). > very good >Behind the scenes, a number of people are *biting their tongues* at the >words written in this group and running to keep ahead of the suppositions >floating around. > > >Later, Ross Tessien > > > ah, but if they only knew... Wielu Master is about to deliver a karate chop. Look for new post soon. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 02:34:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA29831; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 02:33:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 02:33:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609200932.CAA18792@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, 20 Sep 1996 02:32:34 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: More on Plant Power for Power Plants Resent-Message-ID: <"9tXvy1.0.xH7.JJcGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/894 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:51 PM 9/19/96 EDT, you wrote: >Vortexians: > >When Nature magazine takes something "weird" very seriously, what does one make >of that? The following article appeared in NATURE * VOL 383 12 SEPTEMBER >1996, 112. Complete with a wonderful color photo of the inventor making his >brew. This artiocle provides more details than the original newspaper article. >Shades of Gunnerman, indeed! > >Gene Mallove > >****** > > > >'Petrol from plants' claim baffles Indian scientists > >"We have no doubt that we are sitting on something very big, but we want to >proceed cautiously and systematically," says Ramamurti. Officials at the DST >strongly believe that the herbal process, if commercialized, could have a major >impact on the Indian economy. > Ah, truly tis the morning of the magicians. there is new money to be had everywhere one looks. have you had a good look at the Apollo package I sent to you? we've bought a unit, er, made a deposit to get one produced. I feel Wielu Master kicking up his heels re transmutation. I suspect a post is coming soon, which you may also find interesting. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 03:13:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA02954; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 03:10:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 03:10:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609201010.DAA20210@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, 20 Sep 1996 03:10:00 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Bockris memo Resent-Message-ID: <"jJP9m3.0.3k.OscGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/895 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thank you Jed for doing such an excellent job in stating the facts concerning the Tealander affair. Most likely Champion will add some data concerning that event to this topical thread. Let me fill in your data about Monti. Monti was present by invitation. His role was to investigate the physics of the phenomenon. He is an Italian astrophysicist with some startlingly refeshing ideas about the shortcomings of modern physics, which he found through the study of anomolies in the heavens. He looked for more anomolies and found Kervran and other European researchers, who lead him on the path to cold fusion and transmutation. He has traveled extensively and has met practically everyone who is active in the fields. Unfortunately, he does not like computers. He prefers to write in the old fashioned way. Thus, he cannot share the internet medium with us. He had no responsibility for the actions of the other parties and by all accounts of all parties involved, conducted himself straigtforwardly without strange agendas or complications. At least, that is the story all of the parties have given me and I have talked with all of them accept for Tealander. At 11:54 PM 9/19/96 EDT, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >Barry Merriman writes: > > "While I personally object to the way TAMU has treated Bockris, I don't > feel their motives have anything to do with scientific dogma, or biases > against unusual research per se." > >Their motives are stated quite plainly in the memo. They say that cold fusion >is fraud and not fit for the campus of the university. They have said this >over and over again, in public, on the record, and in the newspapers. Their >motives and opinions are 100% clear. Heck, they brag about it! > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 03:35:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA04685; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 03:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 03:27:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609201027.DAA20846@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, 20 Sep 1996 03:27:12 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: ILENR2 oddball science Resent-Message-ID: <"iT7HN.0.791.X6dGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/896 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:55 PM 9/19/96 EDT, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >Barry Merriman's comments illustrate where he and I part ways. This boils down >to a difference in backgrounds, motivations, and cultures. I do not think we >could ever reconcile our points of view, and there is no need for us to do so, >because the world is wide and there is plenty of room for both of us, and >plenty of common ground we do agree on. > > > We are NO SMARTER today than we were 30 years ago, or 150 years ago. > >Never forget that! > ...or 4000 years ago. >In my opinion all subjects and all serious investigations of nature should be >considered legitimate parts of science. You never know what might be true, and >the only way to find out is by experiment. Some subjects are excluded because >of politics, power, funding and fashion. Theory has nothing to do with it. It >is not scientific to poke fun at people who investigate alchemy or look for >transmutations in chickens. > >- Jed > > I believe that the basis for that work is the work of Kervran, funded for a very long time by the French government. He is highly regarded in Europe, which has a decidedly different academic culture of what is topically relevent than is present in this country. At least, that is what Europeans have told me. Academics, like newspapermen, in this country are astoundingly provincial. They believe their science is American and University. And that is really weird...in my culture. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 04:04:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA07639; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 04:00:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 04:00:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: 20 Sep 96 06:57:37 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Message-ID: <960920105737_100433.1541_BHG100-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"8zUnH1.0.Dt1.9bdGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/898 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Barry, > Uh, If you have no idea which speakers were giving the totally > flaky presentations, exactly what criteria are you going to use to > put together this highly condensed ``best of'' tape? And you go on to give detail. Actually, I do have some sympathy with your approach here; it is pretty much the kind I used to have (and still slip into sometimes when I don't watch my step). I think most of us who come into this kind of thing from a conventional science background feel as you do. I would suggest that a 'best of' tape is necessarily selected by subjective processes. My own subjectivity would be based on the my assessment of the quality of the experimental evidence presented (I would not have been able to judge the theory presentations) and of my assessment of the prior credibility of the speakers. However, yours is an approach which does not withstand critical study. That a person has a belief-system - and this applies just as much to belivers in essentially untestable physics theories - has no relevance to his experimental findings. So I personally just switch off while he expounds his beliefs. Your point that some assume doctorates to which their title is - ahem - 'dubious' is something which does, on the other hand, diminish their credibility considerably! The only one of these groups you mention of which I have any personal knowledge is the 'Cincinnati Group', and certainly they do appear to have found something very odd indeed. My own careful and conservative calorimetry of the tile-melting process suggested something like 20kJ recovered from 15kJ input. However, the circumstances meant that I was not entirely satisfied with possible peaks in the electrical input, and I was financially constrained from clearing up that question; so I am not able to say that this was more than suggestive evidence. I have heard of reputable groups confirming the 'reduction' to its daughter products of half of the Th in a solution of its chloride, but await further evidence on this question. As for Kervran and his claim to have repeated earlier demonstrations of the apparent ability of chickens to convert K to Ca, I would mention the following: 1. This is a repeated claim by different workers. 2. If Miley's (and others') work is to be believed, then the probability of very low-energy transmutation is significantly raised and it would be unreasonable to argue that a biological organism which thinks nothing of making nitric oxide and using it as a chemical messenger would *not* be capable of providing the energies (and perhaps the kind of local atomic and electron environments) seen in a CETI cell. 3. If a chicken can convert 39K to 40Ca, then where does the energy go? Such transmutations would release around 8MeV per atom; this I refer to as the 'incandescent chicken' problem, after the 'dead graduate student' problem of CF. So, there are arguments for and against. Lacking a rigorous replication of the experiment, I just shrug and wait. As it happens, it was a personal experience with apparent bio-transmutation which first drew me into this field. While I would not argue that the specific case was necessarily real, it was for other reasons enough to shake my confidence in the correctness of modern scientific beliefs. Accordingly, I now try to assess evidence rather than listen to what people believe in - whatever that is that they do believe in. No, I do not accept Louis Kervran. That is just in the 'dunno' file, which bulges thicker all the time. But equally I do not accept that anyone (including yourself) is able to assess the validity or otherwise of claims if they use the methodology you have applied in your posting. Led as I now am to question your objectivity - for example by your errors in the matter of Bockris' problems with TAMU - I am wondering if you saw my question here yesterday. I asked you if you would see a quantitative analysis of the cell contents for cathode metals before and after one of Miley's runs as being a good test of his transmutation hypothesis? And whether you would regard a large drop during a run, if found, as considerably strengthening his hypothesis? Surely anyone would welcome the testing of a prediction made by a hypothesis? Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 04:04:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA07610; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 04:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 04:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: 20 Sep 96 06:57:32 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Carrell, Mike on Correa Message-ID: <960920105732_100433.1541_BHG100-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"C_Aje.0.qs1.5bdGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/897 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Barry, > > Gentlemen, this is a vacuum energy device > > > Gee, you seemed to have reached amazing conclusion pretty quickly, > expecially when the inventor will not divulge key information to > you. I saw Mike giving his presentation on the Correa device (which I hadn't been following too carefully either). And the video of Correa's talk too. There seems to me no 'key' information missing concerning the actual results or measurements themselves, although the word 'key' is perhaps subjective in this case. In fact Correa presents an almost overwhelming body of information. Startlingly so, I would say, I've never seen so much thorough and detailed work in any such talk. As for the device being 'vacuum energy', I don't know enough to comment. However, Mike is clearly not one to accept anything in a hurry, but has gradually come round to accepting the ideas of Aspden here, because of their close fit with the results. Whether Aspden is correct or not in his theories, his university and industrial background make him a great deal better-qualified than I am - so I won't just dismiss him out of hand. As for the 'resistor' test, in one sense I do agree with you. But one difficulty with the idea is that one can always think up a new test and ask why it hasn't been done - thus raising all manner of doubt and supicion without showing why the reported data itself is faulty. In other words, suspicion is aroused without advancing the discussion. Study of the actual data leaves little space for error in the claim. I would go so far as to say that there is either misreporting or correct reporting here - that the data leave no room for simple error. I recall more than one occasion where I (with much less experience than Mike) have been able to show that over-unity claims are relying on measurement which is intrinsically weak - for example V and I measurements taken at extreme phase angles. Such things can usually be spotted within minutes, and the claims can be filed under "not really worth study at this time". In the case of Correa, I am satisfied that Mike has taken his study to the point where nothing short of a pretty tough site visit will clear up the question of possible mis-reporting. There is, of course, the question of where all those coulombs come from.... Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 05:52:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA18257; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 05:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 05:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 05:42:34 -0700 Message-Id: <199609201242.FAA10242@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: More on Plant Power for Power Plants To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: 76570.2270@compuserve.com Resent-Message-ID: <"WI1nJ.0.8T4.a5fGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/899 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sept. 20, 1996 Mallove quoted more details appearing in Nature on the plant conversion to a petroleum base in India. Sounds plausable to me. On the U.S. side, in researching recyling of garbage, there is a proposed, working municipal process which converts garbage into clean petroleum product. This uses all types of organic based waste so it may not be as cost effective as the one plant conversion process mentioned. Speaking of plants, there is a plant (tree) growing down south where the wood is so wax rich that, on the catalog sales marketing for the home, they sell bundled short strips of it as starters for the fireplace. What did they call it now ---'waxsticks?' or something more catchy along that line. I imagine if that tree could be converted to a lighter petroleum base, you could have literally a petrol farm. And the tree could be genetically engineered to grow faster and perhaps have a lighter wax base for easier conversion. Solar power harnessed! -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 07:43:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA12608; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 07:37:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 07:37:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 06:42:34 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: SLVN Summary Resent-Message-ID: <"GHXym.0.t43.rmgGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/900 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Dear Horace. > > I read your SLVN summary and the practical application with great >interest. I noticed that the forward semiconductor diode bias is a real >limiting factor. What would you say if we retarded ourselves back to 1940s >where vaccum tube diodes were popular. (Newer is not always better) > >What would you think of utilizing the cloud of electrons above a cathode as >an efficient energy sink. My impromptu vision of this is: > >Hot gas particles knocking (through a barrier) free electrons "hovering" >above cathode into anode thus giving their energy to these electrons which >are then carried away and trapped (stored). > >Just a quick rough idea to keep you awake at night. There doesn't seem to be enough to work with here. The problem here is that the asymmetry (heat differential of cathode vs anode) must be provided at the cost of the energy involved to provide that difference (to heat the electrode, or if you live in a very hot place - to cool the anode). Assuming you had a semiconductor diode in series, or a diode array as an anode, there is still no equivalent to the bubble lift to provide the bias current, to reset the conditions for diffusion (thermal energy extracted through diffusion). The only source of heat to replenish the kinetic energy of the electron cloud is from the cathode. There seems to be no practical link available from ambient heat to the electron cloud. There may be other possibilities for energy production using electrons in a vacuum though, by using cold cathodes. See Ken Shoulder's patent 5,123,039, for example. Condensed charge excess energy (if it it exists, I haven't had any luck with any o-u attempts, but that's not saying much) comes from utilizing collective effects that overcome the coulomb barrier to create the condensed charge. The kinetic energy can be gained by simply disrupting the condensed charge in a neutral environment (e.g. a grounded plate). Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 07:48:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA14522; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 07:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 07:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 20 Sep 1996 07:43:07 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: RE: On Carrel's On Correa To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/20/96 07:43:36 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"z7Y1X1.0.lY3.GtgGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/901 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: *** Reply to note of 09/19/96 13:51 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: RE: On Carrel's On Correa Hank---Nyquist sampling criteria to be precise...MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 08:11:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA19327; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN)] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 10:02:52 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960920073530.006df980@mail.localaccess.com> from "epitaxy@localaccess.com" at Sep 20, 96 00:35:30 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"RKyCg2.0.tj4._8hGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/903 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > H2 moves at whopping 4175 MPH - enough to escape from earth's orbit) Velocity distribution around the average might occasionally allow a H2 molecule to reach escape velocity (25,000 mph) but it certainly would be a rarity -- and thus a slow "leak", i.e. on the geological timescale. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 08:18:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA19279; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:03:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:02:17 -0400 Message-ID: <960920110216_106529701@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Carrell, Mike on Correa Resent-Message-ID: <"6P5DE1.0.4j4.q8hGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/902 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Regarding PAGD Barry Merriman ssuggested: "why can't they put a simple resistive load between the batterys as well, and integrate up the I*V [I^2R] losses in it to show, after many cycles, that it has dissipated, say, 10 times the energy that could have possibly been stored in the batteries." I agree wholeheartedly that this beats out battery swapping, and whoever has good contact with Correa should press this test unmercifully. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 08:20:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA22291; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:16:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:16:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:15:25 -0400 Message-ID: <960920111525_106538040@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ILENR2 oddball science Resent-Message-ID: <"-i8J92.0.9S5.-KhGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/904 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: With regard to the "Concinnati Experiment" Jed said: "Preliminary estimates indicate over unity performance. Unfortunately we do not have the $5000 it would take to wire down a real answer." If it's promising, bring it to EarthTech, place it in Scott Little's calorimeter, and we'll test it for free. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 09:17:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA03031; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:13:38 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: SLVN Summary Resent-Message-ID: <"bzBoB3.0.Fl.O6iGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/905 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Dear Horace. > > I read your SLVN summary and the practical application with great >interest. I noticed that the forward semiconductor diode bias is a real >limiting factor. What would you say if we retarded ourselves back to 1940s >where vaccum tube diodes were popular. (Newer is not always better) > I think the semiconductor bias problem boils down to how efficient the bubble lift idea is for providing a bias current. This idea of providing a field gradient about the electrolysis electrodes may assist ordinary electrolysis efficiency (see diagram below). We could spend much time analyzing it, but I think it is time to get some data on the bubble lift/bias field electrolysis technique, see if it helps electrolysis, and maybe even if it is be o-u itself, i.e. can run without a pump once started. That is very doubtful, but I like to be optimistic! Most important, take a look the energy cost for the bias ((delta P)*(flow) vs current gained). It is notable that most bubble lift energy is provided in the last 30 feet before the surface, and most of that in the last 15 feet. The tubes should not have to be all that high in a "production" version. I think I'll build a bubble lift field biased electrolysis unit as soon as I get the coaxal rail gun tested and out of my lab (kitchen). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H2 I I I I I I I I I I I I G G I I G O2 G I I G G I I G G I I O2 G G I I G G I I G G O2 I I G G H2 I I G H2 G I I G G I I G G I I G O2G I I G G I I G G I +I G PP G I+ -I G NN G H3+ I- +I G PP G I+ -I GO2NN G I- +I GH3+P G I+ -I Oh- G NN G I- +I G PP G I+ -I G NN G I- +I PP I+ -I NN I- +I PP I+ -I NN I- +I PP H2 I+ -I NN H3+ I- +I PP I+ -I NN I- +IOH- PP I+ -I NN OH- I- +I H3+PP OH-I+ -IH3+ NN I- +I PP H3+ I+ -I NN I- +I PP I+ -I OH-NN I- +I PP I+ -I NN I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I ^ ^ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ^ ^ I I | | | | I I -------------<----- H2O --------------------------- I I ^ I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII | IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I | I I | I I | I + - capacitive (no current) anode plates - - capacitive (no current) cathode plates I - insulating tubing (or plates) G - grounded metal tube (or plates) P - PEE type SLVN connected to load and then variable - supply (or even simply an electrolysis cathode) N - NEE type SLVN connected to load and then variable + supply (or even simply an electrolysis anode) Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 09:30:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA06655; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: 20 Sep 96 12:21:10 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Can't test Cincinnati gadget Message-ID: <960920162109_72240.1256_EHB99-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"hdxQG3.0.vd1.KKiGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/906 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Hal Puthoff wrote: "If [the Cincinnati tile burning gadget] promising, bring it to EarthTech, place it in Scott Little's calorimeter, and we'll test it for free." I would love to do that, but I can't. I have signed this !@!#* secrecy agreement and I am not free to take it anywhere. The people involved want to keep it a deep, dark secret for the usual absurd reasons. It is the Own Worst Enemy syndrome. I am afraid there is nothing I can do to sway them. Actually, you might have difficulty testing in a normal calorimeter. It generates extremely high temperatures which rapidly destroy the device and the container. It calls for something like a "bomb calorimeter" (I believe they are called). Chris was making progress on a work-around, but we were getting no feedback and no help from the company, so we gave up. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 10:06:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA12767; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:55:29 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: Carrell, Mike on Correa Resent-Message-ID: <"7NjXz1.0.O73.EniGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/907 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Carrell wrote: > >...... but I should >have given greater emphasis to the statement at the top of page 14: "Actual >measurements...show that no current flows out of the DP or into the CP except >from the PAGD energy pulses." Analysis of the charge energy in C3 and C5 is >irrelevant; they are coupling capacitors intended to convey the discharge >energy to the load. No. Capacitors store and release energy. Coupling capacitors store and release energy, too. After the capacitors couple a charge pulse to rectifier, they must recharge (any text on transient response of capacitively coupled amplifiers will go on ad tedium on this point)---unless you want to convince that the CAPACITORS that are the source of the energy instead. Since we can't see the PAGD voltage and current, we need to see the battery voltages and currents, and we need to see them for a COMPLETE CYCLE and with sufficient resolution to quantify the low-power, but lengthy, pulse recovery phase. >The reactor simply shuts down between pulses and no current flows. The >following four paragraphs elaborate on this point. The reactor might shut down, but the coupling capacitors must recharge between pulses. See my comment above....... 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-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 11:24:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA02139; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:12:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:12:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: 20 Sep 96 13:14:05 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: ILENR2 oddball science Message-ID: <960920171405_100433.1541_BHG50-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"SFnv52.0.GX.cwjGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/908 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael, > I believe that the basis for that work is the work of Kervran, > funded for a very long time by the French government. He is > highly regarded in Europe, which has a decidedly different > academic culture of what is topically relevent than is present in > this country. I don't think that Louis Kervran *is* highly regarded in Europe. > At least, that is what Europeans have told me. Academics, like > newspapermen, in this country are astoundingly provincial. They > believe their science is American and University. And that is > really weird...in my culture. Yes, in a sense this is true. The provincialism and chauvinism in the USA is pretty breathtaking to me - but perhaps Americans travelling in Europe feel the same way about Europeans. However, there is one big difference between the UK and the US (I can't speak with much authority about Europe as a whole, though I think it is more like the UK in this regard), and that is the higher level of emotionalism with which views are held, attacked and defended in the US. Firings and demotions for science heresy are more rare in the UK, where the general view of society - that one may do as one wishes, so long as one does not frighten the horses - is also present in science. However, this can mean that a kind of peaceable uniformity can settle over British academia, and the ivy can quietly grow to cover the scientists as well as their buildings. Eccentrics may be tolerated, but they don't get a great deal of attention either. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 11:50:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA08921; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:45:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:45:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:44:37 -0400 Message-ID: <960920144437_482426778@emout20.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Can't test Cincinnati gadget Resent-Message-ID: <"YL8Js3.0.IB2.-OkGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/909 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed said (with regard to bringing the Cincinnatti experiment t our calorimeter): " I would love to do that, but I can't. I have signed this !@!#* secrecy agreement and I am not free to take it anywhere." The point is, of course, it could be a black box placed in our calorimeter (we can do bomb calorimetry with a little lead time), concerning which we never knew any details that they wanted to keep proprietary. Oh well, the Inventor's Syndrome... Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 12:46:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA18399; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 12:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 12:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: "RMCarrell@aol.com" , Vortex-L Subject: RE: Carrell, Mike on Correa Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 12:25:00 -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: <"jmVE12.0.NV4.s-kGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/910 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mike Thanks for your well taken comments. Your effort in explaining what the Correa's have done is much appreciated. They apparently have a case of Inventor's disease also, and are afraid to let the full light of reason shine on their work.. The basic device described in their patent is a form of a negative resistance relaxation oscillator, basically similar to strobe's such as camera flashes. The issue of whether or not the devices produce more energy out than they put in is independent of the oscillator. It depends on the detailed input and output waveforms. Until these are 1) published, and 2) replicated independently and reliably, I personally need to take their results with "a grain of salt". It would be very nice if they are true, and I wish the Correas well. The excess energy, if it exists, may well come from the aether, or ZPE, or whatever. For an engineering device, it really does't matter. What matters is that it can be built, and does what it is supposed to do, such as charge batteries. >From a scientific point of view how it works, of course is very important. Please keep working with the Correas to further publish details. A good book I can recommend for this general area is: "Theory of Oscillations" by Andronow and Chaikin, Princeton University Press(1949) Thanks again Hank Scudder ---------- From: RMCarrell@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Carrell, Mike on Correa Date: Thursday, September 19, 1996 7:16PM Gentlemen: I applaud the recent comments on my article because it shows someone actually read it, and read it thoughtfully. The points are well taken, but I should have given greater emphasis to the statement at the top of page 14: "Actual measurements...show that no current flows out of the DP or into the CP except from the PAGD energy pulses." Analysis of the charge energy in C3 and C5 is irrelevant; they are coupling capacitors intended to convey the discharge energy to the load. The reactor simply shuts down between pulses and no current flows. The following four paragraphs elaborate on this point. The circuit shown exists to collect the energy from the PAGD and does not actually cause the energy to appear. In the last paragraph cited above I paraphrase Correa: "The PAGD phenomenon, with its energy yield, can be evoked without C3, C5, or any of the attached circuitry..." This effectively answers the first point raised by Michael Schaffer. He is correct in that the pulse waveforms in Fig. 4 are not comprehensive proof of o/u without the additional datum that the reactor goes quiet and no current flows out of the DP or into the CP. Mark Hugo raised the question about the possibility of the arrangement being an elaborate strobe oscillator about the same time I was asking myself the same question. My analysis of the question is covered on the last column of Page 13 and the beginning of Page 14, cited above. I can't give any better answer as to *why* the reactor shuts down than that given in the article. As for the digitizer, of course it can be misused. I just finished talking to Correa and I asked him again to identify the equipment and he again refused because a) he didn't want to give an endorsement, and b) he didn't want to give hints as to the current direction of his research. Keep in mind that the patents, and the article, reflect his work in the 1992 time period. He did assure me that the instrument has differential probes. In sidebar conversation with a member of the vortex community, the question was raised about the simultaneity of the voltage and current measurements in a floating system using high voltages. I pointed out that it is completely within the state of the art to build a multichannel sampling instrument with four or more differential amplifiers capable of measuring the currents and voltages effectively simultaneously. I have at hand a 1982(!) Analog Devices handbook listing a 16 bit A/D converter with a 35us conversion time. That gives you 90 db dynamic range. The measurements of Fig. 4 were made with an 80 us sampling time. The original curves sent by Correa show discrete steps at 1.6ms time increments, which probably reflects the granularity of the plotting program, rather than the granularity of the measured data. The curves of Fig. 4 are smoothed but faithful replicas of the furnished data. If anyone seriously wants to see photocopies of the originals, I will charter a USPS snail to carry them. There are three pages; the other two show data for other conditions which were not useful for the article. I should reiterate that the curves of Fig. 4 are for specific conditions, not necessarily those of any of the other data shown, and will vary considerably with the operating pulse rate. There is obviously no magic in "digital" or "computer" -- er, sorry, digital computers can produce a very convincing representation of President Kennedy shaking hands with Forrest Gump. However, I find no reason to question the authenticity of the curves of Fig. 4. There are three errors, all ones of my computation or transcription. One was pointed out by Mitchell Swartz and I posted a correction and new approximation a few days ago. The detailed corrections to charge and energy yield estimates will be published as errata in IE #9. The corrections do not change the conclusion which is self-evident on inspection of the curves themselves. As for the battery tests, the points are well taken. I thought I meade it clear in the article that the Correas are also acutely aware of the hazards of using batteries as integrators. The whole purpose of Fig. 5 is to illustrate in a graphical, "time line" way the procedure which was used in obtaining the data presented as Table 8 in the '989 patent, reproduced in part in IE# 7. The purpose of Table 8, by the way, was not to demonstrate o/u but to show a body of tests of different reactor constructions and operating modes. Some worked better than others, using a common measurement protocol. Remember that the purpose was to establish a patent position, not to satisfy a thesis committee. I would ask the EE's among us what they would have done with limited resources, seeing the energy burst waveforms on storage scopes, but needing to measure overall energy yield? The Correas didn't have the digital instrumentation when the patents were applied for. The most important o/u test is the one for which there is the least numerical data, the battery swapping experiment schematically shown in Fig. 7. I asked Correa for further information, he said simply that he switched the battery positions every hour for eight hours. Numerical data was taken, but these are in reports which are confidential. He did say that both battery packs gained energy in the test. One can cut apart the four sets of evidence (Figs. 4,5,6,7), find flaws in each, and conclude that an air-tight case has not been made. However, the four sets of data each support the same conclusion by somewhat different means. I believe I have made an appropriate response to the comments on vortex. If there are loose ends, I will endeavor to tidy up in public or private. I've provided an overview, but if you want to really grapple with the PAGD phenomenon, wade through the patents and bone up on the works of Harold Aspden. In particular, look up "The Law of Electrodynamics" in the Journal of the Franklin Institute, Feb. 1969, V.287 #2. I am part way through three of his books and his aether science is beginning to make sense, or perhaps it is simply that I'm getting used to the words. Gentlemen, this is a vacuum energy device, not a fancy strobe relaxation oscillator. The actual phenomena in the discharge vortex is quite complex. It gradually dawns on you that carriers of greatly different mass -- ions and electrons -- are involved, and Aspden's law of electrodynamics (cited above) demonstrates that very strong longitudinal forces can result. Now we are into new physics, wherein there can be coupling between the vacuum energy and a useful circuit. I won't pretend to understand -- much less defend -- this now, but I see some very interesting scenery through the window of the tour bus. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 13:27:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA29711; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: 20 Sep 96 16:08:54 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: ILENR2 oddball science Message-ID: <960920200854_100433.1541_BHG93-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"uE93C1.0.6G7.8glGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/911 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hal, > With regard to the "Concinnati Experiment" Jed said: > > "Preliminary estimates indicate over unity performance. > Unfortunately we do not have the $5000 it would take to wire down > a real answer." > > If it's promising, bring it to EarthTech, place it in Scott > Little's calorimeter, and we'll test it for free. Some months ago I did report the outline of what I had done with this thing. There is no need whatever for advanced calorimetry, I was able to use a highly insulated container of known thermal capacity. I ran the process for half a minute or so, and then quenched the cell with a quantity of cold water. Providing that a reasonable temperature increase was seen, and all was stable first, and all thermal capacities bla bla bla, then - a reasonable and conservative measurement. My problem was not the calorimetry but with being quite certain that no input power peaks were being missed. And, since I was under NDA about the highly specific materials used, I could see no clear purpose in spending more time and money on something which I wouldn't be much able to talk about anyway. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 13:34:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA04773; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:29:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:29:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:30:18 -0600 (MDT) From: -steve ekwall- X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: 76570.2270@compuserve.com Subject: Re: More on Plant Power for Power Plants In-Reply-To: <199609201242.FAA10242@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"8z-xK3.0.OA1.0xlGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/912 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Akira Kawasaki wrote: > Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sept. 20, 1996 > Mallove quoted more details appearing in Nature on the plant conversion > to a petroleum base in India. > Sounds plausable to me. ------------------------------->el pine------------------------ > Speaking of plants, there is a plant (tree) growing down south where > the wood is so wax rich that, on the catalog sales marketing for the > home, they sell bundled short strips of it as starters for the > fireplace. What did they call it now ---'waxsticks?' or something more > catchy along that line. I imagine if that tree could be converted to a > lighter petroleum base, you could have literally a petrol farm. And the > tree could be genetically engineered to grow faster and perhaps have a > lighter wax base for easier conversion. Solar power harnessed! > > -AK- yes, that's the southern 'pine' tree.. the 'heartof the pine' is literally Full of 'wax' (as you called it) When I was growing up in Florida (THEY did make it lighter) and called it "TURPINTINE" Still handy stuff and yes very 'lightable' for fire starting. the wax 'ozzzesss' out of injured trees AND if allowed time (jurasiac) becomes AMBER..(!) It's a full fledged industry from 'turpintine to christmas tree (long-needle(ugh)) and paper production. -=Steve Ekwall=- POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com 'SLEEP is NOT the wk.1.800.798.1100 303.293.2FAX Brother of DEATH, BUT the CML#41251 ------------------MOTHER of INTERRUPTS!'-------------------  From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 14:38:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA16995; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:20:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:20:45 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32430A8E.2C67412E@math.ucla.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:20:14 -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: ILENR2 video tapes References: <960920105737_100433.1541_BHG100-2@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Dmzqc3.0.T94.hgmGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/913 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: > > Led as I now am to question your objectivity - for example by your > errors in the matter of Bockris' problems with TAMU Uh...what errors? Reread what I wrote. Reread Jeds detailed response. Show me the errors. Jeds story agreed better with my comment than I would have guesssed before hand! I purposefully left my paragraph short and vague because I make no claim to know exactly what happened. But I have heard various accounts from various folks who should know. My main point was simply that TAMU and the Chem department have some powerful non-scientific (i.e. political) reasons for wanting to distance themselves from Bockris. > I am wondering if > you saw my question here yesterday. I asked you if you would see a > quantitative analysis of the cell contents for cathode metals before and > after one of Miley's runs as being a good test of his transmutation > hypothesis? No. You will end up basing your result be subtracting two large numbers which nearly cancel, a dubious technique. Because the metal thin film can only be weighed by weighing the _entire bead_ (since a sputtered coating is integrated into the bead surface), from the start your metal is in the 4th decimal place in weight measurements. Corrections for material lost into the filter and solution further complicate things (difficult to recover properly) Finally, the necessary weight comparison is that of a fully hydrated metal lattice (not the simple empty starting lattice) to the final lattice, another annoyance. -- 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 Fri Sep 20 14:40:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA18273; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:26:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:26:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:25:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199609202125.OAA03438@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: More on Plant Power for Power Plants To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"RV6Qb1.0.MT4.plmGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/914 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sept. 20, 1996 You wrote: > ------------------------------->el pine------------------------ > yes, that's the southern 'pine' tree.. the 'heartof the pine' is >literally Full of 'wax' (as you called it) When I was growing up in >Florida (THEY did make it lighter) and called it "TURPINTINE" >Still handy stuff and yes very 'lightable' for fire starting. the >wax 'ozzzesss' out of injured trees AND if allowed time (jurasiac) >becomes AMBER..(!) Wrong tree. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 14:47:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA21322; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:39:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Ed Harada Message-Id: <199609202139.PAA26456@xmission.xmission.com> Subject: si -> ca To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:39:35 -0600 (MDT) In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960920045840.0071f0dc@mail.eskimo.com> from "Gary Hawkins" at Sep 19, 96 09:58:40 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"UJCaW.0.2D5.eymGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/915 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Cerviran (sp) talked about the chickens picking out pieces of mica, which are silica. He also mentioned na -> k and k - na transmutations as a result of using or releasing heat. > > >I think it also important to include the parts where it is > >made clear that chickens tranmute Mg into Ca to make eggs. > > I thought it was Silica, not Mg, from the book - > "Biological Transmutations", (Kervran). According > to the book, when chickens were denied any calcium, > their eggs were fine, when denied Silica in their > diet, bad eggs. > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 15:34:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA29480; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32431807.33590565@math.ucla.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:17:43 -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: ILENR2 oddball science References: <960920035507_72240.1256_EHB175-4@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"4pJLv3.0.UC7.0XnGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/916 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I thought it would be interesting to > go over the list of things he [Barry] condemned as fringe > science unworthy of the ILENR2 conference: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "unworthy of ILENR2" is the key. I am all for folks investigating anything they want, using whatever methods of ``knowing'' they want. But I also think there needs to be a selection process to determine what should get into a serious scientific conference. Just as you wouldn't have the ramblings of a homeless lunatic read into the congressional record, you shouldn't allow just any old presentation that somehow might touch on transmutation into ILENR2. Theory and experiment should survive a fairly hefty amount of natural selection to make it that far (or at least come from a researcher whose previous work in other areas has done so). I also think the idea of having an open session at the end, where folks can give ~10 minute presentations with less stringent rules, for the purpose of broadcasting potentially interesting information, is also fine. But these folks should not be accorded the exact same import as Miley and Mizuno. This is an insult to their vastly more detailed and believable work. -- 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 Fri Sep 20 15:44:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA02206; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:30:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609202227.PAA30602@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, 20 Sep 1996 15:27:31 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: ILENR2 oddball science Resent-Message-ID: <"eSYVg.0.IY.SinGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/918 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:14 PM 9/20/96 EDT, you wrote: >Michael, > > > I believe that the basis for that work is the work of Kervran, > > funded for a very long time by the French government. He is > > highly regarded in Europe, which has a decidedly different > > academic culture of what is topically relevent than is present in > > this country. > >I don't think that Louis Kervran *is* highly regarded in Europe. > My understanding is that he has published (in French) a significant amount of other work, none of which has been translated. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 15:46:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA02756; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 18:33:01 -0400 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199609202233.SAA05448@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <199609201027.DAA20846@big.aa.net> (message from Michael Mandeville on Fri, 20 Sep 1996 03:27:12 +0900) Subject: Re: ILENR2 oddball science Resent-Message-ID: <"XSnaA3.0.wg.yknGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/921 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael Mandeville (mwm@aa.net) said: > > We are NO SMARTER today than we were 30 years ago, or 150 years ago. > > > >Never forget that! > ...or 4000 years ago. That is an awfully long time to remember. ;-) More seriously, significant population changes due to selection take about ten generations. For example, the strong selection pressure against illiteracy didn't start until the nineteenth century, but it got to be pretty complete before the welfare state and television removed some of the selection pressure. So yes, the average population is somewhat smarter than 150 years ago, and very much smarter than 4000 years ago. But the effect is smaller than the individual variations between individuals. What will happen in the next four thousand years is anyones guess. But I plan to find out the hard way--one day at a time. 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 Sep 20 15:47:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA01698; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:26:55 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: si -> ca Resent-Message-ID: <"lnrug3.0.RQ.7gnGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/917 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Cerviran (sp) talked about the chickens picking out pieces of mica, which >are silica. He also mentioned na -> k and k - na transmutations as a >result of using or releasing heat. > >> >> >I think it also important to include the parts where it is >> >made clear that chickens tranmute Mg into Ca to make eggs. There are many mica minerals. Principal constituent elements are Si, Al, K and O. Depending on which mica, other constituents include: Fe Mg Li Na H F plus impurities. As I've pointed out previously, all biological cells MUST contain Ca, so if the chickens were fed ANY food derived from living organisms, then they got some Ca. 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-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 15:49:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA02442; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:31:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:31:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609202228.PAA30621@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, 20 Sep 1996 15:27:41 +0900 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Wielu Master Say: See The Obvious In Transmutation Resent-Message-ID: <"ixU8n.0.2c.NjnGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/920 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Concerning Bockris's conference, various transmutations yields, and reports by various parties, and the dawning realization on the part of Rothwell, Tinsley, and Mallove that cold fusion really is, well, something else again... In otherwords, now that the pointy hat set has your serious attention, consider a little prophecy. And then, consider taking up the CHALLENGE QUEST, which I will herewith provide. I am going to lay out my entire fruitcake, liberally decked with opinionuts. People who prefer white cake from Safeway need read no further. What follows is a series of fundamental predictions about the outcome of the cold fusion and free energy field and hence an exercise in creative guidance for whomever uses it. It comes from not a theoretician, but admittedly a metaphysician. Yes, I actually like philosophy. It has taught me how to evaluate 20th century "science". You need, you see, something much better than "peer review" to evaluate the art of science. You need good IDEAS. You need a grasp of conceptual fundamentals. Without doubt I qualify as a scientist, because, I have performed transmutation, knowingly, repeatedly using a method of discovery in a garage using less than $100 and a bunch of second hand stuff, laced with a little radium. I have also seen, experienced, and measured over unity in a magnetic device. So the following has some basis other than the armchair. Admittedly, I am an ignorant scientist. I am especially ignorant of this generation's use of scientific buzzwords. I hate them. What I am going to give you here is some fast non-linear connections to enable you to think creatively about what you may be thinking about. PAY ATTENTION TO THE DAMNED OBVIOUS. First, to clear the air, forget about the theoretical electrodynamics mathematical manure and obscure jargon which masquerades as an understanding of physics. It impedes thought and leaves nearly everyone with a headache. Nuclear physics is and has since the 1920's always been about transmutation. High energy nuclear physics is about how to speed the process of a naturally occurring process, yielding singularities from the rearrangement of the geometry of the universe. It is in essence NOT A THEORTICAL SCIENCE AT ALL. It is quite obviously an applied endeavor of the state, managed by mathematicians (space by space multiplying and dividing in their ninefold darkness (thank you, William Blake) . Equally obviously it has no philosophical basis with coherent concepts. "Indeterminacy" simply means, we give up. Hence it has no ground for consistent inference AS A SCIENCE. To date, the adequacy of the existing quantum paradigm, whatever it is, is sustained by the convenience of ignoring and/or denying whatever cannot be explained by it, thinly disguised by the typical academic sleight of hand in assumption-denial. OR, the existing inadequacy of the existing paradigm is elevated into come sort of mystical cosmological principle, which even religionists and new agers now regularly cite. Indeterminacy indeed. It has become clear that this "high energy" nuclear physics is not at all necessary to accomplish transmutations and/or net free energy conversion. Which proves the point that quantum physics is most definitely an incomplete paradigm, which means ALL BETS about matter/energy paradigms ARE OFF. Precisely as Einstein predicted, by the way. All high energy nuclear processes ARE transmutation in motion. You think it is about energy because that is how it is "sold", but energy is not really what it is about. The fetish about the transmutation word is absurd. All technologically based nuclear manipulations boil down to geometric enhancements of the structure of materiality, of nature, which speed up natural occurrences to the point where a singularity occurs, namely, a radical restructuring of the elements involved. These are calculated in energy terms but these processes are NOT ENERGIES. "Energies" are human anthropomorphic concepts, numbers we look for. The universe does not function on "energies". Universe functions, Wielu Master dances, pure and simple on GEOMETRIES OF MOTIONS. Look for the geometry of motion. MAGNETICS, not electricity, is the bell which should be ringing in your mind. Tertiary "Gravity Motion" easy to see, Most "Magnetic Motion", tricky indeed, hard hard to see. Wielu Master dance very fast here. FORGET CAUSATION - PREDICTION NUMBER ONE Concerning the so-called "low energy" transmutation reports of recent, there is high improbability of sorting causation from the morass of effects. There are too many, too divergent. Speculations about ratios and spreads of elements is meaningless. No vector model will explain it, nor provide inductive ground for Zen realization of the causation. Vector analysts good to have around to count the pieces after the Wielu Master dances. These numbers are good for jigging the Master's next jog, IF you have vision to see the GEOMETRY. So forget causation. Bad focus. You can't get there yet from here. COLD FUSION IN CHEMICAL CELLS YIELDING FREE ENERGY IS/WAS AN ILLUSION - PREDICTION NUMBER TWO Electrolysis cell is too complex and too narrow a focus. So-called "cold fusion" is transmutation of the catalytic metals without the need for atom-smashing levels of excitation. No billiard ball collisions wanted. And Deuterium has little to do with it although it might effect it in trivial ways. This is going to be hard for many Vortexians and others committed to CF to swallow. But I doubt that chemical electrolysis cells will ever provide the practical (commercial) basis of the sought after free energy. The more efficient they are in producing energy, which really is just a little side effect, the more efficient they are at eating up the expensive electrodes and turning them into something not nearly so valuable. How to test this prediction: put Pons and Fleishmann up against the wall. They've had six years. What have they found? Energy sure, but can they sustain it? The expensive metals turn to cheaper metals, pretty rapidly, too, isn't that right? And is that why Toyota is not switching to cold fusion engines any time soon, but is spending in the billion dollar range introducing a totally new variant of the diesel engine instead for their entire line? P&F have the answers. Get the answers from them. It is time for them to speak. Don't waste your time and money on electrolysis cells. Hopefully P&F will get more candid at the next CF conference in October. TRANSMUTATION AS FREE ENERGY MAY BE SUSTAINABLE THROUGH PLASMA CELLS - PREDICTION NUMBER THREE P&F may have found their way to a plasma type cell. Get them up against the wall. What are they really doing? Maybe they have settled into just making gold or platinum? More on this further down, but first. SOLID STATE MAGNETICS IS THE ANSWER TODAY TO FREE ENERGY - PREDICTION NUMBER FOUR Collectively, we have been given free energy ALA solid state magnetics. Muller has a way to trick Wielu Master Dance into Faraday's perpetuality. Kawasaki and a few others do too. FREE ENERGY RIGHT NOW IS IN FRONT OF YOU. What will you do with it, with the inventors? GO SEE THE MASTER DANCE. Muller is available. Takahashi is available, I think. You will not be disappointed. Shortly I will relay another professional certification of the Muller phenomenon by a competent investigator. A side note: I highly doubt that purely electrically-based ZPE will never be as elegantly powerful as magnetics. Wielu Master dances in MAGNETIC GEOMETRIES OF MOTION. Magnetics IS the flux of power. THE PLASMA PATH TO TRANSMUTATION - PREDICTION NUMBER FIVE Now, as for transmutation again. Chemistry is too strange for sorting it out. Transit to plasma, these clues define the landscape: Wielu Master dances MAGNETIC GEOMETRIES OF MOTION In the case of transmutations, your problem is that the ELECTROMAGNETIC FLUX at local levels (molecular)is buried in the sea of noise of surrounding molecular materiality. Thus the structures of evolution are unseen, uncontrolled, and hence unpredictable. Ever used a shotgun on a target? All experimentation to date uses shotguns. Even that tidy little purified and laboratory sanctified electrolysis cell, just a shotgun. COHERENCE, PLASMA, RUSSELL and use of MONTI's and/or CHAMPION's extended alpha compilations are the easiest routes to technological and theoretical progress. Monti's modeling is derived from Russell or at least they fit together hand in glove. Rutherford would have loved Monti's and Champion's work, assiduous elbow grease in search of a new realization about matter. Russell, in "The Universal One", laid it all out 65 years ago, about the same time the Euro continental schools took over physics with the high energy paradigm. Consequently he was ignored, like Einstein, who maintained till his death the improbability of indecisive models sustaining a viable basis for valid inference about the nature of matter/energy. RUSSELL conducted an experiment in plasma, using the geometry of structure to transmute gasses, THE MASTER KEY to which is the proper coordination of the GEOMETRY OF THE MAGNETIC FIELDS IN WHICH THE TRANSMUTATION OCCURRS, geometry of which is specific, exactly specific to the elements in the field and the phase of the electrical impulse which pulses and entrains the relative motions of the matter. Based on his structural approach and the Monti/Champion compilations, these relationships can be used PREDICTIVELY to generate specific transmutations, within the set of possible alpha geometries. To appreciate Russell's work, you will have to heed Tinsley's Maxim, namely rigorous application of ignoring the belief system, as well as his ego, I might add. But DO get his concepts about the relationships of gravity, magnetism, and electrical force, and how that relates to the geometry of atom/spacetime, element by element. ZPE people may find very fruitful ground here. Free energy will likely be found as a side effect, and may be sustainable on a practical basis through plasma. OR, FOLLOWING THE MONEY IS AN EASY ROUTE - PREDICTION NUMBER SIX As Deep Throat so appropriately advised, follow the money. And/or follow the radioactive isotope. The signals of both are crystal clear and easy to follow. No mass spec is needed. Monti has followed the radioactive isotope, which I also did, because radium is a wonderful emitter, is really hard to lose, and the results so easy to measure. Also because the stakes are so big. There are many huge piles of radioactive material on this planet which need to be eliminated. What better way than to transmute them into something like gold? Actually, gold is hard to do this way, I think, more likely to be platinoids and/or silver and/or lead and/or other nearby elements a little lower on the chart than gold. Do you want to follow the money? That is really crystal clear. You can always head-trip the radium as hiding out somewhere and stutter on about contaminants, etc. It is hard to deny the money. It is really really hard to deny the money trail. Champion has his process(es) and can speak to it, which he does on the Web. He has people successfully working his concepts. Here is a secret about Champion's stuff. He has freely set it forth. You don't need Champion to work his stuff. What he is holding back is really not all that much, just a wrinkle or two. Let me tell you what Keller has been doing lately. He lives on social security and supplements his income by making small batches of precious. He has got his process down to this. Follow the money here, forget the science. He buys reclaimed silver from an international refiner at roughly $5/ounce. He transmutes it in his way, using a few dollars of ingredients, no more than say $5 worth. He resells the "silver" to the same refiner for roughly $50/ounce, the extra value accounted for in gold and platinum values which the refiner can now smelt out of the silver. Cute, eh? Pretty objective. Academic concerns be damned. The refiner isn't stupid enough to sell Keller silver with the precious already in it. And Keller is not stupid enough to fool himself into thinking he has made a profit by somehow putting the precious into it. He makes it, or as he says, ALA Russell, he encourages its "reproduction". And Keller is neither publishing nor promoting, so his motivation is not inclined towards spiking the truth. THE ANSWERS LIE ON THE FRINGE: PREDICTION NUMBER SEVEN Toynbee, I think it was, once quoted Will Durant, I think it was, to the effect that what is new in a civilization generally emerges from the frontier of a culture, where the dominance of the existing cultural paradigms is at their weakest. This can be allegorically true, in the sense of an "underground" of alternative thought (well supported through Vortex, which incidentally resides on a computer at the edge of the North American continent), and can literally be true, geographically. For transmutation and free energy magnetics, both are true in both cases. Well out of institutional dominance, and at the relatively remote edges of the continental culture, two inventors, Keller and Muller, one by the sea and the other by the mountain, have methods and/or devices which will fundamentally cause the re-factoring of our cultures. Monti and Champion, though not so geographically at the fringe, but definitely "underground", also have some fundamental stuff. Directly related to the fringe is the crack in which it will be found. It is exactly where physics and chemistry is cloven in two. Case in point: Bockris, who has a bridge between the two. Need em'ers to think chemically, need chemists to think in em. That's why only the oddball people are making progress. Where it will NOT be found. American Universities and Big Corporations. Practicioners of the arts in those loci are two narrowly focused and too lazily inclined to rely on conventional references and substitute conventional "authority" or "truth" for valid thinking. Thinking past the barriers of specialty limitations is really hard work. You have to be willing to be a total fool, and be fooled, time and time again. How can you be a professional authority and a fool at the same time? It seems most people most of the time cannot function psychologically out of both realities at the same time when they are in a role which they think makes them an authority, or ought to make them authority. CHALLENGE QUEST FOR EXPERIMENTALISTS For experimentalists....check out Walter Russell's work. The Universal One is no longer sold, but nearly as good is his "Secret Of Life" which can be obtained from the University of Science and Philosophy in Swannanoa, Waynesboro, Virginia, 22980. That is the address, yes correctly spelled. There is an entire cosmology in there, but zero in on the spiral model of matter. "Universal Nine Octave Cycle" I have misplaced my reference file to them, but information should have phone number and they have a catalog and newsletter. Reportedly, Tesla was so impressed by Russell's stuff, he reportedly advised Russell to lock it away for a thousand years. I happen to have a copy of a technical paper by Grotz et al which was copied out of the PNW's most sophisticated huge company's technical library by a local dean of the pointy hat set. It describes a Russell plasma experiment confirmed by Westinghouse Corporation which changed, in a sealed quartz tube, using clever electromagnetic manipulation (with the stress on magnetic) the ratio of hydrogen to oxygen, at will. Yes, the T word. This article looks ocrable but I suspect that it can be acquired from the University of Science and Philosophy. The name Tim Binder, from that group, is a co-author. I hesitate to violate copyright, so prefer you look to where I am pointing. Russell was also into ZPE in the '50's and a working prototype machine was reportedly built by him...I even have a photo of what he reportedly built. Somebody on Vortex near Virginia should pay a visit to the "University" and see what treasures the archives might contain...THIS IS A VERY BIG HINT. I have been holding this to myself for three years but have decided that my attitude was inappropriate, a variant of "inventor's disease", call it "entrepreneur's disease". BTW, you will have to rigorously apply Tinsley's Maxim with Rothwellian Ruthlessness. The place has been taken over by new agers with very little orientation to hard science. Russell's real stuff is slowly disappearing into the sub-basement, speaking metaphorically. SPECIAL CASE CHALLENGE QUEST FOR ROTHWELL A tour of four or five points in Western North America could help you sort out a lot of issues, maybe for a lot of people. Your ruthless analytical ability (this is not pejorative) is awesome. When confronted with appropriate facts, you come to appropriate conclusions. Such a miracle! CHALLENGE QUEST FOR BIG TIME SEEKERS Suppose... You have found what you are looking for. Before you are the keys to kingdom come. What will you do with it? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 15:50:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA02253; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:31:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609202227.PAA30600@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, 20 Sep 1996 15:27:29 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: More on Plant Power for Power Plants Resent-Message-ID: <"JaFM_1.0.4Z.dinGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/919 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:42 AM 9/20/96 -0700, you wrote: >Sept. 20, 1996 > >Mallove quoted more details appearing in Nature on the plant conversion >to a petroleum base in India. > >Sounds plausable to me. > > On the U.S. side, in researching recyling of garbage, there is a >proposed, working municipal process which converts garbage into clean >petroleum product. This uses all types of organic based waste so it may >not be as cost effective as the one plant conversion process mentioned. > > Speaking of plants, there is a plant (tree) growing down south where >the wood is so wax rich that, on the catalog sales marketing for the >home, they sell bundled short strips of it as starters for the >fireplace. What did they call it now ---'waxsticks?' or something more >catchy along that line. I imagine if that tree could be converted to a >lighter petroleum base, you could have literally a petrol farm. And the >tree could be genetically engineered to grow faster and perhaps have a >lighter wax base for easier conversion. Solar power harnessed! > >-AK- > > I have a piece of that solution. An enzyme which will emulsify it for separation very very cheap. "Greenzyme" invented by Dr. Doggit. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 15:58:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA06516; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: 20 Sep 96 18:43:59 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Message-ID: <960920224358_100433.1541_BHG100-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"dWrWb1.0.fb1.uynGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/922 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, Genuinely, I do not want a quarrel as such. I dislike those intensely. > Uh...what errors? Reread what I wrote. Reread Jeds detailed > response. Show me the errors. Jeds story agreed better with my > comment than I would have guesssed before hand! You earlier said: "I don't feel their motives have anything to do with scientific dogma, or biases against unusual research per se." But they did have precisely that. I could, I suppose, drag out of my archives the actual text wherein a large majority of the 'distinguished professors' at TAMU called for the expulsion of Bockris from their ranks. The very text made it abundantly clear that it was for heresy. I'm sorry, but those are the facts. Here is an excerpt from that petition: ". . . we believe that Bockris' recent activities has made the terms "Texas A&M" and "Aggie" objects of derisive laughter throughout the world among scientists and engineers, not to mention a large segment of the lay public. The "Alchemy" caper is, everywhere, a sure trigger for sniggering at our university. And so it should be. For a trained scientist to claim, or support anyone else's claim, to have transmuted elements is difficult for us to believe and is no more acceptable than to claim to have invented a gravity shield, revived the dead or to be mining green cheese on the moon. We believe it is sheer nonsense, and, in our opinion, could not have been done innocently by one with a lifetime of experience in one of the physical sciences." I trust that excerpt clarifies matters. Jed can supply you with the full text. Hmm. How timely that they should mention a gravity shield!! "In this case, I think its clear they want to distance themselves from Bockris & co because of the ``scandal'' related to transmutation work Bockris did with Monti and Champion in the early 90's, the fallout of which was two of the principals went to jail, the results were not replicated, and undoubtedly there was a inquiry into how the university handled funds that were received, due to the severe missappropriations of funds that occured." Since the official enquiry triggered by that petition wholly exonerated Bockris, I would have thought that the correct, collegiate and moral procedure would be to rally around their unjustly accused colleague. > My main point was simply that TAMU and the Chem department have > some powerful non-scientific (i.e. political) reasons for wanting > to distance themselves from Bockris. And mine is that all true scientists have excellent reasons from any point of view (not just political) for identifying themselves with him. Under the circumstances, no decent man or woman would do otherwise. [quantitative analysis of the cathode metals 'before and after'] > No. You will end up basing your result be subtracting two large > numbers which nearly cancel, a dubious technique. I specifically suggested that the metals be dissolved, togther with the bead fragments and any debris - and that the resulting solution be subjected to the highly accurate methods of quantitative chemical analysis. Also that the electrolyte be analysed for salts of the metals, and that the entire apparatus be cleared of any traces of metal, and that this metal should also be dissolved and quantified. Additionally I suggested three methods of measuring the initial quantities of the metals - measurements, dissolving and quantitative analysis, and any method available from measurements taken from the quantity used to plate the beads. Naturally, the dissolving and quantitative analysis of a measured proportion of the initial bead sample would be the most precise of the three. > Because the metal thin film can only be weighed by weighing the > _entire bead_ (since a sputtered coating is integrated into the > bead surface), from the start your metal is in the 4th decimal > place in weight measurements. I covered this problem. > Corrections for material lost into the filter and solution further > complicate things (difficult to recover properly) And this one. > Finally, the necessary weight comparison is that of a fully > hydrated metal lattice (not the simple empty starting lattice) to > the final lattice, another annoyance. And this one. Each of these 'difficulties' disappears if the metal is taken into solution and a proper quantitative chemical analysis is performed. Do you still feel that this technique is without merit? Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 16:18:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA12893; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 16:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 16:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: 20 Sep 96 19:14:35 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: si -> ca Message-ID: <960920231435_100433.1541_BHG74-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"mCnnP.0.M93.8NoGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/923 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ed, > Cerviran (sp) talked about the chickens picking out pieces of > mica, which are silica. My recollection is that he referred specifically to the potassium available from mica. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 16:48:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA17772; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 16:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 16:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: 20 Sep 96 19:41:27 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Wielu Master Say: See The Obvious In Tr Message-ID: <960920234126_100433.1541_BHG48-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"1YYej3.0.YL4.1noGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/924 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael ..... > Concerning Bockris's conference, various transmutations yields, > and reports by various parties, and the dawning realization on the > part of Rothwell, Tinsley, and Mallove that cold fusion really is, > well, something else again.. GRRRR! Call me names, but don't put words in my mouth! > To appreciate Russell's work, you will have to heed Tinsley's > Maxim, namely rigorous application of ignoring the belief system, > as well as his ego, I might add. But DO get his concepts about > the relationships of gravity, magnetism, and electrical force, and > how that relates to the geometry of atom/spacetime, element by > element. ZPE people may find very fruitful ground here. GRRRR again! Please stop this. I am categorically not a physicist, nor indeed a scientist of any kind. I am an ex-hacker-cum-fumbling-EE with a reasonable formal education in the physical sciences (mostly chemistry) and - perhaps the only thing of any advantage to my activities in 'weird science' - I have some training in formal logic. I might add that I have a lifelong antipathy to (a) hypothesising - unless such hypotheses are subject to confirmatory test and (b) to philosophy of any shape or form. As to my ego, at this rate I shall make a sincere effort to re-inflate it at once. On the matter of zpf, I admit to a liking for the ideas, but THEY ARE NOT MINE, I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THEM. I only like them because (a) if zpf physics can reduce the number of entities in modern physics that appeals to my liking for the principle of parsimony and (b) if it might lead to new technology, then I am all for it. > For experimentalists....check out Walter Russell's work. The > Universal One is no longer sold, but nearly as good is his "Secret > Of Life" which can be obtained from the University of Science and > Philosophy in Swannanoa, Waynesboro, Virginia, 22980. That is the > address, yes correctly spelled. There is an entire cosmology in > there, but zero in on the spiral model of matter. "Universal Nine > Octave Cycle" You must appreciate that this kind of thing does rather grate on my 'nuts-and-bolts' attitude to science. I will read your post, although I will admit that on first sight it has no appeal. But ... I will try, sincerely. Chris (teeth firmly clenched) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 18:39:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA07831; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 18:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 18:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 18:37:18 -0700 Message-Id: <199609210137.SAA24121@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: ILENR2 oddball science Resent-Message-ID: <"vnAwC.0.Hw1.PRqGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/925 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 01:14 PM 9/20/96 EDT, you wrote: >>Michael, >> >> > I believe that the basis for that work is the work of Kervran, >> > funded for a very long time by the French government. He is >> > highly regarded in Europe, which has a decidedly different >> > academic culture of what is topically relevent than is present in >> > this country. >> >>I don't think that Louis Kervran *is* highly regarded in Europe. >> > >My understanding is that he has published (in French) a significant amount >of other work, none of which has been translated. >____________________________________ >MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing >Michael Mandeville, publisher >mwm@aa.net >http://www.aa.net/~mwm > > If the information can be dumped onto the newsgroup, I speak French and could try to translate it if deemed valuable. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 18:51:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA09587; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 18:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 18:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: 20 Sep 96 21:48:29 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Reading don't make smarts Message-ID: <960921014829_72240.1256_EHB32-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ituBY3.0.hL2.wcqGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/926 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex This is entirely off topic so I shall keep it short. I must protest this notion suggested by Robert I. Eachus: "For example, the strong selection pressure against illiteracy didn't start until the nineteenth century, but it got to be pretty complete before the welfare state and television removed some of the selection pressure. So yes, the average population is somewhat smarter than 150 years ago, and very much smarter than 4000 years ago. Premodern activities required every bit as much brainpower as reading books! Things like hunting, fishing, sailing ships, or gold smithing take as much mental effort and ingenuity as programming a computer, writing a book, playing baseball or doing a high dive in the Olympics. And yes, the latter two are mental achievements, not physical. We talk of "training the arms" but of course the only organ that can be taught is the brain. A well done double play in baseball is as much a mental achievement as playing a Mozart sonata or solving a physics problem. In pre-literate societies, people routinely memorized books as long as the Bible, the Iliad & Odyssey, and the South Pacific poems used to encode navigation data. Children had to memorize hundreds of pages of epic poetry for the tribe to survive. This may have been a rather boring activity, but there is no doubt it taxed the brain. This was not mere rote memorization, because that would never work for such gigantic texts. To master them you must fully understand, codify, and "data compress" the information with "the house of memory" and other techniques well known to the ancients. Few people alive today could do it. Memorization is a lost art. The vast body of knowledge formerly kept in people's brains was transferred to paper in two great movements. The first when writing was invented, the second when the printing press became popular. In both cases the older generation complained that "young people no longer know how to think, they can barely recite fifty pages." You can make a credible case that writing introduced widespread mental sloth and robbed us of the training we need to *really* harness those brain cells! It is possible, I suppose, that repetitive pre-modern farm work would dull the imagination, but so do modern activities like factory work or low level programming grunt work. I have read ancient books, history, and accounts of daily life, including translations from the Chinese 3000 years ago. I have lived with people who seldom read or write, in premodern farming lifestyles. I see no evidence that human intelligence has improved. If anything, we may be mentally softer than we used to be, for the same reason we are physically less muscular and not as well coordinated: life has gotten easy, we can goof off. We do not need to constantly think, act, and fight the elements to survive. This, of course, has nothing to do with evolution. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 19:49:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA16782; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 19:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 19:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 19:44:20 -0700 Message-Id: <199609210244.TAA11879@dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: More on Plant Power for Power Plants To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"krhe_3.0.764.wQrGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/927 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Nike, you wrote: > >I have a piece of that solution. An enzyme which will emulsify it for >separation very very cheap. "Greenzyme" invented by Dr. Doggit. > Any furthur information on this "Greenzyme"? An ealy process of using a "biomass" and water to convert into fuel is the old formation of 'Water Gas' from a combination of heated coal, air, and water(steam). The resultant product was H2 46.8%, CO 41.4%, 7.2 % N2 and the rest in NH4, CO2, HS and O2. So there is a possibility that what is experienced with this plant, water, catalyst, and 'seasonings', and some factor 'X' may result in a species of petrol fuel. Maybe adding some water to the municipal garbage processor may result in an improved petroleum product. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 20:06:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA18827; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 19:59:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 19:59:34 -0700 (PDT) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 22:58:52 -0400 Message-ID: <960920225852_526901584@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Carrell, Mike on Correa Resent-Message-ID: <"CSRmh3.0.1c4.KerGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/928 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 96-09-19 22:45:48 EDT, Barry Merriman wrote:: >> Gentlemen, this is a vacuum energy device > > >Gee, you seemed to have reached amazing conclusion pretty >quickly, expecially when the inventor will not divulge key >information to you. > >I have one question. I don;t claim to understand the device, >since I have been out of the loop. But it was discussed at dinner >somewhat at the conference. My question, and that of M Swartz >as well, is: why can;t they put a simple resistive load between >the battereis as well, and integrate up the I*V losses in it >to show, after many cycles, that it has dissipated, say, 10 >times the energy that could have possibly been stored in the >batteries. > >Forget battery swapping---adding a simple known load would >suffice. Hal Putoff adds: >I agree wholeheartedly that this beats out battery swapping, and whoever has >good contact with Correa should press this test unmercifully. Barry, since you confess that you don't understand the device, how is it that you can define a critical test? :-) Exactly where would you connect the resistor, how are you sure it would give a correct measurement, and how do you know that it would not upset the system's operation? Hal, with all due respect, have you studied my article and/or the patents themselves, and the protocols the Correas use for the battery experiments? I'm reminded of the trial in Alice in Wonderland, where the Queen said "Give your evidence and don't be nervous, or I'll have you executed on the spot". ;-) If you mean resistors (meter shunts) in series with the batteries, this is how the data of Fig. 4a were obtained. I have another illustration, showing two pulses within the scan, one with an enlarged y-axis. Pulse repetition rate is 2.8 pps. The input power pulse is about 250 W for 12.5 ms and the output power pulse peaks at about 35 kW. On the enlarged graph, it is clearly seen that the input power goes to zero with some +/- noise spikes (50 W, < 1 ms) showing. The graph also shows that the pulses are not of the same amplitude, the second reaching only about 7 kW. Since there is evidence of irregular firing, the integration process would have to be extremely long (say 70 min?) before the critical question of energy balance could be answered. Now, gentlemen, it's 1992 and you don't have a computer that will integrate 80 us samples for 70 min. You will need a *very* large capacitor. Er, how about batteries? While my statement, quoted in isolation above, seems strong, I made it so because I want readers to pause in the critical attack to consider that a genuinely new phenomenon, which has to be addressed by its own rules, is at work here. Otherwise, the "why don't they...." questions are simply glib demands that some test just thought up be performed. If you being a determined skeptic, you can assume that anything undisclosed is the hidden man that makes it go. On the other hand, it could be hard-won information that will give those mentally prepared an opportunity to duplicate without compensation, while not helping those mentally unprepared in arriving at a correct decision. Vortex is a discussion group, not a jury. The people *entitled* to more information and answers to incisive questions are those who show up with money and a willingness to sign nondisclosure agreements. As for the battery swapping experiments, the discussion in patent '989 on battery calibration, which is summarized in Fig. 5 of the article, should satisfy a reasonable observer that the Correas know what they are doing and are careful workers. It should follow easily that in the battery swapping test they would know how to measure the battery voltage to determine if energy is being gained or lost.The numerical results of the battery-swapping test would not help you one bit (to decide for or against o/u), for they can be synthesized as easily as the curves or tables of data in the patents. There is no comfort in demonstrations, for these can be staged, as I noted in my discussion of the Joseph Newman machines. There is comfort only in study and doing the work yourself, as Miley has done with the Patterson cell. Comfort in study begins with setting aside the notion that one's knowledge is complete and considering that something new may be happening. If you choose to disbelieve the additional datum that the reactor tube is quiescent and the DP output current is negligible between pulses, I can't help you.There are illustrations in the patents which indicate the extreme excursion of the electrode potentials in the PAGD operation, which is probably related to the reactor shutdown between pulses. If you accept that datum, there is clear o/u behavior present. If you choose to disbelieve that the PAGD phenomenon can be evoked without C3, C5 etc., I can't help you. These data are implied in the patents and explicit in statements made directly to me by Correa, and contained in the article. If you actually look at the references printed in IE #7 and read some of them, which I have, you will find a long history of investigation of anolamlies in glow and arc discharges. If you want some theoretical backup, you will find at least part of it in the work of Aspden. There you will have to get used to concepts of aether spin, longitudinal forces in plasmas with carriers of unequal mass, radial separation of charges, and other exotica. If you expect an explanation of the PAGD phenomenon in a college textbook, you are in the wrong century. Similarly, if you want a textbook explanation of the massive trasmutations in hydrated metals, you are also in the wrong century. Wait also for a textbook dissertation on the operation of the Griggs machine. The energy collection circuitry is empirically derived, theory + trial and error. Some things work, others don't. Thus to define a test without understanding is not appropriate. Charging batteries and running motors are tangible work. You have not answered my question in my previous post: given limited resources and scopes showing energy pulses, what would you do to advance your case? Before you decide that I have been extreme in my statement, you might try studying the material which is available. Chris said: >There is, of course, the question of where all those coulombs come >from.... Chris, as usual, goes directly to the heart of the matter. The PAGD effect depends on the presence of strong field emission from the cathode, which simply means that there is an electric field at the cathode which is strong enough to cause emission of electrons from the surface without thermionic heating. Conventional theory requires very high field intensities for this to occur, but Correa finds that it occurs at modest field intensities, as noted in his patents and his presentation in Colorado. Getting the field emission is dependent on the work function of the cathode; fortunately an aluminum alloy does nicely. A large cathode area is also important; 128 sq. cm. is mentioned. Note also that the current limiting resistor is only 300 ohms, with a drive pack voltage of 500 volts, which would allow over an ampere to flow in an arc discharge. The AGD region begins at point F in Fig. 2 of the article, where the potential gradient in the reactor is high. At this point the cathode is covered with glow. Pushing the current higher initiates the pinch effect, which gathers the electron flow into a channel. Aspden, in a private communication, points out that a significant part of the current flow is by heavy ions, which interacting with the electrons set up forces along the discharge path, "proportionate to current squared and multiplied by the ion-to-electron mass ratio - say 10,000 times. In fact, full analysis shows that the ions are decelerated in their motion from the anode to about the midpoint of the tube and then accelerated with an exponentially escalating effect as they are driven into the cathode...powerful axial forces (not predicted by the Lorentz law) exist and these concentrate a positive ion plasma core close to the cathods. Plasma scientists know the problem exists but they have no answers...This explanation of mine means a radial electric field in a conductive plasma, a recipe for aether spin and inflow of aether energy by the phase-locking effect I discuss in Aether Science Papers." In his presentation at Denver, Correa showd photomicrographs of the pits in the cathode. These have a central depression with rings, almost in a spiral form, which suggest the presence of an energetic vortex, which is also suggested by the photgraphs of the discharge columns, which look like miniature tornadoes. In one of his papers, Aspeden suggests that tornadoes gain their energy from the "aether spin" phenomenon, and are often characterized by intense electrical discharges within the funnel. This response to Chris's question doesn't wholly satisfy me, but it is the best I can do at the present. I have enough of Aspden's books and papers at the present for a full semester course (or more) and I'm plugging away at it. I just talked to Gene and we agreed that it would be a good idea for me to prepare a short addendum to the previous article. I owe you-all a correction for my integration goofs on Figs. 4a and 4c, and it might be useful to publish reproductions of some of these curves so you can see the detail yourselves. Gene scans the pictures, so there will be some loss in detail if they are shrunken much, but he can probably provide insets so you can see the noise floor I have been referring to. I will ask Correa for reproductions of the pit photomicrographs, since he has shown them publicly. Thanks and regards to all, Mike From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 20:23:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA22820; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32435F33.64880EEB@math.ucla.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:21:23 -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: ILENR2 video tapes References: <960920224358_100433.1541_BHG100-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"cJnJI1.0.Ua5._yrGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/929 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: > > > You earlier said: "I don't feel their motives have anything to do with > scientific dogma, or biases against unusual research per se." > > But they did have precisely that. > > Here is an excerpt from that petition: > > ". . . we believe that Bockris' recent activities has made > the terms "Texas A&M" and "Aggie" objects of derisive > laughter throughout the world among scientists and > engineers, not to mention a large segment of the lay public. > The "Alchemy" caper is, everywhere, a sure trigger for > sniggering at our university. Yes---this is in part what I meant. Their number one concern is that the situation looks bad. This is the crux of their argument. It looks especially bad when some of those involved wind up in jail. This is pretty rare in university science. As I said: > > "In this case, I think its clear they want to distance themselves > from Bockris & co because of the ``scandal'' related to transmutation > work Bockris did with Monti and Champion in the early 90's > > Since the official enquiry triggered by that petition wholly exonerated > Bockris, I would have thought that the correct, collegiate and moral > procedure would be to rally around their unjustly accused colleague. I certainly fully support Bockris's freedom to research transmutation. > > And mine is that all true scientists have excellent reasons from any > point of view (not just political) for identifying > themselves with him. Most certainly. Political considerations---reputation of the university, etc---should not dictate what we can research. > [quantitative analysis of the cathode metals 'before and after'] > > > I specifically suggested that the metals be dissolved, togther with the > bead fragments and any debris - and that the resulting solution be > subjected to the highly accurate methods of quantitative chemical > analysis. Also that the electrolyte be analysed for salts of the > metals, and that the entire apparatus be cleared of any traces of metal, > and that this metal should also be dissolved and quantified. > If things must be digested for quantification, how do you do before and after? I assume you mean to take representative samples. > > Do you still feel that this technique is without merit? > Given the difficulty in tracking down all the metal in the system, its not clear to me how convincing it would be. Then the question would simply shift from "are we concentrating impurities into the beads" to "did we lose the inital metal somewhere and gain these other metals somewhere else". Since the inital metal is disbersed throughout the system, loss mechanisms exist, as do mechanisms for impurites coming in from elsewhere. Even if I grant you the analytical capabilites you desire, it wouldn't be the last word. I can easily imagine an ambiguous answer coming out. Basically, Miley did what you suggest in-situ in the bead films themselves. Now you say extend the same analysis to the whole system (whatever that may be). While it is a valid attempt at quantification, I personally don't think this is the most promising way to go; it further still sounds like a challenging bit of analytical chemistry to me. -- 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 Fri Sep 20 20:24:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA23465 for billb@eskimo.com; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:24:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: rmforall@rt66.com Fri Sep 20 20:24:38 1996 Received: from Rt66.com (root@mack.rt66.com [198.59.162.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA23438 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmh02.rt66.com (pmh02.rt66.com [204.134.97.122]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA28638; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 21:22:57 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <32435242.4B34@rt66.com> Old-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 19:26:10 -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 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: ] Videotapes LENR Conference Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: Return-Path: ghlin@GREENOIL.chem.tamu.edu Received: from GREENOIL.chem.tamu.edu (GREENOIL.CHEM.TAMU.EDU [165.91.176.192]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA23627 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 10:56:47 -0600 (MDT) Received: by GREENOIL.chem.tamu.edu (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.AUTO) for rmforall@rt66.com id LAA21176; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:48:20 -0700 Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:48:20 -0700 From: ghlin@GREENOIL.chem.tamu.edu (Guang Hai Lin) Message-Id: <199609201848.LAA21176@GREENOIL.chem.tamu.edu> Apparently-To: rmforall@rt66.com Dear Rich: Thank you for attending ILENR2 meting. It is my pleasure to meet you and other attendees. We have videortaped the meeting. The whole video set includes 6 tapes (about 12 hours). I have sent it to shop for editing and dubbling. The video set will be available in early next week. Could you please post the following statement into the net "A set of six (6) video tapes, witness the scientific presentation at the second international low energy nuclear reactions conference (College Station, Texas, september 13-14, 1996), is available now. The tape format is standard VHS. Price: US $125 for U.S. and Canada, US$140 for other foreign. Price includes first-class air mail. Send check or money order to: Guang H. Lin, Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843 for ordering. Please contact Guang Lin at 409-845-3661 for the detail and specific ordering." Thank you best wishes Lin From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 20:27:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA23638; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32436007.6F5992E1@math.ucla.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:24:55 -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: Wielu Master Say: See The Obvious In Tr References: <960920234126_100433.1541_BHG48-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Rx4cC2.0.Gn5.H0sGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/930 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: > >I might add that I have a lifelong antipathy to (a) > hypothesising - unless such hypotheses are subject to > confirmatory test and (b) > to philosophy of any shape or form. This is something we both agree on. -- 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 Fri Sep 20 20:41:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA25780; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3243637E.6EEA4806@math.ucla.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:39:42 -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: Carrell, Mike on Correa References: <960920225852_526901584@emout03.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7T9sF.0.jI6.6EsGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/931 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: RMCarrell@aol.com wrote: > > > Since there is evidence of irregular firing, the > integration process would > have to be extremely long (say 70 min?) before > the critical question of > energy balance could be answered. Now, gentlemen, > it's 1992 and you don't > have a computer that will integrate 80 us samples for 70 min. Well, thats all fine. But now its 1996, and there are such instruments readily available. All you are telling me is that you didn't have adequate test equipment to resolve the issue. Thats why it would be nice to take such devices to a place that can do the appropriate tests. I don't want to argue about it, since you know far more about the device than I. If its real, it will all come out in the wash. -- 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 Fri Sep 20 21:00:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA27235; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32436587.65DB@interlaced.net> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 23:48:23 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: Vortex Subject: Re: Reading don't make smarts References: <960921014829_72240.1256_EHB32-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7DKPQ2.0.Pf6.BMsGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/932 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: (Words of great wisdom ------) I see no evidence that > human intelligence has improved. If anything, we may be mentally softer than > we used to be, for the same reason we are physically less muscular and not as > well coordinated: life has gotten easy, we can goof off. We do not need to > constantly think, act, and fight the elements to survive. This, of course, has > nothing to do with evolution. Hear, hear, Jed! Thank's for the blow against "temporal chauvinism" (we're SO much smarter than those dumb ancients--- they could not posibly have moved stones that large so far ---- etc.) Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 20 21:07:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA29925; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 21:04:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 21:04:15 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32436937.5656AEC7@math.ucla.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 21:04:07 -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: ILENR2 video tapes References: <960920224358_100433.1541_BHG100-1@CompuServe.COM> <32435F33.64880EEB@math.ucla.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Fwkwf.0.VJ7._asGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/933 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: By the way: while I have attempted to provide some balance as to what went on at ILENR2 by highlighting some aspects that others might prefer to gloss over, let me say the good scientific work that was presented there is quite interesting, as embodied by maybe half of the talks. I wish they had made a full day just out of those. If their slides are readable a ``best of'' tape will be worth the money. Talks particulalry worthy of Best of are: Miley, Mizuon, Ohmori, Szpak, Claytor, Swartz, George, Dash, Minevski, Kim, Nagel which could fit on a single 6 hour tape. If you need to cut it, you could lose Nagel (who talk was more overview in nature) and Kim (whose theoretical talk is probably better absorbed from reading a paper version). For the most part, Jed summarized those, so there is nothing more to say. Also, as Jed said, in priciple we agree on many things, and I'd go so far as to say that I rarely disagree with the general points Jed wants to make, though in more subtle matters of interpretation we do differ, which is just fine. -- 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 Fri Sep 20 22:52:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA12743; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 22:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 22:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 22:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609210542.WAA00741@serbia.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: Wielu Master Say: See The Obvious In Transmutation Resent-Message-ID: <"QD6UW1.0.z63.71uGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/934 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:27 PM 9/20/96 +0900, you wrote: Michael Mandeville wrote: [snip] > Russell's real stuff is slowly disappearing into the sub-basement, speaking >metaphorically. Sad to hear this. But, the good news is some of Russell's work is still being looked at. Some excellent research by Ron Kovac was written up in the ITS "Extraordinary Science" journal Jan/Feb/Mar 1996 issue titled, "Atomic Mass 5, The Missing Link Element, An Atomic Transmutation Created by Plasma Shaping." Michael Randall From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 00:21:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA25861; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 00:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 00:19:34 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 07:19:12 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3243a686.10461370@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960920105737_100433.1541_BHG100-2@CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <960920105737_100433.1541_BHG100-2@CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.294 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"v2KCE1.0._J6.4SvGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/936 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A On 20 Sep 96 06:57:37 EDT, Chris Tinsley wrote: [snip] >3. If a chicken can convert 39K to 40Ca, then where does the energy go? >Such transmutations would release around 8MeV per atom; this I refer to >as the 'incandescent chicken' problem, after the 'dead graduate student' >problem of CF. [snip] I suspect that you based this on the reaction: H + K39 -> Ca40 + 8.3 MeV. However what about a reaction like: 7N14 + 19K39 -> 20Ca40 + 6C13 + .778 MeV ? Granted the energy release would still result in an incandescent chicken, however perhaps another such reaction, with different reactants can be found, that yields zero net energy (or very close). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 21 00:22:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA25849; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 00:19:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 00:19:33 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Carrell, Mike on Correa Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 07:19:07 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3242a06a.8897294@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960920105732_100433.1541_BHG100-1@CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <960920105732_100433.1541_BHG100-1@CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.294 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"dES0c3.0.oJ6.3SvGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/935 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 20 Sep 96 06:57:32 EDT, Chris Tinsley wrote: [snip] > >There is, of course, the question of where all those coulombs come >from.... > >Chris > > =46or what it's worth, my theory is that a CF reaction is taking place on the surface of the Aluminium cathode, resulting in energetic nuclei being shot into the partial vacuum of the tube, where a cascade effect results in a large decrease in energy per particle, with a large increase in the number of particles. I.e. the energy of a single nucleus is spread across multiple nuclei by collisions in the gas, resulting in a hefty current pulse. However, I would expect this to also result in 500 eV x-rays, of which I see no mention. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 21 02:35:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA05118; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 02:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 02:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 02:29:13 -0700 Message-Id: <199609210929.CAA09629@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: ILENR2 video tapes Resent-Message-ID: <"8t9gg3.0.tF1.wLxGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/937 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Miley, Mizuon, Ohmori, Szpak, Claytor, Swartz, George, Dash, >Minevski, Kim, Nagel > Did any of these guys cite exposures of x-ray films as evidence of beta radioactivity? And how does one explain the McKubre film exposures from chemical alterations? Put simply, am I correct in thinking that if there are bonified beta decay observations that they necessarily came from radioactivity and thus from nuclear reactions of some sort or other. ie, is it correct that chemical reactions do not make materials of any kind beta reactive? If my take on that is correct, then it reduces the question to one of figuring out whether or not there is any other form of radiation that could expose films. Or whether or not there is any manner in which the films simply had defects that led to the "impression" that they had been exposed. A check might be to gather the filters and the beads and lay them over some film and to try to make an exposure. If you stuck the stuff to some tape or something, then you ought to be able to rotate that tape into different orientations and produce the same pattern of dots on the exposure to rule out bad x-ray film which already had the dots on it. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 03:13:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA08218; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 03:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 03:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Sep 96 06:09:55 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Carrell, Mike on Correa Message-ID: <960921100955_100433.1541_BHG65-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"KC26-1.0.G02.pzxGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/938 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, > Thats why it would be nice to take such devices to a place that > can do the appropriate tests. Yes, wouldn't it? We all agree that a definitive study on site is the only way forward *for us*, and financial constraints apply here. However, there is a danger of imagining that we are the sole arbiters of whatever the truth may be in the case of this device. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 03:14:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA08346; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 03:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 03:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Sep 96 05:52:36 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Message-ID: <960921095235_100433.1541_BHG21-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"geQ9s1.0.K22._-xGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/939 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, I was trying to look logically at the overall picture. Yet you select from the data, for example in skipping that section of the petition which demonstrates that the 'distinguished professors' attacked Bockris' work as heretical rubbish, and you thereby render discussion impossible. As to the chemical analysis technique, I did earlier cover the objection you raised to quantifying the initial amount of cathode metals. This can be done in a number of ways, even where a destructive test is required. You assert that chemical analysis of the type I describe has serious difficulties: > Given the difficulty in tracking down all the metal in the system, > its not clear to me how convincing it would be. This is not a given at all, it is quite straightforward. Acid digestion methods can be applied to the entire system if required. > Then the question would simply shift from "are we concentrating > impurities into the beads" to "did we lose the inital metal > somewhere and gain these other metals somewhere else". Since the > inital metal is disbersed throughout the system, loss mechanisms > exist, as do mechanisms for impurites coming in from elsewhere. This is quite impossible. Chemistry solved all these problems well over a century ago. But at least it raises an interesting point: we have already seen that calorimetry will be ignored by physicists, I do now appreciate that wholly reliable and proven chemical techniques will similarly be ignored by those who wish to do so. I really can assure you (my chemistry background being rather more secure than my physics) that there is nothing in the least 'challenging' about finding out how much nickel there is in a system of this kind. I suppose science has become so compartmentalised that there is now little respect or understanding by one branch of the techniques or competence of any other branch. This is all very depressing. I suggest a perfectly standard and wholly reliable method of testing the nuclear hypothesis, and find that any positive results which it might produce would be ignored on wholly spurious grounds. There is little which is rational there, it confirms my earlier view that nothing short of successful commercialisation (which will be opposed tooth and nail by the science community) will impress that science community of the reality of any of this stuff. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 04:30:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA13260; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 04:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 04:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 96 04:28:50 PDT From: Barry Merriman Message-Id: <9609211128.AA06365@joshua.math.ucla.edu> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Resent-Message-ID: <"LV-hG2.0.6F3._5zGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/940 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Chris: lets suppose for the moment that the transmutation is real, and the chemictry works flawlessly----though we have no way of knowing that in reality. The result will be that in a system containing 100's of grams of material, and an initial 10 mg of Ni, only 6 mg of Ni will be recovered (rough estimate of Ni content of Mileys ultra thin (< 1 micron) films). So, the truth of the matter is supposed to rest on 4 mg of missiong Nickel in an open system of 100's of grams of material. Do you honestly think that should convince the world of transmutation? Not me. Would be one more piece of evidence, but hardly enough to erase reasonable doubt. You dispair that calorimetry has not convinced scientists---I aks you: how many scientists have been afforded the chance to verify the calorimetry? Why are you soo shocked that scientists are not convinced by results they are not allowed to replicate? Let me give you a tip: the key to convincing people is a replicatable experiment. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 04:39:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA13823; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 04:37:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 04:37:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 96 04:37:15 PDT From: Barry Merriman Message-Id: <9609211137.AA06450@joshua.math.ucla.edu> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Resent-Message-ID: <"f0dr4.0.vN3.qDzGo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/941 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris: One more point regarding your proposed weighing experiment to detect transmutation. I'm _satisfied_ with Miley's diagnostics for positive evidence of transmutation such as they are. Added diagnostics, like weighing, are not what is missing. What is missing now are *checks for error*. These take two forms in general: one is independent postive replication of a very similar experiment.The other is internal consistency checks in the form of control experiments. Stacking up more diagnostics for transmutation is all fine, but to be convincing its these error checks that need to be brought up to the same standard as Miley's existing evidence for the effect. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 08:30:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA19374; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 06:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 06:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 06:37:17 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes In-Reply-To: <9609211128.AA06365@joshua.math.ucla.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"UsxNT3.0.ak4.H--Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/942 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, Barry Merriman wrote: > Let me give you a tip: the key to convincing people is a replicatable > experiment. This has truth in it, but it is just one of many small weapons in a big war. It has a counter-weapon which cancels it out: If you sucessfully replicate the effect and prove to yourself that it's real, then by definition you have become one of the enemy. You are now a 'true believer,' you have switched sides and are now one of the deluded minions who believe that CF is real. If you are a researcher of high standing, it won't necessesarily sway anyone. They can simply whisper "yeah, he did a lot of good work at first, but then at the end of his career he went off the deep end." I'm not sure, but hasn't the above happened before? Did not some of the current crop of CF workers come from the ranks of the skeptics? .....................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 Sep 21 08:42:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA20176; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 07:20:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 07:20:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 07:20:16 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes In-Reply-To: <3243a686.10461370@mail.netspace.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"5dpba3.0.Ax4.Zc_Go"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/943 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > On 20 Sep 96 06:57:37 EDT, Chris Tinsley wrote: > >Such transmutations would release around 8MeV per atom; this I refer to > >as the 'incandescent chicken' problem, after the 'dead graduate student' > >problem of CF. > > However what about a reaction like: > > 7N14 + 19K39 -> 20Ca40 + 6C13 + .778 MeV ? > > Granted the energy release would still result in an incandescent > chicken, however perhaps another such reaction, with different > reactants can be found, that yields zero net energy (or very close). If biology has harnessed low energy transmutation (LET?), you can bet that it has discovered a system which doesn't kill the organism! Turn the "incandescent chicken" argument around: don't say that transmuation is bunk because the chicken would become self-cooking. Instead say: if chicken experiments give good evidence that transmutation is occurring, they also give good evidence that very low energy pathways exist. What has happened with the "sprouting seeds in a glass ampuole" experiment? This is supposed to create new elements and changes in mass, and seems like an easy test to perform. Has anyone published results anywhere? .....................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 Sep 21 09:00:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA25029; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 08:53:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 08:53:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 07:45:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199609211445.HAA13118@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: ILENR2 video tapes Resent-Message-ID: <"b-fO73.0.w66.Ty0Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/944 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris and Barry; It seems to me that your discussions here are off the mark. Why bother with measuring the total amount of metal consumed? Why not instead focus on different things like trace amounts of things that should not be there. For example, what happened to the He4 produced in E-Quest Sciences device at 10x background contamination levels, and without any Ne22 which ought to have been a natural contaminant of the system if the He were a contaminant rather than produced. What about the traces of elements that simply were not a part of the electrodes when they were new, but appeared in the craters after use? I thought these papers included mass and other spectroscopies of impurities that simply were not in the original parent material. Or are you saying that the original material had these impurities in it but the percentage was small, and Barry claims that the "transmutations" measured are simply the impurity inclusions that were clumped magically into the little craters? (That is where I read they were found wasn't it?) What about the plasma paper discussed a while back (I don't know if it was presented at this conference) that showed He evolution when the plasma current was being driven through the Pd powder, but not when the current was off? Wasn't there a plasma device at this conference? Sorry for these off the cuff comments but the discussion seemed to be off the track to me and I don't yet have my copies of the videos. When I do I will have some more pointed questions. In other words, if you intend to track down some tiny amount of matter, a small percentage of the total and say that that amount of material is missing and so that is what caused the heat, then it is easy for Barry to justifiably object. But I read some calculations in the sci.physics.fusion group I think it was a while back where calculations were made for the chemical potential of reacting 100 percent of the mass of the plated metals and that the amount of energy produced by CETI's cell still was at least an order of magnitude too high for chemical reactions to be able to have induced. So, where am I off on what took place and why is there such a debate still? Isn't there some other evidence that nails this down like beta decay or other things not chemical hiding somewhere in the evidence? Ross From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 09:29:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA06491; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 09:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 09:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 09:27:22 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: Carrell, Mike on Correa Resent-Message-ID: <"gR7971.0.Jb1.oS1Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/945 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Carrell wrote: >... Exactly where would you connect the >resistor, how are you sure it would give a correct measurement, and how do >you know that it would not upset the system's operation? The claim is output ENERGY vs. input ENERGY. All you need is to integrate power measurements. If you say we do not know how to measure electrical energy into and out of a "black box", then you have said that we can never settle this issue. And equivalently, you have said that we can not extract energy from this device, because electrical energy energy is now undefined. By the way, the VOLTAGE of lead-acid batteries is a poor indicator of energy left in the cell. Try it yourself. Discharge the battery a while. Voltage will drop--rapidly at first, then more slowly. Stop the discharge, but keep reading voltage. It will rise again. The standard method of measuring charge left in a Pb-acid cell is by electrolyte specific gravity--but I doubt that one can measure cell energy loss and gain with sufficient accuracy by this technique for the tests at hand. Hey! If you gave me some representative pulse shapes, I could design an RLC load that would simulate the present battery load. However, the components are likely to be bulky at the power levels involved, so it is simpler and cheaper to just collect a long string of digital data from the present system and analyze it (see below). >... The input power pulse is about 250 W for 12.5 ms and the >output power pulse peaks at about 35 kW. On the enlarged graph, it is clearly >seen that the input power goes to zero with some +/- noise spikes (50 W, < 1 >ms) showing. The graph also shows that the pulses are not of the same >amplitude, the second reaching only about 7 kW. > >Since there is evidence of irregular firing, the integration process would >have to be extremely long (say 70 min?) before the critical question of >energy balance could be answered. It does not surprise me in the least that the pulses are irregular. Plasma-based devices are frequently irregular. I have been aware of this potential problem, but I have not brought it up previously, because noone actually said that the pulses are highly variable. But a 70 min data stream is unnecessary. Only enough pulses must be covered that the final results (AVERAGE energy in, AVERAGE energy out) are insensitive to the inclusion of still more pulses in the average. >If you choose to disbelieve the additional datum that the reactor tube is >quiescent and the DP output current is negligible between pulses, I can't >help you..... >These data are IMPLIED in the patents and explicit in STATEMENTS made >directly to me by Correa, and contained in the article. I prefer to see data than implications from patents (a notoriously poor source of information designed to obfuscate) and statements. >.... At this point the cathode is >covered with glow. Pushing the current higher initiates the pinch effect, >which gathers the electron flow into a channel. Aspden, in a private >communication, points out that a significant part of the current flow is by >heavy ions, which interacting with the electrons set up forces along the >discharge path, "proportionate to current squared and multiplied by the >ion-to-electron mass ratio - say 10,000 times. In fact, full analysis shows >that the ions are decelerated in their motion from the anode to about the >midpoint of the tube and then accelerated with an exponentially escalating >effect as they are driven into the cathode...powerful axial forces (not >predicted by the Lorentz law) exist and these concentrate a positive ion >plasma core close to the cathods. Plasma scientists know the problem exists >but they have no answers...This explanation of mine means a radial electric >field in a conductive plasma, a recipe for aether spin and inflow of aether >energy by the phase-locking effect I discuss in Aether Science Papers." This is nonsense. I am a plasma physicist. The pinch effect is grossly misunderstood by everyone on this list who has cited it so far. The pinch effect arises from the self-generated magnetic field pressure in a plasma discharge. At a few hundred amps it is negligibly small. Even at 10s of kA it is pretty weak. The abnormal glow-to-arc transition is due to changing emission mechanisms at the cathode as the current density is increased; in this regime the emission increases as the current density increases, so the discharge is unstable to reduction of area of emission. The plasma dynamics in this range of discharges are dominated by collisions. The above description of the current conduction and ionization avalanche mechanisms is woefully incomplete and missleading. There are forces in the discharge, but none I am aware of that are of a nonclassical nature. "Abnormal" glow discharges are not mysterious; they are called abnormal for historical reasons--because they differ from the so-called normal glow. Both normal and abnormal glow discharges are reasonably well understood conceptually and quantitatively. 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-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 09:32:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA07515; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 09:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 09:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Sep 96 12:27:24 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Chemical Questions for Chris Message-ID: <960921162723_72240.1256_EHB62-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"j2Hxt3.0.Hr1.mV1Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/946 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Chris has been talking about chemical analysis methods that might account for the nickel in a CETI style cell. I don't know much about these techniques, and I gather Barry doesn't either. It sounds a little tricky, but Chris says it isn't. Perhaps it would be helpful if Chris would write a few paragraphs describing how it works. Here are some thoughts & questions he might address. First let me define the problem. We are talking about a mass of approximately 10 milligrams of Ni that is reduced to about 6 mg. And I think there are ~1000 beads and the Ni is about 1/300th of the bead mass. I guess 10 mg of metal would be about the size of a head of a pin, or a hundredth of a paperclip. Roughly how much acid would all of this stuff be dissolved in? 100 ml? A liter? How do you know how much Ni there is to start with? This seems like the biggest problem to me. I suppose you could weight the beads before they are coated and again afterwards. Good lab scales can weigh things to 0.01 mg without much trouble. (You can do even better, but I have heard it calls for heroic measures.) Chris mentioned some non-destructive chemical tests that might be performed before electrolysis to determine the mass. Briefly, what are they? Roughly how accurate might they be? If you establish the weight of Ni in the starting beads to within a fraction of a milligram, I suppose that would still leave open one question: how much other Ni is in the system? That would be a moot question if the final mass was considerably less than the starting mass. I doubt you will find milligram levels of Ni contamination in the bead core, anode, filter paper and circulation tubes. You could find out by dissolving unused, pre-test samples of these things. Miley can measure the depth of the coating to within a percent or so I think, so he knows it does not vary more than 10%. But it would difficult to extrapolate from that figure to the mass of nickel. It is simple geometry but I would hate to multiply an estimate for one bead by 1000! Barry seems to think the 6 mg of Ni would be lost in the background of elements from the dissolved plastic, filter paper and whatnot. I don't think so. That's hydrogen and carbon, not nickel. I gather that no matter how spread out the Ni is in the acid solution, it can be accounted for with standard chemical assay procedures. After all, we are not talking about a swimming pool full of acid. How is it done? Is the Ni concentrated? Perhaps Chris could briefly describe the procedures and instruments. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 09:35:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA09480 for billb@eskimo.com; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 09:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 09:35:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: white_c@mediasoft.net Sat Sep 21 09:35:33 1996 Received: from server.mediasoft.net (server.mediasoft.net [205.139.200.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA09460 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 09:35:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ras110.mediasoft.net by server.mediasoft.net (NTMail 3.02.07) with ESMTP id ya009852 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 12:33:56 -0400 X-Sender: white_c@mediasoft.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: white_c@mediasoft.net (White Carol) Subject: Re: CF Old-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 12:33:56 -0400 Message-Id: <16335622903003@mediasoft.net> X-Info: MediaSoft Internet Services X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Dear Jed, Well I guess I am not on your mailing list, because I hear you wrote an interesting report on the Bockris meeting. Would you do me a favor and send it to me. Carol white_c@mediasoft.net 703-3382231 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 09:36:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA08777; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 09:33:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 09:33:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 10:02:59 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609211502.KAA06996@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com (Unverified) 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: control experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"uEBrZ2.0.392.BZ1Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/947 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry's right: >The other is internal consistency checks in the >form of control experiments. Miley has asked me to send him some of our ersatz beads that have been "used" in my Patterson-style cell. He wants to look for evidence of transmutation in these beads (even though we have never seen excess heat). I would like to do this but I would also like to devise a suitable control experiment to determine whether the accumulations of "unexpected" elements is due simply to the electrolysis process. Challenge: devise an electrolysis process that will duplicate the conditions in the Patterson cell w.r.t electrolysis but will NOT permit nuclear reactions to occur. - 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-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 10:15:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA17086; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 10:11:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 10:11:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 09:16:38 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: control experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"U8Tjv2.0.oA4.K72Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/948 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A >Barry's right: > >Miley has asked me to send him some of our ersatz beads that have been >"used" in my Patterson-style cell. He wants to look for evidence of >transmutation in these beads (even though we have never seen excess heat). >I would like to do this but I would also like to devise a suitable control >experiment to determine whether the accumulations of "unexpected" elements >is due simply to the electrolysis process. > >Challenge: devise an electrolysis process that will duplicate the >conditions in the Patterson cell w.r.t electrolysis but will NOT permit >nuclear reactions to occur. > > - Scott Little Lucky that the subject is beads. (Actually that was by Patterson's design, to compensate for random variations.) The ideal control is unused batches of beads. Method: 1. Randomize a bunch of new beads by shuffling. 2. Separate into N (N at least 24) batches. 3. Put N=n/2 batches aside as controls, keep N=n/2 batches for test. 4. Perform electrolysis on the N test batches. 5. Measure test variables like gamma or particle counts, exposed film average optical desity, element concentrations, etc., for every batch. Can use double blind for that part of study to be rigorous, except it might be difficult to disguise the test beads. Maybe some corrosive *non electrolysis* method applied to 1/2 of the control beads would be useful for that. 6. Statistically compare difference between results from the test and control populations. This will provide the confidence level in the test. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 11:09:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA26018; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 11:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 11:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32442F49.5CF9@pacbell.net> Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 11:09:13 -0700 From: hank X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: More on Plant Power for Power Plants References: <199609202125.OAA03438@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"wF38V.0.SM6.Zw2Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/949 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Akira Kawasaki wrote: > > Sept. 20, 1996 > > You wrote: > > ------------------------------->el pine------------------------ > > yes, that's the southern 'pine' tree.. the 'heartof the pine' is > >literally Full of 'wax' (as you called it) When I was growing up in > >Florida (THEY did make it lighter) and called it "TURPINTINE" > >Still handy stuff and yes very 'lightable' for fire starting. the > >wax 'ozzzesss' out of injured trees AND if allowed time (jurasiac) > >becomes AMBER..(!) > > Wrong tree. > > -AK-In the Christmas 1996 L.L.Bean catalog (arrived yesterday) on page 222 is an blurb for Bean's Fatwood which comes from the stumps of southern heart pine timber. Not cheap, sack of 15 lbs for $22, box of 45 lbs for $50 Hank Scudder- 1¾ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 12:09:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA05996; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 12:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 12:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 12:06:00 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: sciclub@halcyon.com, ghawk@mail.eskimo.com, cynthiaa@microsoft.com, gpaddock@halcyon.com, nickb@microsoft.com, knuke@aa.net, mwm@aa.net, Mcduck95@aol.com, emall@eskimo.com, Robert Dinse , deLisle@eskimo.com, rlh@fripp.ca.boeing.com, hsalazar@kendaco.telebyte.net, jon@apocalypse.org, smonty@halcyon.com, cinder@eskimo.com, logue@uis.edu, lauralee@eskimo.com, bbb@u.washington.edu, phil@redwood.rt.cs.boeing.com, bobcahn@baloney.com, tesla@eor.com, ssatra@accessone.com, tangramm@ix.netcom.com, Pete Dussin , duppy@microsoft.com, lynn@teleport.com, woodring@accessone.com, joec@aa.net, Bob Jackson , coca@connect.com, Horton@eskimo.com, tomp2222@aol.com, rpolley@spots.ab.ca, danwizz@aa.net, merlin@aa.net, freenrg-L@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: SEATTLE WEIRD SCIENCE: Bill Beaty on de Radio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"da6dG1.0.YT1.bo3Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/950 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hey, listen in on "the Lauralee Show" tonight (Sat) from 9PM to 2AM. I'll be there holding forth on "Science textbook errors", and possibly on weird science topics. Seattle KVI radio, AM 570. Many other stations too, see: http://www.lauralee.com/stations.htm .....................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 Sep 21 12:19:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA08367; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 12:16:21 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 12:16:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 12:16:15 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Origins of taboo physics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"KYGsy2.0.f22.4y3Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/951 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I happened across a great passage about the pathological side of skepticism. Says it better than I could! .....................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 Excerpted from THE BLIND EYE OF SCIENCE, by Ron Westrum "Fringes of Reason, a Whole Earth Catalog" (c)1989 Point Foundation THE SELF-CONSTRUCTED MODEL In 1819, Ernst Chladni reflected back on his struggles for the recognition of meteorites. While the Enlightenment, the 18th century intellectual movement that examined accepted doctrines of the time, had brought certain benefits, he felt it also brought with it certain intellectual problems. Now scientists "thought it necessary to throw away or reject as error anything that did not conform to a self-constructed model." The very success of scientific experiment and theory had led to a misplaced confidence that *what was real was already within the circle of science.* What was outside, therefore, what did not conform to scientists' theories, could be dismissed by invoking scientific authority and by ignoring or ridiculing observations not supported by it. More recently, in 1979, the medical researcher Ludwik Fleck noted in his book The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact a very similar trend. He wrote: What we a faced with here is not so much simple passivity or mistrust of new ideas as an active approach which can be divided into several stages. (1) A contradiction to the system appears unthinkable (2) What does not fit into the system remains unseen; (3) alternatively, if it is noticed, either it is kept secret, or (4) laborious efforts are made to explain an exception in terms that do not contradict the system. (5) Despite the legitimate claims of contradictory views, one tends to see, describe, or even illustrate those circumstances which corroborate current views and thereby give them substance. What does not fit the theory is thus excluded. The anomalous event is forced outside the official circle of consciousness into a kind of outlaw existence. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 13:14:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA16948; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 13:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 13:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 13:12:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199609212012.NAA11559@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: More on Plant Power for Power Plants To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"zrWIE1.0.g84.wm4Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/952 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: >snip> >In the Christmas 1996 L.L.Bean catalog (arrived yesterday) on page >222 is an blurb for Bean's Fatwood which comes from the stumps of southern heart pine timber. Not cheap, sack of 15 lbs for $22, box of >45 lbs for $50 That's it! Fatwood's the name! Thanks. I didn't read too deeply into an older catalog a few years back (long since thrown out) to find out it came from pine stumps rather than the whole tree of some kind. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 13:22:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA18215; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 13:19:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 13:19:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Sep 96 16:16:41 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: control experiments Message-ID: <960921201641_100433.1541_BHG77-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"CftFP1.0.TS4.ct4Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/954 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, > Challenge: devise an electrolysis process that will duplicate the > conditions in the Patterson cell w.r.t electrolysis but will NOT > permit nuclear reactions to occur. I would forget that one, purely on logical grounds. I well recall the idea that light water could be used as a control for heavy water CF, and even at the time I could see that it was crazy. The simple answer is that until you understand the process you are using, you cannot in logic ever devise a control. And there are no ifs or buts to that, no escape clauses or ways around the problem. We do not even know that it is the electrolytic procedure which produces the effect! As Johnson pointed out all those years ago, confusing subsequence for consequence is a standard error in thinking. Horace is correct. The only 'control' possible is the unused part of the batch. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 13:25:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA18201; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 13:19:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 13:19:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Sep 96 16:16:45 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Message-ID: <960921201645_100433.1541_BHG77-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"MACzL.0.GS4.bt4Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/953 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill, > Turn the "incandescent chicken" argument around: don't say that > transmuation is bunk because the chicken would become > self-cooking. Of course. I was just having my little joke. You know, I still keep seeing arguments over this 'gravity shielding' thing. They go like this: "A" says he's seen a weight reduction over his gadgie. "A" suggests gravity shielding. But gravity shielding would only affect a small cone just above the gadgie. (This conclusion reached by a page or two of dense and impenetrable calculus, when it is perfectly obvious from inspection). Therefore the claim to have seen the effect on the storey above is false. Sheesh. OK, I admit that my fondness for logic stems from (a) only being able to understand terribly simple things and (b) being useless at mathematics - but is it any wonder I get irritable when logic seems to be a skill which was more widely used in the C14th than it is in the late C20th? To be honest, although it was not he who first interested me in the subject, it was the sheer blistering illogic prevalent in Close's "Too Hot To Handle" which first made me more confident that there was something in all this stuff. > Instead say: if chicken experiments give good evidence that > transmutation is occurring, they also give good evidence that very > low energy pathways exist. Correct. Except that the evidence isn't good at all. Nor will it ever be if the experiments are never done. One which interests me is rather cleaner - it too is reported (as I recall) by Kervran. You take a batch fertlised eggs, and do a full elemental assay on some of them. You then allow the chicks to mature, then humanely kill 'em just before they hatch. The you do the assay on those. The story is that the results are wildly different. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 13:25:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA18236; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 13:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 13:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Sep 96 16:16:37 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Chemical Questions for Chris Message-ID: <960921201637_100433.1541_BHG77-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"QeeNO1.0.qS4.et4Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/955 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed asks about chemical analysis. > Roughly how much acid would all of this stuff be dissolved in? 100 > ml? A liter? The accuracy of an analysis depends to some degree on the concentrations of the solutions - as I think you are implying here. Trying to detect a few mg in a litre of solution is a bit of a pain. So the usual thing to do is take the volume right down, usually by evaporation (boiling), until you have nice strong solutions - like a decent fraction of molar. Micro-analysis techniques are quite excellent, in that tiny volumes can be handled as easily as large ones which can use the old burette titration. Separation can be done by a variety of means, all the way down to crystallisation if required, or by differential migration of materials through paper - try putting a 'black' fibre-tip pen interior onto some blotting paper, and you will see how the separation can be done. Off-hand I don't know the specific reagents to test for nickel, but there will be one. As I said, my background is more in chemistry than physics, but I also said that micro-analytical techniques were not something I ever covered very well. But, think for a moment. You recall the Olympics and all the drug-testing (headed, notoriously, by a guy called Sample)? Here you get substances far more complex than nickel ions, in fantastically weak dilutions, and yet tests have to be devised for each and every one of them - no big deal. In the case of metal ions, the whole thing is quite trivial by comparison. Consider all those famous murder trials early in this century, like the guy who poisoned his wife by painting her half of the dining-room ceiling with arsenic. No forensic scientist worth his fee ever had any trouble finding how much of a metal there was in somebody. Or read about the tests for lead in the blood of people living near sources of pollution. If anyone wants me to, I'll dig through the books to find the specific tests for quantitative analysis of nickel ions. Or I'll email Dieter Britz, who seems to have logged out under the flood of messages here. But it seems strange to me that anyone would question the ability of a chemistry laboratory to assay for *anything*, let alone something as trivial as a nickel solution. The whole of our society depends on our ability to do exactly that, whenever we want to. > How do you know how much Ni there is to start with? This seems > like the biggest problem to me. I suppose you could weight the > beads before they are coated and again afterwards. I suppose one could do that. But since I heard that the platings are put on either in aqueous solution, or by shaking them in a basket, I wouldn't be tempted to try that. I would find the size distribution of all the beads and measure the coating thickness on a few. Simple arithmetic would then give the answer, but a better and more accurate method would be to take a proportion of the beads, dissolve off the nickel and do the same chemical assay. You might need to grind the beads to a fine powder to ensure than none of the metal was trapped inside them. > Good lab scales can weigh things to 0.01 mg without much trouble. While not arguing with the merits of weighing, in general it is easier to measure the volume of the test reagent which is used to find the nickel, and apply proportionality. In other words, crudely, you put the Ni solution in a flask with an indicator material to find the point where the Ni is finally balanced by the test reagent. The volume and strength of the known solution is then used to calculate the amount of Ni. As for the nickel hiding in the apparatus after a run, again this is a matter of digesting and rinsing it off. The great thing about rinsing is that if you start with (say) 100ml of molar solution in a vessel or apparatus, and run it out, then you maybe have 1/1000 (0.1ml) of the original solution left there. Now rinse it with with another 100ml - and you have 1/1000,000 left. Do it again, and you can stop worrying about the droplets left behind. Then you can reduce the volume back to the original 100ml, and - bingo. You have all but one billionth of the original there in your flask. > Chris mentioned some non-destructive chemical tests that might be > performed before electrolysis to determine the mass. I don't think so, I was thinking of destructive ones. > If you establish the weight of Ni in the starting beads to within > a fraction of a milligram, I suppose that would still leave open > one question: how much other Ni is in the system? That would be a > moot question if the final mass was considerably less than the > starting mass. I doubt you will find milligram levels of Ni > contamination in the bead core, anode, filter paper and > circulation tubes. You could find out by dissolving unused, > pre-test samples of these things. Yes. In the case of much of the material used, manufacturer's specs can be used - for chemistry equipment this kind of info is obviously essential. > Barry seems to think the 6 mg of Ni would be lost in the > background of elements from the dissolved plastic, filter paper > and whatnot. I doubt that he does. But anyway it isn't, any more than lead is lost in the body when somebody wants to know how many micrograms of lead there are in a 100ml of blood. As I say, I never did very much micro-analysis. But certainly in one vacation job I routinely assayed drinking water for ppm quantities of all manner of things- including metals - and was expected to get within a percent or two. Now I come to think of it, I never needed to reduce the volumes by boiling - but I am ashamed to admit that the details of the methods have faded from my mind... If anyone really has serious doubts about what I'm saying here, they might try contacting either their local public health analyst or any commercial company which does this kind of work. Believe me, a science which finds it trivial to test an Egyptian mummy's hair stems and give exact quantified values for the amount of tobacco (!) or cocaine (!!) there would laugh at a problem like this one. On the matter Barry raised of scientists not being allowed to replicate these findings, he will know our views on that. I have to say, though, that Storms has published full 'recipe' details which should give any skilled person a 50% chance of getting Pd/D2O CF to produce excess heat. I think anybody who is willing to invest the time and trouble required to obtain the "F&P" effect can get it reasonably easily. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 14:20:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA27981; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 14:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 14:12:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609212112.OAA21478@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: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 14:12:18 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Wielu Master Say: See The Obvious In Tr Resent-Message-ID: <"zVPYD2.0.7r6.Lf5Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/956 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:41 PM 9/20/96 EDT, you wrote: >Michael ..... > > > Concerning Bockris's conference, various transmutations yields, > > and reports by various parties, and the dawning realization on the > > part of Rothwell, Tinsley, and Mallove that cold fusion really is, > > well, something else again.. > >GRRRR! Call me names, but don't put words in my mouth! > I can see that in the exuberance of my sweeping statements I have failed to properly communicate. > > To appreciate Russell's work, you will have to heed Tinsley's > > Maxim, namely rigorous application of ignoring the belief system, > > as well as his ego, I might add. But DO get his concepts about > > the relationships of gravity, magnetism, and electrical force, and > > how that relates to the geometry of atom/spacetime, element by > > element. ZPE people may find very fruitful ground here. > >GRRRR again! Please stop this. I am categorically not a physicist, nor indeed >a scientist of any kind. I am an ex-hacker-cum-fumbling-EE with a reasonable >formal education in the physical sciences (mostly chemistry) and - perhaps the >only thing of any advantage to my activities in 'weird science' - I have some >training in formal logic. I might add that I have a lifelong antipathy to (a) >hypothesising - unless such hypotheses are subject to confirmatory test and (b) >to philosophy of any shape or form. As to my ego, at this rate I shall make a >sincere effort to re-inflate it at once. On the matter of zpf, I admit to a >liking for the ideas, but THEY ARE NOT MINE, I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THEM. I >only like them because (a) if zpf physics can reduce the number of entities in >modern physics that appeals to my liking for the principle of parsimony and (b) >if it might lead to new technology, then I am all for it. > Ditto again. How have I affended your sense of humility? How have I attributed something to you, other than a humorous attempt to refer to your skip the grandoise philosophy, nothing but the facts, ma'am style. I am really concerned that I have so totally failed to communicate. Reference to ego is to Russell's not yours. There is a lot about ZPE I don't even attempt to understand. I am simply hinting to the ZPE afficionados an interesting ground of application. > > For experimentalists....check out Walter Russell's work. The > > Universal One is no longer sold, but nearly as good is his "Secret > > Of Life" which can be obtained from the University of Science and > > Philosophy in Swannanoa, Waynesboro, Virginia, 22980. That is the > > address, yes correctly spelled. There is an entire cosmology in > > there, but zero in on the spiral model of matter. "Universal Nine > > Octave Cycle" > >You must appreciate that this kind of thing does rather grate on my >'nuts-and-bolts' attitude to science. > absolutely, but we both know that we have to kiss the froggy to find the princ iple. >I will read your post, although I will admit that on first sight it has no >appeal. But ... I will try, sincerely. > >Chris >(teeth firmly clenched) > > the most important material i have read in my life was always teeth clenching, until...i found new ways to factor my experience and see where i was oblivious before. i hope you get something out of it, Chris, i really do. sheepishly, like big muddy very wet dog dripping on the rug, ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 14:32:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA29793; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 14:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 14:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Sep 96 17:25:18 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Message-ID: <960921212518_100433.1541_BHG54-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"TLoTe.0.JH7.At5Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/958 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, > Chris: lets suppose for the moment that the transmutation is real, > and the chemictry works flawlessly----though we have no way of > knowing that in reality. The transmutations may need further work to find just what is going on, but in the matter of the chemistry, do we have a way of knowing it is flawless? Yes, we have. Ask any competent chem lab, like commercial analysts. > The result will be that in a system containing 100's of grams of > material, and an initial 10 mg of Ni, only 6 mg of Ni will be > recovered (rough estimate of Ni content of Mileys ultra thin (< 1 > micron) films). So, the truth of the matter is supposed to rest on > 4 mg of missiong Nickel in an open system of 100's of grams of > material. Do you honestly think that should convince the world of > transmutation? Not me. Would be one more piece of evidence, but > hardly enough to erase reasonable doubt. That is exactly how you find - in a vastly 'messier' system - such things as ppm lead levels in people's bloodstreams. If you say such proven techniques would convince nobody, then you may be right. All of which proves that most people don't know how good chemists are at their trade. > Would be one more piece of evidence, but hardly enough to erase > reasonable doubt. It would be a test of a hypothesis. Excuse my mild irritation, but that is how science is supposed to be done. Nobody said it would be the end of the road for doubt, I merely suggested that it would be good science. > You dispair that calorimetry has not convinced scientists---I aks > you: how many scientists have been afforded the chance to verify > the calorimetry? Why are you soo shocked that scientists are not > convinced by results they are not allowed to replicate? Of course they can if they really want to, they can read from Storms' recipe book. Or they could try accepting a fraction of the published, replicated, peer-reviewed calorimetry - starting with McKubre. They just have different standards for one thing than another. There is no logic here, no consistency of thought. This is the weirdest story since science got started. Science always did arrogate to itself an unemotionality to which it was never justified, but this is the screaming limit. I just thank God that it never really mattered very much what scientists thought, and it doesn't matter very much now. > Let me give you a tip: the key to convincing people is a > replicatable experiment. Don't patronise me, I've been patronised by real *experts*. So, why are they *not* convinced by that? The reason is quite simple. Just as nobody was convinced (especially not Scientific American, who kept calling 'fraud') by the affidavits from worthy citizens who had seen the Wrights fly, just as nobody in the US was convinced by the rave reviews of their flights in France, just as nobody was convinced until crowds watched them fly for the President; so also will nobody be convinced about even the thermal reality of CF until either commercial products are successful or a CF car limps across the US in a blaze of publicity. As to replication, have you seen the attempts to replicate the Wrights? The errors are pathetically obvious to any schoolchild now - the flat wings, the fan propellors. The only reason people were able to replicate the Wrights is that *after* their demo in the US, many more people tried to replicate from the patents. Many of those later replications were just as crap, but there were so many that some of them actually succeeded. I would bet that if a large enough number of people set out to replicate CETI, then some of them would succeed big-style. And it is no credit to science that the Wrights are so often dismissed by scientists as 'lucky tinkerers'. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 14:32:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA29803; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 14:27:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 14:27:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Sep 96 17:25:21 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Message-ID: <960921212520_100433.1541_BHG54-4@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"4dnRe3.0.RH7.Bt5Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/959 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, > Added diagnostics, like weighing, are not what is missing. It's more a test of a hypothesis than an added diagnostic. > What is missing now are *checks for error*. That is indeed another necessary thing. But we do already have a multiplicity of methodologies employed by Miley and others. > These take two forms in general: one is independent postive > replication of a very similar experiment. Did not the other presenters at this conference produce effectively equivalent results? That was the impression I got from all the reports? > The other is internal consistency checks in the form of control > experiments. As I have already pointed out, one cannot logically establish a control when the process for which you wish to make it is not understood: "If we assume, we make an ass out of you and me." Therefore this approach is not available to us. Well, to be fair, we can try. But since we can never trust the answers, there isn't very much point. > Stacking up more diagnostics for transmutation is all fine, but to > be convincing its these error checks that need to be brought up to > the same standard as Miley's existing evidence for the effect. I think you are going to need to be very specific here, especially if you are unwilling to accept that analytical chemistry is any good. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 14:33:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA29835; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 14:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 14:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Sep 96 17:25:11 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: SEATTLE WEIRD SCIENCE: Bill Beaty on de Message-ID: <960921212511_100433.1541_BHG54-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"gbpYw.0.2I7.Gt5Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/960 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill, > Hey, listen in on "the Lauralee Show" tonight (Sat) from 9PM to > 2AM. I'll be there holding forth on "Science textbook errors", > and possibly on weird science topics. I'd love it if you would post a transcript... Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 14:37:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA29775; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 14:27:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 14:27:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Sep 96 17:25:13 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Origins of taboo physics Message-ID: <960921212513_100433.1541_BHG54-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Z-_2i3.0.9H7.9t5Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/957 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill, > What does not fit the theory is thus excluded. The anomalous > event is forced outside the official circle of consciousness into > a kind of outlaw existence. Or, as Walter Bagehot wrote in *Physics and Politics*: "One of the greatest pains to human nature is the pain of a new idea." Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 15:20:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA07053; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 15:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 15:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Sep 96 18:16:39 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Wielu Master Say: See The Obvious I Message-ID: <960921221639_100433.1541_BHG51-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"XZXk63.0.5k1.0d6Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/961 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael, > sheepishly, like big muddy very wet dog dripping on the rug, My apologies. Sincere ones. Put it down to jet-lag which is taking its time to clear, combined with a naturally mean and nasty spirit which I usually keep better controlled. I have since childhood been repeatedly pulled up for spreading alarm and despondency without meaning to. I get real hate-mail from my posts on Cserve forums, and spend much of my time apologising to people. Regards, Chris (a bit red-faced) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 15:39:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA08360; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 15:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 15:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960921223421.006c5ddc@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, 21 Sep 1996 15:34:21 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Bill Beaty on the radio tonight Resent-Message-ID: <"Xde1E1.0.U22.Am6Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/962 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill Beaty will be on the Laura Lee show tonight from midnight (Pacific time) to 2 AM. For stations in your area: http://www.lauralee.com/stations.htm ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 15:57:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA11904; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 15:51:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 15:51:45 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 18:49:16 -0400 Message-ID: <960921184916_527237747@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, williams@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu, GeorgeHM@aol.com, CldFusion@aol.com, 72240.1256@compuserve.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, Puthoff@aol.com, fstenger@interlaced.net, 101544.702@compuserve.com, RVargo1062@aol.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, 76570.2270@compuserve.com Subject: Yusmar day # 3 Resent-Message-ID: <"rMoTf.0.vv2._57Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/963 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Yesterday we thought that the Yusmar could be operating at 120% C.O.P We got this COP when we included the heat loss to ambient. This heat loss to ambient was a guess at best. To eliminate this uncertainty, today we covered the Yusmar / system with a 6 inch blanket of fiberglass insulation. On the final test we let the system run for over 2.5 hours until it reached equlibrium. At equlibrium these were the readings we obtained. .............................................................................. ........................... POWER IN MEASURMENTS Power in 5 KW with our ITT hand held watt meter. With a second meter we obtained 9.1 amps in, Power factor .68, 268 volts phase to ground. 9.1 x 268 x .68 x 3 = 4.9 KW This power remained relatively constant throughout the testing interval. Yury expected to drop. It did not. .............................................................................. ................................ POWER OUT Temperature out on the cooling water side of our heat exchanger 153 deg F Temperature in on the cooling water side of our heat exchanger 64 deg F Flow was measured in a three minute intervals with a tall graduated container. Flow cooling water side of the water/water heat exchanger = .36 gals/ min Power out = .148 x .35 x (154 - 63) = 4.7 KW .............................................................................. .................................. The power input was within 5% of the power output I believe that we demonstrated unity operation within the accuracy of the equipment we have. .............................................................................. .......... We tried everything we could think of and the results remained consistant with unity operation. Yury conceded that he did not know why the device was not producing extra energy. I still believe that we may have done something wrong and that none of us (inclouding myself) really knows why this thing only works some of the time. John B. and I plan to continue to work with Yury on a long term basis to prove and develop his technology in the United States. Its going to take much more work, more time, and more money. .............................................................................. ................................. Frank Znidarsic 481 Boyer St. Johnstown Pa 15906 PS I will be adding the sound of the Yusmar to my "Book on a Disk". f From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 16:33:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA14581; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 16:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 16:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 18:12:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609212312.SAA11946@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: Yusmar day # 3 Resent-Message-ID: <"1NVDP3.0.gZ3.IP7Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/964 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:49 PM 9/21/96 -0400, Frank wrote: >Yury conceded that he did not know why the device was >not producing extra energy. Frank, from the beginning there has been a conspicuous absence in Yuri's story that I have never understood. Perhaps now that you are working with him openly you can find out why this critically important element has been missing. Where is some data taken by Potapov himself showing the Yusmar is o-u? - 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-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 16:40:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA15533; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 16:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 16:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 15:22:48 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: control experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"DH5UK2.0.do3.YU7Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/965 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Barry's right: > >>The other is internal consistency checks in the >>form of control experiments. > >Miley has asked me to send him some of our ersatz beads that have been >"used" in my Patterson-style cell. He wants to look for evidence of >transmutation in these beads (even though we have never seen excess heat). >I would like to do this but I would also like to devise a suitable control >experiment to determine whether the accumulations of "unexpected" elements >is due simply to the electrolysis process. > >Challenge: devise an electrolysis process that will duplicate the >conditions in the Patterson cell w.r.t electrolysis but will NOT permit >nuclear reactions to occur. > > - Scott Little Not that it is a direct answer to your challenge, but I have another suggestion that may improve the quality of proof and method of investigating transmutations, while providing control information. That is to do the electrolysis inside an NMR machine. NMR spectrometers are sensitive to very minute qantities and should be relatively impervious to the chemistry involved in the critical parts of the spectrum. If not, it may say something about matching nuclear/electron bond resonance. The cell might be small enough to involve single beads at a time, or even smaller pieces of material, electrode configurations, etc. The big advantage to NMR is it focuses on the nucleus, detects minute quantities, gives an accurate "background" spectrum to compare against as the run progresses (there's your control) and can be run in real time so you get an accurate picture of what is happening and when. Hopefully the magnetic field would not interfere with that, and may even improve the yield. The biggest problem mught be having metal conductors in the spectrometer. The cost would be pretty steep for amateurs but not much for someone who already has an NMR spectrometer. Should be pretty easy to fit low guage Tygon tubing and a small cell into one. Not much cost there. It would have to be well leak proofed, maybe wrapped in something, like shrink wrap, or encapsulated. Just food for thought. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 16:47:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA16875; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 16:25:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 16:25:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 18:25:03 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609212325.SAA12579@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: control experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"ArpY03.0.b74.Wb7Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/966 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:16 PM 9/21/96 EDT, Chris expressed skepticism about ever finding a suitable control for the electrolytic nuclear transformations: Chris, in principle you are right but there may be a way to devise a control that is well suited to test for a particular kind of error. For example, it has been proposed that the anomalous elements that appear in the beads come not from transmutations but from trace impurities in the large quantity of electrolyte in the system. Perhaps an effective control (for this hypothesis) could be produced by electrolyzing some beads in a very small quantity of electrolyte...and then comparing those beads to a similar batch of beads that was electrolyzed in a much larger quantity of electrolyte. - 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-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 16:55:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA20653; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 16:49:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 16:49:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 15:54:48 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: control experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"zhBnQ2.0.c25.by7Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/967 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 04:16 PM 9/21/96 EDT, Chris expressed skepticism about ever finding a >suitable control for the electrolytic nuclear transformations: > >Chris, in principle you are right but there may be a way to devise a control >that is well suited to test for a particular kind of error. > >For example, it has been proposed that the anomalous elements that appear in >the beads come not from transmutations but from trace impurities in the >large quantity of electrolyte in the system. Perhaps an effective control >(for this hypothesis) could be produced by electrolyzing some beads in a >very small quantity of electrolyte...and then comparing those beads to a >similar batch of beads that was electrolyzed in a much larger quantity of >electrolyte. > > > > - Scott Little Great idea! It would also be comparatively easy to examine just the electrolyte dynamically in an NMR, as well as spectrometers in various photon wavelengths, xray, UV, visible, and infra-red - no metal just electrolyte, tubing, and various windows/test cells - a non-destructive analysis assembly line in the electrolyte flow loop, a test factory. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 17:49:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA27220; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 17:36:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 17:36:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Sep 96 20:34:46 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: control experiments Message-ID: <960922003446_100433.1541_BHG52-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"L2Uo9.0.Af6.Je8Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/968 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, > For example, it has been proposed that the anomalous elements that > appear in the beads come not from transmutations but from trace > impurities in the large quantity of electrolyte in the system. Yes, I know. That is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. And each hypothesis requires to be *tested* rather than guessed at or have arms waved at it. What I am saying is that by the nature of things you can never now be sure that in an experiment of this kind that nothing 'weird' may be happening - in other words, one must devise a test to distinguish between 'weird' contamination by impurities and 'weird' transmutations. It is that question which now must be addressed. I have proposed a perfectly legit test for the transmutation hypothesis, a test which would bring us a little closer to the truth. That is because at present I consider the transmutation hypothesis to be the front runner - and I would like my pet hypothesis *tested rigorously*. That is how science is supposed to be done, one is supposed to test one's hypotheses. I therefore suggest that those who prefer the contamination hypothesis to propose a test whose result would or would not support that one. Note that I am sufficiently confident in the goodness of my own test that I would consider the transmutation idea to be badly damaged by any findings which showed that the amount of nickel remained substantially the same. Anybody who proposes contamination should therefore suggest ways to test *that* hypothesis and be willing to accept the results. You see, nobody should just say, "Oh, probably contamination," and then walk off without proposing experiments to prove their idea. That's what happens in CF all the time, and it pisses me right off. > Perhaps an effective control (for this hypothesis) could be > produced by electrolyzing some beads in a very small quantity of > electrolyte...and then comparing those beads to a similar batch of > beads that was electrolyzed in a much larger quantity of > electrolyte. Well ... OK ... but why? Why assume that analytical chem doesn't work? I suppose it might help, but what does bother me about it is that there are perfectly good methods of analysing the electrolyte. Tiny samples of electrolyte could perhaps be drawn off during the run, at intervals, and subjected to analysis for each of the 'anomalous' elements found in the beads. But why would nobody accept an independent analysis of the initial solution? That can be tested to ppb if need be! Why not accept that this is possible? What is the problem? Another real, potential source of contamination is the anode itself. If Miley does not give the exact spec for his platinum (?) then he is in quite big trouble. The various glasses will be a source of sodium and possibly calcium as well. The plastics are very unlikely to be sources of metallic elements, but the glass and plastic can be checked easily by pumping pure distilled water around the system for a goodish while and then analysing the water. Distilled water is a wonderful solvent! OK, here is a suggestion for what it is worth - not my job to propose, but I'll try. We are supposed to know how contamination operates in systems like this. How about introducing a fixed amount of (for example) zinc chloride or silver chloride into the electrolyte, and running *that* solution on half of a batch of beads and then comparing the results obtained from a 'normal' run? Note that science without numbers is not science at all. The very essence of the results of the Miley work is the numbers it produces. That is why I also propose a test which produces numerical results. If anybody wants to propose a test for the contamination hypothesis, then they too must produce a numerical prediction - as I have done. Otherwise it is like Huizenga going on Nightline and proposing recombination to explain an excess heat ratio against V*I of hundreds to one. What I am saying is that there are quite exquisitely good tests which can be performed on every part of the cell to look for the kind of contamination which is proposed. And if that contamination totals much less than what is being found as 'new' elements in the beads then the contamination hypothesis is seriously damaged - probably beyond saving. I suppose I may be wrong in assuming that Miley and Mizuno are bright +enough to have thought of all this, but I would be vastly surprised if they are not. Sorry, I realise I am ranting. I just get so irritated by pseudo-science which proposes to 'explain' a result by invoking processes which are several orders of magnitude below what is needed by the answers. Chris (big fan of numbers, me) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 18:25:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA03908; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 18:22:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 18:22:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609220123.SAA02674@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 18:26:53 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: control experiments Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"uEBUf2.0.-y.-I9Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/970 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The control material might be right in the cell. It is inconceivable that all the beads are producing reactions. Indeed the evidence is that only a very few do produce reaction. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 18:26:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA03871; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 18:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 18:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Sep 96 21:19:43 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: control experiments Message-ID: <960922011942_100433.1541_BHG40-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"PgNGO.0.Py.pI9Ho"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/969 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, Maybe I'm being too much of a chemistry-chauvinist. OK, if nuclear physics is incomplete then maybe analytical chemistry is too. Maybe. Your idea about varying the electrolyte volume would then be good one. But I still say that all these physics guys are not giving chem its fair due. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 19:37:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA14889; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 19:33:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 19:33:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: 21 Sep 96 22:30:38 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: SEATTLE WEIRD SCIENCE: Bill Beaty on de Message-ID: <960922023038_76216.2421_HHB62-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"-ojgd.0.Ze3.6MAHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/971 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris - > "I'd love it if you would post a transcript..." I'd love it if you'd stop being such a technophobe, load up a free RealAudio player, and listen to it yourself in the internet. ;) - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 19:48:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA16334; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 19:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 19:42:31 -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: control experiments Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 02:41:52 +0000 Message-ID: <19960922024150.AAA8399@LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"AxZ7m2.0.3_3.MUAHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/972 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: It has been 10 years since I have retired as a chemist (specialty: organic chemistry and catalysis), but at the time I retired the analytical chemists had very good methods of analyzing metals in solution at very low concentrations using atomic absorption techniques. I think they could get down to parts per billion. When an analytical chemist tells me that there are Ni, Ag, etc. ions present when some of these ions were not present before an experiment, I have faith in the results. By using good standards, the amounts present can be measured to better than 1% if the limits of detection are not approached. Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 20:22:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA22117; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 20:19:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 20:19:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 23:13:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199609220313.XAA07393@mail.inforamp.net> X-Authentication-Warning: mail.inforamp.net: Host ts20-13.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.138.213] didn't use HELO protocol X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.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: Quinney Subject: Re: SEATTLE WEIRD SCIENCE: Bill Beaty on de Resent-Message-ID: <"-1_Vk3.0.VP5.41BHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/973 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:30 PM 9/21/96 EDT, you wrote: >Chris - > > > "I'd love it if you would post a transcript..." > >I'd love it if you'd stop being such a technophobe, load up a free RealAudio >player, and listen to it yourself in the internet. ;) > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > The latest real-audio player 3.0 beta3 is now available at : http://www.realaudio.com/hpproducts/player/index.html Colin Quinney From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 20:30:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA23287; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 20:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 20:27:20 -0700 (PDT) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 23:26:38 -0400 Message-ID: <960921232637_290295067@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Carrell, Mike on Correa: 9/21 Resent-Message-ID: <"rnnrT1.0.jh5.M8BHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/974 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Thanks for your responses, gentlemen. In some instances I've inserted paranthetical comments in brackets []. Taking them in turn, Barry writes: >Well, thats all fine. But now its 1996, and there are such instruments readily available. All >you are telling me is that you... [the Correas; my present hat is that of a technical >journalist. I am not an agent of the Correas.]... didn't have adequate test equipment to >resolve the issue. [That's right] >Thats why it would be nice to take such devices to a place that can do the appropriate >tests. [Of course]. >I don't want to argue about it, since you know far more about the device than I. If its real, it >will all come out in the wash. [Of course]. Robin writes: >....... my theory is that a CF reaction is taking place on the surface of the Aluminium >cathode,..... resulting in a hefty current pulse. However, I would expect this to also result >in 500 eV x-rays, of which I see no mention. We have some interesting phenomena with which to nourish theories. The additional details with which to test them are unfortunately (for us) withheld. However, I think the threshold for x-ray production is in the tens of kilovolts (big TV tubes run at about 25 kV and have lots of lead in the faceplate for that reason). Chris writes (in response to Barry's comments): >Yes, wouldn't it? We all agree that a definitive study on site is the only way forward *for >us*, and financial constraints apply here. However, there is a danger of imagining that we >are the sole arbiters of whatever the truth may be in the case of this device. Hear, Hear (was my accent properly British, Chris?) Gene Mallove has made a step toward having a demonstration site by renting space near Concord NH. The first showpiece is to be a Griggs machine, paid for by a dontation from Arthur C. Clarke. There will hopefully be others. Michael Schaffer writes: >The claim is output ENERGY vs. input ENERGY. [Yes] All you need is to integrate >power measurements. [Which I did for Fig. 4c] If you say we do not know how to >measure electrical energy into and out of a "black box" [where did I say that?], then you >have said that we can never settle this issue. And equivalently, you have said that we >can not extract energy from this device [and where did I say that?], because electrical >energy energy is now undefined. There is a serious misunderstanding here, and if need be I'll continue the dialogue as a sidebar so as not to clutter up vortex. This discussion got started over an absence of a published continuous log of energy in and energy out performed with good digital instrumentation, or a published report of a digital integrator giving a continuous summation. I could build such an instrument and I'm sure there are such on the market. Barry posted a proposal for a test which came from a luncheon conversation. I challenged the test as not not well stated. My position is simply that my article distilled from patents and conversations with Correa a credible case for o/u performance. I carefully crafted the article, but not all readers here thought through the evidence presented. And perhaps in my posts in the matter I haven't be sufficiently plain. OK, try this: 1) Long term digital integration is wanted instead of battery swapping. Great. Elegant. Modern. But Correa has stated the observation that the reactor shuts down between pulses, and no current flows out of the DP until the next pulse. I stated this in the article in IE #8. As I posted before, I have an illustration of just this, which will be published in the next IE. If one can't accept this point as a truthful datum, that is another matter. 2) If this is true, integrating long periods of no current from the DP is of little value in determining o/u performance. 3) Fig. 4 is illustrative of the inputs and outputs. There is no representation that all pulses under all conditions are the same. They aren't. But we are looking for o/u performance, and there is *no* reason to assume that each and every pulse will *not* show substantial o/u performance. 4) So what is accomplished by long term integration other than compiling a statistical record of the distribution of pulse energies, which would be fine for an academic paper and useful in improving designs? It doesn't improve the elementary energy measurement presented in Fig. 4. And it doesn't settle the o/u case any more than one fair sample, unless the sample cannot be accepted as representative in the absence of the statistics. The very essence of patent '391, reproduced in IE #7, was to show utility by running motors and charging batteries. Continuing with Michael's comments: >By the way, the VOLTAGE of lead-acid batteries is a poor indicator of energy left in the >cell...but I doubt that one can measure cell energy loss and gain with sufficient accuracy >by this technique for the tests at hand [please carefully consider the tests for which the Correas used battery calibrations in 1992]. I have been over this ad nauseum. The '989 patent contains an extensive discussion of the problems of making energy measurement with lead acid batteries, and the protocols used to minimize errors. I summarized the procedure as Fig. 5. And, by the way, they measure voltage with a fixed load but calculate and plot power. which is the industry standard method. Please *carefully* review the patent, my article, and previous posts. >Hey! If you gave me some representative pulse shapes, I could design an RLC load that >would simulate the present battery load. However, the components are likely to be bulky >at the power levels involved, so it is simpler and cheaper to just collect a long string of >digital data from the present system and analyze it (see below). So you could fake it. Of course. Are you implying that the curve I described below was also faked? Randi, where are you when we need you?! >>... The input power pulse is about 250 W for 12.5 ms and the output power pulse peaks >>at about 35 kW. On the enlarged graph, it is clearly seen that the input power goes to >>zero with some +/- noise spikes (50 W, < 1ms) showing. The graph also shows that the >>pulses are not of the same amplitude, the second reaching only about 7 kW. >> >>Since there is evidence of irregular firing, the integration process would have to be >>extremely long (say 70 min?) before the critical question of energy balance could be >>answered.[see my numerically numbered comments above]. >It does not surprise me in the least that the pulses are irregular......Only enough pulses >must be covered that the final results (AVERAGE energy in, AVERAGE energy out) are >insensitive to the inclusion of still more pulses in the average. Of course. See my comments above. >I prefer to see data than implications from patents (a notoriously poor source of >information designed to obfuscate) [Have you actually read the patents? They are >unusually full of graphs and tabular data, disucssions of theory, liteature references, etc.] >and statements. Of course. Wouldn't we all? Better yet, a Correa reactor for each of us to test! Again, review my statements above. We have data; please study the patents. You also rely on statements, claims, and data in published articles and journals. Are these always written with great clarity? >>.... At this point the cathode is covered with glow..... >This is nonsense. I am a plasma physicist. The pinch effect is grossly >misunderstood by everyone on this list who has cited it so far.... You are on your own turf, Michael, and that's fine. The comment about the pinch effect accounting for the formation of the discharge column is my conjecture, and apparently wrong. Aspden agrees with you, that the magnetic fields are much too weak to accomplish it. Nontheless, a strong discharge column does form, and plasma balls have been seen on the cathode. >The abnormal glow-to-arc transition is due to changing emission mechanisms at the >cathode as the current density is increased !!!CAREFUL!!! It is **avoidance** of the arc discharge while enabling repetitve pulses that is !!!the ***essence*** of the Correa invetion. His bursts are not Vacuum Arc Discharges. !!!VAD's don't **produce** energy. If you skip over this you miss his entire *discovery*. >....The above description of the current conduction and ionization avalanche mechanisms >is woefully incomplete and misleading. I'm in no position to debate here. I'm admittedly over my head. I was quoting Aspden out of context. The context is extensive. >There are forces in the discharge, but none I am aware of that are of a nonclassical >nature..... If so, where does the energy in the bursts come from? Where, please? >"Abnormal" glow discharges are not mysterious; they are called >abnormal for historical reasons--because they differ from the so-called >normal glow. Both normal and abnormal glow discharges are reasonably well >understood conceptually and quantitatively. Reasonably well, indeed; they are widely used. But there are anomalies which have been known since the '30s. Aspden has endeavored to create a new physics based on a careful analysis of electrodynamics and the aether (a plenum whose properties he derives and infers). He is able to accurately calculate important physical constants beginning with simple geometrical constructs and straightforward algebra. Among the products of his work is a law of electrodynamics which I cited previously. It would be useful if you were to look up the paper -- it's not long -- before dismissing it. I'm not qualified to defend Aspden's work; I barely understand his perspective. But Correa thinks highly of it. And we again come to the nub of the matter. There is an energy manifestation that is unmistakable (unless you still want to deny the evidence available) which should not appear according to the comfortable, well understood concepts of classical physics. ______________________ We've beaten on this horse quite a bit. I've looked carefully at the Correa's work and I have had many of the concerns you-all have expressed. I do not wish to argue for the sake of arguing. What I do ask is that you each take a good look at the data presented, and *carefully* read my text and see if there isn't a good case made. I have taken the Correa data at face value. I could have played prosecuting attorney also, but that would not be useful. Skepticism is a proper stance, but it should be universal and apply to received opinion as well as new claims. Thanks and regards, Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 21 23:07:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA11514; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 23:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 23:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 22:06:38 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: control experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"zq8NT3.0.np2.CPDHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/975 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Scott, > > > For example, it has been proposed that the anomalous elements that > > appear in the beads come not from transmutations but from trace > > impurities in the large quantity of electrolyte in the system. > >Yes, I know. That is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. And each >hypothesis requires to be *tested* rather than guessed at or have arms >waved at it. >Chris >(big fan of numbers, me) OK, here is an idea that might lead to a control experiment depending on the results. Run the experiment with no overpotential, with A/C instead of DC, and both conditions. If any of those tests fail to produce apparent transmutations you have a control. More interesting, though, is that if any of those three tests pass, then it is possible to do transmutations without having a significant amount of evolved gas. A closed cell could then be placed in an NMR in it's entirety, excluding the wires to carry the electrolysis current. The NMR should register the same spectrum throughout the experiment as nothing should change. Every possible source of contamination is fully included in the numbers at all times, except the electrons, of course. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 00:42:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA20469; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 00:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 00:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 96 00:27:23 PDT From: Barry Merriman Message-Id: <9609220727.AA19104@joshua.math.ucla.edu> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Resent-Message-ID: <"yCCCx.0.l_4.QfEHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/976 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris: First, I thought you meant to physically recover the Ni in the system and weigh it. Now it is clear you mean to stick with more standard analytical techniques and simply quantify a small, representative sample. At that point, one is going to have to delve in great detail into the possible sources of errors in the chemical assay. You say that manufacturers specs on impurity content of their mateirals could be of use. I say no way. All that must be quantified, as Miley has indeed done to some extent. However, I will revise my opinion slightly. While I don't think your suggested technique will do much to prove the reality of the effect (since it would hinge on missing Nickel), it could potentially prove the non-reality of it. That is if 10 mg of Ni is in the system initially, and Miley does a run with 40% "transmutation", yet it is still possible to physically _recover_ all 10 mg of Ni from the system (which may be possible), and a system of the identical compositon digests with << 10 mg of Ni recovered, then it would be pretty clear that Ni was not being transmuted. However, one would still have to then address the issue of whether something besides the Ni in the system might have been transmuted, such as some Li-S-O-H-C based transmutation. So, I will agree that your idea of tracking Nickel offers a potentially convincing way to show Ni is not transmuted. But that in itself will still leave open other transmutation questions in any case. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 00:55:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA20999; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 00:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 00:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 96 00:31:55 PDT From: Barry Merriman Message-Id: <9609220731.AA19173@joshua.math.ucla.edu> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Yusmar day # 3 Resent-Message-ID: <"doGkK.0.185.mjEHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/977 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: FRank: several weeks ago you were proclaiming quite assuredly that you knew how to make the thing work. Now that it does not seem to, perhaps you could inform us what you thought was going on. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 01:35:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA25663; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 01:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 01:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: 22 Sep 96 04:21:28 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: control experiments Message-ID: <960922082128_100433.1541_BHG48-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"0BBeT3.0.mG6.MUFHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/978 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ed, > It has been 10 years since I have retired as a chemist (specialty: > organic chemistry and catalysis), but at the time I retired the > analytical chemists had very good methods of analyzing metals in > solution at very low concentrations using atomic absorption > techniques. I think they could get down to parts per billion. > When an analytical chemist tells me that there are Ni, Ag, etc. > ions present when some of these ions were not present before an > experiment, I have faith in the results. By using good standards, > the amounts present can be measured to better than 1% if the > limits of detection are not approached. What a relief! I knew there must be some *real* chemists out there! Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 01:42:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA25691; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 01:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 01:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: 22 Sep 96 04:21:33 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: SEATTLE WEIRD SCIENCE: Bill Beaty on Message-ID: <960922082132_100433.1541_BHG48-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"JQfZh2.0.KH6.PUFHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/980 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick, > I'd love it if you'd stop being such a technophobe, load up a free > RealAudio player, and listen to it yourself in the internet. ;) But ... wouldn't I need one of those sound-card thingies? And Windoze? And a 'mouse', or whatever it's called? Don't hold with any of these new-fangled gadgies meself. Been a hacker these thir'y year now, man and beast ... what was good enough for grandpaw ... Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 01:42:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA25678; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 01:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 01:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: 22 Sep 96 04:21:29 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: control experiments Message-ID: <960922082129_100433.1541_BHG48-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"vE3Nk3.0.6H6.OUFHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/979 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace, > Run the experiment with no overpotential, with A/C instead of DC, > and both conditions. I think a/c will wreck the beads. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 02:01:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA27918; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 01:47:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 01:47:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: 22 Sep 96 04:45:26 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Message-ID: <960922084526_100433.1541_BHG71-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"71uTJ.0.7q6.cqFHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/981 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, > While I don't think your suggested technique will do much to > prove the reality of the effect (since it would hinge on missing > Nickel)... I beg leave to disagree on the known accuracy of analytic techniques (which the archive will show is what I was talking about all along) and disagree most strongly that it would not be possible to use those techniques to find all the residual nickel. If you say that you think it would not work, please back that up with an informed opinion, perhaps from your university. > ...it could potentially prove the non-reality of it. That is if 10 mg > of Ni is in the system initially, and Miley does a run with 40% > "transmutation", yet it is still possible to physically _recover_ > all 10 mg of Ni from the system (which may be possible), and a > system of the identical compositon digests with << 10 mg of Ni > recovered, then it would be pretty clear that Ni was not being > transmuted. I absolutely DO agree that my proposal is capable of driving a bus through the transmutation hypothesis. That was at least half the reason I proposed it! Like I say, that's how science is supposed to be done - you look for tests which will confirm or deny your favoured hypothesis. On the other hand, the fact that you deny a century or more of analytical chemistry experience does make me wonder. You are saying, "heads I win, tails you lose," and that is quite wrong in this case without getting an expert opinion on the subject. > However, one would still have to then address the issue of whether > something besides the Ni in the system might have been transmuted, > such as some Li-S-O-H-C based transmutation. Horrible thought. Ouch, I dislike that but I suppose I would have to consider it. > So, I will agree that your idea of tracking Nickel offers a > potentially convincing way to show Ni is not transmuted. But that > in itself will still leave open other transmutation questions in > any case. I think you have maybe caught me making assumptions. Nice one, Barry. Chris (smiling bravely after being caught red-handed) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 02:02:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA28086; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 01:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 01:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 01:50:02 -0700 Message-Id: <199609220850.BAA17294@dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Yusmar day # 3 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"XDSIS1.0.is6.YtFHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/982 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sept 22, 1996 Frank, I sympathise with your results not meeting your optimism, perhaps it will improve. Your data indicates test run on one setup. Has the Yusmar been run with/without your additonal improvements on the Yusmar? Are there to be days 4 & 5 & ----? -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 04:14:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA06091; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 04:01:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 04:01:27 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Yusmar day # 3 Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:01:07 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3249c4fa.19211167@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960921184916_527237747@emout15.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <960921184916_527237747@emout15.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.294 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"b7Zf6.0.4V1.6oHHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/983 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 21 Sep 1996 18:49:16 -0400, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: [snip] >I still believe that we may have done something wrong and that none of us >(inclouding myself) really knows why this thing only works some of the time. > John B. and I plan to continue to work with Yury on a long term basis to >prove and develop his technology in the United States. > >Its going to take much more work, more time, and more money. [snip] =46rank, If I may make a simple suggestion. Try it with distilled rather than tap water. (Flush thoroughly first). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 22 06:47:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA14199; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 06:29:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 06:29:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 05:34:40 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: control experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"VRHw21.0.jT3.1zJHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/984 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Horace, > > > Run the experiment with no overpotential, with A/C instead of DC, > > and both conditions. > >I think a/c will wreck the beads. > >Chris Probably, since current reversal certainly does. Why not build 'em stronger and build 'em different, different metal choices, etc. Since the name of the game is now transmutations and not heat, and establishing controls, there is a whole new rule book to be written. I would add periodic DC current reversals to the above list in various combinations with potential (voltage) changes in the loading/destructive phases. Don't want to get you upset, but here is a thought, surmize, whimsy, hypothesis (oops :): transmutations may play a role in wrecking the beads. Actions that tend to wreck the beads may be good for purposes of investigating transmutations. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 07:11:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA16159; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 06:52:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 06:52:08 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:51:30 -0400 Message-ID: <960922095128_483208019@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Yusmar day # 3 Resent-Message-ID: <"J-WUS3.0.Py3.7IKHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/986 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: We tested the device as per Potapov's instructions. Today we sign an agreement with him for co-development. This agreement states that if we prove his technology in the US he will work with us to develop a business in the US. Soon we are going to try many new things. Our goal was to have a good cavitator in hand and an agreement for co-development and business partnership in writing. We have accomplished both of our goals. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 07:12:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA16493; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 06:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 06:56:38 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:56:00 -0400 Message-ID: <960922095559_483209001@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Yusmar day # 3 Resent-Message-ID: <"ZVGFS3.0.d14.LMKHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/987 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Several tests were done at different pressure and temperatures. We rans test for 10 hours a day for 3 days in a row. Its time to take a break. Last night I took Samon dancing. We had a good time. The US woman seemed to like him. They all wanted to see his drives license with USSR stamped on it. He dances and drinks and seemed to like it. Frank From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 07:15:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA15778; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 06:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 06:47:19 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:46:42 -0400 Message-ID: <960922094641_483206935@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Yusmar day # 3 Resent-Message-ID: <"UXnbs2.0.Ss3.dDKHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/985 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I don't think has has any. He liked our water water heat exchenger that we scavanged out of the junk pile at Conemeugh Station. They were oil after coolers. It seemed to me that he never seen anything like that before. Certainly he did not do such a test. This is good for John Barron and I. His sytem does cavitate very louldy. I sent a sound bite to Puthoff on AOL. Listen to it. We are now in a position to toy with a cavitation system to try some ideas of our own. Today we plant to take Yury to dinner and get him to sign a letter of intent. This letter states that if we prove his technology in the US we will have the rights to develop it in the US. Given what Griggs has done this is a good gamble. Frank From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 07:34:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA18734; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 07:22:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 07:22:23 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 10:21:44 -0400 Message-ID: <960922102144_483216299@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Letter of intent Resent-Message-ID: <"eGyA6.0.Za4.UkKHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/988 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A letter of intent is a document that states that we intend to work together. For Yury it provides assurance that we will not make a small change on his equipment then claim it as ours. We have no intention of doing that. Our letter states that in writing. We now know that it is going to take much more money and time to get to the bottom of this thing. What the letter of intent does for John Barron and I is that it provides assurance that Yury will work with us once we spend our money and time proving and improving his technology. We will need an operating system and a letter of intent to bring the finance together. The letter of intent DOES NOT require Yury to sign away any rights. It just a letter of understanding that explains what role we are going to take. Once this is in place I going to get the thing working no matter what it takes. I will get to the bottom of the problem, improve it, and make money for both Yury and my group. There is something to this Yusmar system. Do any of you think it is only by chance that the Griggs machine also works on the principle of cavitation? Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 07:57:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA20035; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 07:38:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 07:38:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 06:43:04 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: SLVN and PPC Resent-Message-ID: <"BItsY1.0.zu4.YzKHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/989 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts Vortexians, The variation of the bubble lift field gradient electrolysis device below may be of interest because it can be made in the form of a Patterson Power Cell with no current supply. The energy input is only a + potential plate (requiring only leakage current, no "theoretical" energy draw) and fluid flow. The central conductor in the core of the insulating pipe would be elevated in potential relative to ground, and thus a gradient would develop between the central conductive column at NN and the outer grounded sheath G. The electrolysis current would be carried between PP and NN by the conductor ||. The design has the drawback that the gasses are mixed, yet has an interresting simplicty and the novelty that electrolysis can be powered by fluid flow. The central column, inlcuding NN, ||, and PP, can simply be a wire, the outer pipe a plastic tube, and the the outer plates aluminum foil attached to HV power supply and ground. Note that some energy from the electrolysis current could be tapped by separating the top and bottom of the central conductor to extract the current. In addition to generating lift from the bubbles, if heat generating PPC beads are is used at PP then the up column will have even more lift due to being heated. Anyone think it will work? I O2 H2 I I I I H2 O2 I I I I H2 I I I I O2 O2 I I I I I +I PP I+ +I PP I+ +I PP H2 I+ +I H2 PP I+ +IOH- PP I+ +I H3+PP OH-I+ +I PP H3+ I+ +I PP I+ +I PP I+ I || I I || I I || O2 I I || I I O2 || I I || I I || O2 I I || I I || I GI NN IG GI NNO2 H3+IG GI O2NN IG GI NN IG GI NNOH- IG GI NN IG GI H3+ NN IG GI NN IG GI OH-NN IG I I I I I I I ^ ^ IIIIIIIIIIIIII I | | I -------------<----- H2O I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII + - capacitive (no current) anode plates I - insulating tubing (or plates) G - grounded metal tube (or plates) P - Patterson Power Cell beads, PEE type device, or even simply a metal electrode, just to get electrolysis N - NEE type device, or even simply a metal electrode, just to get electrolysis || - conductor, especially platinum, supported by insulators that do not retard electrolyte or electrolyte contact with the conductor Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 07:57:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA20802; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 07:45:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 07:45:17 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Carrell, Mike on Correa: 9/21 Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 14:45:01 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32452183.11115063@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960921232637_290295067@emout06.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <960921232637_290295067@emout06.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.294 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"xoTvQ2.0.y45.y3LHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/990 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 21 Sep 1996 23:26:38 -0400, RMCarrell@aol.com wrote: [snip] >withheld. However, I think the threshold for x-ray production is in the tens >of kilovolts (big TV tubes run at about 25 kV and have lots of lead in the >faceplate for that reason). This is the first I have heard of there actually being a threshold for x-ray production. Could you perhaps elaborate a little? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 22 09:09:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA29105; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:02:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:02:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: 22 Sep 96 12:01:39 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Invalid comparision Yusmar to Griggs Message-ID: <960922160138_72240.1256_EHB171-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"1r_VZ3.0.h67.XCMHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/991 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Frank Z writes: "We estimate the thermal loss to be about 1 KW. Factoring this in we have found the Yusmar to be 20% over unity. . . . On this basis we have 20% OU the same as Griggs." We do not factor in the thermal losses with the Griggs gadget. If we did it on that basis I suppose Griggs would get ~25 to ~70% excess (for hot water and steam respectively). Frank later Did The Right Thing and tested thermal losses by putting a blanket over the machine. He reports: "The power input was within 5% of the power output I believe that we demonstrated unity operation within the accuracy of the equipment we have." I concur; 5% isn't significant. I would never buy a 5% excess with these instruments, or with the instruments Griggs uses. If it was with 10% I would do what Frank has done and try putting a blanket over it to account for thermal losses and other factors we now ignore. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 09:30:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA01293; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:17:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:17:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 12:16:48 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960922121514.1127ec72@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: control experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"TuinW1.0.2K.KQMHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/992 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:16 PM 9/21/96 EDT, Chris/Scott wrote: >Scott, > > > Challenge: devise an electrolysis process that will duplicate the > > conditions in the Patterson cell w.r.t electrolysis but will NOT > > permit nuclear reactions to occur. > >I would forget that one, purely on logical grounds. I well recall the >idea that light water could be used as a control for heavy water CF, and >even at the time I could see that it was crazy. The simple answer is >that until you understand the process you are using, you cannot in logic >ever devise a control. And there are no ifs or buts to that, no escape >clauses or ways around the problem. We do not even know that it is the >electrolytic procedure which produces the effect! As Johnson pointed >out all those years ago, confusing subsequence for consequence is a >standard error in thinking. > >Horace is correct. The only 'control' possible is the unused part of >the batch. > >Chris > > Some metallurgical forms of iron remain a possible enthalpic control. there is some issue regarding small energy differences between the FeO, Fe3O4 and Fe2O3 generally, but at the cathode there is cathodic protection, and IMHO unalloyed it makes a reasonable control. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 09:32:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA01412; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 12:16:40 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960922121506.6dbfb3bc@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: Carrell, Mike on Correa: 9/21 Resent-Message-ID: <"A5FJY1.0.-L.pQMHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/993 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:26 PM 9/21/96 -0400, Mike Carrell wrote: >Thanks for your responses, gentlemen. In some instances I've inserted >paranthetical comments in brackets []. Taking them in turn, > >1) Long term digital integration is wanted instead of battery swapping. >Great. Elegant. Modern. But Correa has stated the observation that the >reactor shuts down between pulses, and no current flows out of the DP until >the next pulse. I stated this in the article in IE #8. As I posted before, I >have an illustration of just this, which will be published in the next IE. If >one can't accept this point as a truthful datum, that is another matter. This is further reason to require a long baseline (hours) instead of 100 milliseconds in which to evaluate complicated issues including energy storage which is in the system distributed between as many as 69 cells in the curves in front of me. Additonal reasons are listed below. ================================================== > >2) If this is true, integrating long periods of no current from the DP is of >little value in determining o/u performance. > IMHO this is wrong. There appears to have been no attempt to determine noise levels OR obtain proof of long term data in what I have seen. Repeated requests have not provided what is needed to evaluate the system. That does not mean that Mike has not sent what he has, just that what he has does not fill the gaps. ================================================== >3) Fig. 4 is illustrative of the inputs and outputs. There is no >representation that all pulses under all conditions are the same. They >aren't. But we are looking for o/u performance, and there is *no* reason to >assume that each and every pulse will *not* show substantial o/u performance. > > Figure 4 again. Fig A is mislabeled, and despite Mike who has kindly sent me some of the information which was provided him, appears inconsistent with respect to internal consistency, let alone o/u. ================================================== >Continuing with Michael's comments: > >>By the way, the VOLTAGE of lead-acid batteries is a poor indicator of energy >left in the >cell...but I doubt that one can measure cell energy loss and >gain with sufficient accuracy >by this technique for the tests at hand >[please carefully consider the tests for which the Correas used battery >calibrations in 1992]. > >I have been over this ad nauseum. The '989 patent contains an extensive >discussion of the problems of making energy measurement with lead acid >batteries, and the protocols used to minimize errors. I summarized the >procedure as Fig. 5. And, by the way, they measure voltage with a fixed load >but calculate and plot power. which is the industry standard method. Please >*carefully* review the patent, my article, and previous posts. Figure 5 also has another possible error. Figure 5 is purported to be based upon a table in one experiment, from which an efficiency was derived. In figure 5, there are four figures, two showing power loss curves of the charge and drive packs reported to be bleeding current through a 800-2083 ohm resistor. The remaining two curves area purportedly the drive and charge pack power curves for a single experiment. Of those, at least two portions calculated rather than measured, and state that. The two curves are linked in the text as coming from a table, and are linked in the figure by a vertical heading. However, in the upper curve the PAGD portion lasts from 100 to about or slightly greater than 210 minutes, but in the lower curve it runs from 220 to 320 minutes. The widths are different by at least 10%, and the listed times are different. How could an efficiency be calculated from noncoterminous data? Once again, there is something in the data within a single figure that appears inconsistent. These figures cannot possibly be the same experiment and like figure 4 demonstrate that whatever this reader puts into the article is so far, unfortuately, wasted. For what it might be worth, as I've reviewed the article further, IMHO Figure 6 is so bad as to call what is conventionally call "output" as the "cp input", and visa vera. This is needless confusion. Between the falsely labelled figure 4a in the publication, the figure 5 from clearly two separate experiments, and the confusion of figure 6, it is suggested that considerable more care might be given the reporting of such devices. Please take this as constructive criticism. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 09:35:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA01551; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:18:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:18:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:18:38 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609221618.LAA11146@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: total Ni analysis Resent-Message-ID: <"JHCle1.0.5O.dRMHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/994 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris, et al: I apologize for tuning in late to this important discussion. Has Miley attempted to measure the total Ni "before and after"? If so, where can I read about his procedure and results? - 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-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 10:19:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA07527; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Letter of intent To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:58:05 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <960922102144_483216299@emout03.mail.aol.com> from "FZNIDARSIC@aol.com" at Sep 22, 96 10:21:44 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"j962T1.0.Xr1.b0NHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/995 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank Z. writes: > We now know that it is going to take much more money and time to > get to the bottom of this thing. I have this gnawing feeling that you'll get to the bottom of your money before you get OU results. I know you have a theoretical interest in pursuing this device, but it'll do no one any good for you to bankrupt yourself. What's that old saying about the best laid plans of mice and men often gan aglee? It applies to scientific theories too. I say all this because of the now numerous independent replication attempts that have come to naught. And it is slightly different than saying something has been disproven. It is just that eventually you have to cut your losses. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 11:23:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA18406; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: 22 Sep 96 14:15:32 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: control experiments Message-ID: <960922181532_100433.1541_BHG101-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"KvvmU1.0.WV4.QBOHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/997 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell writes: > Some metallurgical forms of iron remain a possible enthalpic > control. there is some issue regarding small energy differences > between the FeO, Fe3O4 and Fe2O3 generally, but at the cathode > there is cathodic protection, and IMHO unalloyed it makes a > reasonable control. I'll buy that, I *think*. After all, Fe is at the bottom of we old fellers used to call the 'packing fraction curve' - minimum energy nuclei. Chris (almost comfortable with that one) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 11:23:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA17966; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:15:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:15:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <324582ED.2914@pacbell.net> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:18:21 -0700 From: hank X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Carrell, Mike on Correa: 9/21 References: <960921232637_290295067@emout06.mail.aol.com> <32452183.11115063@mail.netspace.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"2aktA3.0.eO4.x8OHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/996 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Sep 1996 23:26:38 -0400, RMCarrell@aol.com wrote: > [snip] > >withheld. However, I think the threshold for x-ray production is in the > tens > >of kilovolts (big TV tubes run at about 25 kV and have lots of lead in > the > >faceplate for that reason). > > This is the first I have heard of there actually being a threshold for > x-ray production. Could you perhaps elaborate a little? > [snip] > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on > temperature. > Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, > Learns all his life, > And leaves knowing nothing. > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*Robin The "threshold effect" comes from the presence of the glass envelope of the Correa's tube. X-rays of 0.5 keV are probably generated inside the tube, if the mean-free-path is long enough to allow some electrons to fall directly between the anode and the cathode. X-rays with energies below 20 keV or so don't travel through any materials very far. That is why most oscilloscopes and small home TV sets don't worry about them. Larger sets, with anode voltages above 25 kV do protect us using Pb glasses, metallic sheilds around the tube etc. X-ray attenuation usually increses as the 4th power of atomic number, but it is complicated. X-ray tubes sometimes come with Beryllium windows, to let out as many low energy photons as possible. Even those don't put out much energy below 20 kEV. Hank Scudder -- 1¾ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 11:30:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA18426; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: 22 Sep 96 14:15:41 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: total Ni analysis Message-ID: <960922181540_100433.1541_BHG101-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"AnYdV2.0.jV4.RBOHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/998 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, > I apologize for tuning in late to this important discussion. Has > Miley attempted to measure the total Ni "before and after"? If > so, where can I read about his procedure and results? Not so far as I know - unless he thought it too trivial to report his findings. I have emailed him in the hope of hearing that he has done or will do this test. Despite the majority reaction here, the more I think about it the more certain I am that there is no more than a completely straightforward procedure required here. I presume that mathematical/statistical operations on results from destructive testing of a small random sample from the beads 'before' would give a result of known accuracy, and the 'after' testing would really be perfectly standard and hughly accurate. If any analytical chemist would be willing to give an opinion on the accuracy of my proposed test, I would be very interested. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 11:42:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA21950; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:38:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:38:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32458852.CD1@pacbell.net> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:41:22 -0700 From: Hank Scudder Organization: Rocketdyne X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vortex users list References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"I6iO53.0.hM5.pUOHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/999 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: William Beaty wrote: > Bill Why when I just sent out a message at 11:18 PDT, is it reported in the vortex message column as 12:18. Are the times being translated to PST at your end, or is Pacific Bell doing it at my end, in LA. LA and Seattle are in the same time zone aren't they? Just curious Hank Scudder -- 1¾ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 12:05:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA25425; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 12:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 12:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 14:01:41 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609221901.OAA19178@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: total Ni analysis Resent-Message-ID: <"O-vHa2.0.BD6.UqOHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1000 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 14:15 9/22/96 EDT, Chris wrote: >Despite the majority reaction here, the more I think about it the more >certain I am that there is no more than a completely straightforward >procedure required here. >I presume that mathematical/statistical >operations on results from destructive testing of a small random sample >from the beads 'before' would give a result of known accuracy. You'd have to analyze a number of "small random samples" and calculate the mean and std dev of the results. Hopefully the std dev would be quite small. >and the 'after' testing would really be perfectly standard and hughly accurate. You may have mentioned this already but, isn't there a significant chance that some of the Ni on the beads will dissolve in the electrolyte? If so, then we'd have to extract all the electrolyte from the system, digest the beads (or at least the bead coatings) in an appropriate acid solution and probably circulate a similar acid solution through the system plumbing for a while to clean out any Ni that may have been deposited in cool spots, etc. Then all three of these solutions (electrolyte, digested beads, cleaning soln) would be blended together, weighed, and quantitatively analyzed for Ni concentration. A good, proven wet chemistry procedure would be the most absolute method but the Ni concentration would be pretty small. AA would probably be acceptable provided we demonstrated that the high Li2SO4 content of the sample didn't affect the Ni signal. 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 Sun Sep 22 13:24:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA10061; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 13:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 13:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 12:24:42 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: total Ni analysis Resent-Message-ID: <"N9VkJ3.0.2T2.UzPHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1002 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > >You'd have to analyze a number of "small random samples" and calculate the >mean and std dev of the results. Hopefully the std dev would be quite small. > [snip] >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. There are lots of other statistics that can be utilized. For example, the Student's T test could be used to determine the confidence that the before and after results are from the same population, i.e. the confidence level that nothing happened (or something did happen) to the element being examined. Similar tests can be applied to compare results from specific labs or groups of labs to others or to the overall population. If test points are spred through time, or depth of sample, then there are many more types of statistics available to analyse the data. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 13:25:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA10045; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 13:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 13:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 12:24:36 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: total Ni analysis Resent-Message-ID: <"r4jFL2.0.oS2.SzPHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1001 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Scott, > > > I apologize for tuning in late to this important discussion. Has > > Miley attempted to measure the total Ni "before and after"? If > > so, where can I read about his procedure and results? > >Not so far as I know - unless he thought it too trivial to report his >findings. I have emailed him in the hope of hearing that he has done >or will do this test. > >Despite the majority reaction here, the more I think about it the more >certain I am that there is no more than a completely straightforward >procedure required here. I presume that mathematical/statistical >operations on results from destructive testing of a small random sample >from the beads 'before' would give a result of known accuracy, and the >'after' testing would really be perfectly standard and hughly accurate. > >If any analytical chemist would be willing to give an opinion on the >accuracy of my proposed test, I would be very interested. > >Chris If a meaningful positive test indicating new science is ever accomplished it would add credence to the results if then the batch approach I suggested or something similar be used to replicate those results by various labs, not one-at-a-time, but as a single collective experiment on the various batches of beads selected from a consolidated randomized population. The statistics hopefully can then quickly identify the "odd man out", the bad data points, if any. Also, any conspiracy/fraud theory could be pretty much ruled out because you can't hide a conspiracy if enough independent people are involved. Shuffling and deviding of the beads might occur at a conference in public view and on video. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 13:45:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA14151; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 13:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 13:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: 22 Sep 96 16:39:58 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Total Ni analysis Message-ID: <960922203957_72240.1256_EHB82-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"pVhcM2.0.1T3.OIQHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1003 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Miley did talk about his efforts to establish a full accounting of the nickel and products "in micrograms" as he put it, but he did not go into detail. Or if he did, I did not write it down. I'll check this when the tapes arrive. Naturally, he did measure contamination in the electrolyte, anode and other components. So did Mizuno and Ohmori, and I presume John Dash did too, although don't recall hearing him say so. It was this rigorous pre-experiment accounting that allowed Ohmori to state, last year, that the mass of transmuted elements is 100 times greater than all contamination in the cell. One thing I should point out is that the beads themselves do not appear to grow by 40 in metal mass. If anything, the metal is decreased. So this is not a case of a mixture of 40% new material getting slopped onto the metal. One lurking possibility that will complicate the issue even more is that cells might convert other elements, like Pt from the anode, into Ni. The Ni and Pd in the cathodes sometimes ends up with peculiar isotopes. It starts out normal of course, but after the experiments it is sometimes shifted. I assume that is because some isotopes of the host metal transmute more easily than others, but who knows? Maybe it means additional host metal is created. I would like to remind readers that this discussion has drifted off into never-never land to a great extent, because, as I have pointed out many times, there is no funny-isotope silver or copper contamination lying around ready to infect these cells. It does not exist anywhere on earth, except perhaps in a vault at Los Alamos. And even if it did exist, no trace of it is ever found in any of the cell components before the experiment. And even if it was found, in tests where silver was deliberately added to the cell, it never works its way deep inside the metal, and I cannot begin to imagine how it could do that and leave no trace on the surface. Barry has suggested that electrolysis might somehow churn the metal around, but nothing like that has ever been observed, and I doubt enough energy goes into the cell to accomplish that in any case. In short, there are many strong reasons to doubt the "contamination theory" and no reasons at all in support of it, as far as I can see. Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems there is no reason to take the contamination hypothesis seriously, besides the fact that it sounds vaugely "conventional" or "mundane" until you list all the miracles it requires. Scott Little wrote: You may have mentioned this already but, isn't there a significant chance that some of the Ni on the beads will dissolve in the electrolyte? If so, then we'd have to extract all the electrolyte from the system, digest the beads . . ." Yes, that is exactly the proceedure we have been discussing. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 14:12:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA18532; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 14:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 14:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: 22 Sep 96 17:06:16 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: total Ni analysis Message-ID: <960922210616_100433.1541_BHG60-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"pJ8Q03.0.QX4.PgQHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1004 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, > You may have mentioned this already but, isn't there a significant > chance that some of the Ni on the beads will dissolve in the > electrolyte? Indeed yes. > If so, then we'd have to extract all the electrolyte from the > system, digest the beads (or at least the bead coatings) in an > appropriate acid solution and probably circulate a similar acid > solution through the system plumbing for a while to clean out any > Ni that may have been deposited in cool spots, etc. Yup. Exactly. And grind the damn de-plated beads to powder and swill them with acid too in case any Ni was stuck in there. All standard stuff. You forgot the rinsing sequence, but no matter. > Then all three of these solutions (electrolyte, digested beads, > cleaning soln) would be blended together, weighed, and > quantitatively analyzed for Ni concentration. You got it. Except you could always reduce the volume by boiling it all down in the usual way - if that was necessary. > A good, proven wet chemistry procedure would be the most absolute > method but the Ni concentration would be pretty small. Like I said, and Ed agreed, this is no problem. Ppm is easy, ppb is possible, both to high accuracy. Think of ppm of lead in body tissue, or blood, they do all this stuff as routine and to high accuracy. AA - you mean atomic absorbtion spectrometry? As the fog of memory clears, I remember doing spectrometry - it was amazingly good if you had the reference data to go with it. As I have said, our society depends on being able to determine exact levels (no matter how small) of anything whatsoever in aqueous solution. It really is straightforward science these days, and has been to a large degree for a century or more. Like even think of the Olympics drugs testing. Ah, just saw Horace's posting. Sound ideas there too. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 15:21:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA01000; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 15:18:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 15:18:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 15:18:44 -0700 Message-Id: <199609222218.PAA01145@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: total Ni analysis Resent-Message-ID: <"KY9JO2.0.TF.FjRHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1006 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The total amount of Ni transmuted, divided by the total amount of Ni, leads to a very small ratio. This means that the amount of stuff lost in the chemical processing need be extremely small. Doable as you say, maybe. But if there are supposed to be transmutations occuring, why not perform the same total analysis and look for the things that were not there in the beginning. Now the ratio of the stuff formed via transmutation to the amount of that stuff as impurities is large if not huge. This way, you don't need to look at the whole system unless you really want to. For example, if you didn't have any Hf in your system before hand (to use Champions device as an example), and if you find any at all after words, any where in the system, then you have it solved. There was either something transmuted, or someone spilled some hafnium into the vat. As the latter would only occur in the case of a fraud, we can rule it out so long as there are no hafnium motor blades or any other source of that element. This is the approach of E-Quest in searching for He4 in their device when they found 10x background He levels. But in that case, the lack of Ne 22 was even more interesting. This is because in air, and in all tanks of He, there is Ne22, as a natural contaminant. If you look for something, you will always need to find it as a ratio of the total in the system. I agree with Barry on this one that looking for the stuff that disappeared is much harder than looking for the stuff that shouldn't have been there in the first place. in the latter experiment, 100 percent or so of what you find can be the transmuted stuff since it did not exist in the system before the experiment. And if you find any nuclei that are not stable and with short half lives, then you have a very strong signal that something happened, ie proof IMO. Quantitative analysis is always more difficult that qualitative analysis. To find the tiny amount of Ni missing due to tranmutations, you would need to know the contamination levels of all trace elements in the entire analysis. A friend of mine set up a trace element analysis lab when that was brand new science. They had a heck of a time because everything has traces of everything in it. In any case it seems to me that Wolf already looked and found things that ought not to be there, just as Champion claims and just as R. George claims with the He and not Ne evidence. I fail again to understand why this is so difficult with the evidence at hand. Ross From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 15:22:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA00924; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 15:18:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 15:18:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3245400B.66F5@loc100.tandem.com> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 14:32:59 +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: CF in prime time Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"rawSW3.0.ME.3jRHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1005 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: My kids recently taped one of the new fall shows, and said I just HAD to watch the tape. The new series is a spy show called "Mr. and Mrs. Smith." The plot of the first episode was about a pair of scientists, one named Stanley, that invent Cold Fusion or "lightning in a bottle." Two groups are after them -- big oil companies that want to supress the discovery and a Japanese company that wants to steal and exploit the ideas. In the end, the bad guys are caught and Stanley goes away to work in a new lab near Nice. Where do they get these wild plots anyway? -- Bob From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 15:27:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA01413; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 15:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 15:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3245BBC8.7AE9@interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 18:20:56 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Letter of intent References: <960922102144_483216299@emout03.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"IZQpw.0._L.8lRHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1007 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: (snip) > There is something to this Yusmar system. Do any of you think it is only by > chance that the Griggs machine also works on the principle of cavitation? Frank, a few points: 1. I thought we learned on this list that Griggs was not using a claim of OU in his marketing stuff. 2. So, do we know for sure that the Griggs system is OU? 3. Even if the Griggs machine cavitates, that does NOT mean, in itself, that such cavitation leads to OU performance. Until you can show OU on the test bench, you are standing on a house of cards! Spend only enough money to SHOW THE EFFECT WITHOUT A DOUBT. Then talk about big business. You know that I and many others on this list are your friends and do not wish you to wade in too deep without a proven device! I think Robin had a good suggestion to try the loop with distilled water. Also, I would try to set up the loop so you could have some control over the water's disolved-gas content. Any chance of using a magnetic-drive pump to help control the water purity? Can the Yusmars work in a small size that would be cheaper to test? Could a small Yusmar be batch tested using ultra-pure water in a pressurized batch tank - short runs would require a good data acquisition system - maybe a DA card for your computer? Just some off-the-top ideas ------- Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 16:25:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA11668; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 16:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 16:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 15:24:18 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: control experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"_Xnzf.0.8s2.5cSHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1008 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >Challenge: devise an electrolysis process that will duplicate the >conditions in the Patterson cell w.r.t electrolysis but will NOT permit >nuclear reactions to occur. > > - Scott Little One method of control is to establish a basline by running the apparatus for a long time *without* electrolysis current to the beads and then taking some samples for the baseline. Might be OK to run filtering and electrolysis Pt to Pt or something similar during the period prior to basline sampling to clean the electrolyte. There may be a small danger of introducing contamination upon sampling, but that seems small compared to the benefit of controlling for leaching, etc. This would help isolate the effect due to electrolysis using the beads as cathodes. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 17:01:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA15959; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 16:48:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 16:48:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 15:53:11 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: total Ni analysis Resent-Message-ID: <"RCf122.0.Hv3.71THo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1009 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 3:18 PM 9/22/96, Ross Tessien wrote: >The total amount of Ni transmuted, divided by the total amount of Ni, leads >to a very small ratio. This means that the amount of stuff lost in the >chemical processing need be extremely small. Doable as you say, maybe. > >But if there are supposed to be transmutations occuring, why not perform the >same total analysis and look for the things that were not there in the >beginning. Now the ratio of the stuff formed via transmutation to the >amount of that stuff as impurities is large if not huge. This way, you >don't need to look at the whole system unless you really want to. > >For example, if you didn't have any Hf in your system before hand (to use >Champions device as an example), and if you find any at all after words, any >where in the system, then you have it solved. There was either something >transmuted, or someone spilled some hafnium into the vat. As the latter >would only occur in the case of a fraud, we can rule it out so long as there >are no hafnium motor blades or any other source of that element. > [snip] > >Ross Yes! Why not track what goes from zero to some quantity. NMR might be able to dynamically detect some transmutation products as they are created. NMR would give a very good picture of which products are caused by secondary reactions, and when, as well. Some of the older machines had really large sample chambers. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 17:04:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA16674; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 16:53:21 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 16:53:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: 22 Sep 96 19:51:59 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Letter of intent Message-ID: <960922235159_100060.173_JHB48-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"As83O3.0.Q44.m5THo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1010 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, >> Do any of you think it is only by chance that the Griggs machine also works on the principle of cavitation? << If there is real ou from a cavitating can of water then Griggs has far more cavitation energy intensity than the low pressure (? < 150 psi - i.e. 10bar) which I understand the Yusmar is running at. I suggest that you try getting a real pump capable of 50 bar at say 20 L/min and squirt that tangentially into a vortex chamber with a valve-controlled central spill outlet in the back wall. Then you will have full control of flow - pressure and vortex ratio of recirc and outflow. If you cant get ou with any setting of that lot it aint going to happen! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 17:25:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA20495; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 17:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 17:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: 22 Sep 96 20:15:18 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Total Ni analysis / Griggs Message-ID: <960923001517_72240.1256_EHB53-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"LpnmT2.0.505.TSTHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1011 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Ross Tessien writes: "But if there are supposed to be transmutations occuring, why not perform the same total analysis and look for the things that were not there in the beginning. Now the ratio of the stuff formed via transmutation to the amount of that stuff as impurities is large if not huge." Right. This is how it has been done until now, albeit not with an aqueous solution. They find large milligram levels of stuff that was not in there in the beginning, and stuff that was not on Planet Earth in the beginning. "For example, if you didn't have any Hf in your system before hand . . . and if you find any at all afterwards, any where in the system, then you have it solved. There was either something transmuted, or someone spilled some hafnium into the vat." Precisely. Except that nothing can spill into the cells because they are certified clean and rigorously closed. The ones in Hokkaido are simple static calorimeters, that is, sealed teflon lined stainless steel cylinders. They have no tubes or pumps or complicated hiding places for contamination. "And if you find any nuclei that are not stable and with short half lives, then you have a very strong signal that something happened, ie proof IMO." Yes, they find that too, in some cases. Not with the Hokkaido cells, but most of those cathodes were transmuted three years ago. "I fail again to understand why this is so difficult with the evidence at hand." It isn't hard. I believe the evidence for transmutation is overwhelmining. We are making it difficult by trying to dream up tests for what we already know is impossible: contamination. Francis J. Stenger writes: 1. I thought we learned on this list that Griggs was not using a claim of OU in his marketing stuff. True, but irrelivant. He claimed OU in his talks at ICCF3, ICCF4, ICCF5, MIT, on the BBC and network television. He has not retracted these claims, and they have been independently verified by dozens of scientist and customers, most recently in a test peformed by the TVA which showed ~20% excess with 1200 watts input. He makes no claim of OU in his marketing stuff or in business because that would invite a world of trouble from the anti-CF clique, the DoE, the American Physical Society and other members of the lunatic fringe. 2. So, do we know for sure that the Griggs system is OU? Yes, we do. 3. Even if the Griggs machine cavitates, that does NOT mean, in itself, that such cavitation leads to OU performance. In tests where no ultrasound is generated, no cavitation occurs and no excess heat is observed. Regarding Potapov, Stenger suggests: "Until you can show OU on the test bench, you are standing on a house of cards! Spend only enough money to SHOW THE EFFECT WITHOUT A DOUBT." This is excellent advice for dealing with Potapov. Perhaps a lower limit should be set. Spend only enough to give Potapov a one-week opportunity to make the thing work. Then hand him his hardware and a $1000 invoice for services rendered, and tell him to get lost. You bill him not with any expectation of collecting, but only to hasten his exit and to make sure you never hear from him again. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 20:11:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA19780; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 20:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 20:06:27 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 23:05:51 -0400 Message-ID: <960922230550_290929600@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Yusmar day #4 Resent-Message-ID: <"nZSRF2.0.sq4.owVHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1012 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The tests were stopped after 3 days of unity operation to regroup and select a course of action. John and I still believe in Yury and Peter. We know them and they are good honest people. The day was spent in negotiation. An agreement of co-development was reached and signed. This agreement will allow John and I to continue with the tests after Yury exits from Johnstown. It also states our intent to work together to start a business (with benefit to both parties) in the US once overunity has been demonstrated. It is a fair deal for all concerned. CETI should learn from it. The more minds at work the better. Don't worry about me going broke my net income was over 100,000 last year..I am a long way from broke. I am also very honest. We have not achieved OU to date. I will not say that we have until we have. I expect that with the improvements we are planning that we may achieve 300% OU. This will be very good for Yury's and my group. Yes, I can do all of the tests that I need to do without impacting my personal budget. Time is another matter, I have none. I bought $5,000 worth of GALTEK (sym GTSM) stock last month. Today it is worth $12,.500. Thank goodness for new energy. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 20:51:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA25143; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 20:39:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 20:39:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 22:38:40 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609230338.WAA16198@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: Yusmar day #4 Resent-Message-ID: <"XCrUG2.0.n86.PPWHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1013 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:05 PM 9/22/96 -0400, Frank Z wrote: >The tests were stopped after 3 days of unity operation to regroup and select >a course of action. John and I still believe in Yury and Peter.... Frank, have you asked Yuri for his own test results showing that the Yusmar is o-u? Doesn't the guy have lab notebooks that chronicle his development of the Yusmar, filled with page after page of test results interspersed with notes on the modifications he made to increase the C.O.P? Wouldn't those notebooks be useful right now? - 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-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 21:00:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA28340; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 20:57:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 20:57:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 23:51:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199609230351.XAA26059@mail.inforamp.net> X-Authentication-Warning: mail.inforamp.net: Host ts3-03.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.137.63] didn't use HELO protocol X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.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: Quinney Subject: Re: total Ni analysis Resent-Message-ID: <"rx2Ep1.0.fw6.fgWHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1014 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:53 PM 9/22/96 -0800, you wrote: > NMR might be able to dynamically detect some transmutation products as they >are created. NMR would give a very good picture of which products are caused >by secondary reactions, and when, as well. Some of the older machines had >really large sample chambers. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > Horace: Please excuse my ignorance regarding this subject, and my presumptive method of replying. I am a bit unsure of the protocol here of posting to the list. I certainly do not want to reveal lack of knowledge but I have to screw up my courage and plunge in with a (probably) very dumb question :) My question is this: If you were to use NMR as a probe, would not the strong (??) magnetic field of that instrument interfere with the reaction of the very CF device that is being probed and investigated? I guess I'm suspicious that a strong magnetic field would enhance or hinder CF reactions and/or transmutations. (this is just intuition on my part.My science background is limited but I read PACE, NEN, ESJ, IE, and have been semi-regularly library-researching or reading free-energy type media for about 30 years now.) Colin Quinney From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 22:03:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA07339; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 21:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 21:58:19 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: control experiments Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 04:57:55 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <324bf0c8.10284111@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960922181532_100433.1541_BHG101-1@CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <960922181532_100433.1541_BHG101-1@CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.294 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"eu2043.0.Xo1.gZXHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1015 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 22 Sep 96 14:15:32 EDT, Chris Tinsley wrote: [snip] >I'll buy that, I *think*. After all, Fe is at the bottom of we old >fellers used to call the 'packing fraction curve' - minimum energy >nuclei. > >Chris >(almost comfortable with that one) > > That does indeed make it useless, where reactions such as =46e + Fe -> ... are concerned. However reactions such as: 1H1 + 26Fe57 -> 2He4 + 25Mn54 + 0.240000 MeV and 1H1 + 26Fe56 -> Co57 + 6 MeV, should nevertheless be possible. This is because the H has so much "excess" mass. So much in fact that fusion reactions producing a single nucleus should be possible throughout the whole periodic table. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 22 22:04:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA07384; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 21:58:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 21:58:23 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Carrell, Mike on Correa: 9/21 Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 04:57:59 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <324cf4ae.11282951@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960921232637_290295067@emout06.mail.aol.com> <32452183.11115063@mail.netspace.net.au> <324582ED.2914@pacbell.net> In-Reply-To: <324582ED.2914@pacbell.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.294 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"Lzpwh1.0.Ip1.kZXHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1016 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:18:21 -0700, hank wrote: [snip] > The "threshold effect" comes from the presence of the glass >envelope of the Correa's tube. X-rays of 0.5 keV are probably generated >inside the tube, if the mean-free-path is long enough to allow some >electrons to fall directly between the anode and the cathode. >X-rays with energies below 20 keV or so don't travel through any >materials very far. That is why most oscilloscopes and small home TV >sets don't worry about them. Larger sets, with anode voltages above 25 kV >do protect us using Pb glasses, metallic sheilds around the tube etc. >X-ray attenuation usually increses as the 4th power of atomic number, but >it is complicated. X-ray tubes sometimes come with Beryllium windows, to >let out as many low energy photons as possible. Even those don't put out >much energy below 20 kEV. > >Hank Scudder Thanks, that was just what I needed. Actually, I wasn't thinking of the cathode anode voltage drop when I mentioned 500 eV, but rather the x-ray energy coming from excited oxygen or nitrogen atoms in the diffuse gas in the tube. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 22 22:33:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA12077; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 22:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 22:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 21:32:21 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: total Ni analysis Resent-Message-ID: <"fgwu81.0.dy2.5_XHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1017 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Horace: > [snip] > >My question is this: > >If you were to use NMR as a probe, would not the strong (??) magnetic field >of that instrument interfere with the reaction of the very CF device that is >being probed and investigated? > [snip] >Colin Quinney Thanks for replying. I'm no expert on anything and probably know less than you, but if we all contribute our thoughts good things may happen, so here's my 2 cents worth: Yes, I couldn't agree more that there may be some effect from the NMR on the transmutations. However, that is not bad. If the effect, as demonstrated or measured through chemical analysis, goes away, then a control is provided. If the effect changes, but transmutations still occur, then you have new science plus a method to view or measure the event dynamically, as it occurs. If the transmutation is enhanced, so much the better. It seems like a win win situation. I think the biggest problem is maybe that the NMR technique can not see into the metal due to EM shielding of the nuclei relaxation frequencies. NMR is a terrific technique for looking for certain trace isotopes in the electrolyte though, and might work on the electrode surface as well, but not too much depth. Examining the electrolyte could take place in the fluid loop away from the cell if necessary. Other methods of monitoring the beads themselves, or other types of electrodes, may be more appropriate, like using xray or particle absorbtion/diffraction techniques. Yes, you probably can't measure without some interference. However, at this stage of the game any knowledge of the nature of that interference or of what happens and when is brand new knowledge. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 22 23:59:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA19981; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 23:43:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 23:43:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32462326.379D@rt66.com> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 22:45:29 -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, 505-757-6145.@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: znidarsic@aol.com, dash@sbil.sb2.pdx.edu Subject: Replicating Dash use of H2SO4 & Ti Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"AawSf3.0.4u4.g6ZHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1018 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I talked for 33 minutes on phone Tuesday, Sept. 17, with Prof. John Dash about the details of his electrolysis CF experiments, which he says are always successful, producing excess heat and a variety of product elements. [Prof. John Dash, Portland State U., Physics Dept., PO Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751, 503-725-4222, fax 503-725-3888, dash@sbil.sb2.pdx.edu] He has used D2O with 5X5X.1mm Pd cathode and Pt anode (cylinder) in 15 ml solution of .06 Mole H2SO4 with .94 Mole D2O, with current fixed at .55 Amp, giving a voltage about 4-5 volts, typical resistance about 8-10 ohms, power input about 2.5 watts, with a current density of about 2 Amp/cm*2, counting both sides of the cathode. A screen of Al2O3 coated with Pt was used to catalyze a substantial amount of recombination of the evolved H2 and O2. The anode was a Pt cylinder, .5 cm high and 2 cm diameter, with the cathode inside, and 1 cm of solution above and 1 cm below and a little less around the cylinder. The temperature rose about 4-5 degrees C. Melvin Miles at the Navy's lab at China Lake tried to replicate this, but used about half the current density, so the excess heat was not provably enough, but he did find steady radiation with a Geiger counter. A 400 hour run compared a heavy water cell with a light water cell. The heavy water cell produced more heat, but the heat dropped off after 300 hours, while the light water cell started producing more heat. The Pd "swelled like kneaded dough". Dash showed a picture of it at the 1995 LENR Conference. At the recent LENR conference, Dash reported on a very similar Ti experiment, a M.A. thesis by Radovan Kopaciek (spelling?). The more acid, the more the Ti cathode sputtered, so the acidity was reduced to .99 Mole D2O with .01 Mole H2SO4 (about 10 drops at density 1.84 for 20 ml D2O or 18 ml H2O). A 5X5X.1 mm piece of high purity Ti cost about $ 20, from Aesar supplier in Oregon. Ti cells produced more heat than Pd cells. Ti cells ran about 4 degrees higher than a control cell with a Pt cathode. This was about 20 watts per gram of cathode. Ed Storms will try to replicate this cell, as will Scott Little. Dash said the advantages of acidic electrolyte were to supply H or D for the cathode, and reduce the effects of contaminants. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 00:31:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA23972; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 00:07:49 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 00:07:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32462997.4990@rt66.com> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 23:09:27 -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, 505-757-6145.@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Low cost films on glass:Au,Ti,Pd,Pt,Ni? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"jC2x71.0.Ss5.4TZHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1019 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I need help in getting low-cost thin films of metals on glass for electrodes in electrolysis CF experiments. Edmund Scientific Co.(609-573-6879 General Product Information) in their 1994 catalog has item G41,800 Plano 6 mm thick glass mirrors of gold, 102X127 mm, for $ 26.30, for reflecting infrared and visible light. This is a cost of a quarter for a 1X1 cm electrode. At the recent LENR Conference, T. Ohmori (U. of Hokkaido) reported many element products at spots on his gold cathodes in 100 ml H2O with .5 mole Na2SO4 with .5 mole Na2CO3. This sounds like a very easy experiment to replicate. I found at a thrift shop some glasses coated at the top outside with a lustrous grey metal, thin enough to see the sun through. I recall dimly that this may be Pt coated glassware. Does anyone know? This glass can be used as anodes, and as catalytic recombiners for H2 and O2. Big windows coated with gold are used in buildings to reflect infrared away. Does anyone know much about this, or second-hand supplies? I'm in general looking for films on insulators of Au, Ti, Pd, Pt, Cr, W, and Ni. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 05:58:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA21371; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 05:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 05:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 08:48:43 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Carrell, Mike on Correa: 9/21 In-Reply-To: <324cf4ae.11282951@mail.netspace.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Dm5PZ2.0.qD5.oTeHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1020 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear VO., All should keep Ken Shoulders' work in mind with regard to discharge in gaseous media. J On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > On Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:18:21 -0700, hank wrote: > [snip] > > The "threshold effect" comes from the presence of the glass > >envelope of the Correa's tube. X-rays of 0.5 keV are probably generated > >inside the tube, if the mean-free-path is long enough to allow some > >electrons to fall directly between the anode and the cathode. > >X-rays with energies below 20 keV or so don't travel through any > >materials very far. That is why most oscilloscopes and small home TV > >sets don't worry about them. Larger sets, with anode voltages above 25 > kV > >do protect us using Pb glasses, metallic sheilds around the tube etc. > >X-ray attenuation usually increses as the 4th power of atomic number, > but > >it is complicated. X-ray tubes sometimes come with Beryllium windows, to > > >let out as many low energy photons as possible. Even those don't put out > > >much energy below 20 kEV. > > > >Hank Scudder > Thanks, that was just what I needed. Actually, I wasn't thinking of > the cathode anode voltage drop when I mentioned 500 eV, but rather the > x-ray energy coming from excited oxygen or nitrogen atoms in the > diffuse gas in the tube. > > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on > temperature. > 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 Sep 23 07:58:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA09422; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 07:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 07:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32469597.481B@rt66.com> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 06:52:44 -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, 505-757-6145.@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Replicating Dash use of H2SO4 & Ti References: <32462326.379D@rt66.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7rm5T1.0.7J2.TFgHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1021 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Prof. John Dash's correct e-mail address: dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu Rich Murray From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 08:25:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA15357; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 08:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 08:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: John Schnurer , Vortex-L Subject: Re: Carrell, Mike on Correa: 9/21 Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 08:17:00 -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: <"NjOpY.0.ol3.aegHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1022 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John I am not familiar with Ken Shoulder's work. Could you please synopsize it, and give a reference. Thanks Hank Scudder ---------- From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Carrell, Mike on Correa: 9/21 Date: Monday, September 23, 1996 5:48AM Dear VO., All should keep Ken Shoulders' work in mind with regard to discharge in gaseous media. J On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 08:37:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA16891; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 08:28:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 08:28:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>, Vortex-L Subject: RE: Total Ni analysis / Griggs Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 08:28:00 -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: <"kASCd.0.r74.kogHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1023 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Has anyone checked Griggs' output for transmutations at all. Hank Scudder ---------- From: Jed Rothwell To: Vortex Subject: Total Ni analysis / Griggs Date: Sunday, September 22, 1996 5:15PM To: Vortex Ross Tessien writes: "But if there are supposed to be transmutations occuring, why not perform the same total analysis and look for the things that were not there in the beginning. Now the ratio of the stuff formed via transmutation to the amount of that stuff as impurities is large if not huge." Right. This is how it has been done until now, albeit not with an aqueous solution. They find large milligram levels of stuff that was not in there in the beginning, and stuff that was not on Planet Earth in the beginning. "For example, if you didn't have any Hf in your system before hand . . . and if you find any at all afterwards, any where in the system, then you have it solved. There was either something transmuted, or someone spilled some hafnium into the vat." Precisely. Except that nothing can spill into the cells because they are certified clean and rigorously closed. The ones in Hokkaido are simple static calorimeters, that is, sealed teflon lined stainless steel cylinders. They have no tubes or pumps or complicated hiding places for contamination. "And if you find any nuclei that are not stable and with short half lives, then you have a very strong signal that something happened, ie proof IMO." Yes, they find that too, in some cases. Not with the Hokkaido cells, but most of those cathodes were transmuted three years ago. "I fail again to understand why this is so difficult with the evidence at hand." It isn't hard. I believe the evidence for transmutation is overwhelmining. We are making it difficult by trying to dream up tests for what we already know is impossible: contamination. Francis J. Stenger writes: 1. I thought we learned on this list that Griggs was not using a claim of OU in his marketing stuff. True, but irrelivant. He claimed OU in his talks at ICCF3, ICCF4, ICCF5, MIT, on the BBC and network television. He has not retracted these claims, and they have been independently verified by dozens of scientist and customers, most recently in a test peformed by the TVA which showed ~20% excess with 1200 watts input. He makes no claim of OU in his marketing stuff or in business because that would invite a world of trouble from the anti-CF clique, the DoE, the American Physical Society and other members of the lunatic fringe. 2. So, do we know for sure that the Griggs system is OU? Yes, we do. 3. Even if the Griggs machine cavitates, that does NOT mean, in itself, that such cavitation leads to OU performance. In tests where no ultrasound is generated, no cavitation occurs and no excess heat is observed. Regarding Potapov, Stenger suggests: "Until you can show OU on the test bench, you are standing on a house of cards! Spend only enough money to SHOW THE EFFECT WITHOUT A DOUBT." This is excellent advice for dealing with Potapov. Perhaps a lower limit should be set. Spend only enough to give Potapov a one-week opportunity to make the thing work. Then hand him his hardware and a $1000 invoice for services rendered, and tell him to get lost. You bill him not with any expectation of collecting, but only to hasten his exit and to make sure you never hear from him again. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 09:15:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA26081; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:09:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:09:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 12:07:49 -0400 Message-ID: <960923120748_108641309@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: hathc@inforamp.net Subject: Re: Letter of intent Resent-Message-ID: <"JUrUw.0.QN6.eOhHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1025 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, Please answer Scott's question. Does Yuri himself have any documentation that o/u has ever been achieved? From here it seems that only others say that about his device, but he has never said so. If he has data, will he at least show it to you? Otherwise, why do any of us think that it works if Yuri doesn't? ( Whether the Griggs device works is irrelevant to whether Yuri has ever obtained data himself with his system.) Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 09:35:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA26010; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:08:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609231608.JAA21714@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, 23 Sep 1996 09:08:17 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: When all hypotheses appear impossible . Resent-Message-ID: <"sHn6B.0.GM6.JOhHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1024 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:51 AM 9/19/96 GMT, you wrote: >On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:20:58 -0700, Ross Tessien wrote: >[snip] >>Behind the scenes, a number of people are *biting their tongues* at the >>words written in this group and running to keep ahead of the suppositions >>floating around. >> >> Can you tell us more about those who bite their tongues? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 09:38:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA28202; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 96 12:04:50 From: dacha@shentel.net Subject: RE: Yusmar day #4 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: <"PE7Cu.0.Yu6.oXhHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1026 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Don't worry about me going broke my net income was over >100,000 last year..I am a long way from broke. I am also very honest. We >have not achieved OU to date. I will not say that we have until we have. I >expect that with the improvements we are planning that we may achieve 300% >OU. This will be very good for Yury's and my group. Yes, I can do all of >the tests that I need to do without impacting my personal budget. Time is >another matter, I have none. > >I bought $5,000 worth of GALTEK (sym GTSM) stock last month. Today it is >worth $12,.500. Thank goodness for new energy. > >Frank Z > > -----------------End of Original Message----------------- Frank, please be careful! I thought I was the only one to jump into projects like this. I spend over $300,000 in a short time on such "searches". I know that I only got more determined when told of my follies, I hope you are smarter that I. Robert ------------------------------------- Name: dacha E-mail: dacha@visor.com Date: 9/23/96 Time: 12:04:50 PM No matter where you go, there you are. http://www.visor.com/info ------------------------------------- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 09:46:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA01383; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:33:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:33:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:02:59 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Resent-Message-ID: <"mboNU3.0.XL.YlhHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1027 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris T wrote: >........ One which interests me is rather >cleaner - it too is reported (as I recall) by Kervran. You take a batch >fertlised eggs, and do a full elemental assay on some of them. You then >allow the chicks to mature, then humanely kill 'em just before they >hatch. The you do the assay on those. The story is that the results >are wildly different. The assumption here is that the egg shell is an impermeable barrier. In fact, it is permeable, and the developing chick exchanges gases with the atmosphere through the shell. Therefore, the inventory of C and O, at least, will be different, due to C + O2 = CO2 metabolism. I wouldn't be surprised if some N and H could also cross the shell, say as NH3 and H2O. 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-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 09:51:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA03677; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:41:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609231640.JAA25292@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, 23 Sep 1996 09:40:13 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Resent-Message-ID: <"xBMvB2.0.Jv.ZshHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1028 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:52 AM 9/21/96 EDT, you wrote: >Barry, > > >I really can assure you (my chemistry background being rather more >secure than my physics) that there is nothing in the least 'challenging' >about finding out how much nickel there is in a system of this kind. I >suppose science has become so compartmentalised that there is now little >respect or understanding by one branch of the techniques or competence >of any other branch. > >This is all very depressing. I suggest a perfectly standard and >wholly reliable method of testing the nuclear hypothesis, and find that >any positive results which it might produce would be ignored on wholly >spurious grounds. There is little which is rational there, it confirms >my earlier view that nothing short of successful commercialisation >(which will be opposed tooth and nail by the science community) will >impress that science community of the reality of any of this stuff. > >Chris > > Two years ago I had a vestige left in me about the objectivity of professional "scientists"...ha ha ha ha I think you are proving the phenomenon in your own activities. It is ***truly*** depressing. So it ends up being the whack of a 2x4 which wakes them up. I suppose we are all like that in some ways, which keeps me a bit humble. Still, I am unable to grasp the intensity with which the professional true-believers are holding unto the old paradigms. I mean, really, what the hell damn difference does it make if transmutation can occur with a little simple chemical wizardry? Who really could possibly give a damn one way or the other? And what the hell damn difference does it make if somebody plays around with it? I'll bet those orthoxies play the lottery once and a while, and throw money away in Vegas, just like the rest of us, knowing full well that the odds are as good as a snowball in hell. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 10:12:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA05886; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:51:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:51:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609231650.JAA26825@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, 23 Sep 1996 09:50:34 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Resent-Message-ID: <"C72bX1.0.pR1.20iHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1030 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:16 PM 9/21/96 EDT, you wrote: >Bill, > > > Turn the "incandescent chicken" argument around: don't say that > > transmuation is bunk because the chicken would become > > self-cooking. > >Of course. I was just having my little joke. You know, I still keep >seeing arguments over this 'gravity shielding' thing. They go like >this: > >"A" says he's seen a weight reduction over his gadgie. > >"A" suggests gravity shielding. > >But gravity shielding would only affect a small cone just above the >gadgie. (This conclusion reached by a page or two of dense and >impenetrable calculus, when it is perfectly obvious from inspection). > >Therefore the claim to have seen the effect on the storey above is >false. > >Sheesh. > >OK, I admit that my fondness for logic stems from (a) only being able to >understand terribly simple things and (b) being useless at mathematics - >but is it any wonder I get irritable when logic seems to be a skill >which was more widely used in the C14th than it is in the late C20th? > >To be honest, although it was not he who first interested me in the >subject, it was the sheer blistering illogic prevalent in Close's "Too >Hot To Handle" which first made me more confident that there was >something in all this stuff. > > > Instead say: if chicken experiments give good evidence that > > transmutation is occurring, they also give good evidence that very > > low energy pathways exist. > >Correct. Except that the evidence isn't good at all. Nor will it ever >be if the experiments are never done. One which interests me is rather >cleaner - it too is reported (as I recall) by Kervran. You take a batch >fertlised eggs, and do a full elemental assay on some of them. You then >allow the chicks to mature, then humanely kill 'em just before they >hatch. The you do the assay on those. The story is that the results >are wildly different. > >Chris > > yeah, that is what is so awsome. theories evaporate before the IRON LAW OF SIMPLE LOGIC here. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 10:23:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA05496; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:49:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:49:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 12:49:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Todd Heywood To: @minnie.nic.kingston.ibm.com:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Brown's gas...found on sci.systems (late) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Resent-Message-ID: <"mdfGs3.0.mL1.Y-hHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1029 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Newsgroups: sci.systems Subject: Neutralize Nuclear Waste Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 20:11:41 -0700 Organization: ^ Pyramid.Net ^ Reno, Nevada ^ Lines: 199 Message-ID: <323CC56D.3CFD@pyramid.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp12.pyramid.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Diso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; U) Dear Friends: We have been associates of this group for the last eight years and have seen how the government has totally ignored -- and downright suppressed -- the availability of these technologies to better the world. We are sending you this invitation to please attend this rally, witness for yourself and disseminate the information to your friends / subscribers. When you go to the show, you must present a copy of this ad (last page of this fax) to the sign-up people at the entrance. Thank you, John Ohm & Marylou Walker P.O. BOX 11962, RENO, NV 89510 _________________ UNITED COMMUNITY SERVICES OF AMERICA 3002 Route 23 North, Newfoundland, NJ 07435 Dear Friends: Something incredible has happened to us! It is beyond my expectations at this point and is worth every one of us dropping everything else to concentrate on. Professor Yull Brown has the technology to neutralize radioactive waste. Right now there is a location in the United States where, if there were a nuclear mishap, every living thing in all of the United States, Canada, and Mexico would be totally wiped out! This is very serious. The government of this country has put everyone in this country at great risk. Professor Brown has proof of what I am saying, and he is prepared to present it to the people of this country. As you know, Better World Technology has been promoting Professor Brown's technology on this national tour. We do have the "exclusive" rights to sell Brown's Gas Machines in the United States. We were shocked when Professor Brown showed up at our show in Las Vegas, sitting in the front row. We had over a thousand people in the audience that night. After I explained why I believe Professor Brown to be the most important man in the world, I asked him to come up on stage. The entire audience spontaneously rose to their feet in a standing ovation. I have never been more proud of the American people! It deeply touched Professor Brown, and I saw tears in his eyes. I had tried to get him not to give up on the American people. He was so touched by that gesture, that he did something I could never have expected. He announced that he too would come to the last meeting on our tour in Philadelphia, and that he intended to work with UCSA to neutralize all the nuclear waste in this country! =20 Professor Yull Brown is willing to be at our Declaration of Energy Independence on the 23rd of September in Philadelphia, and has magnanimously offered to demonstrate his ability to neutralize radioactive waste at our show! He will also bring a car engine that has already been modified to run on Brown's Gas, and will demonstrate how to pump water without any mechanical device (pump) at all. I believe that he was so touched by the hearts of the crowd that he has decided that even at the risk of his own life, he will do this. The government is currently planning a 400 billion dollar rip off of the American people, working with the private sector to find a way to safely store the nuclear waste in dump sites. They may get a little upset at the idea that we, with Brown, could eliminate the need for storage of waste. We have to get a lot of the American people to attend this last show to protect our friend. If he is going to do this along with the other things we had planned to demonstrate, this is the biggest news to hit this country over the last century! After the show in Vegas, Professor Brown and I went out for breakfast, and I agreed to rent a stadium in Philadelphia and to try all in my power to pack it with people. I saw his reaction when 1,000 people applauded his capability, and a stadium of people would so strongly capture his heart as to completely captivate him, I believe. He agreed to be there. I think that packing that stadium is the most important thing we could ever do. It is time! If we can pull this off, we can be catapulted ahead in ways that are unimaginable. I intend to pull out all the stops and do exactly that! We found the stadium. It is called the CoreStates Center at the Spectrum. The address is 3601 South Broad Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It is the place where the Philadelphia Flyers play hockey. It is also the place where the Philadelphia 76ers play basketball. The place seats 19,000 witnesses. There are four huge screens to show close-ups of what is happening on the stage. We need to pack it, and there is little time to do that. We are doing a mailing to all the dealers and to all the people that came to our shows on both tours this year. We need the dealers to help us get this tremendous job done. If we can pull this off, we will have Prof. Brown's undivided attention and respect, as well as one tremendous amount of momentum in our project. This will be the biggest thing that has ever been done to end the suppression of technologies in the history of this country! It will pretty much assure the success of our project. Filling that stadium will certainly be a mandate from the people, and everyone who comes will have a chance to sign the Declaration of Energy Independence. They will also all get a free electricity device on their home at no cost to buy and no cost for all their electricity. That is a pretty good reason for them to come. On the other hand, if we have a stadium that seats 19,000 and only a few thousand people come, it will hurt our relationship with Brown, and not only cost us a lot of money we cannot afford to lose, but it will end our tour as a joke rather than a mandate from the people. =20 Here's what we need from each of you. Do whatever you can to promote this event and get people to go to it. Go to it yourself if that is humanly possible. Promote this show as if your life depended on it, because it just may. By the way, the historic demonstration of neutralizing radioactive waste will be perfectly safe and will be supervised by nuclear physicists and done in a proper fashion. Get on the internet, or the radio, or anything you know of. If there ever was a time to network, it is now and I do mean NOW! We will give you a copy of the ad we are going to run as a full page in the USA Today East Coast Edition. Feel free to use it or do whatever else you can to promote this event. There is little time remaining before the 23rd of September. It has to be done at that time, so we just have to pull this thing off. We will have a bus run from the location we were going to have for the show and the hockey stadium it is in now so people that do not get the word will not miss the event. It will start at 7:30 PM for that reason. There will be all kinds of things at this show you have never seen before. There will be little talk and lots more demonstrating hardware. You will be very happy to see what we have in store for the Declaration of Independence from technology suppression in America. The show will be fantastic no matter how many people show up, but we need witnesses so there will be no dirty politics. =20 There is another thing we must do in order to pull this off. We are very shorthanded. This has come up unexpectedly. I never expected Brown to fall in love with our project in Vegas and make the shocking announcement that he was going to work with us to eliminate nuclear waste in this country, but he did, and by George, we will try to earn his faith in us! Our staff is small, and we are very limited in what we can do this month. If we are to pull off all sorts of unplanned mailings and get full page ads in the east coast papers, as well as plan to occupy a huge stadium, we are going to be too busy to service the dealers with videos and brochures of products, or even to supply you. We have to put the dealership on hold until the 24th. We cannot do both. I am sorry we have to put everything on hold, but please understand what a challenge this is for all of us. So, please, do all you can to get to Philadelphia and to bring and invite as many others as you can. This is it! There will never be a better time to stand up for America and for this project. You may be surprised at what comes out of this show! It will be like no other event in our history, and this is your chance to be a part of it. If every dealership got only 10 people to show up and came themselves, then the stadium would be packed (about 1700 of the dealerships are owned by someone that is interested and there are only 300 to be replaced at this point. We believe in you guys and in God's ability to perform miracles. This will be one! ___________ THE MOST IMPORTANT SHOW IN AMERICA =20 ...is happening at 7:30 PM on September 23rd at CoreStates Spectrum, 3601 S. Broad Street in Philadelphia =20 You might take a train... you might take a plane... but, if you have to walk, you need to get there just the same. =20 AMERICANS WILL DECLARE TOTAL ENERGY INDEPENCENCE! =20 For all those who come to this show: =20 =B0 You will be invited to sign up to get a new electric generator that will give you all the energy for your home at no operating cost. You will not pay one cent to have it provided on your home or to operate it... ever! Never pay an oil, gas or electric bill again! =B0 Sign up to have the existing engines in your vehicles modified to run on free energy without gasoline or batteries ever again. We will test the torque on a working model. =B0 Come see for yourself the technologies that have been suppressed by the Department of Energy and the powerful self interest groups that they serve. =B0 See dozens of working models of technologies that will shock you. =20 THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT... =20 THE MOST DANGEROUS OF ALL FORMS OF POLLUTION IS NUCLEAR WASTE! One pound of plutonium can wipe out every man, woman and child on this planet... and it's lethal for 50,000 years! An average nuclear power plant gets rid of 66,000 pounds per year and there is no fool proof way to store it safely! COME AND WITNESS A TECHNOLOGY THAT CAN NEUTRALIZE RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND MAKE IT TOTALLY HARMLESS! WE NEED LOTS OF WITNESSES. There will be nuclear physicists present and we will conclusively prove this can be done! Be a part of history. The demonstration is totally safe, but since big business has planned to get a 400 billion dollar contract to store this waste, WE NEED THE PEOPLE TO COME TO PROTECT US WHEN WE DEMONSTRATE THIS PROCESS!! =20 Dennis Lee, a direct descendant of Richard Henry Lee (the man that called for the Declaration of Independence signed in Philadelphia) will call for America's Declaration of Energy Independence at this show. Please come and support our right to show you these breakthroughs to stop the dirty politics that keep these technologies from the people. If you don't believe now, come and see and you will! Come and be a signer of the Declaration of Energy Independence. =20 Better World Technology, 3002 Route 23 North, Newfoundland, NJ 07435 INVITED BY MARYLOU WALKER/JOHN OHM P.O. BOX 11962, RENO, NV 89510 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 10:32:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA11161; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 10:15:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 10:15:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609231715.KAA29197@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, 23 Sep 1996 10:14:53 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Brown's gas...found on sci.systems (late) Resent-Message-ID: <"6EFI31.0.Ik2.9NiHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1031 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:49 PM 9/23/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Newsgroups: sci.systems >Subject: Neutralize Nuclear Waste >Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 20:11:41 -0700 >Organization: ^ Pyramid.Net ^ Reno, Nevada ^ >Lines: 199 >Message-ID: <323CC56D.3CFD@pyramid.net> >NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp12.pyramid.net >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; U) > >Dear Friends: > >We have been associates of this group for the last eight years and have >seen how the government has totally ignored -- and downright suppressed >-- the availability of these technologies to better the world. >We are sending you this invitation to please attend this rally, witness >for yourself and disseminate the information to your friends / >subscribers. >When you go to the show, you must present a copy of this ad (last page >of this fax) to the sign-up people at the entrance. > Thank you, > John Ohm & Marylou Walker > P.O. BOX 11962, RENO, NV 89510 >_________________ > > UNITED COMMUNITY SERVICES OF AMERICA > 3002 Route 23 North, Newfoundland, NJ 07435 > >Dear Friends: > >Something incredible has happened to us! It is beyond my expectations at >this point and is worth every one of us dropping everything else to >concentrate on. >Professor Yull Brown has the technology to neutralize radioactive >waste. Right now there is a location in the United States where, if >there were a nuclear mishap, every living thing in all of the United >States, Canada, and Mexico would be totally wiped out! This is very >serious. The government of this country has put everyone in this >country at great risk. Professor Brown has proof of what I am saying, >and he is prepared to present it to the people of this country. > >As you know, Better World Technology has been promoting Professor >Brown's technology on this national tour. We do have the "exclusive" >rights to sell Brown's Gas Machines in the United States. We were > > Dennis Lee, a direct descendant of Richard Henry Lee (the man that >called for the Declaration of Independence signed in Philadelphia) will >call for America's Declaration of Energy Independence at this show. >Please come and support our right to show you these breakthroughs to >stop the dirty politics that keep these technologies from the people. If >you don't believe now, come and see and you will! Come and be a signer >of the Declaration of Energy Independence. > > Better World Technology, 3002 Route 23 North, Newfoundland, NJ 07435 > INVITED BY MARYLOU WALKER/JOHN OHM > P.O. BOX 11962, RENO, NV 89510 > > oh shit. oh man... ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 10:44:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA14923; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 10:30:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 10:30:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960923173706.0071a6ac@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, 23 Sep 1996 10:37:06 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Brown's gas...found on sci.systems (late) Resent-Message-ID: <"i22-D2.0.ze3.kaiHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1032 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Just peachy, except for the fact that everyone who gets involved with Dennis Lee loses money. If you get involved, you get to find out the hard way. Gary Hawkins At 12:49 PM 9/23/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Dear Friends: > >We have been associates of this group for the last eight years and have >seen how the government has totally ignored -- and downright suppressed >-- the availability of these technologies to better the world. >We are sending you this invitation to please attend this rally, witness >for yourself and disseminate the information to your friends / >subscribers. >When you go to the show, you must present a copy of this ad (last page >of this fax) to the sign-up people at the entrance. > Thank you, > John Ohm & Marylou Walker > P.O. BOX 11962, RENO, NV 89510 >_________________ > > UNITED COMMUNITY SERVICES OF AMERICA > 3002 Route 23 North, Newfoundland, NJ 07435 > >Dear Friends: > >Something incredible has happened to us! It is beyond my expectations at >this point and is worth every one of us dropping everything else to From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 10:57:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA19679; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 10:47:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 10:47:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 23 Sep 1996 10:47:10 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Re: Brown's gas...found on sci.systems (late) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/23/96 10:47:09 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"4KXCj1.0.Op4.6riHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1033 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 09/23/96 10:41 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Brown's gas...found on sci.systems (late) Gary Hawkins: Thanks for that warning, it does put an interesting face on things! MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 11:26:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA23608; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 11:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 11:06:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 14:05:48 -0400 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"zlxy-.0.km5.H6jHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1034 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I reviewed Robert Stirniman's references on the Hooper effect and it looks like the effect is real. The paper: 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. is of interest because it gives a proof that the electric field radiation terms and the second order relativistic terms cancel out. I noticed this in my computer program that is designed to calculate all forces resulting from electrons moving around a wire of any shape. The proof is valid for the case where the electron velocity changes as it goes around the wire so it should not make any difference if the type or shape of the wire changes or if part of the path is through a plasma. I am not saying that a report to the contrary here on Vortex is false but that classical E&M theory says it is impossible. The effect is very strange. It appears that as the electron moves around the wire it looses charge and the wire seems to have a positive charge. The simple minded concept of the moving electrons having a Lorentz contraction and increasing in density gives the wrong sign. It looks like the electron density is decreased. The magnitude of the effect is very large. The effect must not work for electrons orbiting in atoms. Otherwise a dc device such as an automobile starting motor would induce a potential much larger than the 12 volts going into it and this could be measured. Look at it this way, a significant effect is found for currents of around 1000 A. The current in your starter motor is on the order of 10 million A if you include the orbiting electrons (take the curl of the induced magnetization). If you multiply this effect by 10,000 times it is much too large. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 11:51:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA00470; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 11:33:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 11:33:48 -0700 (PDT) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960923183729.006d38ec@mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 11:37:29 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Second Law Violating Nanochip (SLVN)] X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"9szCP1.0.G7.CWjHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1035 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Yes, you are correct. the average 4175 MPH is not a sufficient escape velocity At 10:02 AM 9/20/96 -0500, you wrote: >> H2 moves at whopping 4175 MPH - enough to escape from earth's orbit) > >Velocity distribution around the average might occasionally allow a >H2 molecule to reach escape velocity (25,000 mph) but it certainly would >be a rarity -- and thus a slow "leak", i.e. on the geological timescale. > > >-- > - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - > - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - > - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 12:04:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA01686; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 11:38:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 11:38:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 14:37:41 -0400 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199609231837.OAA08143@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <960921014829_72240.1256_EHB32-1@CompuServe.COM> (message from Jed Rothwell on 20 Sep 96 21:48:29 EDT) Subject: Re: Reading don't make smarts Resent-Message-ID: <"Drx8j3.0.FQ.JajHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1036 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed said: > This is entirely off topic so I shall keep it short. I must protest this > notion suggested by Robert I. Eachus: > "For example, the strong selection pressure against illiteracy didn't > start until the nineteenth century, but it got to be pretty complete > before the welfare state and television removed some of the selection > pressure. So yes, the average population is somewhat smarter than 150 > years ago, and very much smarter than 4000 years ago. > Premodern activities required every bit as much brainpower as > reading books! Things like hunting, fishing, sailing ships, or > gold smithing take as much mental effort and ingenuity as > programming a computer, writing a book, playing baseball or doing a > high dive in the Olympics... I think Jed and I are in agreement, but that he is mistaking an example of a particular selection pressure for the whole of intelligence. I choose literacy as an example because it avoids racial issues, and the selection has been relatively recent. If you are really interested in this, look at handedness and intelligence. Handedness can be used to measure the selection pressure for literacy. Mixed-dominance can be used to select out the confounding factor of selection for intelligence. In the last two hundred years, the selection pressure has been much, much stronger in favor of literacy than intelligence, but there has still been a small selection for intelligence. Enough of this. Facinating, but off-topic. 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 Sep 23 12:14:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA07490; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 12:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 12:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: 23 Sep 96 14:58:33 EDT From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: SEATTLE WEIRD SCIENCE: Bill Beaty on Message-ID: <960923185833_76216.2421_HHB36-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"rJrEV3.0.xq1.MwjHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1037 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris - >>> "But ... wouldn't I need one of those sound-card thingies? And Windoze? And a 'mouse', or whatever it's called?" - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI geddamac From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 13:18:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA16965; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 12:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 12:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: 23 Sep 96 15:43:10 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Please stop quoting everything! Message-ID: <960923194310_72240.1256_EHB103-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"8TkiP2.0.w84.IakHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1038 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Michael Mandeville, Hank Scudder and Others: This Means You! Please refrain from quoting entire long messages just to add short comments. Our organizer, Bill Beaty, has laid down a few guidelines here on Vortex, and this is one of them. Yes, we flippantly call them "guidelines" but actually they are RULES and you BETTER FOLLOW THEM, because otherwise Bill might show up at your house to inflict an Unspeakable Punishment. Something involving wet noodles, electric shocks, and a rubber jumpsuit . . . I . . . I don't know the details. But please! . . . before it's too late, desist. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 13:33:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA23131; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 13:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 13:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: 23 Sep 96 16:09:56 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Message-ID: <960923200955_100433.1541_BHG93-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"gA0dv.0.Jf5.00lHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1039 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael, > The assumption here is that the egg shell is an impermeable > barrier. In fact, it is permeable, and the developing chick > exchanges gases with the atmosphere through the shell. Therefore, > the inventory of C and O, at least, will be different, due to C + > O2 = CO2 metabolism. I wouldn't be surprised if some N and H > could also cross the shell, say as NH3 and H2O. No, the assumption is that I am making assumptions. I'm not. All I'm doing is making a report on something on which I am sceptical. Of course the egg is gas-permeable, the actual claim was concerning all the stuff like K, Na, Ca, P, Fe; I don't recall the details, though I do have a copy of the book if anybody would like me to look it up. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 13:50:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA23174; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 13:16:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 13:16:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: 23 Sep 96 16:10:06 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Message-ID: <960923201005_100433.1541_BHG93-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"eb9fz3.0.0g5.70lHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1040 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Michael, > So it ends up being the whack of a 2x4 which wakes them up. I > suppose we are all like that in some ways, which keeps me a bit > humble. Yes. I think anyone who tries to think straight, who sees the illogic with which supposedly dispassionate individuals operate, learns the very hard lesson that their own thinking has been at least as bad - and loses in that process at least some of his egotistical arrogance. A hard and painful lesson indeed. The question is whether any of us have finished that learning process. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 14:22:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA05213; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 14:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 14:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 14:05:01 -0700 Message-Id: <199609232105.OAA00285@dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Yusmar day #4 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"s0wvC3.0.LH1.kklHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1041 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sepy 23, 1996 Frank, you wrote: > > The day was spent in negotiation. An agreement of co-development was >reached and signed. This agreement will >allow John and I to continue with the tests after Yury exits from >Johnstown. What good are those agreements when Potapov already has a self sustaining 'Quatum Generator' supposedly back home which was supposed to be the subject of the LANL tests. You might end up reinventing the 'Quantum Generator' -- then what? Or is Potapov going to share his secrets on the latest? -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 15:34:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA17783; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 15:04:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 15:04:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609232201.PAA14129@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 15:06:34 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Brown's gas...found on sci.systems (late) Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"7-xOW3.0.iL4.CbmHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1042 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Can someone help me find the address of the Barnum school of science. I think I somehow missed the boat. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 15:39:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA21436; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 15:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 15:21:56 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 18:19:47 -0400 Message-ID: <960923181946_528218243@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Yusmar day #4 Resent-Message-ID: <"Rb-ao1.0.nE5.1smHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1043 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott...I don't care about past results. I care about cavitation. Yury has designed one of the best cavitators in the world. The thing does not self destruct like the Griggs machine does. Being able to control cavitation is a very big step. We will add one or two pieces to the puzzle and bingo...Unlimited free energy. Yury is not so bad. He is willing to work with us. He is willing to co-develop with us. With his open mind things should begin to happen fast. People ,including John and I, work better when there is something in it for themselves. CETI should learn from this. Who is going to develop a CETI product when you have to sign the rights to any future improvements to CETI. Not me. I plan to work with Yury's basic technology, under a letter of intent, to devise methods to make Yury's device work very good. Yury will sell more. Any we will be rewarded for our work. That the way things should work. Frank Z Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 15:50:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA24162; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 15:33:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 15:33:51 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 18:33:08 -0400 Message-ID: <960923183307_528226405@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Letter of intent Resent-Message-ID: <"9s3T03.0.Rv5.D1nHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1045 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hal, I have not seen a data sheet however Yury has told us of what happens when the device goes overunity. Its a trade secret Yury has asked us not to disclose it. Anyway I want my own data. I have my own ideas. I need hundreds of bars of pressure. I have the equipment in hand to get the pressure. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 15:50:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA23439; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 15:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 15:30:38 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 18:29:58 -0400 Message-ID: <960923182958_528224470@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Total Ni analysis / Griggs Resent-Message-ID: <"r3sfA3.0.4k5.D-mHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1044 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed are you nutz? Hand Potapov a bill! He is woriking with us. He paid many of the bills we paid many of the others. He is letting us use the Yusmar and the $3,000 pump. We have paid for fabrication, heat exchanges, testing equipment. This is a joint effort. I want nothing more that to call Yury back and tell him we got it working. Yury is a great man...but he doen't know everything. I know some things he does not. John knows some things I do not. We are putting are heads, money, and efforts together to solve the problem. I have a good idea of what needs to be done. It's going to take some time..but I believe in myself...and Yury...and John Barron...and the theories of Hal Puthoff...and the work of Edward Storms.... Did you see the show connections. Many people developed many things. I intend to be the man who put the pieces of the puzzle together. Frank From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 16:01:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA27286; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 15:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 15:45:58 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 18:45:16 -0400 Message-ID: <960923184516_528233165@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Yusmar day #4 Resent-Message-ID: <"JIATe3.0.Fg6.bCnHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1046 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: AK I asked Potapov a lot of questions. He doesn't know everything. He does not know why the Johnstown tests did not work. He has agreed the the test set up was good. We tried three orifices and many pressure and temperature settings. Yury is stuck. He needs help. I told him I would figure it out. He said, "Thank you" Yury's quantum generators are not yet perfect. Like everything else in the world of cold fusion..things don't go the same way every time. Yury has done a lot but he needs a push. I'm going to try to give it to him. I can get a lot of help. Miley will has agreed to test "certain things" for us. A Pittsburgh lab is open to us. We have the full use of a large machine shop. Yury said, "At this shop you could build rockets" We told them, "They have" A lot of good people are helping us. We have plan. If it works I'll be calling Hal and Scott to confirm our results. Until then, Scott and Hal, sit tight and wait. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 16:28:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA29807; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 15:58:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 15:58:09 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 18:57:25 -0400 Message-ID: <960923185724_528240017@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Yusmar day #5 Resent-Message-ID: <"Td_zs.0.dH7.0OnHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1047 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Today we invited Yury to visit Conemaugh Generating Station. He asked many questions. I told him the temperature and pressure of the stations operation and he told me the efficiency. He knows thermodynamics. I showed him a man inserting a probe into a pipe and he said, "Eddy currnent test" He knows non-destructive testing. I showed him our scrubber and he told me the reaction. He knows chemistry. I showed him an automatic boiler tube weling system. He asked many questions. He is a welding expert. Yury is not stupid. He is trying to solve a difficult problem and has come up against some unexpected problems. Does anyone else on this list have all of the answers? If not, give the guy a break. In the midst of it all...the top utility management who turned me down had no idea of who was in the bowles of their power plant. If they ever find out they will really hammer me. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 16:59:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA09142; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 16:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 16:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609232340.QAA09006@mail.eskimo.com> From: Ron McFee Subject: Where's the Radiation? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 23 Sep 96 17:43:02 MDT Cc: mcfee@lanl.gov, GeorgeHM@aol.com Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Resent-Message-ID: <"dDhL83.0.hE2.s_nHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1048 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 04:57:55 GMT >[snip] >However reactions such as > >1H1 + 26Fe57 -> 2He4 + 25Mn54 + 0.240000 MeV > >and > >1H1 + 26Fe56 -> Co57 + 6 MeV, should nevertheless be possible. > >This is because the H has so much "excess" mass. So much in fact that >fusion reactions producing a single nucleus should be possible >throughout the whole periodic table. These reactions are quite interesting in that they point out the fundamental weakness in assuming that such transmutations of this type or any other type of transmutations involving high Z nuclei can occur in an electro-chemical cell without being patently obvious. Both Mn54 and Co57 are not stable nuclei. That is they decay into more stable nuclei via electron capture. This products gamma radiation which should stand out like a bright neon light on a dark night. If wholesale transformations are occurring in George Miley's cells, it is very, very interesting that only stable nuclei are formed. This is quite improbable, if not impossible. Recall that the Pons/Fleischmann heavy water cells produced a small amount of tritium and even lesser amounts of free neutrons. The fact that there is no observed ionizing radiation from the CETI light water cells is indeed one of the outstanding miracles of this new process. If there is a nuclear origin for the anomalous energy then it must involve the production of stable nuclei. I suspect that these are either He3 and/or He4. Try doing this with reactions which produce heavier nuclei that are stable with no branches that produce radioactive nuclei is going be very, very, very difficult for your average nuclear physicist. As far as Miley's results, we can invoke Ockham's Razor and say that the the electrolytic cell is doing just what it is supposed to do, i.e. moving ions from one place to another. I am fairly certain that George well knows this, and before we have to accuse him of being less than honest, I recommend that he get down to business and start looking for the helium. As for the Yusmar, it is unfortrunate that the Johnstown testing was unsuccessful. Frank, when Yury returns to Moldova, make sure he has a decent power meter so that he can do his own indepentent tests. If he still thinks that he is producing anomalous energy, then he should ship you the COMPLETE assembly from Moldova. Regards, Ron From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 17:54:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA22846; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 17:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 17:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: 23 Sep 96 20:32:50 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Mill schedule Message-ID: <960924003250_72240.1256_EHB190-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"R0n5p.0.ua5.qsoHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1049 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex The Barker's Creek Mill in Rabun County, Georgia, is old water-wheel corn mill. Business hours are posted on a sign on the door: Mill Hours: 1st Saturday of each month, noon till 4 p.m. occasionally as early as 8 sometimes as late as 6 or 7 except sometimes I'm here on other days. Some days or afternoons I'm not here at all. And lately I've been here just about all the time. Except when I'm someplace else but I should be here then, too. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 19:04:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA07673; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 18:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 18:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 11:40:39 +1000 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Yusmar day #5 In-Reply-To: <960923185724_528240017@emout08.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"V1HPT.0.pt1.fmpHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1050 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I'm sorry Frank but I have concur with a number of people who have already told you this. I will say it in a different way. If with all the direct tuning by you, Yury and everyone else the Yusamar does not go "over-unity" then it seems inconceivable that the Potapov device is a reliable product manufactured in great quantities. This being the case, one has wonder about the people who are selling it as such. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 19:57:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA26067; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 19:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 19:54:23 -0700 (PDT) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 22:53:41 -0400 Message-ID: <960923225339_315915622@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Carrell, Mike on Correa: 9/21 Resent-Message-ID: <"O8GER3.0.CN6.UrqHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1051 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hank, thanks for a more complete answer to Robin's question than I was able to give. Robin is right, there probably isn't any energy threshold so far as the production of electromagnetic radiation. I was using the practical datum that ordinary vacuum tubes, which could have plate potentials of 500 V, were not regarded as x-ray hazards. Same for ordinary oscilloscopes. Since the cathodes are pitted by the PAGD discharge, it is reasonable to ask if very much higher energies exist within the discharge than would be expected from the external voltages. Correa has not mentioned x-ray radiation, but I expect to talk to him today and I will bring it up. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 21:54:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA20208; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 21:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 21:52:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609240451.VAA21475@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, 23 Sep 1996 21:51:33 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Please stop quoting everything! Resent-Message-ID: <"w-3HG2.0.cx4.vZsHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1052 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:43 PM 9/23/96 EDT, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >Michael Mandeville, Hank Scudder and Others: > >This Means You! > >Please refrain from quoting entire long messages just to add short comments. > >Our organizer, Bill Beaty, has laid down a few guidelines here on Vortex, and >this is one of them. Yes, we flippantly call them "guidelines" but >actually they are RULES and you BETTER FOLLOW THEM, because otherwise Bill >might show up at your house to inflict an Unspeakable Punishment. Something >involving wet noodles, electric shocks, and a rubber jumpsuit . . . I . . . >I don't know the details. But please! . . . before it's too late, desist. > >- Jed > > Gee, I sort of liked the contrast - the long discourse, you know, with the short, stunningly brilliant response and besides...wait a minute, what's that? shhhhlooooop shhhlooooop ZIZIZIZI ZAP no, no, bill it's me your old pal, wait can't we..zizzzzzzzzzzZAPZAP AIIIIRAGH! ERROR - session timed out Program aborted. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 22:08:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA22803; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 22:06:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 22:06:54 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ILENR2 video tapes Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 05:06:34 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32486bdc.26024837@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <960923200955_100433.1541_BHG93-1@CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <960923200955_100433.1541_BHG93-1@CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.294 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"PaIra1.0.Da5.jnsHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1055 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 23 Sep 96 16:09:56 EDT, Chris Tinsley wrote: [snip] >Fe; I don't recall the details, though I do have a copy of the book if anybody >would like me to look it up. Yes please. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 23 22:09:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA21786; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 22:02:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 22:02:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 22:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609240501.WAA08937@denmark.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: Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"xzcut.0.KK5.MjsHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1053 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:05 PM 9/23/96 -0400, Lawrence E. Wharton wrote: [snip] > I reviewed Robert Stirniman's references on the Hooper effect and it >looks like the effect is real. The paper: [snip] Maybe some related info, checkout the excellent work being done over at the Electric Spacecraft Journal Network, Issue 18, 1996, and Clarles A. Yost's article "Electrostatic Force Experiments." As researched by Hooper, the three E-fields are discussed with experimental data using tesla coils and their own Holtz/Wimshurst generator with concepts for space propulsion. Michael Randall From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 22:09:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA22572; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 22:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 22:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 00:05:38 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609240505.AAA25968@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: Potapov's angle Resent-Message-ID: <"H56dd2.0.XW5.lmsHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1054 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, I'm not really interested in old data either, I'm just trying to figure out Potapov's angle. When I stop to imagine how I would behave if I had developed an o-u device...and then look at the way Dr. P is behaving, I'm TOTALLY baffled!!!!! The very LAST thing I would do is travel to another country, whose language I don't speak, with only part of my invention...and then hang around trying to make a deal with someone to develop the part I brought with me into a working o-u system when, reportedly, I own a factory back home that is churning out working o-u systems by the dozens!! It's ABSOLUTE NONSENSE, Frank! Why didn't he bring a complete, tested o-u system with him to the U.S? OK, maybe he thought it would be a lot more convenient to just bring the vortex tube.... Well, in view of what's happened, why doesn't he call home right now and instruct his factory supervisor to ship a complete working system over ASAP? - 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-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 23 23:33:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA08480; Mon, 23 Sep 1996 23:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 23:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 01:30:53 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Yusmar day #4 From: dtmiller@dsmnet.com (Dean T. Miller) Message-Id: <09960824013013.OUI01.dtmiller@dsmnet.com> In-Reply-To: Resent-Message-ID: <"Ui5vS1.0.N42._0uHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1056 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank Z said: >> I asked Potapov a lot of questions. He doesn't know everything. He does not know why the Johnstown tests did not work. He has agreed the the test set up was good. We tried three orifices and many pressure and temperature settings. Yury is stuck. He needs help. I told him I would figure it out. He said, "Thank you" << Frank, Is the pump and motor that is being used to drive the Yusmar one of those used in Moldova? IOW, are you using _exactly_ the same motor, pump, vortex tube, return tube, 'washers,' and everything else that is used in the OU devices? It's my opinion that one key factor is the lower precision nature of the Moldova pump which might allow a build up of sonic reflections/standing waves inside the vortex tube. !^NavFont02F0262000AQGUHHUHI6314A1 -- -- Dean -- from Des Moines ---- Using: OUI Internet Mail TE 1.5 from http://www.dvorak.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 00:09:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA13642; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 00:05:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 00:05:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <324779DD.7A68@rt66.com> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 23:06:51 -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, 505-757-6145.@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, rmcarell@aol.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, claytor-t-n@lanl.gov, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jdunn@ctc.org, bhorst@loc100.tandem.com, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, cc840@freenet.carleton.ca, g-miley@uiuc.edu, ceti@onramp.net, dennis@wazoo.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, mrandall@earthlink.com, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, mcfee@karloff.lanl.gov, mizuno@athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp, uban@world.std.com, puthoff@aol.com, conte@teseo.it, sse-l@jsasoc.com, mhugo@eprinet.epri.com, 100433.1541@compuserve.com, ine@padrak.com, rgeorge@hooked.net, 100276.261@compuserve.com, little@eden.com, britz@kemi.aau.dk Subject: Correa must have cathode nuclear reactions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"s8Zuc.0.4L3.DXuHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1057 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I am grateful to Michael Carrell [rmcarrell@aol.com] for his lucid 5-page review, in Infinite Energy #8, mailed Sept., 1996, of the Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge reactor of Paulo and Alexandra Correa of Labofex in Canada, described in exhausting and bewildering detail in 21 pages in Infinite Energy #7, which I then didn't even try to read. I'll pick out salient, in my view, details from Carrell's overview: "...short, repetitive pulses of electrical energy of multi-kilowatt magnitude...tens to hundreds of times of that needed to excite the reactor. Sustained self-operation has been demonstrated...anomalous behavior in glow discharges...under certain conditions large bursts of energy are released in cold cathode discharge tubes...There is no obvious source for the energy bursts observed...an "open" system, open to the active vacuum, ZPF, or whatever name will be given to the energetic substrate of the universe...a partially evacuated tube with two or three electrodes...The cathode area is large-- 128 square cm...Electrode spacing from a few centimeters to 20 cm are useable...several hundreds of volts...In the Normal Glow Discharge region the cathode becomes covered by a glow which is characteristic of the gas in the tube...In regions where the voltage increases with the current, the reactor exhibits positive resistance and its operating condition is stable...When the current is allowed to increase...The voltage increases rapidly and the pinch effect begins to concentrate the ion flow into a smaller region...the ion bombardment causes local thermionic heating of the cathode, releasing a flood of electrons and the glow collapses into the Vacuum Arc Discharge region...avoid the arc discharge and operate in the Abnormal Glow Discharge region, with currents in the range of 0.1-10 amperes...the energy burst which is the foundation of their invention...bursts are repetitive and self-extinguishing and the reactor is quiescent between bursts...what is essential is field-effect emission from the cathode...The PAGD phenomenon is complex. In addition to ions and electrons originating in the gas, cold-cathode auto-electronic (field effect) emission from the cathode contributes a substantial cathode flow. The ions are attracted to the cathode, and the electrons to the anode, but there is a third flow of atoms to the anode, effectively neutralized by the electron stream...Tanberg [in 1930] measured a vapor velocity of 16 X 10 exp 6 cm/sec [160 kilometers per second!]....the appearance of spherical or conical plasma balls on the cathode with each energy burst, shown in photographs in IE # 7. The cathode is eroded by the PAGD process, some portion of it being vaporized. In a sense the cathode material is a "fuel" consumed by the process. It is more likely that this is a result of the energy release, rather than the cause of it. The cathode pits have been measured by Correa. The material removed is not adequate to produce charge carriers for the output current pulse." At the recent LENR conference, I was most impressed by Dr. Tadayoshi Ohmori's scanning electron microscope photo of a dark pit on his gold cathode, after H2O electrolysis with .5 mole Na2SO4 and .5 mole Na2CO3 and a platinum anode, in 100 ml electrolyte. What could be more innoculous? After a while, the gold was covered with tiny spots, about 1 micron size. These spots or microcraters contained dozens of nuclear product elements. The photo was outstandingly wierd, like something in National Inquirer: an expanding, porous, rough funnel of metal with a hollow core, rising above the gold like an dark ear, with tinier funnel ears clustered at its root. My instant interpretation was that a microexplosion beneath the gold surface had vaporized the hydrogen saturated gold, which expanded outwards as an explosive foam, which then very quickly cooled and froze, since the initial energy was a single, very fast burst. A nanonuclear bomb! Other reports confirmed this scenario: the cathode spotted, pitted, and eroded, with roughly the same varieties of nuclear products. Dr. John Dash told me after 400 days of electrolysis in .06 mole H2SO4 in .94 mole D2O, his 5X5X.1mm palladium cathode "swelled like kneaded dough". So, to my mind, what could be simpler than for the same microexplosions to be occuring in the Correa's cathodes, described in IE# 7 as "aluminum, nickel, tin, iron, palladium, silver, gold, etc.," bombarded by electrons: "...hundreds of volts...0.1--10 amperes...concentrate the ion flow...large bursts of energy...no obvious source...bursts are repetitive and self-extinguishing and the reactor is quiescent between bursts...a third flow of atoms to the anode...spherical or conical plasma balls on the cathode with each plasma burst...the cathode is eroded...vaporized...cathode pits..." To these pithy quotes, admittedly highly selected, like a good lawyer I would like to build my case with more from the 21 pages of tiny print in IE # 7: "...we found that under conditions of an applied constant DC, certain cathode metals spontaneously and autoelectronically emit quasi-regular, large discrete pulses that segment the cold cathode abnormal glow...an unpredicted mechanism of spontaneous, low-field, auto-electronic emission that did not obey the Fowler-Nordheim Law...smooth cathodes, suggesting that mechanisms other than microscopic, protuberance-dependent, high-field emission processes were at work in the macroscopic, low-field emission discharges...Another anomalous aspect...was the development of very large cathode reaction forces...high velocity plasma streams emerging from the cathode...the observed coincidence, in the PAGD, of the electron flow and the parallel (or anomalous) ion counter-flow from the cathode...the anamolous ion flow is an emissive phenomenon...emitted cathode ions are in the range needed for electron-positron pair creation...tremendous events...the microscopic energetic events of the PAGD regime deploy...energies in the order of 10 exp 9 erg per pulse (0.025 to 0.05 mWh/pulse)...The anomalous PAGD forces are inextricably linked to the intermittent ejection of metal plasma jets (from the PAGD cathode)...extraordinarily large PAGD reaction forces transduced by the transient plasma...The excess energy...appears to be the result of a catastrophic release of the electronic charge stored in the ejected metal plasma by virtue of its interaction with the field environment of the reactor. In converting the cathode lattice into a metallic plasma, the low-field autoelectronic emission responsible for triggering the PAGD conveys to the plasma jet an excess of charge or energy explosively released from the cathode independently from whether the PAGD singularities result from capture of some of the immense reservoirs of energy priming the vacuum or from some other unknown mechanism, cathode spot formation involves a net expenditure of the cathode metal per event, thus defining a process of fuel consumption...The low-field, large gap and large area polarization of the vacuum plus its depolarization by a fully extinguishable metallic plasma jet erupting from a saturated cathode, are the two self-coupled functions of the PAGD production process that releases energy from the cathode material...Typically a 128 cm2 H34 aluminum plate pulse generator 50 (5.5 cm gap) will operate in the PAGD regime at 2x10exp-5 Torr, with an applied voltage of 2.2 kV and at a pulse rate of 30 pps...sputtered metal atoms on the inner walls of the housing..." So, incoming electrons and probably negative ions bombard the hapless cathode, generating nuclear microexplosions that eject metallic plasma at very high velocities and produce the same sort of electromagnetic shock waves very well known from megaton-scale hydrogen bomb explosions. What could be simpler or more obvious, once we accept the widespread availability of low energy nuclear reactions? Without this key insight into the actual source of the energy bursts, we are left to flounder at the edges of comprehension with vivid, yet murky descriptions: "spontanous low-field auto-electronic emission," or, "macroscopic low-field emission discharges". We may surmise that a natural psychological resistance exists to admitting the availability of nuclear explosions, however micro, under our very noses. Indeed, among the 112 references listed by the Correas are many titles clearly hinting that the nuclear blindness was prevelant for decades: 16. "High speed plasma streams in vacuum arcs," (1965) 17. "Analysis of the electrode products emitted by DC arks in a vacuum ambient," (1969) 51. "Electrodynamic explosions in liquids," (1985) 61. "High power pseudospark as an X-ray source," (1987) If this view is correct, then careful analysis of the sputtered metallic deposits will display a number of nuclear product elements with anomalous isotopic ratios. I was unable to notice any reference to the gases used, except for "argon pumpdown tests" in Example 8. Example 8 includes a sentence: "However, if the cathode is hot enough, a quasi-thermonic post-cathodic glow may also briefly occur after the PAGD regime and before glow extinction." This could indicate the presence of brief half-life radioactive nuclides. The cathode should be intimately set up for real-time radiation detection. Since only a tiny fraction of mass undergoing nuclear reactions can generate immense excess heat, capable of vaporizing a much greater mass of the cathode metal, then the nuclear products will be correspondingly diluted and difficult to assay. The scientist, even if alert enough to call an anomaly an anomaly, and open-minded enough to imagine the possibility of low energy nuclear reactions, would still have to master the details of sensitive chemical and mass spectroscopic analysis, or, admitting both ignorance and need, ask for help. The historical record for a century and more shows how rare this is, as little science has become huge institutional, industralized science, with its can-do pragmatism and super-rarified theorizing. The comparatively extreme conditions of the gas discharge "regimes" may foster nuclear reactions that generate more excess heat, radiations, and radioactive nuclides than the sweeter, gentler electolysis "stir your teacup" mode. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 00:19:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA15589; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 00:17:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 00:17:36 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Where's the Radiation? Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 07:17:10 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <324b763e.28683604@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199609232340.QAA09006@mail.eskimo.com> In-Reply-To: <199609232340.QAA09006@mail.eskimo.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.294 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"Kwad43.0.Rp3.FiuHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1058 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 23 Sep 96 17:43:02 MDT, Ron McFee wrote: > >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 04:57:55 GMT > >>[snip] >>However reactions such as >> >>1H1 + 26Fe57 -> 2He4 + 25Mn54 + 0.240000 MeV >> >>and >> >>1H1 + 26Fe56 -> Co57 + 6 MeV, should nevertheless be possible. >> [snip] > These reactions are quite interesting in that they point out the > fundamental weakness in assuming that such transmutations of this > type or any other type of transmutations involving high Z nuclei > can occur in an electro-chemical cell without being patently > obvious. I think it more likely that the above reactions point out the fundamental weakness in my understanding of what's really going on. > > Both Mn54 and Co57 are not stable nuclei. That is they decay into > more stable nuclei via electron capture. This products gamma > radiation which should stand out like a bright neon light on a dark > night. This is of course correct - usually. And it forces me to take refuge in "miracles" again. However I am at least willing to put forward a scenario for that miracle. =46irst, consider the following. The observed variation in the kinetic energy of the electron created during beta decay led to the introduction of the neutrino. It is currently understood that during beta decay the energy of the reaction is shared by both the electron (positron) and the neutrino. Now consider that during electron capture, no electron or positron is created, however a neutrino is. Therefore one might reasonably expect that sometimes the neutrino would take all the energy of the reaction, leaving the nucleus in its ground state, such that no further gamma emission can take place. Now for the miracle. Given the initial starting conditions in the lattice that I have proposed on my web page, where many nuclei essentially share a common state, and consequently have vastly overlapping DeBroglie waves, and are as it were bathed in a sea of nuclear force, perhaps this state allows them to act as a single large nucleus, which is rather loosely coupled, and somewhat cumbersome. Perhaps under these circumstances, reactions taking place have sufficient time and "freedom of movement" as it were to ensure that the result of the reaction is always a decay to the ground state. In other words, the result of an e.c. reaction in a nucleus forming part of such a matrix is always such that all the energy of that reaction is carried away by the neutrino, and thus escapes detection. >If wholesale transformations are occurring in George Miley's > cells, it is very, very interesting that only stable nuclei are > formed. My statements above, are of course all conjecture, and it is possible that there is (are) some specific selection rules such that indeed only stable nuclei are formed. > This is quite improbable, if not impossible. Recall that > the Pons/Fleischmann heavy water cells produced a small amount of > tritium and even lesser amounts of free neutrons. The fact that there > is no observed ionizing radiation from the CETI light water cells > is indeed one of the outstanding miracles of this new process. If > there is a nuclear origin for the anomalous energy then it must involve > the production of stable nuclei. I suspect that these are either > He3 and/or He4. Try doing this with reactions which produce heavier It is in this regard, interesting to note, that removing an He4 nucleus from another stable nucleus usually leaves a stable nucleus behind as well. No bets however as to whether or not the remaining nucleus is in an excited state :). Though the absence of gamma rays would seem to indicate that that is indeed the case. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 24 02:11:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA26113; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 02:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 02:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: 24 Sep 96 05:02:11 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Mill schedule Message-ID: <960924090211_100433.1541_BHG87-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"qfJgs1.0.vN6.qKwHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1060 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed, > Mill Hours: 1st Saturday of each month, noon till 4 p.m. > occasionally as early as 8 sometimes as late as 6 or 7 except > sometimes I'm here on other days. Some days or afternoons I'm not > here at all. And lately I've been here just about all the time. > Except when I'm someplace else but I should be here then, too. Like one I saw here on the door of a corner shop: "Closed except you want something." Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 02:11:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA26096; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 02:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 02:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: 24 Sep 96 05:02:17 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: , , , Subject: Re: Where's the Radiation? Message-ID: <960924090217_100433.1541_BHG87-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"r80cb1.0.dN6.mKwHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1059 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ron, > As far as Miley's results, we can invoke Ockham's Razor and say > that the the electrolytic cell is doing just what it is supposed > to do, i.e. moving ions from one place to another. I am fairly > certain that George well knows this, and before we have to accuse > him of being less than honest, I recommend that he get down to > business and start looking for the helium. Far from applying Ockham's Razor, you are making assumptions here. Since we 'know' that nowhere in this system is there sufficient energy to provoke *any* nuclear reactions, it's no good complaining that they produce the wrong products. The requirements of known nuclear physics show that helium is impossible too, so why do you see this as expected and a test of Miliey's honesty? Strictly speaking, we should not be believing the transmutation hypothesis. What we should do is to erect hypotheses and then test them, never believing them until we are wholly compelled to do so. That has not, I suggest, happened yet. However, alternative hypotheses are looking a bit sad so far, and they need just as much testing as any others. When I have suggested that the total nickel in the cell be checked, this is claimed to be unsatisfactory, and some say that we must identify the supposed new elements instead. That's been done already, so it is only a matter of devising yet better tests for those elements - if such tests are available at all. After all, George Miley seems to have done a damned thorough job on that. The argument that an electrolytic cell moves ions and therefore the elements found have been moved from elswhere is about as logical as showing that the tonnage of the Royal Navy between the world wars follows closely the amounts of bananas imported into the UK during that period - and therefore the bananas were carried on Navy ships. It is correct to state that Ockham says that we may not believe anything 'new' until we have been forced to do so. The problem here is that *unless* you can show that 'old' processes can possibly account for the findings then you have to accept that they do not either. So far, those who propose any 'old' process have failed to account for the results. They may yet do so, and I applaud any efforts they make in that direction, providing that such efforts remain within the realms of the possible and are not based on false assumptions. The vital question here is this: Can the *numbers* be accounted for by conventional science? If not, then the ball-game is wide open. Note that Miley need not define the process (transmutation) other than to suggest that it appears to be happening. *He* is not required to play the numbers game unless he produces a testable mechanism, because he is saying (in effect) only that conventional science cannot account for the results. His invocation of a vague 'transmutation' hypothesis is perfectly OK in these circumstance. But once anyone suggests specific nuclear pathways (as some have done) then those proposed pathways are indeed available for testing. In these circumstances, the danger is to confuse things which are not related. What tends to happen here is that results are announced and attacked as impossible because they don't fit theory. When a new theory is suggested, this is attacked on the basis that it doesn't fit the old one, and that the experimenter's suggestion of it proves that his original results are wrong too. Yossarian would be on familiar ground here. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 05:54:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA18458; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 05:52:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 05:52:39 -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: control experiments Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 12:52:01 +0000 Message-ID: <19960924125159.AAA16901@LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"wh7-j.0.JW4.MczHo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1061 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >This is because the H has so much "excess" mass. So much in fact that >fusion reactions producing a single nucleus should be possible >throughout the whole periodic table. >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > Robin, Not being a nuclear physicist, I am puzzled by "H has so much "excess" mass". Would you explain this or refer me to some text book? Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 08:43:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA24705; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 08:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 08:37:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 11:35:47 -0400 Message-ID: <960924113545_528686595@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: little@eden.com Subject: Murray Statement re Carrell Overview Resent-Message-ID: <"IeRtB3.0.s16.R00Io"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1062 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rich Murray says: "I'll pick out salient, in my view, details from Carrell's overview:" Very nice summary that does get to the point. Thanks. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 10:06:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA15405; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 09:58:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 09:58:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <324804D2.623F@rt66.com> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 08:57:06 -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, 505-757-6145.@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, britz@kemi.aau.dk, rvanspaa@netspace.net.au, letters@csicop.org, editors@sciam.com, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, chp@aip.org, mica@world.std.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, mcfee@karloff.lanl.gov, mizuno@athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp, uban@world.std.com, puthoff@aol.com, conte@teseo.it, sse-l@jsasoc.com, mhugo@eprinet.epri.com, 100433.1541@compuserve.com, ine@padrak.com, rgeorge@hooked.net, 100276.261@compuserve.com, little@eden.com, peter@itm.org.soroscj.ro, g-miley@uiuc.edu, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jdunn@ctc.org, bhorst@loc100.tandem.com, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, cc840@freenet.carleton.ca, ceti@onramp.net Subject: Correa , transmutation, Spaandonk, China reports, Claytor tritium Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"5VJHW2.0.cm3.PC1Io"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1063 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dieter Britz, please forgive me for sending just one more post. It is very exciting that concrete evidence of multiple nuclear transmutations is piling up in many heaps. Robin van Spaandonk, I want to acknowledge that your post about a month ago on Vortex-L about checking for specific nuclear transmutations in the Correa gaseous discharge reactor was very inspiring to my thinking, as have been your suggestions about many possible nuclear transformation channels. I am very pleased to have your appreciation, and agree with you about what I call the "crowded party" paradigm of many nuclear reactions happening simultaneously in each burst site, so that the products are stable, with relatively modest heat release, little radiation and very low levels of radioactive nuclides. I'll send a post about my visions in a week or so. I am adding some news from China to my discussion of nuclear transformations in gaseous dischages, summarizing from Cold Fusion Times, Vol. 4, No. 3 , Summer, 1996 (Thank you, Mitchell Schwartz!), which has a half-page summary of a March, 1996 meeting of about 30 conferees by Prof. Xing Zhong Li, Dept. of Physics, Tsinghua U.: "'Normal Temperature' Fusion Science News from China "The electrical discharge work has been improved since the Nagoya conference...a careful study on electical discharge was done to identify a set of operation parameters with which the abnormal neutron yield became more apparent. A new set of Si-Li detectors was used to refine the X-ray detection. A fine structure of X-ray spectrum was found definitely, and the difference between the discharge in deterium gas and in hydrogen gas has been identified (the energy and the intensity of the X-ray for Nb-D system was higher than that for Nb-H system). "An interesting 'X-ray radiation after death' was found after shutdown of the electrical glow discharge. It may last as long as 1,000 seconds...A careful theoretical study was done to analyze the X-ray spectrum. It was found that among the nearly 200 spectra, about 100 spectra were abnormal. None of the applicable theories could explain the strange features in the X-ray spectrum. It was considered as evidence of the abnormality in the electrical discharge tube. A calorimetric measurement was done with the electrical discharge tube. A sudden change in the slope of the cooling curve (temperature versus time) was found in a series of discharges with different electrodes and gases...Based on the new explanation, the careful work [replicating the Italian results] proved that the "excess heat" in the Ni-H system disappeared. "The gas loading technique has been studied for more than five years in China...it had the feature of accumulating the reaction products in the reaction vessel which might be detected later, after a long period of operation. A pair of twin systems had been manufactured to see the difference between the deuterium-palladium and hydrogen-palladium system. A sharp contast had been observed already..." So, again I see plenty of evidence for nuclear microbursts in the cathode, described as "abnormality in the electrical discharge tube", producing concurrent heat and heat after death (brief half-life radioactive nuclides), X-rays from dozens of nuclear products at the high temperatures and pressures of each burst, (I surmise that each burst event generates a different mix of products and "abnormal" X-ray spectra), and in some cases, as with the replication of the Italian Ni and H work, no measurable heat output. Li does not clarify whether that replication looked for or found X-rays or nuclear products. Finally, the Chinese are gearing up to accumulate and study the "reaction" products. I guess many of them know the reactions are nuclear transmutation bursts, but naturally are being tactful about mentioning it publicly. The same issue of Cold Fusion Times summarizes Thomas N. Claytor's wonderful gas discharge experiments, which for years produce "minute amounts of tritium" from deuterium gas and palladium and its alloys: "Small diameter wires (100- 250 microns) have been used with gas pressures above 200 torr at voltages and currents of about 2000 V at 3-5 A. By carefully controlling the sputtering rate of the wire, runs have been extended to hundreds of hours allowing a significan amount (> 10's nCi) of tritium to acculmulate...deuterium-palladium foreground runs that are up to 25 times larger than hydrogen-palladium background runs...output very batch dependent and sensitive to material impurities that prevent hydriding...After a few hours of plasma operation, the voltage-current stabilized, presumably due to the formation of small cones (10-20 microns high) all over the surface of the wire. After 20 hours palladium was visibly sputtered onto the plate. The sputter rate at 300 torr, 3.5 A, was about ~2 Angstroms/s...the process is near but not at the surface...the tritium may be released when the surface layer of the palladium is sputtered by the energetic plasma...the tritium was in a 15 to 30 micron layer [deep] on the 250 micron diameter wire...Dendrites and aspirates (up to 20 microns high) on the surface of the palladium have been suggested as possible tritium formation sites...CO2 additions had a remarkable effect on the production of tritium by these cells and the effect seems to be related to an enhancement of the hydriding of the palladium..." Once again, we have strange spotting of the cathode by nuclear microbursts under the surface of the palladium, leaving a layer of tritium that is gradually released by the ~ 2 Angstom/s sputtering rate. I would expect that hydrogen gas is a poor control experiment, since it too, unpredictably, might be reacting, as T. Ohmori found in his recent electrolysis experiments with light water and gold cathodes. I asked Claytor at the recent LENR Conference if he would be able to detect any 2He3 if it was being produced, and he said, "No." This is a relevant issue, because the eminent Prof. J.J. Thomsson, then age 63, in 1913 repeatedly produced in many quite different gas discharge experiments "copious" amounts of a chemically inert product of mass 3. I guess, also, that the CO2 is also undergoing nuclear reactions, but I haven't had time to think that one through. Finally, I'm getting to the point that whenever I come across the term "sputtering", I immediately start imagining nuclear microbursts. There must be a immense and strange zoo of nuclear microburst phenomena, giving many opportunities for strange results, highly variable, almost irreproducible in most cases, very sensitive to purity and impurities, so that any skeptic will find plenty of justification for tucking his scientific curiosity back in bed, while any diligent explorer will find endless puzzlement, frustration, challenge, and excitement. That's life in the jungle! Rich Murray From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 10:14:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA18610; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 10:09:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 10:09:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609241709.KAA04600@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, 24 Sep 1996 10:08:52 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: control experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"_54cS3.0.cY4.NN1Io"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1064 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:52 PM 9/24/96 +0000, you wrote: > >>This is because the H has so much "excess" mass. So much in fact that >>fusion reactions producing a single nucleus should be possible >>throughout the whole periodic table. >>Regards, >> >>Robin van Spaandonk >>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* >> >Robin, > >Not being a nuclear physicist, I am puzzled by "H has so much "excess" >mass". Would you explain this or refer me to some text book? > >Ed Strojny > > This observation and question are fundamental to all transmutations. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 13:04:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA27970; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 12:48:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 12:48:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 11:52:13 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: A Break in the Ranks Resent-Message-ID: <"Tc2rF1.0.yq6.Ui3Io"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1065 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: For the benefit of those not reading sci.physics.fusion, here is a post that some here may not want to miss (it gets much more interresting toward the end:) Originally-From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion Subject: DOE's Fusion Programs Need to Be Redirected (was Progress in Fusion) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 13:43:36 GMT Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) In article Gregory Greenman writes: >Paul F. Dietz wrote: >> Yeah, right. Assuming they can get the pulse rate up by a factor of >> 100,000 over NIF, and assuming they can get the final optics that can >> stand up to 50 krad/s of neutrons and gammas, and assuming the target >> chamber can tolerate the equivalent of a billion 100 kilogram TNT >> explosions over the life of the reactor, and assuming the billion >> targets can be made cheaply enough, then, why, we get electricity >> at "only" $.086/kWh. Whatta bargain. >> >> By the time this thing could be built, any number of alternative >> technologies will be cheaper. Wind already is, and its learning curve >> is still steep. > Previous editions of S&TR have featured high power solid state >laser arrays that can operate continuously. Pulsing should not be >a problem, even at the high rates required for a power reactor. >(You could switch the output of a continuous laser with a Pockels cell) > >LLNL did a design study over 10 years ago wherein the optics and >target chamber were shielded by a continuous flow of liquid lithium. > >As far as target fabrication, LLNL currently uses a "drop tower" >technique where molten pellets solidfy as they are falling. That's >the way LLNL makes pellets currently for NOVA, LLNL's present laser >fusion machine. Pellet production already is cheap. > >Science marches on. > >The reason why controlled fusion would be so wonderful is that the >fuel supply would be virtually inexhaustible. One in every 140 atoms >of hydrogen in the oceans is the deuterium isotope needed to fuel >a thermonuclear reactor. > >Only with a large scale source of power can we bring the standard of >living in the world up to what is currently enjoyed in the U.S. and >without the pollution that the U.S. currently puts up with. Greg, this is all well and good, and you bring up good generic information. We all agree that controlled fusion would be wonderful. But as having actually worked on the NIF design (well a little pieces of it) during the major design effort three years ago, there will have to be *many* innovations and new paradigms to make that thing economical and reliable. The mirror system alone to redirect the laser beams from colinear to spherical/ radial has to have unbelievably tight tolerances over the life of the system, and require quick adjustment to make the system economical for power generation. I don't think this *alone* is doable. Paul brings up some more. And there are *many* others which Paul did not bring up. And the molten lithium blanket. Do you realize how corrosive and difficult that stuff is, and how *perfect* containment one has to have to prevent *any* oxygen from getting in? And how the blanket has to perfectly maintain its integrity in the high energy environment? Considering the size of the reactor assembly, and that, from what I gather, the lithium will pick up a little radioactivity over time, requiring its ultimate disposal, I don't see that thing working for economical power generation. Now, to test nuclear physics (in a PT regime never before experimentally achieved), that's another matter. But again, I don't think the NIF (and its successors) will be economical enough to justify the results it'll give. I'd like to add, and this is not talked about much, that the main proponents of building larger and larger laser fusion systems are the *nuclear weapons designers* who see this "tool" as absolutely necessary for nuclear weapon research when we have a complete test ban, including on dummy pits. I totally disagree with this as well, since we know enough about nuclear weapon design to not need the laser fusion facilities for this purpose. Instead, we should sink the multi-billion dollars into continuing to build larger and faster computers, which will not only better model nuclear weapons, but will have profound applications in all of science. BTW, were it not for the continued lobbying by nuclear weapons designers, I don't think laser fusion would still be considered a viable fusion power option by DOE. Of course, their DOE and LLNL PR people will weave a different tale, and talk about *cheap* nuclear power ad nauseum, and how they are making great progress, but this is all hooey. I've talked to enough people "inside the fence" to come to the conclusion I have. And I'm not the only engineer at LLNL who's come to this conclusion -- there are many others (and not only engineers, but physicists as well). As an engineer, and from an engineering viewpoint, the NIF (and Laser Fusion in general) is a remarkable technology. The NIF is virtually spell-binding -- it's an engineer's and physicist's dream project. But as a taxpayer, I see the NIF, and laser fusion in general, as a complete waste, and the money should be spent elsewhere. Looking for alternative and easier ways to achieve nuclear fusion (I'd trash magnetic fusion as well) is where the bulk of the fusion energy research money (if the government is to be involved) should be directed. I sort of expect now to hear from DOE security types about my comments about nuclear weapons research above, but I did not reveal any *secrets* in the previous paragraphs, so you'll have to have me arrested before I'll even talk to you guys about toning down my comments. I may write in more detail on this whole issue in the future. I feel strongly about the egregious waste and total misdirection I see in DOE's fusion programs. If any of you reading this agree with me, I'd like to hear from you privately, especially if you work for any of the "Big 3" National Labs (LLNL, LANL, SNL). Who knows, maybe we can start up a net.petition on this matter. Dr. Jon Noring (former LLNL mechanical engineer) -- OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia 9671 S. 1600 West St. | Anonymous FTP: South Jordan, UT 84095 | ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia 801-253-4037 | E-mail: omnimedia@netcom.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 15:30:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA03160; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <324859A9.6C8@interlaced.net> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 17:59:05 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Potapov's angle References: <199609240505.AAA25968@natashya.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Lt46p1.0.3n.rd5Io"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1067 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: >(snip) > Frank, I'm not really interested in old data either, I'm just trying to > figure out Potapov's angle. I'm with you, Scott! As I tried to point out on an old post, If I were Potapov, and I were selling SNAKE OIL DEVICES in Russia, I would see all this US activity as GREAT PR stuff for the "rubes" back in Russia! Think of it: "My devices have been tested at a primary US atomic energy lab ------" (who cares what the detailed results were!) Interested in cavitation devices, but a Potapov skeptic -- Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 15:41:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA03100; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:00:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:00:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 24 Sep 1996 14:59:14 PDT From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: NiCad batteries...internal composition...Please! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/24/96 14:59:12 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"Hzgl82.0.Mm.id5Io"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1066 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: NiCad batteries...internal composition...Please! - Can someone help me on this? I have recently used my "Xray eyes" to examine some NiCad batteries. Now according to my vast, and extensive data bank, (a 1940 text book on storage batteries) NiCad batteries have Cadnium, Nickle, some Iron and KOH and LiOH in them and that's all. - However, my "Xray eyes" detected significant amounts of Sb and Ag... - Do manufacturers (1996) use some thin films of Ag or Sn, or combinations for interconnects or the like? - Any info appreciated. MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 15:42:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA06629; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32485D67.21BE@interlaced.net> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 18:15:03 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: A Break in the Ranks References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ip2UE2.0.Td1.9t5Io"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1069 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > For the benefit of those not reading sci.physics.fusion, here is a post > that some here may not want to miss (it gets much more interresting toward > the end:) (See Horaces' post) Interesting stuff, Horace! Thanks. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 15:46:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA06258; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:15:07 -0800 To: Vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: Correa , transmutation, Spaandonk, China reports, Claytor tritium Resent-Message-ID: <"vVsii.0.dX1.qr5Io"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1068 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Rich Murray wrote: >Finally, I'm getting to the point that whenever I come across the term >"sputtering", I immediately start imagining nuclear microbursts... Don't get carried away, though. Plasma sputtering is used in a variety of industrial manufacturing processes, including electronic chip manufacturing. Chips are highly sensitive to impurities, irregular surfaces and radiaoctivity (all bad for chips). Therefore, we can suspect that the sputtering processes used in their manufacture do not produce any untoward effects. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Tue Sep 24 16:03:45 1996 Received: from emout16.mail.aol.com (emout16.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.42]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA19248; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 16:03:10 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Received: by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA03332; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 19:00:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 19:00:57 -0400 Message-ID: <960924190056_292400797@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: david@vesicle.ibg.uu.se, billb@eskimo.com, williams@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu, GeorgeHM@aol.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, ross@pacificnet.net, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, 72240.1256@compuserve.com, 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, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Potapov visits Johnstown Status: RO X-Status: Pictures sound and area. http://members.aol.com/fznidarsic/index.html Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 16:26:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA19485; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 16:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 16:04:08 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 19:00:57 -0400 Message-ID: <960924190056_292400797@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: david@vesicle.ibg.uu.se, billb@eskimo.com, williams@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu, GeorgeHM@aol.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, ross@pacificnet.net, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, 72240.1256@compuserve.com, 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, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Potapov visits Johnstown Resent-Message-ID: <"4XBBt1.0.Nm4.WZ6Io"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1071 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Pictures sound and area. http://members.aol.com/fznidarsic/index.html Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 16:27:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA17149; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 17:54:16 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609242254.RAA28841@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: NiCad batteries...internal composition...Please! Resent-Message-ID: <"Qn2jT2.0.rB4.2R6Io"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1070 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 14:59 9/24/96 PDT, Mark H wrote: >Can someone help me on this? I have recently used my "Xray eyes" to examine >some NiCad batteries. >However, my "Xray eyes" detected significant amounts of Sb and Ag... I've got a great "battery book" that I can look at in the AM...I'll let you know what it says about NiCd construction But first, what kind of x-ray eyes do you have?....an XRF spectrometer? If so, what part of the battery were you presenting to the spectrometer? The metal electrodes? The mush between the electrodes? When you say "significant amounts of Sb and Ag", what were their peak heights compared to the Cd peak height (roughly)? Also, how did you confirm the presence of Sb?...Cd's K-beta is right on top of Sb's K-alpha making positive ID of Sb difficult at high Cd/Sb ratios. 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 Tue Sep 24 18:13:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA16375; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 18:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 18:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 11:01:16 +1000 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: control experiments In-Reply-To: <19960924125159.AAA16901@LOCALNAME> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"7GKID2.0.i_3.jH8Io"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1072 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > Not being a nuclear physicist, I am puzzled by "H has so much "excess" > mass". Would you explain this or refer me to some text book? > > Ed Strojny > > This basically means that a proton is in a lower energy state bound inside a nucleus than free. If you remember that E = Mc**2 , then the proton weighs 7.2 MeV less bound inside a 12C nucleus than free (it's free mass is 938.3 MeV). It turns out that for any nucleus found on earth, protons will always be in a lower energy state inside that nucleus. This does not solve the nuclear physicists problems with transmutations. Ordinary, well unstood theory predicts the the reaction rate is, as Jed says, over 40 orders of magnitude too small. Then even if they did get in then there should be a flux of ionizing radiation strong enough to kill Miley and all his graduate students and finally ordinary transmutations that occur from nuclear fission and energetic reactions would happily produce vast quantities of unstable nuclei which would be absolutely trivial to detect. That is of course the environmentalists problem with nuclear fission as an energy source. The miracles occuring in a transmuting cell are: 1. Reaction rate too fast by over 40 orders of magnitude. 2. No ionizing radiation. 3. No radioactive nuclei. Now there was one experiment performed by a Physicist named Wolfe that apparently did produce a radioactive cathode. However he was never able to repeat the effect. I don't know much about this episode, can anyone shed some light on this? Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 20:08:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA04706; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 19:33:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 19:33:43 -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: control experiments Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 02:32:25 +0000 Message-ID: <19960925023223.AAA15926@LOCALNAME> Resent-Message-ID: <"dDP-p.0.S91.6e9Io"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1073 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:01 AM 9/25/96 +0000, you wrote: >> >> Not being a nuclear physicist, I am puzzled by "H has so much "excess" >> mass". Would you explain this or refer me to some text book? >> >> Ed Strojny >> >> > >This basically means that a proton is in a lower energy state bound inside >a nucleus than free. If you remember that E = Mc**2 , then the proton weighs >7.2 MeV less bound inside a 12C nucleus than free (it's free mass is 938.3 >MeV). >Martin Sevior > Thank you. Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 20:15:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA13266; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 20:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 20:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 23:06:11 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960924230435.937f2754@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: control experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"Q_qNe3.0.BF3.h9AIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1075 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:01 AM 9/25/96 +1000, Martin Sevior wrote: >> >> Not being a nuclear physicist, I am puzzled by "H has so much "excess" >> mass". Would you explain this or refer me to some text book? >> >> Ed Strojny >> >> > >This basically means that a proton is in a lower energy state bound inside >a nucleus than free. If you remember that E = Mc**2 , then the proton weighs >7.2 MeV less bound inside a 12C nucleus than free (it's free mass is 938.3 >MeV). It turns out that for any nucleus found on earth, protons will always >be in a lower energy state inside that nucleus. This does not solve the >nuclear physicists problems with transmutations. Ordinary, well >unstood theory predicts the the reaction rate is, as Jed says, over 40 >orders of magnitude too small. some theories are much closer do you have a paper or derivation about the O(40) claim? >Then even if they did get in then there should >be a flux of ionizing radiation strong enough to kill Miley and all his >graduate students and finally ordinary transmutations that occur from >nuclear fission >and energetic reactions would happily produce vast quantities of unstable >nuclei which would be absolutely trivial to detect. That is of course >the environmentalists problem with nuclear fission as an energy source. > >The miracles occuring in a transmuting cell are: > >1. Reaction rate too fast by over 40 orders of magnitude. >2. No ionizing radiation. >3. No radioactive nuclei. > >Now there was one experiment performed by a Physicist named Wolfe that >apparently did produce a radioactive cathode. However he was never able >to repeat the effect. I don't know much about this episode, can anyone >shed some light on this? > >Martin Sevior > > no. 1 is wrong. 2. is true but consistent with theory. 3. answer pending. hope that helps Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 20:17:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA08877; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 19:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 19:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:50:17 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609250250.VAA20086@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: xmas wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"H39Ju1.0.OA2.Mu9Io"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1074 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: With all the talk about real science going on around here, I've developed a bad case of the hots for some serious analytical instrumentation. Here's what I think I'm gonna need to get to the bottom of all this transmutation stuff: 1. high-resolution mass spectrometer (MS) 2. atomic-absorption analyzer (AA) 3. x-ray fluorescence analyzer (XRF) 4. scanning electron microscope (SEM) What else might I be needing? - 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-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 20:42:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA20578; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 20:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 20:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 13:38:28 +1000 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: xmas wish list In-Reply-To: <199609250250.VAA20086@natashya.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"VjPY83.0.Q15.5bAIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1076 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Scott Little wrote: > With all the talk about real science going on around here, I've developed a > bad case of the hots for some serious analytical instrumentation. Here's > what I think I'm gonna need to get to the bottom of all this transmutation > stuff: > > 1. high-resolution mass spectrometer (MS) > 2. atomic-absorption analyzer (AA) > 3. x-ray fluorescence analyzer (XRF) > 4. scanning electron microscope (SEM) > > What else might I be needing? > > - 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) > > 5. Scanning proton microprobe to map elemental distributions around those little craters. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 21:07:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA25987; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:02:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609250401.VAA07264@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, 24 Sep 1996 21:01:20 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: xmas wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"2iKcz1.0.zL6.3xAIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1077 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:50 PM 9/24/96 -0500, you wrote: >With all the talk about real science going on around here, I've developed a >bad case of the hots for some serious analytical instrumentation. Here's >what I think I'm gonna need to get to the bottom of all this transmutation >stuff: > >1. high-resolution mass spectrometer (MS) >2. atomic-absorption analyzer (AA) >3. x-ray fluorescence analyzer (XRF) >4. scanning electron microscope (SEM) > >What else might I be needing? > > - 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) > > Scott, that stuff would be great to have but as I stated in my Wielu Master Say post, you could choose to simply follow a radioative isotope so I would urge you to have a first class scintillator in your cool lab setup, which you may already have, in fact, I can envision the use of two of them simultaneously. This stuff can be gotton into for immensely less than your list above. But you are right enuf that if you really want to get to the bottom of what is doing what, you will need the mass spec for fast turn-around of the action. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 21:16:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA27733; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 23:09:11 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609250409.XAA26071@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: xmas wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"eIU1X2.0.8n6.u1BIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1078 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:38 PM 9/25/96 +1000, Martin wrote: > >5. Scanning proton microprobe to map elemental distributions around those > little craters. Wow!....that sounds expensive, Martin...about how much $$? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 21:24:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA00139; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 96 00:10:43 From: dacha@shentel.net Subject: Re: xmas wish list To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"9NxlH2.0.22.tBBIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1079 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >>5. Scanning proton microprobe to map elemental distributions around those >> little craters. > >Wow!....that sounds expensive, Martin...about how much $$? > -----------------End of Original Message----------------- Hmmmm, silly me....I wanted peace on earth good will to all people. :) ------------------------------------- Name: dacha E-mail: dacha@visor.com Date: 9/25/96 Time: 12:10:43 AM No matter where you go, there you are. http://www.visor.com/info ------------------------------------- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 21:28:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA00926; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 14:23:30 +1000 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: control experiments In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960924230435.937f2754@world.std.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"zzpgE.0.OE.YFBIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1080 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > At 11:01 AM 9/25/96 +1000, Martin Sevior wrote: > >> > >> Not being a nuclear physicist, I am puzzled by "H has so much "excess" > >> mass". Would you explain this or refer me to some text book? > >> > >> Ed Strojny > >> > >> > > > >This basically means that a proton is in a lower energy state bound inside > >a nucleus than free. If you remember that E = Mc**2 , then the proton weighs > >7.2 MeV less bound inside a 12C nucleus than free (it's free mass is 938.3 > >MeV). It turns out that for any nucleus found on earth, protons will always > >be in a lower energy state inside that nucleus. This does not solve the > >nuclear physicists problems with transmutations. Ordinary, well > >unstood theory predicts the the reaction rate is, as Jed says, over 40 > >orders of magnitude too small. > > > some theories are much closer > > do you have a paper or derivation about the O(40) claim? > Sure. Just look in any Nuclear Physics textbook under alpha-decay. I have a copy on my desk. It's "Introduction to Nuclear Physics" by Kenneth Krane. A good book. Go to the section on alpha-decay where coulomb barrier penetration is described. Here's a little subroutine that will calculate barrier penetration factors for you. It's in fortran I admit but it will runs within a factor of 2 of the speed of a c++ program :-)! real*8 function p_factor(q,z,a,l,b) c c q = energy release in decay (in MeV) c z = Atomic number of final state nucleus (number of protons) c a = Atomic mass of nucleus (number of nucleons) c l = orbital angular momentum of transition (set it equal to zero) c implicit real*8 (a-h),(o-z) integer l real*8 q,z,a data xm/938.28/,hc/197./,coul/1.44/ data pi/3.14159/,r0/1.25/,v0/35./ aa = r0*(a**0.33333) xl = l b = coul*z/(aa+1.0)+xl*(xl+1.)*hc*hc/(2*xm*(aa+1.0)*(aa+1.0)) fac1 = 2.*z*coul*2.*sqrt(2.*xm/(hc*hc*q)) fac1 = fac1*(acos(sqrt(q/b)) - sqrt(q*(1.-q/b)/b)) p_factor = exp(-fac1) return end When I ran this program it wouldn't handle 1 eV. I got a floating overflow error. I ran it for a 10 KeV proton on nickel and the penetration factor was about 10**-229. Assuming 10^20 hits per second thats a reaction rate of 10^-209 per proton. Assuming 10^23 protons (1 mole) that's one reaction per 10^-186 seconds. So I drastically over-estimated the expected transmutation rate from standard nuclear physics. The claimed measurement is well over 186 orders of magnitude larger than conventional nuclear physics says is possible. Coulomb barrier penetration works well in explaining alpha decay and nuclear reactions below 1 MeV... > > >Then even if they did get in then there should > >be a flux of ionizing radiation strong enough to kill Miley and all his > >graduate students and finally ordinary transmutations that occur from > >nuclear fission > >and energetic reactions would happily produce vast quantities of unstable > >nuclei which would be absolutely trivial to detect. That is of course > >the environmentalists problem with nuclear fission as an energy source. > > > >The miracles occuring in a transmuting cell are: > > > >1. Reaction rate too fast by over 40 orders of magnitude. > >2. No ionizing radiation. > >3. No radioactive nuclei. > > > >Now there was one experiment performed by a Physicist named Wolfe that > >apparently did produce a radioactive cathode. However he was never able > >to repeat the effect. I don't know much about this episode, can anyone > >shed some light on this? > > > >Martin Sevior > > > > > no. 1 is wrong. Conventional theory says it's too fast by over 187 orders of magnitude. > 2. is true but consistent with theory. Not what you would get from standard nuclear physics. > 3. answer pending. No way! Standard nuclear physics says there should be radioactive nuclei produced than stable. They'd stand out believe me! All this illustrates just how weird these low energy transformations are. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 21:37:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA01765; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 14:27:34 +1000 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: xmas wish list In-Reply-To: <199609250409.XAA26071@natashya.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"yLQ1L1.0.UR.GJBIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1081 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Scott Little wrote: > At 01:38 PM 9/25/96 +1000, Martin wrote: > > > >5. Scanning proton microprobe to map elemental distributions around those > > little craters. > > Wow!....that sounds expensive, Martin...about how much $$? > Free time here at Melbourne to anyone that demonstrates significant excess heat in both sections of your calorimeter simultanously... Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 21:43:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA03437; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:37:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:37:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 20:41:59 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: xmas wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"BINAw.0.Vr.nRBIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1082 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >1. high-resolution mass spectrometer (MS) >2. atomic-absorption analyzer (AA) >3. x-ray fluorescence analyzer (XRF) >4. scanning electron microscope (SEM) > >What else might I be needing? > > - Scott Little Gad, what a big load for Santa! Since going all out this year Santa might also consider: 5. transmission electron microscope (TEM) capable of 3d imaging 6. TENUPOLE chemical polishing machine 7. If you don't have them some plain old cheap (maybe even second hand) UV absorbtion spectrometers and quartz vials might be handy to have around. Might be able to rig up to examine flowing electrolyte to look for reaction signatures to stop experiment to use other tools. 8. Still seems to me NMR can work in-situ, especially with very thin films. Oh well. 9. Staff chemist? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 21:48:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA05002; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 20:50:04 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: xmas wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"NeSe_1.0.3E1.MZBIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1083 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Oh, how's your neutron detection capabilitites? 10. Neutron spectrometer Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 22:01:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA07244; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:58:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:58:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:03:34 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: xmas wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"FCdfs.0.2n1.plBIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1084 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: It seems like before spending a lot of money it would be very good to have one in-house completed experiment that produces to your own satisfaction some transmutation. Maybe you have already done that under some secrecy agreement or something. If not, maybe Santa could provide you with: 11. Repeatable in-house transmutation experiment. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 22:11:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA09421; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 22:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 22:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3248BE94.4D62@pacbell.net> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 22:09:40 -0700 From: Hank Scudder Organization: Rocketdyne X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Carrell, Mike on Correa: 9/21 References: <960923225339_315915622@emout11.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"vvV981.0.3J2.NtBIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1085 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: RMCarrell@aol.com wrote: > > Hank, thanks for a more complete answer to Robin's question than I was able > to give. Robin is right, there probably isn't any energy threshold so far as > the production of electromagnetic radiation. I was using the practical datum > that ordinary vacuum tubes, which could have plate potentials of 500 V, were > not regarded as x-ray hazards. Same for ordinary oscilloscopes. > > Since the cathodes are pitted by the PAGD discharge, it is reasonable to ask > if very much higher energies exist within the discharge than would be > expected from the external voltages. Correa has not mentioned x-ray > radiation, but I expect to talk to him today and I will bring it up. > > Mike Carrell Mike RMCarrell@aol.com wrote: > > Hank, thanks for a more complete answer to Robin's question than I was able > to give. Robin is right, there probably isn't any energy threshold so far as > the production of electromagnetic radiation. I was using the practical datum > that ordinary vacuum tubes, which could have plate potentials of 500 V, were > not regarded as x-ray hazards. Same for ordinary oscilloscopes. > > Since the cathodes are pitted by the PAGD discharge, it is reasonable to ask > if very much higher energies exist within the discharge than would be > expected from the external voltages. Correa has not mentioned x-ray > radiation, but I expect to talk to him today and I will bring it up. > > Mike Carrell Please also ask him about the voltage rating on his capacitors and how large they are. I have a 38400 ufd, 40 volt capacitor in my calorimeter power supply, and it is a 3 inch diameter, 6 inches long cylinder. I would guess his capacitors would have to have a rating of a least 1 KV, and they would have to be the the size of a pole transformer with that capacitance. I've been studying this stuff hard trying to make sense of it, and I always end up more confused then when I started. I suspect you have this problem also, if Correa talks like he writes. Good luck. Hank Scudder -- -- 1¾ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 22:38:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA15166; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 22:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 22:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 96 22:35:56 PDT From: Barry Merriman Message-Id: <9609250535.AA04483@joshua.math.ucla.edu> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: xmas wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"KZjrN.0.ui3.yICIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1086 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You left out the most important equipment, Neutron Activation Analyzer. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Sep 24 23:12:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA19753; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 23:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 23:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3248CCD5.173A@pacbell.net> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 23:10:29 -0700 From: Hank Scudder Organization: Rocketdyne X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: NiCad batteries...internal composition...Please! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"pqd7o.0.Zq4.3mCIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1087 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mark Hugo, Northern wrote: > > From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. > Subject: NiCad batteries...internal composition...Please! > - > Can someone help me on this? I have recently used my "Xray eyes" to examine > some NiCad batteries. Now according to my vast, and extensive data bank, (a > 1940 text book on storage batteries) NiCad batteries have Cadnium, Nickle, > some Iron and KOH and LiOH in them and that's all. > - > However, my "Xray eyes" detected significant amounts of Sb and Ag... > - > Do manufacturers (1996) use some thin films of Ag or Sn, or combinations for > interconnects or the like? > - > Any info appreciated. MDHMark Send your Fax number to me at hjscudde@rdyne.rockwell.com and I'll Fax you back some pages from the GE Nickel-Cadmium Battery Handbook. A quick glance didn't mention Sb or Ag, but they might be part of some welding rod used in construction. Hank -- 1¾ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 03:38:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA04666; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 03:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 03:26:30 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Where's the Radiation? Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 10:03:54 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <324e0002.37489004@mail.netspace.net.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.296 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"3SkzP2.0.m81.LZGIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1088 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Yesterday in this thread I put forward a hypothesis as to how (more or less) radiation might be avoided in putative transmutation reactions. I would now like to propose a fairly simple way of testing that hypothesis. It goes as follows: Take a solid substance containing a radioactive isotope with a half life of say a couple of years, that decays exclusively by e.c. If my hypothesis is correct, then heating the substance to a temperature half way between its Debye temperature and its melting point should result in a reduction in radioactivity by approximately 50%. At least while that temperature is maintained. (This assumes a linear relationship between temperature and occupation of the highest energy state in a solid, above the debye temperature). It is also possible that under those conditions, nature will take advantage of the opportunity and bring about massive transmutations in the material resulting in the creation of stable nuclei, thus permanently removing the radioactivity. (Hey, I have no credibility in scientific circles anyway, so I can afford to make a fool of myself :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 25 04:35:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA09342; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 04:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 04:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 96 07:14:53 From: dacha@shentel.net Subject: To Frank:From Volodya:FYI 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: <"euMxv3.0.uH2.QPHIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1089 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Frank: Yes, I know that the temperature in a just collapsed bubble can reach 1 million degrees (the single quantum), however, it is too small value for CF reaction. Now the message: ------ This week I met with the physicists who know Nikitski. They have very negative estimate of the latter person. They are orthodoxal scientists. I more or less believe in O\U in the cavitation devices (I think the real O\U could occur in Graneau experiments because there are the forces which can overcome Gamov barrier). However, if I try to estimate the physical phenomena from critical point of view, and only then accept or reject reality of one or another effect I must take into account the arguments of the orthodoxal scientists too. After the meeting with them I began to think about one point of operation of the cavitation devices. It is known that the cavitation bubbles must have some volume which cannot exceed 1% of the water (or the water flow if we consider the flows) because the water is absolutely non-squeezed liquid and 1% is the best one can get due to the strong pressure like under applying of ultrasonic waves. I tried to calculate the corresponding volume for Yusmar (the device I know) and below it is what I have got. According to estimate, to obtain 1 kWt of excess energy due to the reation De + De -> p + Tr (there are no neutrons while operation of the cavitation devices). one needs 10^15 acts of elementary reactions. Potapov said, and it is written in 'Infinite Energy' v.1 n.2 p.33, the article of Christopher P.Tinsley, that the O\U effect is achieved because of the cavitation bubbles. So at least 10^15 (or more, i.e. up to 10^18) cavitation bubbles per second must collapse. If it is correct let's calculate the volume of the whole number of these bubbles. The size of the separate bubble is about 0.1 mm so the volume is 10^(-12) cubic meter. To obtain 1 kWt, one needs the collapse of 10^15 bubbles per second which have the total volume V = 10^(-12)*10^15 = 10^3 cubic meter/sec Now we must take into account that the time of 'living' of every cavitation bubble from its creation to collapse is no longer than R/v = 0.05 m/ 5 (m/sec) = 0.01 sec, where R is the radius of the unit creating the vortex (I don't know how it is called correctly on English) and v is the velocity of the water at the input of this unit. So we should multiply V and R/v, i.e. V*(R/v) = 100 cubic meter/sec The latter value is too great even for the total volume of the outlet tube of Yusmar because the water flow in Yusmar-1 is about 3^(-3) cubic meter/sec. So whether the cavitation mechanizm cannot supply the power requires 200% of O\U or there is another (unknown) issue of the energy which is much powerful than fusion reaction. It is interesting to calculate the volume of the cavitation bubbles in Griggs machine. Because I don't know the data on this device, could you send me them? Maybe, someone has made such calculations. If it is so, please, send me them. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 04:51:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA10651; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 04:40:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 04:40:35 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: To Frank:From Volodya:FYI Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 11:40:17 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3250189d.43788349@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.296 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"ZL5Bx1.0.Kc2.oeHIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1090 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 25 Sep 96 07:14:53 , dacha@shentel.net wrote: [snip] >This week I met with the physicists who know Nikitski.=20 >They have very >negative estimate of the latter person. They are=20 >orthodoxal scientists. >I more or less believe in O\U in the cavitation devices (I=20 >think the real >O\U could occur in Graneau experiments because there are=20 >the forces which >can overcome Gamov barrier). However, if I try to estimate=20 >the physical >phenomena from critical point of view, and only then=20 >accept or reject >reality of one or another effect I must take into account=20 >the arguments of >the orthodoxal scientists too. > >After the meeting with them I began to think about one=20 >point of operation >of the cavitation devices. It is known that the cavitation bubbles must >have some volume which cannot exceed 1% of the water (or the water flow >if we consider the flows) because the water is absolutely non-squeezed >liquid and 1% is the best one can get due to the strong pressure like >under applying of ultrasonic waves. >I tried to calculate the corresponding volume for Yusmar (the device I >know) and below it is what I have got. > >According to estimate, to obtain 1 kWt of excess energy due to the = reation >De + De -> p + Tr >(there are no neutrons while operation of the cavitation devices). >one needs 10^15 acts of elementary reactions. > >Potapov said, and it is written in 'Infinite Energy' v.1 n.2 p.33, the >article of Christopher P.Tinsley, that the O\U effect is achieved = because >of the cavitation bubbles. So at least 10^15 (or more, i.e. up to 10^18) >cavitation bubbles per second must collapse. Why do you assume that only one such fusion reaction can happen in one collapse of one bubble? Why not a million, or a billion? (Personally, I doubt that this is the actual reaction anyway, but the question remains nonetheless). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 25 05:39:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA14850; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 05:21:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 05:21:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 07:21:29 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609251221.HAA08411@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: xmas wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"35qDk.0.xd3.LFIIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1091 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: OK Robert, your prioroties are #1 as usual. Horace, I think I'll move yr #11 up to #2 and insert my own #3 under it. Also I like Barry's NAA suggestion but I'm wondering if I need a reactor like they have as McMaster U to get adequate sensitivity. Revised xmas wish list: 1. Peace and good will for all. 2. Repeatable in-house transmutation experiment. 3. Repeatable in-house excess heat experiment. 4. high-resolution mass spectrometer (MS) 5. atomic-absorption analyzer (AA) 6. x-ray fluorescence analyzer (XRF) 7. scanning electron microscope (SEM) 8. neutron activation analysis system (NAA) 9. Field trip to Melbourne because of #3. - 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-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 06:38:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA26347; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 06:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 06:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:25:02 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960925092324.7e77d260@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: control experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"QZr-N3.0.WR6.VFJIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1092 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:23 PM 9/25/96 +1000, Martin wrote: >> >> do you have a paper or derivation about the O(40) claim? >> >Sure. Just look in any Nuclear Physics textbook under alpha-decay. I have >a copy on my desk. It's "Introduction to Nuclear Physics" by Kenneth Krane. >A good book. Go to the section on alpha-decay where coulomb barrier >penetration is described. > >Here's a little subroutine that will calculate barrier penetration factors >for you. It's in fortran I admit but it will runs within a factor of 2 of the >speed of a c++ program :-)! > > real*8 function p_factor(q,z,a,l,b) >c >c q = energy release in decay (in MeV) >c z = Atomic number of final state nucleus (number of protons) >c a = Atomic mass of nucleus (number of nucleons) >c l = orbital angular momentum of transition (set it equal to zero) >c > implicit real*8 (a-h),(o-z) > integer l > real*8 q,z,a > data xm/938.28/,hc/197./,coul/1.44/ > data pi/3.14159/,r0/1.25/,v0/35./ > > aa = r0*(a**0.33333) > xl = l > b = coul*z/(aa+1.0)+xl*(xl+1.)*hc*hc/(2*xm*(aa+1.0)*(aa+1.0)) > fac1 = 2.*z*coul*2.*sqrt(2.*xm/(hc*hc*q)) > fac1 = fac1*(acos(sqrt(q/b)) - sqrt(q*(1.-q/b)/b)) > p_factor = exp(-fac1) > return > end > > >When I ran this program it wouldn't handle 1 eV. I got a floating overflow >error. I ran it for a 10 KeV proton on nickel and the penetration factor was >about >10**-229. Assuming 10^20 hits per second thats a reaction rate of 10^-209 >per proton. Assuming 10^23 protons (1 mole) that's one reaction per 10^-186 >seconds. So I drastically over-estimated the expected transmutation rate >from standard nuclear physics. The claimed measurement is well over 186 >orders of magnitude larger than conventional nuclear physics says is >possible. Coulomb barrier penetration works well in explaining alpha decay >and nuclear reactions below 1 MeV... > >> >> >Then even if they did get in then there should >> >be a flux of ionizing radiation strong enough to kill Miley and all his >> >graduate students and finally ordinary transmutations that occur from >> >nuclear fission >> >and energetic reactions would happily produce vast quantities of unstable >> >nuclei which would be absolutely trivial to detect. That is of course >> >the environmentalists problem with nuclear fission as an energy source. >> > >> >The miracles occuring in a transmuting cell are: >> > >> >1. Reaction rate too fast by over 40 orders of magnitude. >> >2. No ionizing radiation. >> >3. No radioactive nuclei. >> > >> >Now there was one experiment performed by a Physicist named Wolfe that >> >apparently did produce a radioactive cathode. However he was never able >> >to repeat the effect. I don't know much about this episode, can anyone >> >shed some light on this? >> > >> >Martin Sevior >> > >> > >> no. 1 is wrong. > >Conventional theory says it's too fast by over 187 orders of magnitude. > Martin: thank you for your model, and the time you put into replying. Few of the skeptics every do. your model assumes two streams of particles, it does not consider volume does it? it does not consider several other contributions to the effective screening factors, etc. does it? As just one example, where are 1000 molar concnetrations of the cathodially loaded electrons in your calculation? we know from the Born Oppenheimer principle that the e-s follow the nucei, right? we know the s-orbitals overlap the nuclei, right? so where is the e-concentration dependant term in your program? It thus appears to be a simple model with not much applicability to this situation. It must be updated to continue to be relevant. >> 2. is true but consistent with theory. > >Not what you would get from standard nuclear physics. IMHO you are wrong possibly again because you ignore the multibody nature of the problem, and other effects -- mainly the material. > >> 3. answer pending. > >No way! Standard nuclear physics says there should be radioactive nuclei >produced than stable. They'd stand out believe me! ok. prove it. since Pd + D2O (done correctly) yields He4 which is not radioactive, it will be nice to see your proof. thanks in advance. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 06:57:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA00247; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 06:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 06:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 05:54:39 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: To Frank:From Volodya:FYI Resent-Message-ID: <"htyM33.0.n3.hXJIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1093 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Dear Frank: > [snip] >The size of the separate bubble is about 0.1 mm so the volume is 10^(-12) >cubic meter. To obtain 1 kWt, one needs the collapse of 10^15 bubbles per >second which have the total volume >V = 10^(-12)*10^15 = 10^3 cubic meter/sec > >Now we must take into account that the time of 'living' of every >cavitation bubble from its creation to collapse is no longer than >R/v = 0.05 m/ 5 (m/sec) = 0.01 sec, >where R is the radius of the unit creating the vortex (I don't know how it >is called correctly on English) and v is the velocity of the water at the >input of this unit. >So we should multiply V and R/v, i.e. >V*(R/v) = 100 cubic meter/sec >The latter value is too great even for the total volume of >the outlet tube >of Yusmar because the water flow in Yusmar-1 is about >3^(-3) cubic meter/sec. > [snip] This is very interresting information here. However, maybe the calculation should be based upon the cavitation bubbles being pumped by sound created by the Yusmar. An "ordinary" flask type sonoluminescence experiment runs at about 10-30 KHz, so has a bubble recycle rate of about 10^5/sec. Using 0.1 mm bubble size, which may be high at that frequency, we have V = 10^(-12)*10^15/10^5 = 10^(-2) meter^3 for bubbles. However, on this basis, the compressed bubbles do not "move" with the flow, they can only be active at the site of the cavitation, the sound generation, so I think using flow rate is not valid. In "Sonoluminescence and the prospects for table top micro-thermonuclear fusion", by Moss, et al, Pysics Letters A (1996) 69-74, 5 Feb. 1996, it was theoretically demonstrated that with a spike added to the sinusoidal driving pressure that temperatures over 2200 KV (over 10^7 H) can be obtained using a driving frequency of 27.6 KHz and D2O. The maximum bubble radius was 90 microns. This sounds pretty good until you consider the calculated neutron production rate from such a bubble cycled at 27.6 KHz for 1 hour was 0.1 neutron per hour from the reaction: D + D -> 3He + n + 3,2 MeV It was estimated this could be increased by a factor of 50 if the D2O were replaced with DTO. Adjusting the 10^15 bubbles/sec estimate above by the low reaction rate of 0.1 reaction/(3600 bubble-seconds) we need about 3 x 10^10 bubbles to produce 1 KW. This implies Volodya's calculation is very generous to the Yusmar. The other problem is the old problem of why the Yusmar operator is not dead from the neutron bombardment. There must be some other explantion than sonoluminescence to explain 1 KWh from the Yusmar. Low energy transmutation? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 07:05:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA00862; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 06:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 06:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 05:57:35 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: To Frank:From Volodya:FYI Resent-Message-ID: <"Q-YdT.0.KD.UaJIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1094 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Excuse me, the below should have read: "Adjusting the 10^15 bubbles/sec estimate above by the low reaction rate of 0.1 reaction/(3600 bubble-seconds) we need about 3 x 10^20 bubbles to produce 1 KW. This implies Volodya's calculation is very generous to the Yusmar. The other problem is the old problem of why the Yusmar operator is not dead from the neutron bombardment. There must be some other explantion than sonoluminescence to explain 1 KWh from the Yusmar. Low energy transmutation?" Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 08:16:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA20683; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 08:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 08:09:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 11:08:43 -0400 Message-ID: <960925110842_292875420@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: xmas wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"gGyny2.0.535.giKIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1095 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In response to the Xmas List request by Scott Little, dacha@viso.com said: "Hmmmm, silly me....I wanted peace on earth good will to all people. :-)" This reminds me of a few years ago when a NY Times reporter called up Sec'y of State Schultz and asked him what gift he wanted for XMAS, and he said "Oh, no, I couldn't accept a gift." When the reporter pressed him hard with another phone call, he finally said "OK, some flowers." The next day the NY Times had a long story as to how President Reagan wanted Peace on earth, this and that leader wanted equally noble gifts, and Sec'y State wanted flowers. Honest to God, this is a true story! Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 08:39:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA24489; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 08:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 08:24:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609251524.IAA19781@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: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 08:24:06 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: xmas wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"s5MyM1.0.W-5.swKIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1096 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:03 PM 9/24/96 -0800, you wrote: >It seems like before spending a lot of money it would be very good to have >one in-house completed experiment that produces to your own satisfaction >some transmutation. Maybe you have already done that under some secrecy >agreement or something. If not, maybe Santa could provide you with: > >11. Repeatable in-house transmutation experiment. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > you don't have to look very far...go find the Russell experiment which I described in my post under Wielu Master Say. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 09:34:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA06060; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:18:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609251618.JAA24518@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: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:17:39 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Where's the Radiation? Resent-Message-ID: <"wSmie3.0.bU1.7jLIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1097 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin, what is the point of your questions related to transmutation? Can you conduct some experiments? If you can I will feed you more data than you wish. I am a pointed hat by gosh and by golly type Did you get and read my post: Wielu Master Say: See The Obvious In Transmutation This appears to have gone over like lead. It has a lot of clues. Y At 10:03 AM 9/25/96 GMT, you wrote: >Yesterday in this thread I put forward a hypothesis as to how (more or >less) radiation might be avoided in putative transmutation reactions. >I would now like to propose a fairly simple way of testing that >hypothesis. It goes as follows: >Take a solid substance containing a radioactive isotope with a half >life of say a couple of years, that decays exclusively by e.c. >If my hypothesis is correct, then heating the substance to a >temperature half way between its Debye temperature and its melting >point should result in a reduction in radioactivity by approximately >50%. At least while that temperature is maintained. I am a decent scientific investigator but a very ignorant one. What is debye temperature? I ran a series of experiments stimulating radium with heat, electrical charge, magnetism, and high heat chemical emf. Pure heat, up to about 1400 degrees fahreinheit, alone appeared to have no effect. (All scintillator readings were done before and after treatment, not during). In surveying the field of cold fusion reports and integrating that with what the pointy hat set does, I will give the best formed hypothesis, based on generalizing the most common denominator. Hydrogen. You need excess hydrogen, in its plain and simple form in a situation where electromagnetic forces are at play. Thus heat and hydrogen, in the coherent matrix of Brown's Gas appears to work, SOMEWHAT. Sodium hyroxide and organic carbon combustion is what the pointy hat has primarily used, lots of heat and excess hydrogen there. The electrolysis of cold fusion aint so cold and again here we have em forces with lots of hydrogen present. I think that beyond that, the poorly perceived unknown is MAGNETISM, to which Russell has pointed out an elegant hypothesis for testing. Those approaching this from 20th century physics theories will not be successful in generating useful hypothesis until they can work with the empirical activities of people like Champion, Monti, Keller, Barker, Miley, etc. It is not math. It is not nuclear physics. It is structural, ie chemical. The real particularities of the elements are all important, not simply their numerical abstractions as energy points. This shows the incomplete weakness of the ground of physics. Pointless to stand on that ground. First one must find empircally what works, in blindness of theory. When it works, theoreticans can go to town forming new ideas to test. My model for this is: electrically driven tansport plus heat plus excess hydrogen plus magnetic coherence, plus (sort of and this is really weak but here is where part of the magic is: mixture of elements which in common have the right geometries) = transmutation. >(This assumes a linear relationship between temperature and occupation >of the highest energy state in a solid, above the debye temperature). >It is also possible that under those conditions, nature will take >advantage of the opportunity and bring about massive transmutations in >the material resulting in the creation of stable nuclei, thus >permanently removing the radioactivity. >(Hey, I have no credibility in scientific circles anyway, so I can >afford to make a fool of myself :) >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk hey, you wouldn't want to leave my all alone here would you? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 09:36:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA07111; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:22:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609251622.JAA25019@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: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:22:13 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Where's the Radiation? Resent-Message-ID: <"aQnKQ2.0.1l1.PnLIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1099 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:03 AM 9/25/96 GMT, you wrote: >Yesterday in this thread I put forward a hypothesis as to how (more or >less) radiation might be avoided in putative transmutation reactions. >I would now like to propose a fairly simple way of testing that >hypothesis. It goes as follows: >Take a solid substance containing a radioactive isotope with a half >life of say a couple of years, that decays exclusively by e.c. gee. what is e.c.? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 09:39:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA07067; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:22:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609251616.JAA00499@shell.skylink.net> Subject: The Hooper Effect To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:16:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <199609241709.KAA04600@big.aa.net> from "Michael Mandeville" at Sep 24, 96 10:08:52 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: <"7K6gj.0.Gk1.GnLIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1098 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Lawrence Wharton writes: >I reviewed Robert Stirniman's references on the Hooper effect and it >looks like the effect is real. The paper: >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 -- >is of interest because it gives a proof that the electric field radiation >terms and the second order relativistic terms cancel out. Lawrence. The Edwards paper does not "prove" that radiation effects and second order relativistic effects cancel. It seems to me -- Edward's purpose in discussing this was to show that according to conventional wisdom, the effect he measured does not exist. In fact, the experiment itself demonstrates clearly that these effects do not cancel. Edwards measured an "unexplained" electric field proportional to the square of the current -- in one case with a magnitude of nearly -0.1 volts. >It appears that as the electron moves around >the wire it looses charge and the wire seems to have a positive charge. The potential measured by Edwards is NEGATIVE -- which is also the polarity predicted from relativistic effects. In figure 3 of his paper, he clearly shows it as a negative potential. In later figures he plots the absolute value of the potential, and does not show it as negative -- but it is negative. In all cases where he measures a value for (kappa*alpha) from equation 13 -- it is a positive value, and hence the polarity of the potential is negative. >The simple minded concept of the moving electrons having a Lorentz >contraction and increasing in density gives the wrong sign. Is is simple minded. Still, it works for me, and it most assuredly does not give the wrong sign. Edwards measured a negative potential. Movement of negative charge carriers causes a negative potential in the direction perpendicular to motion. This is independent of direction of current flow and proportional to the square of the current. Exactly as predicted by relativistic effects. Maybe simple, or maybe Occam. In any case, the effect does happen, and it is not predicted by Maxwells equations. > It looks like the electron density is decreased. > The magnitude of the effect is very large. The effect must not work > for electrons orbiting in atoms. Otherwise a dc device such as an > automobile starting motor would induce a potential much larger than > the 12 volts going into it and this could be measured. I'm confused. First you say the effects cancel, and then that the effect must be very large. What exists is a second order effect, which is not large. So small that Hooper could barely find it using copper coils. But Edwards found it relatively easily using a superconductor coil. I don't see how you are able to calculate large values for the potential. The first order effects are completely screened by the balance of the background positive and negative charge -- the second order effect is what remains. In my opinion, Edwards is a well done experiment, which confirms an anomalous effect, which was originally demonstrated and patented by Hooper. The effect has been theoretically explained in similar fashions by multiple scientists -- historically by Weber, Riemann, and Heaviside, and more recently by Edwards, Hooper, et al. And also explainable in a similar but indirect fashion by Feynmam, Lienard-Weichart, and Jefimenko -- unless of course you accept the idea that radiation terms always and everywhere, and for every coil geometry -- always manage to exactly cancel the relativistic effects. It can not be so. You can demonstrate this with some "simple" relativistic thought experiments. Take a look at the force between two moving charges, accelerating or not, looking at it from different reference frames. You will find that the "relativistic" effects do not, and can not, be cancelled by radiation effects. Maybe the Hooper effect has something to do with gravitation? Hooper surely thought so. So do I. Hooper found that the "motive" electric field is not shieldable, and that it causes an apparent weight loss. Here's another simple idea -- You know what they say about things that look like a duck. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 09:47:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA10511; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:34:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609251627.JAA00517@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Tampere in Business Week To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:27:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <199609241709.KAA04600@big.aa.net> from "Michael Mandeville" at Sep 24, 96 10:08:52 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: <"nfzry1.0.4a2.4yLIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1100 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: "Business Week" - September 30, 1996, Page 42 Some names mentioned in the Business Week article: Tampere, Podkletnov, Physica D, Modanese, Sunday Telegraph, NASA, Ronald Koczor, John Schnurer, Ning Li, et al. Someday someone's going to notice that there are billion dollar markets for this stuff. Of course, first we must get the idea that it's not impossible. If you build it, they will come. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 11:56:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA11753; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 11:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 11:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 10:38:07 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: xmas wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"Yiaqs1.0.Xt2.MjNIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1101 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >you don't have to look very far...go find the Russell experiment which I >described in my post under Wielu Master Say. >Michael Mandeville, publisher Doesn't count if the present goes down someone else's chimney! Has to be opened at Earthtech. They are going to need a big tree this year. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 11:56:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA11846; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 11:35:27 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 11:35:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 10:38:13 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"F3Dg.0.qu2.gjNIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1102 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 9:16 AM 9/25/96, Robert Stirniman wrote: >Lawrence Wharton writes: > [snip] > >In fact, the experiment itself demonstrates clearly that >these effects do not cancel. Edwards measured an >"unexplained" electric field proportional to the square >of the current -- in one case with a magnitude of >nearly -0.1 volts. Is that -0.1 V/cm? > >>It appears that as the electron moves around >>the wire it looses charge and the wire seems to have a positive charge. > >The potential measured by Edwards is NEGATIVE -- which is >also the polarity predicted from relativistic effects. >In figure 3 of his paper, he clearly shows it as a negative >potential. In later figures he plots the absolute value of >the potential, and does not show it as negative -- but it >is negative. In all cases where he measures a value for >(kappa*alpha) from equation 13 -- it is a positive value, >and hence the polarity of the potential is negative. > >>The simple minded concept of the moving electrons having a Lorentz >>contraction and increasing in density gives the wrong sign. > >Is is simple minded. Still, it works for me, and it most >assuredly does not give the wrong sign. Edwards measured >a negative potential. Movement of negative charge carriers >causes a negative potential in the direction perpendicular >to motion. This is independent of direction of current flow >and proportional to the square of the current. Exactly as >predicted by relativistic effects. Maybe simple, or maybe >Occam. In any case, the effect does happen, and it is not >predicted by Maxwells equations. > [snip] >Robert Stirniman I still think this can be understood within the realm of Maxwell's laws. I'll try again. Maybe I'm missing something. A current in a conductor out in space should have a Lorentz force induced by its own circular field that contracts the current toward the center of the conductor. Call this a contraction effect. The contraction effect should leave a positive radial electric field immediately outside the wire: +.--.+ Current in two parallel conductors should generate circular magnetic fields that cause a Lorentz force that attracts the two conductors, and more specifically draws the electrons in the conductors towards the opposing curent conductors. This should leave electrons toward the closest sides and a deficit towards the outer sides, thus creating a bipolar electric field about each of the conductors: +.....- -.....+ Rows of conductors with opposed currents should produce magnetic fields that induce Lorentz forces that tend to pull electrons weekly outward in the plane of the conductors: -..+..- -..+..- -..+..- -..+..- -.....+ This should create tripolar electrostatic fields in the interior conductors with an outer net positive field viewed in the plane of the conductors. In a three dimensional configuration, the opposing current in the outer conductors surrounding a central conductor is much larger than that in the central conductor, so in the central conductor the net effect should be to draw the electrons outward: + . ....... . - - . +.....- -.....- -.....+ . - - . ....... . + The net effect in all the inner conductors of a large bundle of wires with interleaved current directions should be to draw the electrons outward. Electrostatic field strength is additive from the central conductor outward. Net outer electrons in the central conductor should repel electrons in the next layer and so on. Net outer negative charge, and net gradient, accumulates from the central conductor through every layer except the final outer layer, where a positive increment is added. If there are many layers the radial charge increment added by the final outer layer should be exceeded by the total gradient from the many inner layers. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 13:13:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA29088; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 12:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 12:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 11:56:24 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"jnXWg1.0.M67.5rOIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1103 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sorry, but I'm running at my usual error rate. Following are some corrected diagrams. A current in a conductor out in space should have a Lorentz force induced by its own circular field that contracts the current toward the center of the conductor. Call this a contraction effect. The contraction effect should leave a positive radial electric field immediately outside the wire: +.--.+ Current in two parallel conductors should generate circular magnetic fields that cause a Lorentz force that attracts the two conductors, and more specifically draws the electrons in the conductors towards the opposing curent conductors. This should leave electrons toward the closest sides and a deficit towards the outer sides, thus creating a bipolar electric field about each of the conductors: +.....- -.....+ Rows of conductors with opposed currents should produce magnetic fields that induce Lorentz forces that tend to pull electrons weekly outward in the plane of the conductors: +.....- -..+..- -..+..- -..+..- -.....+ This should create tripolar electrostatic fields in the interior conductors with an outer net positive field viewed in the plane of the conductors. In a three dimensional configuration, the opposing current in the outer conductors surrounding a central conductor is much larger than that in the central conductor, so in the central conductor the net effect should be to draw the electrons outward: + . ....... . - . - . . + . +.....- -.+++.- -.....+ . + . . - . - . ....... . + The net effect in all the inner conductors of a large bundle of wires with interleaved current directions should be to draw the electrons outward. Electrostatic field strength is additive from the central conductor outward. Net outer electrons in the central conductor should repel electrons in the next layer and so on. Net outer negative charge, and net gradient, accumulates from the central conductor through every layer except the final outer layer, where a positive increment is added. If there are many layers the radial charge increment added by the final outer layer should be exceeded by the total gradient from the many inner layers. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 13:27:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA03877; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 13:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 13:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: 25 Sep 96 16:07:14 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: xmas wish list Message-ID: <960925200714_100433.1541_BHG32-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"perFd.0.Py.J5PIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1104 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, > With all the talk about real science going on around here, I've > developed a bad case of the hots for some serious analytical > instrumentation. Here's what I think I'm gonna need to get to the > bottom of all this transmutation stuff: > > 1. high-resolution mass spectrometer (MS) 2. atomic-absorption > analyzer (AA) 3. x-ray fluorescence analyzer (XRF) 4. scanning > electron microscope (SEM) > > What else might I be needing? An account with, and confidence in, a good analytical chem lab. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 14:36:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA17743; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 14:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 14:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 25 Sep 1996 14:14:14 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Re: NiCad batteries...internal composition...Please! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/25/96 14:14:46 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"iPnIA3.0.8L4.K3QIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1105 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 09/24/96 23:10 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: NiCad batteries...internal composition...Please! HANK: Fax me at 612-347-7369. Thanks! MDH (PS Both old and new NiCads appear to have Ag and Sn in them.) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 14:51:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA19195; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 14:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 14:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Date: 25 Sep 1996 14:21:14 PDT From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Re: NiCad batteries...internal composition...Please! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 09/25/96 14:21:55 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"AQCey2.0.ph4.wAQIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1106 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 09/24/96 16:21 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: NiCad batteries...internal composition...Please! Scott: I know my Xray eyes don't see Cd...(by talking to my Xray optomitrist) but your mention of the overlap Sb to Cd of the K-beta and K-alpha lines probably tells the tale in that regard. Yes, the commercial info would be of interest. Can you fax 612-347-7369? MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 19:51:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA03244; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:35:42 -0700 Message-Id: <199609260235.TAA12238@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: NiCad batteries...internal composition...Please! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"_jGAR1.0.Xo.AnUIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1107 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: > NiCad batteries have Cadnium, Nickle, >some Iron and KOH and LiOH in them and that's all. >- >However, my "Xray eyes" detected significant amounts of Sb and Ag... >- Do manufacturers (1996) use some thin films of Ag or Sn, or >combinations for interconnects or the like? Your 1940 reference is correct on the internal construction of the ni-cad battery. However, I do not believe manufacturers are driven or need to use 100% pure cadium or nickel metal in constructing the cells. So you may find those other elements with your x-ray eyes. Just a suggestion. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Sep 25 20:01:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA06936; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:52:52 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 22:52:09 -0400 Message-ID: <960925225208_111052473@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: potapov gone Resent-Message-ID: <"xFhyL2.0.Ei1.20VIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1108 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Potapov has exited from Johnstown and is now in Long Beach Calf at a People to People convention. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 00:44:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA26137; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 00:40:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 00:40:59 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Where's the Radiation? Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 07:40:33 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <324a3330.3219428@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199609251622.JAA25019@big.aa.net> In-Reply-To: <199609251622.JAA25019@big.aa.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.296 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"2_5Le3.0.JO6.AEZIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1109 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:22:13 +0900, Michael Mandeville wrote: [snip] >>Take a solid substance containing a radioactive isotope with a half >>life of say a couple of years, that decays exclusively by e.c. > >gee. what is e.c.? > [snip] Shorthand for electron capture. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 26 03:14:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA15229; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 03:09:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 03:09:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 02:14:31 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: To Frank:From Volodya:FYI Resent-Message-ID: <"n33Nc.0.tj3.OPbIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1110 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Excuse me again, same conclusion, but the below should have read: "Adjusting the 10^15 bubbles/sec estimate above by the low reaction rate of 0.1 reaction/(3600 bubble-seconds) we need about 3 x 10^19 bubbles to produce 1 KW. This implies Volodya's calculation, requiring only 10^15 bubbles per second, is very generous to the Yusmar. The other problem is the old problem of why the Yusmar operator is not dead from the neutron bombardment. There must be some other explantion than sonoluminescence to explain 1 KWh from the Yusmar. Low energy transmutation?" Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 07:01:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA09810; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 06:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 06:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 06:57:39 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: conventional vs. maverick science Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"6Cyfm.0.CP2.OleIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1111 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A very long message below, written as part of procrastination at work yesterday! .....................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 CONVENTIONAL VERSUS MAVERICK SCIENCE Who's Right? Skeptic versus True Believer Neophobe versus Neophile (thanks Chris!) Conservative versus fringe In attempting to understand the continuing fight between fringe and mainstream science, I began compiling a list of arguments which each side has used against the other. I quickly became aware that neither side was ahead, and that the real issue was not about who is right. Instead the issue involves two incompatible ways of seeing the world and the competition between the two. On one side we have the conventional mainstream, composed of people who tend to build one small discovery upon another, who tend to arrive at consensus views and think alike, and tend to follow the herd and avoid radical changes. They make progress through numerous small, safe advances which add up to large success. On the other side we have the Mavericks, composed of people who tend to make upsetting, earthshaking discoveries, who exhibit a wide variety of incompatible viewpoints, who possess extreme amounts of creativity and who indulge in unconventional ideas for their own sake. They make progress through following numerous dead ends but occasionally hitting on a wildly successful discovery. They gamble on longshots and occasionally win big. The fight between these two factions is marked by intolerance of each for the other. Each side insists that theirs is the only proper way to act, and believe that there is something deficient with the other side. Whenever one side comes to power, it attempts to suppress the other side and keep it at bay as long as possible. When the neophiles get in control, everything goes into upheaval, and the "normals" are seen as dull plodders who have no dreams and make no progress. When the neophobes take over, things become safe and stable, science is seen as nearly complete, and the "weirdoes" are seen as threateningly uncontrolled and irrational wasters of funding. The list: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | PRO Conventional researchers use their knowledge of current theory to | ferret out the faults in proposed theories. | | CON Conventional researchers use their knowledge of current theory to | create a limited view of reality, then they label reports and | observations "impossible" or "irrational" if they threaten to | upset this limited worldview. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | PRO Maverick researchers discover patterns which have gone long | unnoticed by the mainstream. | | CON Maverick researchers wrongly ascribe importance to random | coincidences, see patterns which do not exist, and then build | faulty theories based on illusion and fantasy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | PRO Conventional researchers use their experience and expertise to | predict fruitful directions for future research. | | CON Conventional researchers use reputation and image of authority to | mask such things as bias against particular fields, emotion-based | attempts to suppress the work of mavericks, and fear that their | lifetime's work may be misguided. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | PRO Mavericks draw attention to widespread attitudes of close- | mindedness which stand in the way of progress. | | CON Mavericks hide their failures by claiming that their ideas are | being suppressed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | PRO Conventional researchers refuse to accept theories which have not | yet been tested. | | CON Conventional researchers pre-judge the worth of unexplored areas | rather than conducting preliminary investigations. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | PRO Maverick researchers reveal chinks in mature fields which uncover | fruitful new areas for investigation. | | CON Maverick researchers unnecessarily spread uncertainty, and cause | well-verified knowledge to appear questionable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | PRO Conventional researchers maintain a skeptical attitude which | requires that knowledge be tested before it is accepted. | | CON Conventional researchers maintain a disbelieving attitude and | refuse to accept certain conclusions regardless of the strength of | the evidence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | PRO Maverick researchers solidify current knowledge by testing | theories which might not have been well-verified. | | CON Maverick researchers waste time and funding by pursuing paths | that have repeatedly been shown to be dead ends. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | PRO Conventional researchers maintain high standards for the testing | of new theories. | | CON Conventional researchers suppress maverick ideas by forever | demanding more and more stringent tests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | PRO Maverick researchers provisionally accept unconventional theories | in order that they may test them. | | CON Maverick researchers accept strange theories based on little or no | evidence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | PRO Conventional researchers refuse to accept theories which have not | been tested. | | CON Conventional researchers refuse to lower themselves by devoting | any time or funding to the testing of maverick theories which | they have prejudged as false. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | PRO Conventional researchers forge solid links between individual | facts and observations, which creates a strong self-consistent | web of conceptual knowledge. | | CON Conventional researchers indulge in herd-mind behavior and | mistakenly rely on majority rule, believing that certain facts | are well supported by evidence when they really are just | widely believed by collegues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | PRO Maverick researchers discover holes in current knowledge by | questioning widely held assumptions and by seeing old knowledge | with new eyes. | | CON Maverick researchers waste everyone's time by "reinventing the | wheel," by exploring a field without first reviewing the work | done by others in that field. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | PRO Conventional researchers create progress by building one | discovery upon another in a sensible fashion. | | CON Conventional researchers inhibit progress by spreading the myth | that science only advances in a uniform rational manner, and that | there are no revolutions, upheavals, creative leaps, "rewriting | all of physics," etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | PRO Maverick researchers are experts at precipitating Kuhn-ian | paradigm shifts, without which science would stagnate. | | CON Maverick researchers are not competent at in-depth investigation | of the details, without which science would have only a shallow | and scattered structure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | PRO Conventional researchers use funding efficiently by directing it | only towards research which has a large probability of creating | progress. | | CON Conventional researchers use funding to preserve their worldview | by refusing to support longshot research which may precipitate | revolutions and open up new fields, but which has a low | probability of success. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | PRO Conventional researchers are expert at organizing, writing | textbooks, and standardizing methods of investigation and | distribution of funding. | | CON Conventional researchers inject their worldview into science | organizations, textbooks, and methods of investigation. The | conservative worldview becomes the Mainstream, while the maverick | philosophy is called irrational and unscientific, maverick | students are convinced to avoid the sciences, and selective | funding is use to shove maverick research into a small dark | corner out of sight. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 07:30:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA16529; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 07:24:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 07:24:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199609251616.JAA00499@shell.skylink.net> References: <199609241709.KAA04600@big.aa.net> from "Michael Mandeville" at Sep 24, 96 10:08:52 am Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 10:24:01 -0400 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"IiRdu3.0.424.i8fIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1112 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have some comments on Robert Stirniman's posting. But first let me say that it is great to have an expert on this and related E&M effects here on Vortex. I did not know about any of these things until he brought them up and I was surprised that such significant effects exist and have been ignored by the conventional physics community. >The Edwards paper does not "prove" that radiation effects >and second order relativistic effects cancel. It seems >to me -- Edward's purpose in discussing this was >to show that according to conventional wisdom, >the effect he measured does not exist. Yes that is correct. >The potential measured by Edwards is NEGATIVE -- which is >also the polarity predicted from relativistic effects. >In figure 3 of his paper, he clearly shows it as a negative >potential. In later figures he plots the absolute value of >the potential, and does not show it as negative -- but it >is negative. In all cases where he measures a value for >(kappa*alpha) from equation 13 -- it is a positive value, >and hence the polarity of the potential is negative. The sign is unclear in this paper. Figure 3 is an example of data from a previous experiment, not the one described in the paper. All data shown in the paper for the described experimental setup show positive potentials and I saw no statement that the magnitude was being taken. I had assumed that the authors were taking the magnitude of (kappa*alpha) and that it was negative but that was not stated also. So one may choose his assumption and as a result choose the sign. In the paper: Ralph Sansbury, "Detection of a Force Between a Charged Metal Foil and a Current Carrying Conductor", Rev. Sci. Instrument. Vol 56 No 3 Page 415. the sign is made very clear and the induced potential is positive. Quoting the last sentence of this paper we have "The screening deficiency makes the conductor appear to possess a net positive charge." Here the author attributes this effect to a screening deficiency and he clearly states that it appears to make the conductor appear to have a net positive charge. >I'm confused. First you say the effects cancel, and then that the >effect must be very large. The effect would be enormous if we accept the measurements and include the induced currents from orbiting electrons. A typical feromagnetic core in an electromagnet has the effect of increasing the current about a factor of 5000 or so (from including the curl of the induced magnetization in the current). Putting this factor in the current squared dependence gives an increase of (5000)^2 = 25 million. The induced potential with this scale factor would be much too large and is out of the question. So it must be that this effect does not work for electrons orbiting in atoms. > Take a look at the force >between two moving charges, accelerating or not, looking at >it from different reference frames. You will find that >the "relativistic" effects do not, and can not, be >cancelled by radiation effects. These relativistic effects do not give any Hooper effect. When you transform to different reference frames you just get the relativistic electric and magnetic force. There are no additional forces. The relativistic electric field is exactly what was used in the Edwards et al paper to show that conventional theory gives no effect. To respond to Horace Heffner's explanation of the effect - His theory is what is called the self-Hall effect and it would give a significant effect with positive potentials. The claim in the Edwards paper is that the self-Hall effect is too small to explain the results. If we believe the negative potential sign as Robert claims then the authors passed up the opportunity to observe that the self-Hall effect gives the wrong sign. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 07:45:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA19761; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 07:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 07:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 96 10:31:17 From: dacha@shentel.net Subject: More:To Frank:From VolodyaDear Frank, 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: <"S3la-1.0.fq4.KNfIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1113 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Frank, Unfortunately, the Yusmar tests performed in former Soviet Union are too questionalbe. It has been made the only good test in St.Petersburg, however, only steady mode but not the begining of operation has been checked. I think at the begining of the operation of Yusmar O\U could possible. About the results of the St.Pete test. It is interesting that at all the experiments, to provide the heat power equivalent to that one providing by standard heat generator Yusmar need in less the el.power than of the latter (the difference was about 5%). I was objected that the errors must be taken into account. I made the following calculations and had obtained the difference about 3%. The vortexians told the errors must be about 10% so O\U doesn't exceed the errors level. Now why I think only few acts of CF reaction can be while cavitation collapse. While collaption the deiterium atoms which are on the surface of the bubble begin to accelerate when the size of the bubble begins to decrease. I assumed that some of such atoms can get the kinetic energy sufficient to overcome Gamov barrier (to overcome the Coulomb field preventing the reaction). It is possible to estimate how many the De atoms can be involved into this process. 1 million acts for one bubble is too large value. To have 1 million acts for one bubble, one need a reation zone about 0.01 mm, i.e. about the initial size of the bubble. So I think if someone would really detect O\U in Yusmar it would be exsellent result! It would mean we face new kind of the energy source. Warm regard, Volodya From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 08:43:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA01570; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 08:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 08:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Vortex-L Subject: Brown's gas Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 08:33:00 -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: <"IJlHY.0.OO.XAgIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1114 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I just received my first Alfa Aesar catalog last night. In browsing it, I found a micro welder on page 998. Is this device making Brown's gas? If not, what is the difference? Hank Scudder From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 09:08:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA07426; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 08:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 08:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 08:00:14 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"sHHMq.0.vp1.YUgIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1115 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:24 AM 9/26/96, Larry Wharton wrote: [snip] > >To respond to Horace Heffner's explanation of the effect - His theory is >what is called the self-Hall effect and it would give a significant effect >with positive potentials. The claim in the Edwards paper is that the >self-Hall effect is too small to explain the results. If we believe the >negative potential sign as Robert claims then the authors passed up the >opportunity to observe that the self-Hall effect gives the wrong sign. > >Lawrence E. Wharton Apologies for losing my train of thought in the prior post. I named the self-induced Hall effect upon a DC current in a single conductor the contraction effect in order to name the opposite effect induced on wires internal to the bundle the charge expansion effect. This effect is not self induced, but rathe induced by the much larger current in adjacent conductors in the bundle which carry current in the opposite direction. The effect is caharacterized by the charge distribution induced on the central conductor in the last diagram: + . ....... . - . - . . + . +.....- -.+++.- -.....+ . + . . - . - . ....... . + If the self-Hall effect can induce a positive external radial field gradient, then the larger effect, the expansion effect, can induce a negative radial field gradient about all internal conductors. In a large volume there are many more internal conductors than external, thus the expansion effect will prevail since the electrostatic radial field gradient is cumulative. Deep in the bundle the following diagram would be more characteristic of charge distributin in a conductor and 4 closest neighbors which have current in the opposing direction: - + -.+.+.- + - - - _ + + + -.+.+.- -.+.+.- -.+.+.- + + + - - - - + -.+.+.- + - Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 09:22:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA08610; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 09:00:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 09:00:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 11:59:17 -0400 Message-ID: <960926115916_111452289@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: To Frank:From Volodya:FYI Resent-Message-ID: <"vFvur1.0.S62.sYgIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1116 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horac Heffner says: "There must be some other explantion than sonoluminescence to explain 1 KWh from the Yusmar. Low energy transmutation?" My favorite candidate is ZPE conversion due to Casimir collapse of the bubbles, as per Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger's 5 papers on sonoluminescence in the Proc. National Acad. of Sciences a couple of years ago. As Eberlein discloses in her recent Phys. Rev. Letters paper, ZPE conversion would be below the X-ray part of the spectrum, and this would be the signature that it was ZPE conversion vs. transmutation or hi-temp phenomena. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 11:39:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA16168; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 11:30:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 11:30:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 10:35:09 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: To Frank:From Volodya:FYI Resent-Message-ID: <"7gl0Z3.0.Yy3.xkiIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1117 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Horac Heffner says: > >"There must be some other explantion than sonoluminescence to explain 1 KWh >from the Yusmar. Low energy transmutation?" > >My favorite candidate is ZPE conversion due to Casimir collapse of the >bubbles, as per Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger's 5 papers on >sonoluminescence in the Proc. National Acad. of Sciences a couple of years >ago. As Eberlein discloses in her recent Phys. Rev. Letters paper, ZPE >conversion would be below the X-ray part of the spectrum, and this would be >the signature that it was ZPE conversion vs. transmutation or hi-temp >phenomena. > >Hal Puthoff Yes, that seems much more reasonable. Also, I erred by saying "There must be some other explantion than sonoluminescence ..." and should have said "There must be some other explantion than fusion ...", as ZPE is now clearly established as possibly an integral part of the effect of sonoluminescence. It would be interresting to see a simulation similar to the sonoluminescence fusion simulation done by Moss, et al, except based on ZPE extraction, to see if the Yusmar is in the ballpark at 1KW. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 11:54:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA18454; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960926184539.006e1e8c@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: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 11:45:39 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Brown's gas...found on sci.systems (late) Resent-Message-ID: <"_FjPf.0.BW4.vtiIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1118 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:47 AM 9/23/96 PDT, you wrote: >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Re: Brown's gas...found on sci.systems (late) >Gary Hawkins: Thanks for that warning, it does put an interesting face >on things! MDH Oh now there you go encouraging me. So you can only blame yourself for what follows: As a public service, I feel it is important to let all of those so unfortunate as to not be receiving Dennis Lee's newsletter, in on the latest excitement. Dennis Lee is now channelling God. I can see channellers everywhere palm-slap-to-forehead going jeez, why didn't I think of that? Seems God isn't too happy with some people. And I quote: "...I have not heard any prayers from those who are part of the corporate America deception. They do not humble themselves before Me. Therefore not only will I not heal the land of their deceptions, but they will be accursed. Dennis, you cannot even imagine the pain that I will inflict on these people...." "...Corporate America has so many lies and holes to plug and groups to watch that they cannot afford any breaches in their walls. They are walking a very delicate line right now. ...There are many groups that I have raised up with more issues and headaches for them than anyone could know...." We'll take up an offering now. Please send all of your tithings to me so I can pass them along to Dennis Lee . To be just a tad trifle bit more serious. It is all too easy to picture a scenario like this one: Some few individuals of super powerful and wealthy ilk get together. One says, "Fellas, we've got a problem. Heat pump technology is coming along and has the ability to extract the kinetic energy from air molecules, and upset our best financial structures. Why don't we find someone to pretend to be spearheading a movement for it, making sure that everyone along the way gets ripped off, to give them all a bad taste in their mouths about it, and make most of them want to forget it, and stall the others or divert them into the nearest ditch." A fun game if you've got everything and have nothing else to do, especially as dumb and preoccupied as most sheeple are. A game of layer upon layer upon layer of lies. "Let them eat layer cake, until they puke." Wasn't that the quote? Aegh, well, I never was much good at history. I had lunch with Dennis Lee at the Space Needle restaurant (Seattle). Have heard him talk more than I care to think about, and more importantly, seen what he does, quite different than what he says. Far too many of his actions and words fit that scenario. The drama will play itself out over the next few years, but the "net" is drawing back the curtain to a view of backstage, not in the script. Amen. Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 12:17:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA24866; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 11:12:46 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect - a prediction Resent-Message-ID: <"y9ynP3.0.S46.2IjIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1119 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Prediction based on the expansion effect: the radial electrostatic field should be many times larger for a given current if the bi-directional interleaved conductor coil is made of iron wire, provided the wire is not magnetically saturated. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 12:30:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA26084; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:13:44 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609261913.OAA16981@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: fusion in automobile tires Resent-Message-ID: <"rXGI92.0.SN6.BOjIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1120 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I was analyzing the tires on my son's car the other day and I noticed significant concentrations of Zn. In view of the incredible heat and friction created by his driving style, not to mention the constant static discharges that must go on during operation, it seems clear to me that the Zn must be the result of direct fusion of C & H in the tire with Si from the road surface as follows: Si + C + C + H + H = Zn + lots of energy I'm thinking of inflating the tires with D2 gas to see if it will diffuse out to the surface and accelerate the reaction. Any other suggestions? 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 Thu Sep 26 12:41:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA28635; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:27:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609261921.MAA00868@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:21:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: from "Horace Heffner" at Sep 26, 96 08:00:14 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: <"0BG9c.0.H_6.rajIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1122 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > If the self-Hall effect can induce a positive external radial field > gradient, then the larger effect, the expansion effect, can induce a > negative radial field gradient about all internal conductors. In a large > volume there are many more internal conductors than external, thus the > expansion effect will prevail since the electrostatic radial field gradient > is cumulative. At least the polarity seems right. Yet it's still electrostatic. How can it be that Hooper, and Edwards in his Faraday shield trial, found this field to be electrostatically unshieldable? Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 12:43:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA27917; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:23:56 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:23:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199609261917.MAA00855@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:17:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: from "Larry Wharton" at Sep 26, 96 10:24:01 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: <"1fbOA2.0.7q6.BXjIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1121 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Larry Wharton writes: > The sign (of the potential) is unclear in this paper. Figure 3 is an > example of data from a previous experiment, not the one described in > the paper. All data shown in the paper for the described experimental > setup show positive potentials and I saw no statement that the magnitude > was being taken. Figure 3 is data from Edward's earlier paper, and clearly shows a negative potential. What he found in this experiment and in his earlier paper was a negative potential. One might expect that he would comment for sure if he had found the opposite potential in this experiment. Other figures in this paper which show the potential (except Figure 3, which is copied from his earlier paper) are "taken directly from the strip chart recorder" and intended to show an I-squared dependence of the potential plotted along side the current. >I had assumed that the authors were taking the magnitude of (kappa*alpha) >and that it was negative but that was not stated also. So one may >choose his assumption and as a result choose the sign. Alpha is a geometric parameter and is always positive, and always greater than unity. In nearly all cases in this paper (about 3 time) where Edwards makes a comment or presumption about the value of kappa it is usually +1, or in the case of Maxwell it is 0. In the beginning of the part of the paper where Edwards discusses the electric current theories of Weber and Riemann, the hypothesis is that if a motional electric field exists its value would be proportional to: (dq)(v^2/c^2), having a polarity of the same sign as the charge carrier. >In the paper: >Ralph Sansbury, "Detection of a Force Between a Charged Metal Foil >and a Current Carrying Conductor", Rev. Sci. Instrument. Vol 56 No 3 >Page 415. Yes. Sansbury used a single copper conductor, and found a very small, almost undetectable positive potential. Hooper and Edwards used multi-turn conductors at high amperage and found a negative potential. I don't get it. Perhaps in Sansbury's experiment the self-hall effect is predominant. >The effect would be enormous if we accept the measurements and include the >induced currents from orbiting electrons. A typical feromagnetic core in >an electromagnet has the effect of increasing the current about a factor of >5000 or so (from including the curl of the induced magnetization in the >current). Putting this factor in the current squared dependence gives an >increase of (5000)^2 = 25 million. The induced potential with this scale >factor would be much too large and is out of the question. So it must be >that this effect does not work for electrons orbiting in atoms. Yes. Interesting. It seems something different might happen when, as in the case of Edwards and Hooper, a large amount of current is configured to flow in parallel and anti-parallel, and in a way which does not generate a magnetic field. Scalar electromagnetics? Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 13:01:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA02683; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:42:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:42:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609261942.MAA05720@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:47:22 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: fusion in automobile tires Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"QO8Wu1.0.rf.cojIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1123 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Actually the Zn in tires in Texas is due to all the old style steel beer cans that were ground into the roads by previous generations of Texans. Ask me how I know having ground a few into the roads of my cowboy home states of Colorado and Utah. His hot, sticky, tires are just soaking it up. I don't think any more hot D2 will help. Since you are conducting analysis on his car I recommend you don't analyze the back seat of the car as you never know what kinds of transmutation products you might find from heat in that region. Of course it could be that the bubbles in those beers before the cans were ground into the blaktop were transmuting all kinds of things. So you better do isotope ratio studies to see just what might strange stuff might have been going on. Didn't Yahoo Serious make a movie not long ago about Beer Fusion having something to do with sound waves. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 13:03:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA04378; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: 26 Sep 96 15:12:47 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: conventional vs. maverick science Message-ID: <960926191247_100433.1541_BHG39-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"PTCDF2.0.H41.LwjIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1125 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Bill, An interesting post, but don't you think you are seeing it all too black and white? In fact, I think there's a pretty continuous spectrum between the two groups. Also, I think you are suggesting that careful and meticulous work is a characteristic only of the neophobes - I think that both 'sides' vary in competence and care. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 13:07:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA03682; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:47:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:47:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:41:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199609261941.PAA10219@mail.inforamp.net> X-Authentication-Warning: mail.inforamp.net: Host ts26-08.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.139.128] didn't use HELO protocol X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.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: Quinney Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect - a prediction Resent-Message-ID: <"6KFDO3.0.Nv.GtjIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1124 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:12 AM 9/26/96 -0800, you wrote: >Prediction based on the expansion effect: the radial electrostatic field >should be many times larger for a given current if the bi-directional >interleaved conductor coil is made of iron wire, provided the wire is not >magnetically saturated. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > Ok Horace, sounds good, now where can we get wire like that? Can we use steel fishing line? Or something else off-the-shelf..How about copper-clad steel wire? What diameter wire? (resistance is a factor) Does anyone know of a Company that mfg's iron wire ie; coat hanger wire etc. Sounds like a good project. Thanks, > Colin Quinney> From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 14:21:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA21809; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:05:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:05:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609262104.OAA09521@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: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:04:17 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Brown's gas Resent-Message-ID: <"Fynfs3.0.hK5.30lIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1126 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 08:33 AM 9/26/96 -0700, you wrote: > >I just received my first Alfa Aesar catalog last night. In browsing >it, I found a micro welder on page 998. Is this device making >Brown's gas? If not, what is the difference? >Hank Scudder > > could be but can't tell without more specs. micro welders for the jewelry trade have been around since the 1930's. they electrolyse water and also have the ability to spike the gas stream with other gases. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 14:27:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA26141; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <324AF3AA.15FB7483@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:20:42 -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: To Frank:From Volodya:FYI References: <960926115916_111452289@emout12.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"P69K52.0.LO6.3FlIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1129 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Puthoff@aol.com wrote: > > My favorite candidate is ZPE conversion due to Casimir collapse of the > bubbles, as per Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger's 5 papers on > sonoluminescence in the Proc. National Acad. of Sciences a couple of years > ago. As Eberlein discloses in her recent Phys. Rev. Letters paper, ZPE > conversion would be below the X-ray part of the spectrum, and this would be > the signature that it was ZPE conversion vs. transmutation or hi-temp > phenomena. > > Hal Puthoff Since you bring up the Eberlein paper, here's a little tidbit I heard through the grapevine. Two of the three reviewers of that paper rejected it, because they apparently noticed that the collapse speed would exceed the speed of light in her model. (Perhaps you can check this). Thus, the paper was officially rejected. However, Eberlein filed a formal complaint, claiming some form of gender-based discrimination. Thus the paper was published over the objections of the reviewers. Take that for what its worth, its merely a rumor. However, you may want to go through and check and see if lightspeed is exceeded anywhere in the model. -- 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 Sep 26 14:28:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA25551; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:18:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:18:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609262118.OAA10937@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: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:17:44 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: conventional vs. maverick science Resent-Message-ID: <"cr-Ll.0.9F6.ZClIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1127 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:12 PM 9/26/96 EDT, you wrote: >Bill, > >An interesting post, but don't you think you are seeing it all too black and >white? In fact, I think there's a pretty continuous spectrum between the two >groups. Also, I think you are suggesting that careful and meticulous work is a >characteristic only of the neophobes - I think that both 'sides' vary in >competence and care. > >Chris > > Amen. It is good to show the polar extremes for the rhetorical device of marking out the territory of the debate, and you certainly have compiled in one handy doc a very good list of the extremes, BUT I think you have to differentiate the flora and fauna in each camp. Incomplete wild speculation is not an attribute of just the maverick position. Each camp has the astute, the wannabe, the unskilled, and the snakeoil man, all muddying up the creek. PLUS, I think you need to place the debate within a larger historical framework. For instance, the big bang guys, who on the surface appears to be the conservative mainstream, are really pushing a wild-eyed speculative notion way beyond the conservative ground of empirically-based science. Conservatively speaking, the odds of proving it and measuring it are not very good and the last 30 years of increasing sophistication in technology have demonstrated a worsening of the odds. Yet, that is a respectable orthodox hypothesis while "transmutation", which gathers increasing evidence, is applied by many as a derisive term. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 14:39:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA25915; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 96 17:04:42 From: dacha@shentel.net Subject: RE: fusion in automobile tires 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: <"UwTmg.0.kK6.AElIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1128 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >I was analyzing the tires on my son's car the other day ... -----------------End of Original Message----------------- Hmmmm.....see what you can learn on Vortex. I thought going out to diner was a good way to spend the evening. Hmmmm analyzing tires...great idea. So, did you find any of the bacteria that they say eats all the expelled tire rubber? Maybe it's a biological reaction. Robert ------------------------------------- Name: dacha E-mail: dacha@visor.com Date: 9/26/96 Time: 5:04:42 PM No matter where you go, there you are. http://www.visor.com/info ------------------------------------- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 14:44:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA26708; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:23:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:23:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <324AF44E.59E2B600@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:23:26 -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: To Frank:From Volodya:FYI References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"S8rXY.0.CX6.SHlIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1130 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > >> As Eberlein discloses in her recent Phys. Rev. Letters paper, ZPE > Yes, that seems much more reasonable. Also, I erred by saying "There must > be some other explantion than sonoluminescence ..." and should have said > "There must be some other explantion than fusion ...", as ZPE is now > clearly established as possibly an integral part of the effect of > sonoluminescence. As I noted in the other response, based on the Eberlein paper history I would read the paper very carefully and check the details of the model before claiming it supports anything. If it does indeed require velocities greater than light for its conclusions, it is seriously flawed. -- 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 Sep 26 14:54:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA28737; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:32:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:32:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609262132.OAA13209@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: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:31:57 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: fusion in automobile tires Resent-Message-ID: <"V0nNr3.0.x07.mPlIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1131 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:13 PM 9/26/96 -0500, you wrote: >I was analyzing the tires on my son's car the other day and I noticed >significant concentrations of Zn. In view of the incredible heat and >friction created by his driving style, not to mention the constant static >discharges that must go on during operation, it seems clear to me that the >Zn must be the result of direct fusion of C & H in the tire with Si from the >road surface as follows: > > Si + C + C + H + H = Zn + lots of energy > >I'm thinking of inflating the tires with D2 gas to see if it will diffuse >out to the surface and accelerate the reaction. > >Any other suggestions? >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) > > awesomely creative!!! Five Star Speculation Award on this one. I sure hope he doesn't have a blow-out! I would analyzse Texas asphalt or cement in your vicinity for the ZN. Also naturally new tires. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 15:14:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA02902; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <324AFA2C.1CFBAE39@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:48:28 -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: conventional vs. maverick science References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"B4wAb.0.Bj.HglIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1132 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: William Beaty wrote: > > > CONVENTIONAL VERSUS MAVERICK SCIENCE > Who's Right? > > Skeptic versus True Believer > Neophobe versus Neophile (thanks Chris!) > Conservative versus fringe > I don't think the question is who is right. First of all, I doubt the maverick and conventional scientists exist as the straw men you have defined, so there is no ``who''. Beyond that, I think your biggest error is in assuming these maverick and conventional modes are necessarily embodied only in disctinct people. I would say people contain both modes within them, but with predominant tendencies. In my own view, the ideal scientist has two different thinking modes they employ: a creative, brainstorming mode meant to generate new ideas uncritically, and then an analytical, critical mode meant to evaluate given ideas. I also think the ideal structure of research within society is to have a large number of less-expert individuals generating ideas and inventions, and a smaller number of highly expert researchers working with more rigorous focus, so that there is both breadth and depth in what is covered. The larger group will surely ferret out many good topics for development just based on their sheer numbers, even though their individual odds may be lower than that of the experts. The only thing that I think needs some vigilance is to prevent unscrupulous people bilking the public based on bogus technical or scientific claims, as well as the realization that within the group of people having bizarre ideas, their is definitely a subpopulation of people with mental illnesses who should have access to treatment before they do too much damage to themselves and their families. (roughly 1% of the population is schizophrenic, and maybe 10% manic, both of which diseases could lead a person to believe they had made some great discovery). -- 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 Sep 26 15:39:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA11178; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:23:46 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:59:02 -0400 Message-ID: <960926175901_294175972@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: questions-questions-ideas-questions Resent-Message-ID: <"I_UsS2.0.Zk2.n9mIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1133 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I wish I could answer all of the questions everyone has. The problem is I just don't know all of the answers. One thing I do have under my control is a nice cavitator, pump, and energy measurement system. I'm going to give many things a try and hope for the best. I'm working from my theories which are the same, yet differernt, from those of Hal. Hal believes the ZPE comes from the process of Casimir Collapse. I believe it is a process that takes place in an evanscent plasma. You all should look at my home page while you can. I may have to delete it for fear of reprisals. Hugo knows what I am talking about. http://members.aol.com/fznidarsic/index.html .............................................................................. ............................ This week a huge layoff is coming where I work. I may soon be out on the street. What to do next? I better get the Yusmar working. .............................................................................. ............................................ Yury tells this joke. The Russians invent a new type of vodka called Absolute. They begin testing it. A Polish man is given one half of a glass, walks two steps, and falls down. A German drinks 1/2 glass walks three steps, and falls down. An American is also given 1/2 glass, he drinks it, walks five steps, and falls down. Finally they give a Russian a half of a glass. The Russian says, "Fill it up please!" .............................................................................. .................. Anyway it was funny when Yury told it through the help of a translator. I guess you would have had to be there drinking Absolute to appreciate this one. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 15:54:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA14705; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:37:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:37:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 18:36:19 -0400 Message-ID: <960926183619_530637323@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: To Frank:From Volodya:FYI Resent-Message-ID: <"rOFWR1.0.gb3.kMmIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1135 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry Merriman heard a rumor that one of the difficulties with the Eberlein Casimir bubble collapse model for sonoluminescence phenomena was that the vel of light was exceeded in the collapse. Eberlein is a very smart lady, so I doubt it, but I'll take a look. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 15:55:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA12949; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 18:30:20 -0400 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199609262230.SAA15940@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <324AF3AA.15FB7483@math.ucla.edu> (message from Barry Merriman on Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:20:42 -0700) Subject: Re: Eberlein and FTL Resent-Message-ID: <"zvSyz3.0.9A3.EGmIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1134 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry Merriman said: > Since you bring up the Eberlein paper, here's a little tidbit > I heard through the grapevine. Two of the three reviewers of that > paper rejected it, because they apparently noticed that the > collapse speed would exceed the speed of light in her model. > (Perhaps you can check this). Thus, the paper was officially rejected. > However, Eberlein filed a formal complaint, claiming some form > of gender-based discrimination. Thus the paper was published > over the objections of the reviewers. > Take that for what its worth, its merely a rumor. However, you > may want to go through and check and see if lightspeed is exceeded > anywhere in the model. Good idea. But lightspeed is no sort of barrier in the limit. The bubble collapse needs to be studied from a quantum mechanical viewpoint, and if Eberlein's paper doesn't do that, it is more of a suggestion for further work, or adding a comment to the paper, than a criticism that should result in rejection. What is the edge of the bubble? A good argument can be made that the bubble ends where the probability density of shell electrons from atoms in the surrounding liquid becomes significant. But there will be free electrons in the bubble, and they will be pushed ahead of that wall. At some point, the volume of the bubble becomes too small for the free electrons. Anyone want to figure out what happens then? My intuition allows certain possibilities: 1) The free electrons attach to molecules forming ions, or there are no ions or electrons in the bubble. 2) Before the bubble gets too small to permit free electrons inside, the volume of the trapped electrons effectively closes the bubble. 3) When the volume of the bubble becomes small enough, the free (non-valence) electrons are forced to tunnel, gaining energy from the collapse in the process. Note that verifying this can be done, but is pretty tricky. The displaced electrons will collide with atoms and release energetic photons. All you have to do is show that the distribution of collisions is consistant with tunneling in that none of the photons are generated at the wall. My guess is that case one does occur, but rarely, and that the physical parameters of the experiment decide between case two and case three. In either of these cases, the final closure of the bubble can seem superluminal, but case three does seem to do the best job of "explaining" sonoluminescence. 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 Sep 26 16:36:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA20418; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: 26 Sep 96 18:55:16 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: To Frank:From Volodya:FYI Message-ID: <960926225516_100433.1541_BHG21-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"qEVqf.0.x-4.ogmIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1136 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, If indeed Eberlein's paper has a big hole in it, and if she pulled the old 'discrimination' ploy - that is terrible. I detest it when people do that. On the other hand, I believe she is young and perhaps some people are jealous of her publicity. You may recall Douglas Adams' fine "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy", where a young physicist receives the Galactic Award For Extreme Cleverness - and is promptly lynched by his fellow physicists, "who had just realised that the one thing they could not stand was a smartass." I look forward to hearing whether the 'superluminal' claim is correct. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 16:48:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA25569; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 16:22:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 16:22:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: 26 Sep 96 19:18:50 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: questions-questions-ideas-questions Message-ID: <960926231849_100433.1541_BHG80-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ZQOL03.0.JF6.y0nIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1138 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, You have received much unsolicited advice here. Here's a bit more. With no sign of an effect, you cannot improve on it. I was unable to see a real test running in Moldova, yet there was a metre-cube tank of water with a Yusmar driving it. I think your least expensive option now is to take an accurate power-meter (quite reasonable hand-held types are readily available) to Kishinev and see if *any* of these machines work. I repeat, unless you have seen the effect, you cannot hope to improve it. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 16:48:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA22902; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 16:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 16:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:13:18 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: fusion in automobile tires Resent-Message-ID: <"EGKNY1.0.kb5.GsmIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1137 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >I was analyzing the tires on my son's car the other day and I noticed >significant concentrations of Zn. In view of the incredible heat and >friction created by his driving style, not to mention the constant static >discharges that must go on during operation, it seems clear to me that the >Zn must be the result of direct fusion of C & H in the tire with Si from the >road surface as follows: > > Si + C + C + H + H = Zn + lots of energy > >I'm thinking of inflating the tires with D2 gas to see if it will diffuse >out to the surface and accelerate the reaction. > >Any other suggestions? >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Although the fusion explanation above is extremely creative, and I really enjoyed Yahoo Serious, and I like the beer can explanation much more, the zinc is due to the fact that zinc oxide is used in the manufacturing of the rubber and that one of the major uses of zinc oxide. There is also possible additional contamination from white road paint and from white side walls, which both of which may contain large amounts of ZnO. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 17:43:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA14506; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:35:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:35:50 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <324B2106.31DFF4F5@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:34:14 -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: Eberlein paper References: <960926225516_100433.1541_BHG21-2@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"kV1Lr.0.UY3.Z5oIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1142 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: > > Barry, > > If indeed Eberlein's paper has a big hole in it, and if she pulled the > old 'discrimination' ploy - that is terrible. I detest it when people > do that. > > On the other hand, I believe she is young and perhaps some people are > jealous of her publicity. All things are possible. Since I have not read her paper, nor investigated this rumor in detail, I would say the only thing to be taken from it is that her theory should be gone over with a fine tooth comb, not simply accepted since it made it into a journal. Perhaps in the course of the controversy she fixed her paper before the publication of it, for all I know. Folks in this forum seem to hold it up as proof of ZPE effects in cavitating devices, so I felt compelled to mention this rumor which I heard several days ago. I don't want to defame Dr. Eberlein, though, so just go read her paper and decide for yourselves. I trust Hal Puthoff can provide us with a reasonable critical review, looking for speed of light violations. -- 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 Sep 26 17:43:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA10809; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:24:25 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 20:21:17 -0400 Message-ID: <960926202116_111850510@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: least expensive Resent-Message-ID: <"Dfk-i1.0.ne2.qwnIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1140 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: My least expensive option is to work with what I have already built. As soon as I get the pictures back I will post a picture of the Johnstown experiment. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 17:44:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA11496; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:27:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:27:17 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 20:24:00 -0400 Message-ID: <960926202359_111852615@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: volodya Resent-Message-ID: <"JGmcx2.0.Up2.QznIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1141 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I could guess at the correctness of your calculations as long as the day is long. What test can I do to determine (measure) cavitation pressure? What about that darn blue glow? Is that an indication of pressure? Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 17:45:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA10297; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:22:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:22:17 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 20:19:07 -0400 Message-ID: <960926201905_111848795@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: thanks criss Resent-Message-ID: <"71FMT2.0.nW2.qunIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1139 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The group I am working with would like to send me to Moldova. It would be fun. I'm looking for an idea. What kind of probe (test) could I make (devise) to measure the pressure within a cavitation bubble. I can insert something inside of the Yusmar. Any ideas? Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 17:52:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA16624; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: 26 Sep 96 20:41:20 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Lattice disruptions cause explosions? Message-ID: <960927004119_72240.1256_EHB184-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ovDUY.0.e34.HDoIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1143 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I spent the day listening to these ILENR2 tapes. After supper, I sat down with a cup of tea and thought about two things: 1. The pinholes Minevski showed at the metal grain boundaries, particular the vertex of the hexagonal grains. These things grow thicker over time, making the hexagonal grains show up more clearly. 2. These dramatic areas of exploded metal, where people find high concentrations of transmuted metal. Why is a grain boundary like transmuted metal? Answer: they are both not lattice. Imagine that an immensely powerful reaction occurs at the atomic level (even smaller if it is ZPE or what-have-you). I think it is generally agreed that somehow the energy from the reaction spreads out through the lattice without tearing it apart. But suppose the lattice comes to an end, or an edge, at a disruption? When vibrations reach the edge of the grain boundary, particularly the pointy hexagon vertex, what can they do but bounce back? This would pull apart the grains or cause local heating. Maybe the magic energy sharing mechanism never crosses the boundary. Is one grain of metal big enough to safely disperse the heat from an MeV nuclear reaction? I presume the mechanism that allows lattices to spread the energy around works because they are all Ni or Pd or Ti. A lattice is a regular shape because the atoms are the same species, with the same bonds, so you might say they know how to cooperate with their own kind, and pass on the vibration. Suppose, however, that right in the middle of those Ni atoms, some Cu, Fe or Zr appear spontaneously. That would disrupt the lattice. If you get enough of them appearing in one spot, it might fatally disrupt the lattice. So when a nearby atom undergoes this powerful reaction, the energy from it has no place to go and Kaboom! -- the surroundings vaporize. It cools rapidly and freezes again nanoseconds later. This is a localized event. If there were lots of non Ni atoms in there in the first place, the reaction would never start up. You cannot start up a CF reaction in a metal that is 40 to 70% Other Stuff. It appears you need the lattice both to disperse the heat and to somehow hold the hydrogen atoms in the first place, in such a way as to focus a thermal shock and trigger the reaction. (You need some kind of external stimulus like heat to trigger CF.) Once it gets going it will continue for a while, even when conditions degrade to a level where it could never have started. I presume that is because gamma phase (hyperloaded) lattices do not spontaneously deload. That's what Ikegami and others say. I originally assumed that the explosions caused the transmutations, but you find low levels of transmuted elements in the unexploded areas, so I now think that the explosions only occur where there are already lots of transmuted atoms in one spot. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 19:03:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA03077; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 18:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 18:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 11:51:40 +1000 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: control experiments In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960925092324.7e77d260@world.std.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"jfw-83.0.wl.3DpIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1144 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 25 Sep 1996, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > Martin: > > thank you for your model, and the time you put into replying. Few of the > skeptics every do. > Gee when I posted on spf I got called a true believer. I must have the balance right now :-)! > your model assumes two streams of particles, it does not consider volume > does it? > Yes that's right. Fire a particle beam at a charged nucleus it calculates the chance it will penetrate the barrier. > it does not consider several other contributions to the effective > screening factors, etc. does it? Once inside the electron orbitals, there's no screening. The nuclear radius is around 10^-4 the atomic radius. Atomic screening effects are negligable. > As just one example, > where are 1000 molar concnetrations of the cathodially loaded electrons > in your calculation? Totally ignored for the above reason. > > we know from the Born Oppenheimer principle that the e-s follow the > nucei, right? we know the s-orbitals overlap the nuclei, right? There's a big difference between an overlap and screening. The s-wave wavefunctions extend right into the nucleus it's true. This is what allows the electron capture form of beta decay. However the bulk of the electron-wave function is well outside the nucleus. If it wasn't, calculations of alpha-decay rates, which are extremely sensitive to the height of the coulomb barrier would be way out. > so where is the e-concentration dependant term in your program? > Totally ignored for the above reason. > It thus appears to be a simple model > with not much applicability to this situation. > That could well be true. I stated that this is what conventional nuclear Physics says about transmutations. > It must be updated to continue to be relevant. > > That's well beyond my competence. If the sort of data obtained by Miley is the result of transmutations then a few screening electrons are nowhere near enough to explain it. > > > >> 2. is true but consistent with theory. > > > >Not what you would get from standard nuclear physics. > > IMHO you are wrong possibly again because you ignore the > multibody nature of the problem, and other effects -- mainly the material. > I think you should understand that what I'm saying is what conventional nuclear physics has to say about things. If the reaction rate can be accelerated by 187 orders of magnitude then it's a trivial step to say all the energy is taken up in some other mannor. > >> 3. answer pending. > > > >No way! Standard nuclear physics says there should be radioactive nuclei > >produced than stable. They'd stand out believe me! > > > ok. prove it. since Pd + D2O (done correctly) yields He4 > which is not radioactive, it will be nice to see your > proof. thanks in advance. > Hey I'm talking about fission and fusion of Palladium and Nickel, not d + d => 4He. Proving it is simple, I've done it myself in my Ph.D. theses. I fired beams of protons on Nickel and formed radioactive isotopes of Copper. For every stable nucleus in nature there are at least 10 unstable ones. On the nuclear time scales reactions involving fission of heavy nuclei, the distribution of finals states is statistically distributed amongst all the possible final states, since there are so many unstable nuclei, there are actually more unstable nuclei than stable produced by the fission process. Thats one of the reasons you have to be careful with a nuclear power reactor. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 19:04:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA04588; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 19:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 19:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <324B351B.165B@interlaced.net> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:59:55 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: questions-questions-ideas-questions References: <960926175901_294175972@emout19.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"jQ7q-.0.b71.WKpIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1145 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: (snip) > guess you would have had to be there drinking Absolute to appreciate this > one. > > Frank Z Hey Frank, it sounds like you have started to "chill out" a bit after all the concentrated testing! Good to hear it! Do more investing and less cavitating and you can survive a layoff. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 19:07:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA05183; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 19:03:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 19:03:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 12:02:15 +1000 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Lattice disruptions cause explosions? In-Reply-To: <960927004119_72240.1256_EHB184-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"lqWjr3.0.qG1.INpIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1146 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 26 Sep 1996, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Why is a grain boundary like transmuted metal? Answer: they are both not > lattice. Imagine that an immensely powerful reaction occurs at the atomic > level (even smaller if it is ZPE or what-have-you). I think it is generally > agreed that somehow the energy from the reaction spreads out through the > lattice without tearing it apart. But suppose the lattice comes to an end, or > an edge, at a disruption? When vibrations reach the edge of the grain > boundary, particularly the pointy hexagon vertex, what can they do but bounce > back? This would pull apart the grains or cause local heating. Maybe the magic > energy sharing mechanism never crosses the boundary. Is one grain of metal big > enough to safely disperse the heat from an MeV nuclear reaction? > It's just numbers Jed. The typical atomic space is about 10^-9 meters, a typical nuclear "event" has an energy of about 10 MeV, to disperse to the level of thermal vibrations you need to get it down to abou 0.1 eV, that's a factor of 10^-8 so you need about 10^8 atoms to disperse one nuclear event. A one micron grain would contain about ((10^-6)/(10^-9) = 10^3)^3 = 10^9 atoms. Enough to do the trick. Interesting further speculations. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 20:17:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA18746; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 20:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 20:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Eberlein paper To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 22:15:23 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <324B2106.31DFF4F5@math.ucla.edu> from "Barry Merriman" at Sep 26, 96 05:34:14 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"vMHOL2.0.qa4.NRqIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1147 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry wrote: > All things are possible. Since I have not read her paper, nor > investigated this rumor in detail, I would say the only thing > to be taken from it is that her theory should be gone over with > a fine tooth comb, not simply accepted since it made it into a journal. Actually, all our day to day speed/distance/time/acceleration calculations are violations of the *exact* relativity equations, but since the correction is so small at most humanly approachable velocities for non-atomic entities, applying the correction is wasted effort. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 21:08:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA26546; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 20:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 20:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 22:56:20 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609270356.WAA03565@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: questions-questions-ideas-questions Resent-Message-ID: <"8VbhU2.0.dU6.x1rIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1148 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:59 PM 9/26/96 -0400, Frank wrote: >One thing I do have under my control is >a nice cavitator, pump, and energy measurement system. I'm going to give >many things a try and hope for the best. Just a few ideas to try, Frank: It is important in sonoluminescence to use degassed water. Our tap water has lots of dissolved gasses... Even water that has been sitting around for a long time exposed to air has too much air dissolved in it to exhibit sonoluminescence. It is typically degassed by boiling for a few minutes. Also, it is reported that sonoluminescence has as strong negative temperature coefficient...i.e. it gets stronger as the water gets colder. - 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-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 21:19:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA00680; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 23:12:52 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609270412.XAA04833@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: volodya Resent-Message-ID: <"7dSVJ3.0.YA.GHrIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1150 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 08:24 PM 9/26/96 -0400, Frank wrote: >I could guess at the correctness of your calculations as long as the day is >long. What test can I do to determine (measure) cavitation pressure? What >about that darn blue glow? Is that an indication of pressure? Frank are you seeing a blue glow from your Yusmar? That's the typical color of sonoluminescence. - 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-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 21:19:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA00282; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 23:11:18 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609270411.XAA04742@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: thanks criss Resent-Message-ID: <"sevtC1.0.K4.oFrIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1149 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 08:19 PM 9/26/96 -0400, Frank wrote: >The group I am working with would like to send me to Moldova. It would be >fun. I'm looking for an idea. What kind of probe (test) could I make >(devise) to measure the pressure within a cavitation bubble. I can insert >something inside of the Yusmar. Any ideas? Wait a minute, Frank. Wouldn't the main reason for going be to observe real o-u performance of the Yusmar? Isn't there a factory there where Yusmars are in full production? Wouldn't they naturally have a test department where production Yusmars are routinely pulled off the production line and tested to confirm the reported 300% C.O.P? Seems to me that all you have to do it go there and look around. If you find that they do not even have the ability to measure the C.O.P. of a Yusmar system at the Yusmar factory then....well....ummmm...I would just cancel the rest of the trip and come home. - 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-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 21:26:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA02323; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 20:27:27 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: thanks Chris Resent-Message-ID: <"cr7AA.0.Ba.4QrIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1151 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >The group I am working with would like to send me to Moldova. It would be >fun. I'm looking for an idea. What kind of probe (test) could I make >(devise) to measure the pressure within a cavitation bubble. I can insert >something inside of the Yusmar. Any ideas? > >Frank Z Primary suggestion is try whatever you decide to do at home first. You might try recording the sonic waveform using a piezo microphone as a probe at various locations. That might permit calculating the pressure profile inside the bubble for various bubble sizes. Another probe that might be useful is a microscope and light and maybe a fiber cable of some kind, the purpose being to film the bubbles and attempt an estimate of bubble sizes. Unfortunately both kinds of probes would interfere with fluid flow, so these aren't very good ideas. Another idea is to put multiple windows in the side, or even build a transparent version, and put fast light sensors on the sides of the Yusmar to see if sonoluminescence is in fact happening at all and where, how much, what frequency, etc. That might provide the key to tuning it up. I think that's the best option. If any flashes are happening at all it would be possible to build a computerized version that would do 3D bubble location and do a 3D or VR plot. You might be able to build a small plugs with fibers cable down the center that can be mounted by drilling and tapping holes in the side of the Yusmar. This way you could use a single sensor and lots of cheap fibers to start out. The plug in the side should have minimal interference on the fluid flow. Once mounted, possibly the plug and fiber could be ground to match the Yusmar walls. However, I still think the best thing to do is change the approach all together and go for very high pressure fluidic circuits and a reaction chamber, but, there is no accounting for taste. Just some more grist. Hope it doesn't end up at Jed's Mill waiting for the unpunctual Miller, he probably closes for the winter. :) Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 21:40:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA03875; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:29:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:29:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: 27 Sep 96 00:21:56 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: thanks criss Message-ID: <960927042156_100433.1541_BHG38-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"257KN.0.Ny.cWrIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1154 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, > The group I am working with would like to send me to Moldova. It > would be fun. It won't be fun if you travel the last part by train. > What kind of probe (test) could I make (devise) to measure the > pressure within a cavitation bubble. I can insert something > inside of the Yusmar. Any ideas? No ideas. Forget that and do an energy test properly. If and only if it works then worry about the clever stuff. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 21:43:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA03810; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:29:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:29:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: 27 Sep 96 00:21:58 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: least expensive Message-ID: <960927042158_100433.1541_BHG38-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"h__631.0.Px.UWrIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1152 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, > My least expensive option is to work with what I have already > built. As soon as I get the pictures back I will post a picture > of the Johnstown experiment. You are comparing an open-ended job with the cost of a return flight plus maybe hotel. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 22:04:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA03845; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:29:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:29:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: 27 Sep 96 00:22:00 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Eberlein paper Message-ID: <960927042200_100433.1541_BHG38-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"K2Uen1.0.yx.YWrIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1153 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry > ...speed of light violations. I agree that Hal would be able to tell us. I wonder if it is just something like "as the bubble radius approaches zero, the wall speed approaches infinity" - in other words, the model and reality part company when the bubble size goes right down. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Sep 26 23:37:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA05741; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 23:33:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 23:33:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 00:34:10 -0600 (MDT) From: -steve ekwall- X-Sender: ekwall2@november To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: take 'light'ly :) In-Reply-To: <199609270412.XAA04833@natashya.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"s0van2.0.ZP1.8LtIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1155 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > Frank are you seeing a blue glow from your Yusmar? That's the typical color > of sonoluminescence. Our local all-news radio reported on a request for the scientific community to produce a 'day-glow' luminescence DOG FOOD! Results would allow walkers at night to avoid certain ground to step on! ---end report :) i'm still thinking about the luminescent 'chicken!' :) > -=Steve Ekwall=- POBox 1255-80150 ekwall2@diac.com 'SLEEP is NOT the wk.1.800.798.1100 303.293.2FAX Brother of DEATH, BUT the CML#41251 ------------------MOTHER of INTERRUPTS!'-------------------  From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 27 01:11:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA04303; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 01:05:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 01:05:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609270805.BAA04024@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: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 01:05:14 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: questions-questions-ideas-questions Resent-Message-ID: <"XT80N.0.731.ShuIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1156 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:59 PM 9/26/96 -0400, you wrote: >I wish I could answer all of the questions everyone has. The problem is I >just don't know all of the answers. One thing I do have under my control is >a nice cavitator, pump, and energy measurement system. I'm going to give >many things a try and hope for the best. I'm working from my theories which >are the same, yet differernt, from those of Hal. Hal believes the ZPE comes >from the process of Casimir Collapse. I believe it is a process that takes >place in an evanscent plasma. You all should look at my home page while you >can. I may have to delete it for fear of reprisals. Hugo knows what I am >talking about. > >http://members.aol.com/fznidarsic/index.html sorry to have to snitch, but aol was not delivering last nite. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 27 01:19:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA08928; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 01:15:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 01:15:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: 27 Sep 96 04:13:09 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: questions-questions-ideas-questions Message-ID: <960927081309_100433.1541_BHG69-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"x866v3.0.MB2.aquIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1157 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, On cavitation, I had a real thrill on Wednesday. I was up in Newcastle-upon-Tyne (my native territory) and saw the Museum of Science and Technology there - now rehoused since I last saw it. They have rebuilt Parsons' *Turbinia*, and it looks bloody marvellous! Naturally, it is one of those rather chauvinistic places which proves that everything was invented in that area, but a very fine display all the same. Actually, "Geordies" did invent quite a lot of stuff - Stephenson's railway engines, Swan with his incandescent lamp and all the lead-acid battery work, Parsons' steam turbine etc. The point of which is that cavitation was almost unknown before Parsons hit trouble with it. The place is plastered with some lovely quotes on the subject from the man (I've not developed the film yet) and he went for some elegant propellors - small, three to a shaft - to get around the problem. You may recall that Parsons sabotaged the Fleet Review for Victoria's Diamond Jubilee at Spithead by running rings (literally) around all the Navy ships. Another example of how effective is a really good public demo.... Next time you are in this country, put that museum on your list. I feel (hope?) that the amazing things that happened as the last century turned are happening again in some ways. We have to remember that all these people were wild-eyed cranks in their time, not heroes of science and technology. Apotheosis comes later. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 27 01:24:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA10240; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 01:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 01:18:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609270818.BAA04650@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: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 01:17:59 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: conventional vs. maverick science Resent-Message-ID: <"vL2G43.0.qV2.QtuIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1158 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:48 PM 9/26/96 -0700, you wrote: >William Beaty wrote: >> > >> >> CONVENTIONAL VERSUS MAVERICK SCIENCE >> Who's Right? >> >> Skeptic versus True Believer >> Neophobe versus Neophile (thanks Chris!) >> Conservative versus fringe >> > >The only thing that I think needs some vigilance is to prevent >unscrupulous people bilking the public based on bogus technical >or scientific claims, > > >-- >Barry Merriman I used to be adamant about that but have come 180 to the belief that the frauds and charlatans are a necessary learning tool, and they are all in principle liable for outright fraud, so... the main message people have to learn is that they have to learn how and when to support new claims. as Aristotle observed upon Plato (as he himself recognized) there is no CONSCIOUS, DELIBERATE chance of a snowball in hell of getting a true, informed philsopher king to run the regulatory mechanism, ONLY BLIND CHANCE. So no point pinning your hopes on experts protecting the unwashed. There is a good chance they too could be snakeoil men because snakeoil men are instinctively drawn to possess the available channels of power. and besides, I can't see making life extra difficult for shady scientists while the politicians get away telling their woppers. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 27 01:30:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA14192; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 01:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 01:27:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609270827.BAA05191@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: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 01:26:44 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: thanks criss Resent-Message-ID: <"pRCvJ2.0.eT3.b_uIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1159 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:11 PM 9/26/96 -0500, you wrote: >At 08:19 PM 9/26/96 -0400, Frank wrote: > >>The group I am working with would like to send me to Moldova. It would be >>fun. I'm looking for an idea. What kind of probe (test) could I make >>(devise) to measure the pressure within a cavitation bubble. I can insert >>something inside of the Yusmar. Any ideas? > >Wait a minute, Frank. Wouldn't the main reason for going be to observe real >o-u performance of the Yusmar? Isn't there a factory there where Yusmars >are in full production? Wouldn't they naturally have a test department >where production Yusmars are routinely pulled off the production line and >tested to confirm the reported 300% C.O.P? > >Seems to me that all you have to do it go there and look around. If you >find that they do not even have the ability to measure the C.O.P. of a >Yusmar system at the Yusmar factory then....well....ummmm...I would just >cancel the rest of the trip and come home. > > - 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) > > is this deja vu or what? i remember this controversy in the bad old days...was it last fall? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 27 02:51:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA21672; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 02:44:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 02:44:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609270943.CAA08756@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: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 02:43:37 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: vortex users list Resent-Message-ID: <"wtfVs2.0.UI5.g7wIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1160 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:38 PM 9/19/96 -0700, you wrote: > >Here is the file of Vortex-L users and contact info. It's at >http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/vortex/vuser.html > >This is for the convenience of the group, and isn't linked elsewhere. >If you want your name and personal info added to this list, send me your blurb. > sure wish more people would take a little time to sign into the list. thanks for your efforts, Bill ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 27 06:28:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA00395; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 06:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 06:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 09:23:47 -0400 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199609271323.JAA16624@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <960926201905_111848795@emout02.mail.aol.com> (FZNIDARSIC@aol.com) Subject: Re: thanks criss Resent-Message-ID: <"DRy5U2.0.46.kLzIo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1161 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank (FZNIDARSIC@aol.com) asks: > The group I am working with would like to send me to Moldova. It would be > fun. I'm looking for an idea. What kind of probe (test) could I make > (devise) to measure the pressure within a cavitation bubble. I can insert > something inside of the Yusmar. Any ideas? It seems to me that there are two measurements you want to make. The first is of pressure in bulk, the second thing you need is a way to determine when cavitation is occuring and how much. This is probably best done with a gamma source. (Neutrons would discriminate better, but everybody in this group is aware of the problems with detecting neutrons. Of course a kryton would produce a high neutron flux on demand, but I wouldn't want to go through the hassle of getting one to Russia.) 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 Sep 27 07:52:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA19897; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 07:26:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 07:26:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 07:24:57 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: conventional vs. maverick science In-Reply-To: <960926191247_100433.1541_BHG39-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"4akhN2.0.ls4.bG-Io"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1162 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 26 Sep 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Bill, > > An interesting post, but don't you think you are seeing it all too black and > white? In fact, I think there's a pretty continuous spectrum between the two > groups. Also, I think you are suggesting that careful and meticulous work is a > characteristic only of the neophobes - I think that both 'sides' vary in > competence and care. Hmmm, let me wait a few days so I can "see" it properly. I think I was aiming it at the majority who believe that mavericks and fringe researchers are not scientists, and so I push the point that there are two distinct groups having different methods and views. I'll clear up my suggestions about meticulous work. I was trying to point out that the mavericks don't do well in adding small advances to someone elses work, or making small discoveries in Michelson's "sixth place of decimals." .....................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 Fri Sep 27 14:05:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA09285; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 13:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 13:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 12:34:36 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: The Hooper Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"fLycl3.0.mG2.Dd3Jo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1166 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> >> If the self-Hall effect can induce a positive external radial field >> gradient, then the larger effect, the expansion effect, can induce a >> negative radial field gradient about all internal conductors. In a large >> volume there are many more internal conductors than external, thus the >> expansion effect will prevail since the electrostatic radial field gradient >> is cumulative. > >At least the polarity seems right. Yet it's still electrostatic. >How can it be that Hooper, and Edwards in his Faraday shield trial, >found this field to be electrostatically unshieldable? > >Regards, >Robert Stirniman Does the article make any mention of how they grounded the shield or its construction? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 27 18:51:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA02800; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 18:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 18:26:46 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 20:55:14 -0400 Message-ID: <960927205514_112768761@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: VORTEX-L@eskimo.com Subject: SURFACE TENSION Resent-Message-ID: <"wkQgT3.0.ch.Kx7Jo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1170 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mr. Frank Stenger..Why don't you tell us about your surface tensions studies of rocket fuel at zero G? Tell us if the work is not classified. It may give Mr. Doty a clue as to the best way to complete the task I asked him to do. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 27 20:23:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA02156; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 20:18:21 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 20:18:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: 27 Sep 96 17:46:19 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: questions-questions-ideas-questions Message-ID: <960927214618_100060.173_JHB7-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"1q9fN3.0.bX.xZ9Jo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1171 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> I repeat, unless you have seen the effect, you cannot hope to improve it. Chris << Why not even find a satisfied customer - there are supposed to be thousands in Moldova - and for a few $$ they might let you measure their installation. If the manufacturer refuses to let you have a working model, go the their vic - customers! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 27 21:32:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA15873; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 21:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 21:28:39 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 00:27:57 -0400 Message-ID: <960928002752_295375669@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: give me a chance Resent-Message-ID: <"ghRlK1.0.st3.rbAJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1172 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Criss give me a chance. The tests of the improved Yusmar configuration are to begin next monday evening. Sorry my web site was down while I was updating. Until then enjoy the sight and sound of Frank Stenger's ball lightning machine. http://members.aol.com/fznidarsic/index.html Frank Z If you have a PC with sound you will love this. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 27 21:40:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA20607; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 14:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 14:33:00 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.COM Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 17:29:15 -0400 Message-ID: <960927172915_318938832@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: volodya Resent-Message-ID: <"NN4YM3.0.t15.BW4Jo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1167 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott I didn't see the blue glow myself. Yury told me about it. We are going to install a site glass and look for it. Frank From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Sep 27 22:09:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA25608; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 22:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 22:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <324CB203.348D@interlaced.net> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 01:05:07 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SURFACE TENSION References: <960927205514_112768761@emout07.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0z_qA.0.2G6.C8BJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1173 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > > Mr. Frank Stenger..Why don't you tell us about your surface tensions studies > of rocket fuel at zero G? Tell us if the work is not classified. It may > give Mr. Doty a clue as to the best way to complete the task I asked him to > do. Gee, Frank, I didn't mean to keep it a secret! One of the projects I worked on at NASA was a study of the behavior of liquid H2 in zero-g. When a hydrogen fuel tank is part full in zero-g, it's important to know where the vapor bubble is in the tank when you wish to restart the rocket engines. If the pump inlet is full of vapor - vapor lock! A small impulse from an attitude control rocket can be used to settle the liquid to the desired location. Surface tension RULES in zero-g as far as the liquid-vapor interface goes. I'm far from an expert on the physics of surface tension, but I think I mentioned an interesting "toy" I once made at NASA while working on my heat-pipe related project. The device was just a 3 ft long piece of glass lab tubing (about 5 mm id) filled with distilled water, very well degassed - the ends of the tube were fused shut for a permanent seal. Now, the tube was mostly vapor, but I put in enough water to form a liquid "slug" about 5 or 6 inches long. With the tube horizontal, you could drive the slug back and fourth in the tube by using the heat of your hand to heat the vapor in one end or the other. But, to me, the most neat thing about the tube was that, with the slug of liquid at one end of the tube, if you tipped the tube vertical, with the slug starting at the top, the slug would crash to the bottom end as the lower vapor bubble rapidly collapsed. When the slug hit the bottom, it would make a metallic "clink" as though the slug were a chunk of metal rod! I'll bet that if I had knew enough to look at the collapsing vapor bubble IN THE DARK, I might just have seen a flash of sonoluminescence along with the metallic clink! If you or other vortexers wish, I can post the detailed process I used to get really good clinking water tubes. No-clinking-tubes-on-hand, ----- Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 01:29:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA17872; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 11:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 11:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: "hheffner@anc.ak.net" , Vortex-L Subject: Re: thanks Chris Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 11:01:00 -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: <"Z8orl3.0.2N4.Nh1Jo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1163 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Picking up on Horace's idea, you could use an NDE borescope, or (seriously), borrow a proctoscope from a proctologist, and put it against the windows of the Yusmar. Hank Scudder ---------- From: hheffner@anc.ak.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: thanks Chris Date: Thursday, September 26, 1996 9:27PM Another idea is to put multiple windows in the side, or even build a transparent version, and put fast light sensors on the sides of the Yusmar to see if sonoluminescence is in fact happening at all and where, how much, what frequency, etc. That might provide the key to tuning it up. I think that's the best option. If any flashes are happening at all it would be possible to build a computerized version that would do 3D bubble location and do a 3D or VR plot. You might be able to build a small plugs with fibers cable down the center that can be mounted by drilling and tapping holes in the side of the Yusmar. This way you could use a single sensor and lots of cheap fibers to start out. The plug in the side should have minimal interference on the fluid flow. Once mounted, possibly the plug and fiber could be ground to match the Yusmar walls. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 01:51:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA18902; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 16:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 16:59:09 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 19:57:40 -0400 Message-ID: <960927195739_295166448@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: thanks Resent-Message-ID: <"o9Q5A.0.5d4.3f6Jo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1168 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: David Doty Custodin I do need help. Can you supervise the following? Dear Students . It was nice of you to volunteer to help. I could, in fact, use some of your help. As you may be aware I am working with the distinguished Russian scientist Yury Potapov. We are attempting to prove to the world that his Yusmar cavitation system does produce energy by a process of cold fusion. Did you see the move, "Chain Reaction"? They mention sono-luminescence. Sono-luminescence is produced by the process of cavitation. Distinguished NASA scientist Frank Stenger has worked at NASA Lewis on studies of surface tension. Stenger notes that surface tension may effect the strength of the cavitation. Surface tension may be measured by placing a thin glass tube into a glass of water and noting how far the water rises in the tube. Jim Griggs has a cold fusion cavatitaion machine in Rome George. It works best with dirty water. Is the dirt effecting the surface tension of the water making it work better? Do the following experiments. Read up on surface tension. Ask you teacher about it. Get a very small long glass tube. Insert it in a glass of: water water and vinegar water and baking soda water and soap water and rubbing alcohol water and antifreeze (Ask Doty for help with this one) water and sugar water and ammonia (windex) water and wiskey..If you dad says OK. water and dirt water and windshiield washer fluid Don't mix any of the things you are testing together. Be sure to clean the tube and the glass after each test. Try different amount of various substances in solution. Ask you science teacher or parents or Mr Doty for help first. Send me a report. If you do a good enough job Jed Rothwell may even publish it for you. Frank Znidarsic  From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 02:16:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA02602; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 18:26:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 18:26:10 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 21:10:16 -0400 Message-ID: <960927211015_112779649@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: David Doty please help! Resent-Message-ID: <"ROR0f1.0.Ye.gw7Jo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1169 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To David Doty Costodian Yes you help is needed. Be sure to supervise the kids to make sure no one does anything stupid. Dear Students of Ackerman Junior High. It was nice of you to volunteer to help. I could, in fact, use some of your help. As you may be aware I am working with the distinguished Russian scientist Yury Potapov. We are attempting to prove to the world that his Yusmar cavitation system does produce energy by a process of cold fusion. Did you see the move, "Chain Reaction"? They mention sono-luminescence. Sono-luminescence is produced by the process of cavitation. Noted NASA scientist Frank Stenger has worked at NASA Lewis on studies of surface tension. Stenger notes that surface tension may effect the strength of the cavitation. Surface tension may be measured by placing a thin glass tube into a glass of water and measuring how far the water rises in the tube. Jim Griggs has a cold fusion cavatitaion machine in Rome George. It works best with dirty water. No one knows why. Is the dirt effecting the surface tension of the water making it work better? Do the following experiments. Read up on surface tension. Ask you teacher about it. Get a very small long glass tube and a scale. Insert it in a glass of: water water and vinegar water and baking soda water and soap water and rubbing alcohol ..a type of alcohol water and antifreeze (Doty you supervise this one) water and sugar water and ammonia (windex)..don't mix anything with it. water and wiskey..If you dad says OK....another type of alcohol water and windshild washer fluid .... another type of alcohol Measure how high the water rises in the tube with the various substances in it. Don't mix any of the things you are testing together. Be sure to clean the tube and the glass after each test. Try different amount of various substances in solution. Ask you science teacher or parents for help first. Send me a report. If you do a good enough job Jed Rothwell may even publish it. Frank Znidarsic  From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 02:28:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA18856; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 11:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 11:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609271527.IAA29359@helix.ucsd.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Bart Simon" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 08:24:42 +0000 Subject: Re: conventional vs. maverick science Reply-to: bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"nvKqa1.0.Vc4.Wl1Jo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1164 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greetings, It might be worth adding a more sociological slant to this distinction between conventional and maverick scientists. Rather than view them as psychological or personality types, perhaps they might be seen as more like social roles. Thus, under certain conditions any scientists could be more marverick or more conventional - and, as Barry, pointed out I think, these things would also be relative. Since Bill mention Thomas Kuhn in his post - I thought I make the observation that Kuhn always thought that scientific revolutions would be brought on by the young whipper-snapper scientists who ran into trouble with the older paradigms. The key roles of Fleischmann and Bockris in research on CF and transmutation suggests that either Kuhn missed the boat or else we do not have a Kuhnian paradigm shift on our hands. One observation that can be made is that non-professional scientists - amateur scientists, retired and semi-retired scientists may be under less institutional strain and therefore more likely to be maverick, take risks and challenge conventional practice. A final point for Bill to consider in his list - to the extent that conventional science can be indentified by a shared set of problems and solutions (a shared set of practices) ala Kuhnian normal science it might be said that science is conventional science and maverick science may just be proto-science. You'd have to decide whether you like Kuhn's argument or not. I personally disagree with Kuhn, but my question would be do Maverick scientists share any conventions at all, or do they all act as individuals in relation to some conventional (read: mainstream) system which they do not share? Would an answer to this question help shed some light on Jed's diagnoses of "inventer's disease"? People might be interested in having a look at a book by a famous sociologist, Howard Becker (Becker is much more eloquent than I). Becker's book "Art Worlds" (1982, UC Press) also discusses the "conventional' and the "maverick", but in the context of art which is not at all unrelated to the issues that interest people here. sorry for the longish post. cheers, Bart Simon (bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu) ============================================ Bart Simon Dept. of Sociology/Science Studies-0533 University of California at San Diego (UCSD) 9500 Gilman Dr. La Jolla, CA, 92093-0533 phone: 619-534-0491/fax: 619-534-3388 =========================================== From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 02:42:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA21892; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 11:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 11:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: 27 Sep 96 14:32:47 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Wish list Message-ID: <960927183247_72240.1256_EHB34-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"lA_kL3.0.zL5.Pw1Jo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1165 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little has been talking about a wish list of gadgets used to find transmutations. I don't like to sound like a wet blanket, but I think it would be a mistake for Scott to spend money looking for transmutations at this stage. As far as I know, he has not even seen any excess heat. He has not mastered the art of cold fusion, so he will not see any transmutations. It is much easier to detect heat than transmutations, and it costs far less money. Some cells apparently produce no measurable heat yet transmutation occurs. There is evidence for that. But it only happens when stringent conditions are met, and the people who have seen it have also seen copious, unmistakable excess heat at different times. To get anything, you must first learn to make a hyper-loaded hydride. By all accounts, that takes hard work and practice, and a few dozen cathodes. Everyone who has done it, from Pons & Fleischmann to Patterson, Storms and Miley, has told me it is difficult. Storms spells out the reasons in his paper. I do not see how anyone could read that, assume he could master the art, and then go flying off to buy a SIMS machine. As Bockris put it: We can't guarantee to do an experiment at a given time, in a given situation. That's very, very bad. People like Ed Storms have written papers recently -- erudite papers, much of which I agree -- indicating in very great detail what is necessary to reproduce the experiments. And if you take Ed's contributions alone, my goodness! -- so to speak -- no wonder you don't often get one to work! I think people should learn to walk before you try to run. Of course I cannot state this from personal experience, because I myself have not mastered the art. I am just reporting what others say. Over the years, people have said to me that these reported difficulties must be bogus. People say this is an excuse to hide the fact that the experiments never work. Or, they say it is an artificial barrier set up by the CF scientists to scare off competition. Some say it is nowhere near as difficult as Storms or Patterson claim. Russ George once assured me that he could easily reproduce the CETI experiment if he choose to; there is a simple secret trick that he knows that would make it work every time. I do not buy any of this. I am sure the difficulties are real. And why shouldn't they be? I can list thousands of other jobs that are terribly difficult, requiring years of training, skill and patience. A cold fusion device is a simple object with just a few components. So is a Stradivarius violin, but that does not mean it is easy to fabricate or operate! So is a light bulb, yet it took several geniuses twenty years to master the light bulb. There are no simple secret tricks. There are many big and little techniques at each stage of fabrication and experimentation. Many, like the use of a scavenger cathode, are conceptually simple but devilishly difficult to perform. You will not get transmutations or excess heat unless you learn this stuff, practice, and get lucky. That, unfortunately, is the state of the art. It is every bit as difficult as it was to make an incandescent light in the year 1875, before Edison bulldozed the problems out of the way. As businessmen say, the secret to success is that there is no secret to success. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 06:53:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA04726; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 06:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 06:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 05:55:28 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: SURFACE TENSION Resent-Message-ID: <"ti4OP2.0.i91.NqIJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1174 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >If you or other vortexers wish, I can post the detailed process I used >to get really good clinking water tubes. > >No-clinking-tubes-on-hand, ----- Frank Stenger Post away! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 06:53:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA04764; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 06:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 06:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 05:55:34 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: thanks Chris Resent-Message-ID: <"SwK9f2.0.MA1.TqIJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1175 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Picking up on Horace's idea, you could use an NDE borescope, or >(seriously), borrow a proctoscope from a proctologist, and put it >against the windows of the Yusmar. >Hank Scudder > ---------- >From: hheffner@anc.ak.net >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: Re: thanks Chris >Date: Thursday, September 26, 1996 9:27PM > >Another idea is to put multiple windows in the side, or even build a >transparent version, and put fast light sensors on the sides of the >Yusmar >to see if sonoluminescence is in fact happening at all and where, how >much, >what frequency, etc. That might provide the key to tuning it up. I >think >that's the best option. If any flashes are happening at all it would be >possible to build a computerized version that would do 3D bubble >location >and do a 3D or VR plot. You might be able to build a small plugs with >fibers cable down the center that can be mounted by drilling and tapping >holes in the side of the Yusmar. This way you could use a single sensor >and lots of cheap fibers to start out. The plug in the side should have >minimal interference on the fluid flow. Once mounted, possibly the plug >and fiber could be ground to match the Yusmar walls. After re-reading the above it's clear I have done my usually incomplete job of communicating. The idea is to put plugs with single fibers all over the Yusmar (really cheap, drill hole through machine screw, insert fiber with epoxy, grind end) but plug the free end of the fibers into a photomultiplyer or other very fast sensor one at a time to look for and measure flashes initially. Windows are good for imaging also - but you might not see the flashes of small bubbles, which may be all there is in the Yusmar, and you will have no quantitative results with which to tune. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 06:54:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA04800; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 06:50:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 06:50:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 05:55:40 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"czsrJ3.0.uA1.ZqIJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1176 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >As businessmen say, the secret to success is that there is no secret to >success. > >- Jed I think Earthtech is on the right track business-wise. They are establishing themselves as *the* o-u/transmutation lab. If by any wild chance I should happen upon an o-u phenomenon the first thing I would do is send Scott Little an email, and if he wished, the gadget. I think many others would respond similarly. Earthtech is going to get the first shot at results from many places, including their own lab. With the amount of activity today that's a pretty good bet. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 07:40:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA14163; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 07:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 07:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 09:37:46 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609281437.JAA16774@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: Wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"SDXbQ1.0.CT3.9XJJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1177 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:32 PM 9/27/96 EDT, Jed wrote: >He has not >mastered the art of cold fusion, so he will not see any transmutations. It is >much easier to detect heat than transmutations, and it costs far less money. You're right Jed. I hereby withdraw the whole list and replace it with one small item: 1. A experiment that sometimes show genuine excess heat in my calorimeter. > >Some cells apparently produce no measurable heat yet transmutation occurs. >There is evidence for that. But it only happens when stringent conditions are >met, and the people who have seen it have also seen copious, unmistakable >excess heat at different times. To get anything, you must first learn to make >a hyper-loaded hydride. By all accounts, that takes hard work and practice, >and a few dozen cathodes. Everyone who has done it, from Pons & Fleischmann to >Patterson, Storms and Miley, has told me it is difficult. Storms spells out >the reasons in his paper. I do not see how anyone could read that, assume he >could master the art, and then go flying off to buy a SIMS machine. As Bockris >put it: > > We can't guarantee to do an experiment at a given time, in a given > situation. That's very, very bad. People like Ed Storms have written > papers recently -- erudite papers, much of which I agree -- indicating > in very great detail what is necessary to reproduce the experiments. And > if you take Ed's contributions alone, my goodness! -- so to speak -- no > wonder you don't often get one to work! > >I think people should learn to walk before you try to run. > >Of course I cannot state this from personal experience, because I myself have >not mastered the art. I am just reporting what others say. > >Over the years, people have said to me that these reported difficulties must >be bogus. People say this is an excuse to hide the fact that the experiments >never work. Or, they say it is an artificial barrier set up by the CF >scientists to scare off competition. Some say it is nowhere near as difficult >as Storms or Patterson claim. Russ George once assured me that he could easily >reproduce the CETI experiment if he choose to; there is a simple secret trick >that he knows that would make it work every time. I do not buy any of this. I >am sure the difficulties are real. And why shouldn't they be? I can list >thousands of other jobs that are terribly difficult, requiring years of >training, skill and patience. A cold fusion device is a simple object with >just a few components. So is a Stradivarius violin, but that does not mean it >is easy to fabricate or operate! So is a light bulb, yet it took several >geniuses twenty years to master the light bulb. There are no simple secret >tricks. There are many big and little techniques at each stage of fabrication >and experimentation. Many, like the use of a scavenger cathode, are >conceptually simple but devilishly difficult to perform. You will not get >transmutations or excess heat unless you learn this stuff, practice, and get >lucky. That, unfortunately, is the state of the art. It is every bit as >difficult as it was to make an incandescent light in the year 1875, before >Edison bulldozed the problems out of the way. > >As businessmen say, the secret to success is that there is no secret to >success. > >- Jed > > - 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-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 08:01:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA16874; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 07:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 07:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 09:56:55 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609281456.JAA18185@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: Wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"N00xP1.0.a74.3pJJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1179 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: damn, I inadvertently left the rest of Jed's msg at the bottom of my last...sorry! From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 08:03:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA16409; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 07:55:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 07:55:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 09:54:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609281454.JAA17975@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: Wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"TBbkG2.0.F04.5nJJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1178 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:55 AM 9/28/96 -0800, Horace wrote: >I think Earthtech is on the right track business-wise. They are >establishing themselves as *the* o-u/transmutation lab. If by any wild >chance I should happen upon an o-u phenomenon the first thing I would do is >send Scott Little an email, and if he wished, the gadget. I think many >others would respond similarly. Earthtech is going to get the first shot at >results from many places, including their own lab. With the amount of >activity today that's a pretty good bet. Thanks for the vote of confidence, Horace. I have been trying for some time now to get an o-u experiment into my calorimeter. My own experiments have been failures, and everything that others have sent/brought me has also failed to show o-u when I have measured it. Another thing I'd like to add to my xmas wish list: 2. An opportunity to test a working CETI cell in my dual-method calorimeter. - 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-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 08:11:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA20507; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 08:07:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 08:07:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 07:12:18 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"mcvr8.0.L05.dyJJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1180 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 02:32 PM 9/27/96 EDT, Jed wrote: > >>He has not >>mastered the art of cold fusion, so he will not see any transmutations. It is >>much easier to detect heat than transmutations, and it costs far less money. > >You're right Jed. I hereby withdraw the whole list and replace it with one >small item: > >1. A experiment that sometimes show genuine excess heat in my calorimeter. > > > [snip] >>- Jed >> >> > > - Scott Little This is nonsense. Transmutation seems to be the one thing that ubiquitous, is easy to do reliably. Excess heat is the difficult thing do to repeatably. If the two are realated at all then then thing to do is study transmutations. As Michael Mandeville points out, transmutation *is* the common denominator that seems to be found in most CF experiments when people look for it, it's just the products that are a surprize. Besides, isn't fusion just transmutation? One reason for lack of success in CF is a lack of engineering principles. There is no handle on the problem, no method of incremental improvement. If there is a readily repeatable associated phenomenon, then it can be used for incremental approach to the solution. Getting a good handle on transmutation may be necessary to understanding cold fusion, and has value in its own right, scientifically and commercially. The big question is whether transmutaions are really as easy to pull off as they appear from the reports from various quarters. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 09:12:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA12254; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 09:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 09:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <324D4D76.3CB@interlaced.net> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 12:08:22 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Clinking Water tube details References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"JkNjt3.0.N_2.yrKJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1181 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: By popular demand, THE CLINKING WATER TUBE DETAILS: The object of this project is to produce a glass tube, about 5 mm id, and about 3 feet (1 meter) long, partially filled with a charge of high purity and WELL DEGASSED water. If the tube charge consists of mostly water vapor and a "slug" of liguid water about 10 or 20 cm long, the tube exhibits very interesting behavior. Body heat will drive the slug of liquid away from the heat as the vapor pressure increases. The slug will slam against one end to the tube and emit a metallic "clink" as the vapor bubble collapses. Much fun may be had! MATERIALS: - A gallon or so of the best distilled water you can get. - A pyrex flask, about 500 to 1000 ml, and: - If you can get a sidearm type flask, you need a good rubber stopper with one hole to fit the long glass tube snugly - but you will want to be able to move it with reasonable force. - If you have only a plane flask, you will need two holes in the rubber stoper - this hole will contain a short length of glass vent tubing with some way to close it off against 212 deg F steam at very low pressure. - A length of glass lab tubing, 4 or 5 mm in inside diameter (I forget the standard length of this tubing, but you want at least 3 ft or so.) - A burner to boil the water in the flask. - A pencil-flame burner or propane torch to heat and to fuse the glass tube. - A pair of heavy leather gloves (or other) to let you handle the long glass tube at 212 deg F. Make an elbow in one end of the glass tube, about 5 or 6 inches from the end, at an angle so that when you stick the short leg of the bend thru the stopper, the long leg droops down about 5 or 10 degrees. This is so that the liquid slug to be formed will stay in the tube end away from the flask. Your vent for the boiler will be either the sidearm nozzle of the flask, or a short length of glass tube inserted thru the second stopper hole - just far enough to clear thru the stopper. This way, during the vent portion of the fill, any organic vapors from the stopper will tend to be vented right out the vent hole. The short leg of the long tube should stick several inches (4 or 5) down into the flask so vapor entering it will be as free from stopper gas as possible. Now, fill the flask with distilled water, leaving enough room for vigorous boiling of the water AND to just clear the leg of the long tube sticking down from the stopper. Cap the vent tube or nozzle with something like a partially drilled stopper. The long tube needs some support so the flask won't tip, and so you can do some heating operations on the tube during the fill. Bring the water to a boil and let the steam vent thru the long glass tube. You are going to let about 1/2 or 2/3 of the water boil away to get rid of noncondensible gas disolved in it. During this long time, play the flame of the "portable" burner along the long tube to drive out junk adsorbed on the inside surface of the glass. This step is similar to "baking out" a high vacuum system. As it vents, get the tube really hot - but don't make it so soft it droops! When the water level gets low (an inch or two), we can assume it is pretty well degased, so now the tricky part starts. Keep the boiling going and open the second vent hole so vapor is now flowing out both holes. After a minute or so (to purge stopper stuff from the top of the flask) take the portable burner and fuse the far end of the long tube shut. The vapor will still try to vent from the tube, but the second vent will keep the pressure low. If the hot, plastic glass doesn't want to close off, nudge it with the end of the burner to help do the job. Once the tube closes off, fire polish it to a nice roundish bead to form a permanent seal. As soon as we close off and smooth the far end of the tube, let the tube air cool until the vapor starts to condense in the tube (vapor continues to vent from the second tube!) With the right slope, the liquid will collect in a slug at the far end of the long tube (now closed off). Let the slug grow to 5 or 6 inches and have the portable burner handy and a glove on your best working hand. Heat the long tube to plastic temperature at a concentrated spot as close to the flask as you can work. We now want the tube to close off at this spot - WITHOUT LETTING A HOLE TO THE AIR OPEN UP! This may take a little practice - it's the only really tricky part of the process. If you get a sucessful seal, you should now (after it cools to room temperature) have a very pure, very degassed sample of a pure substance sealed for all time (Sure! - until your dumb friend breaks it!) in a vacuum-tight vial. Watch the slug move to slight changes in temperature - hear the slug clink to a stop at one end of the tube - watch the "clink" in the dark and tell us all if you see any sign of sonoluminescence! Listening-for-the-faint-clinking-sound, -----Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 11:11:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA16016; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 11:03:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 11:03:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 14:01:28 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: "Francis J. Stenger" cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Clinking Water tube details In-Reply-To: <324D4D76.3CB@interlaced.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"2aIYY2.0.yv3.sXMJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1182 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Frank, This is grand and I will build one right away. This type of thing is just what is needed for classes and so on. Just one thought. It is possible diffferent realizations of this will give different results. It occurs to me there may be a partial vacuum in the final product, and unless it is either a] there, meaning a partial vacuum is there or b] at some certain degree of partial pressure or vacuum then the effect may not be the same or may not obtain at all. Can you please give us some pointers? Thoughts? My thought: If, when all is ready, and you are aout to make final seal, you BRIEFLY, heat 'water slug' to boiling, then you will have maximum temperature [212 F] and then when you seal you will at least have more reproducible partial vacuum. JHS From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 12:19:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA10863; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 12:15:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 12:15:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: 28 Sep 96 13:59:06 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Wish list Message-ID: <960928175906_72240.1256_EHB187-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"5F2no1.0.ef2.HbNJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1183 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Horace Heffner writes: "This is nonsense. Transmutation seems to be the one thing that ubiquitous, is easy to do reliably." Says who? None of the scientists who have succeeded in producing CF transmutations would agree. Some of them worked for years before they got any sign of an anomaly. "Excess heat is the difficult thing do to repeatably." It is no harder than transmutations. The same conditions are required for both. In fact, the effects usually occur together. "As Michael Mandeville points out, transmutation *is* the common denominator that seems to be found in most CF experiments when people look for it, it's just the products that are a surprize." This has not been established yet. Very few people have looked. I expect that transmutations will be found universally in cells that successfully undergo CF, but few cells achieve that state of grace. "One reason for lack of success in CF is a lack of engineering principles. There is no handle on the problem, no method of incremental improvement." That is incorrect. The papers and patents by Cravens, Storms, Patterson, McKubre, Miles, Pons & Fleischmann and others clearly explain various methods of improving yields and boosting the strength of the reaction. The problem has been that most people in the field ignore these papers. They do not do their homework, so their experiments never work. Judging by what Ed Storms has told me about his efforts to help others understand his papers, I think many of these other scientists are not competent to do a CF experiment. "If there is a readily repeatable associated phenomenon . . ." This has not been established. Miley has succeeded 20 times out of 20, but he is an extraordinarily gifted scientist and he has the resources of both the Nuclear Physics and the Material Sciences Departments to draw on. I do not know if others can readily repeat the work. For that matter, Pons and Fleischmann made their bulk Pd experiments work nearly 100% of the time four years ago. Nobody else has come close to them, and Toyota has decided to keep their methods secret, so in a sense the experiment remains readily repeatable *for them only*, just as the Pentium processor is repeatable by Intel only. "The big question is whether transmutations are really as easy to pull off as they appear from the reports from various quarters." To my knowledge, no CF scientist has ever stated that the effects are "easy to pull off." Storms says about half of his pre-selected, prepared cathodes work, but his methods are anything but easy. John Dash says that most of his cells produce heat and transmutations, and every summer he teaches two high school kids how to do the experiments, but he has been working on it since 1989, and after all, high school kids often learn faster and better than grown-up scientists. They have less to un-learn, and they know how to shut up and follow directions. They can master things like computers and run rings around their elders. The main reason cold fusion experiments have not been widely replicated is because most scientists never learned to shut up and follow directions. I don't know how many times I have heard comments like "it is an exact replication except I used acid instead of water" or "I used glass beads instead of plastic." It *isn't* the same, it isn't even close! For all we know that is like making pancakes out of sawdust instead of flour. Elsewhere Heffner writes: "I think Earthtech is on the right track business-wise. They are establishing themselves as *the* o-u/transmutation lab." With all due respect for EarthTech, they have no standing in the o/u or transmutation fields yet. They have not succeeded in any experiment yet, whereas several hundred other labs in the world have. There is no one place I would nominate as *the* preeminent lab, but I guess the top six in the U.S. would be . . . U. Illinois, Los Alamos (Claytor et al.), SRI, the basement of Ed Storms' house, Patterson, and Jet Technologies (if their gadget can be successfully tested by an independent party, as I expect will be the case.) These labs have published results and established track records. Others, like E-Quest and the Cincinnati group claim they are seeing energy and transmutations, but they have not published anything so we cannot judge their claims. EarthTech has no claims and no publications. They are not in the running. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 14:31:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA15433; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 14:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 14:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 14:21:30 -0700 Message-Id: <199609282121.OAA14164@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: Clinking Water tube details Resent-Message-ID: <"lo2Im.0._m3.WSPJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1184 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > My thought: If, when all is ready, and you are aout to make >final seal, you BRIEFLY, heat 'water slug' to boiling, then you will have >maximum temperature [212 F] and then when you seal you will at least have >more reproducible partial vacuum. The process outlined pretty much excludes any gas in the tube except H2O. The slug of water is at your whim to select, and the diameter of the tube should be very important, don't get one too large or the water won't climb right. But the only gas in the whole system after all that boiling is the water vapor. So, the partial pressure once you seal it will be solely from that water vapor, and the pressure a simple function of the temperature of the water and the tube. The action may be different on a hot day than on a cold day, (viscosity changes and partial pressure variances). But overall seems pretty foolproof as long as you get the air all out of the water. Nice description of the construction of the thing, thanks. Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 15:18:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA03709; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 15:15:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 15:15:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <324DA374.62C7@interlaced.net> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 18:15:16 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Clinking Water tube details References: <199609282121.OAA14164@li.oro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"vWQbu2.0.mv.5EQJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1185 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross Tessien wrote: An excellent answer to John Schnurer's questions. Thanks Ross, I could not have explained it better. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 16:17:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA13603; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 15:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 15:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <324DA8E7.1F58@interlaced.net> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 18:38:31 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Clinking Water tube from 1985! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"YKOBL3.0.SK3.rZQJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1186 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: William Beaty wrote: > > Wow! Deja vu! Parallel evolution? What date were you doing this, maybe > it was collective unconscious phenomena. > > In 1985 I made a bunch of these while developing kid's science activities > involving water physics. I gave them all away as cavitation demonstrators, > and had totally forgotten about them. I think my wife has one I gave her > while we were dating. Even all of the sonoluminsecence uproar didn't > trigger my memory of this. > > This was inspired while I was making 30ft manometers from aquarium tubing > and fruit juice jars. My first clink tube was about 2ft long, but most of > the later ones were 1" to 5". Later ones I dyed the water blue so people > could more easily see the moving slug. The 1" ones were cool ( but hard > to seal!) > > My method was extremely simple but time consuming. I sealed one end and > degassed a 2ft piece of soda glass tube jammed into heavy vacuum hose with > slightly smaller I.D. Then I put in about 3" of boiled water and manually > "rattled" the tube for a few minutes while under vacuum and held vertical. > This induces vacuum-boiling and causes tiny bubbles to rise, providing > surface area for degassing the bulk fluid. I then sealed and burned off a > 5" tube. > > Question: the water hammer sometimes cracks the end of the tube. Does > pyrex work better? I didn't have an oxy torch so I was limited to soda > lime tubing. > > Near miss: I would have put my tubes into a high-power ultrasound cleaner > to try to trigger boiling, but our cleaner was dead at the time. > Bill didn't want to upstage me by posting this to Vortex, so I did it for him. Inquiring minds want to know! I made my tubes sometime in the mid-to-late 60's, Bill, so, I'm up on you on time, but you are way ahead of me on variety! Boy! I can almost hear the clinks now - floating in on the wind. Bill, you reminded me - I think I also knocked the end out of one or two of my tubes with the clinking water-hammer. Don't get too exuberant with the clinks, guys, or your tubes will die young! Also, Bill, I only tried it with soda-lime glass - no pyrex experience. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 17:04:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA25648; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 16:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 16:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <324DB0C0.411F@interlaced.net> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 19:12:00 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Clink tube follow-up Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"aXh-3.0.eG6.r3RJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1187 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Writing to John S. made me think of an interesting point about the clink tubes. When the tube is in front of you, quietly at thermal equilibrium with the room, notice that the vapor is in equilibrium with the liquid at a pressure slightly HIGHER THAN the steam table saturated value! This is because the pressure of the vapor is greater than that of the liquid BY THE CAPILLARY HEAD of the tube. For very small tubes this pressure difference can be quite large (pick a dia and compute the capillary pressure for that dia). In other words, the vapor pressure at equilibrium with pure water is a function of the CURVATURE of the equilibrium interface between the two phases! You old physics guys out there probably know this, but when I learned about it, I was amazed! Horace, this seems like more of that nano-molecular-show-me- some-OU kind of stuff, - but, don't ask me how! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 17:25:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA06088; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 16:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 16:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 16:38:33 -0700 Message-Id: <199609282338.QAA26777@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: Clinking Water tube details Resent-Message-ID: <"50af_.0.-U1.ESRJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1188 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: BTW; Keep in mind that the slug of water is being pushed up the tube by the vapor pressure of the water vapor beneath the slug. That pressure is higher due to the slight increase in temperature induced by your hand, where you hold it at the bottom of the column. And the clink, is essentially water hammer in a very interesting disguise, but then so is sonoluminescence. Finally, I can't hold back for the guys that were looking for an attraction of air moving over an airfoil. Note that in this device, there is again NO ATTRACTIVE FORCE MECHANISM! The increase in pressure from beneath drives the slug of water upward. For the guys that have made one of these things, if you look closesly at the miniscus of the water above and below the slug as it climbs, what happens? A normal miniscus in water is concave, but I am wondering if there is a difference from top and bottom surfaces. Do they take on a complex curvature? The above tells me something about the interaction with the quantum vacuum, and aether wave shielding induced by the glass in the tube (this shielding mechanism we normally call "capillary action". Later, Ross Tessien From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 17:43:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA21823; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 17:38:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 17:38:19 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 20:37:33 -0400 Message-ID: <960928203733_319726556@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Soctt Resent-Message-ID: <"C8qwN3.0.vK5.vJSJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1190 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott when I get this darn Yusmar going you and Hal are going to have be the first to confirm our claims. After that I plan to start building a business. I forsee you and Hal as Part of the business. We will need experts to improve the process and to develop the first commersial products. Much is yet to be done..we are getting close..but don't quit you day jobs..just yet anyway. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 18:04:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA19711; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 17:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 17:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 16:33:08 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"3JQ0P3.0.vp4.XDSJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1189 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Horace Heffner writes: > > "This is nonsense. Transmutation seems to be the one thing that > ubiquitous, is easy to do reliably." > >Says who? None of the scientists who have succeeded in producing CF >transmutations would agree. Some of them worked for years before they got any >sign of an anomaly. Says me. You are talking abount a very great minority from the very large population that has made the attempt at CF over the last seven years. So who was looking at the electrodes for heavy element shifts the last seven years, especially in the o-u failures? Not many, I'll bet. It's not been much of an issue until recently, has it? Calorimetry and all its foibles has been the main issue, true? > > > "Excess heat is the difficult thing do to repeatably." > >It is no harder than transmutations. The same conditions are required for >both. In fact, the effects usually occur together. I guess a survey is necessary. I got the distinct impression transmutation occurred with or without a clear excess energy indication. > > > "As Michael Mandeville points out, transmutation *is* the common > denominator that seems to be found in most CF experiments when people > look for it, it's just the products that are a surprize." > >This has not been established yet. Very few people have looked. I expect that >transmutations will be found universally in cells that successfully undergo >CF, but few cells achieve that state of grace. Yes but look at the score. No one is keeping track but by guess is 7000 to 20 for excess heat and 10 to 5 for transmutations, and a bunch of maybes. There just is not enough data. There really is no excuse for that. There is plenty of relatively inexpensive work on which to follow up, and many obvious experiments to concoct. Consider the project by then high schooler Michael Belcher. (Cold Fusion: A Study Involving the Fusion of Ions, I.E. Vol., 1 No. 3) in which there *may* have been Ca created. Too bad he couldn't get his electrodes checked out too. For all I know the electrolysis gadget running right now in my kitchen may be doing it. It sure would be handy to find a cheap way to build a spectrophotometer. Hmmm ..., I'll have to look into that, commercial specimen cells, prism, light, photocell, BASIC stamp computer, gee, you could run an experiment trigger on just a few spectral lines, Hmmm... > > > "One reason for lack of success in CF is a lack of engineering principles. > There is no handle on the problem, no method of incremental improvement." > >That is incorrect. The papers and patents by Cravens, Storms, Patterson, >McKubre, Miles, Pons & Fleischmann and others clearly explain various methods >of improving yields and boosting the strength of the reaction. The problem has >been that most people in the field ignore these papers. They do not do their >homework, so their experiments never work. Judging by what Ed Storms has told >me about his efforts to help others understand his papers, I think many of >these other scientists are not competent to do a CF experiment. If there were quantified engineering principles established everyone would be doing it. > > > "If there is a readily repeatable associated phenomenon . . ." > >This has not been established. Miley has succeeded 20 times out of 20, but >he is an extraordinarily gifted scientist and he has the resources of both >the Nuclear Physics and the Material Sciences Departments to draw on. I do not >know if others can readily repeat the work. For that matter, Pons and >Fleischmann made their bulk Pd experiments work nearly 100% of the time four >years ago. Nobody else has come close to them, and Toyota has decided to keep >their methods secret, so in a sense the experiment remains readily repeatable >*for them only*, just as the Pentium processor is repeatable by Intel only. I mean readily repeated by most researchers so the phenomenon is widely available for use in experiment design. > > > "The big question is whether transmutations are really as easy to pull off > as they appear from the reports from various quarters." > >To my knowledge, no CF scientist has ever stated that the effects are "easy >to pull off." Storms says about half of his pre-selected, prepared cathodes >work, but his methods are anything but easy. John Dash says that most of his >cells produce heat and transmutations, and every summer he teaches two high >school kids how to do the experiments, but he has been working on it since >1989, and after all, high school kids often learn faster and better than >grown-up scientists. They have less to un-learn, and they know how to shut >up and follow directions. They can master things like computers and run rings >around their elders. The main reason cold fusion experiments have not been >widely replicated is because most scientists never learned to shut up and >follow directions. I don't know how many times I have heard comments like >"it is an exact replication except I used acid instead of water" or "I used >glass beads instead of plastic." It *isn't* the same, it isn't even close! >For all we know that is like making pancakes out of sawdust instead of flour. All good points. Both above and throughout this post. But the fact is it's been seven years for CF and, despite considerable evidence there is something to it, not much progress has been made except by a mostly quiet few, and there are patents already sewing up the field. Transmutation seems to be a more wide open and newer ball game. There also seems to be a lot more progress in a much shorter time. Too soon to tell, though, not that many investigations yet. > > >Elsewhere Heffner writes: > > "I think Earthtech is on the right track business-wise. They are > establishing themselves as *the* o-u/transmutation lab." > >With all due respect for EarthTech, they have no standing in the o/u or >transmutation fields yet. They have not succeeded in any experiment yet, >whereas several hundred other labs in the world have. There is no one place >I would nominate as *the* preeminent lab, but I guess the top six in the >U.S. would be . . . U. Illinois, Los Alamos (Claytor et al.), SRI, the >basement of Ed Storms' house, Patterson, and Jet Technologies (if their >gadget can be successfully tested by an independent party, as I expect will >be the case.) These labs have published results and established track records. >Others, like E-Quest and the Cincinnati group claim they are seeing energy >and transmutations, but they have not published anything so we cannot judge >their claims. Publication does not make measurements any better or worse. It seems they also have not made CF more replicatable, except maybe at impractical levels. >EarthTech has no claims and no publications. They are not in the >running. > >- Jed This only adds to their credibility in my book. This is evidence that they are in earnest, honest, and persevering. They are also available. Among other things, they are in the business of replicating o-u measurments. They have a standing offer to do so, the equipment and capability to do so, and don't have to throw people out after a week. It appears (how would I know?) they are insulated from big organization politics, so can be neutral. As an investor or inventor, that all beats any of the above labs for a first shot at verification, in my opinion. Too bad there are not more facilities like Earthtech, and too bad there are not transmutation claim evaluating capabilities similar to Earthtech's o-u claim facilitites. The transmutation claims are going to be coming out of the woodwork soon. Just my opinion. There is no accounting for taste. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 20:39:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA13316; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 20:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 20:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 22:35:51 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609290335.WAA11858@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: Soctt Resent-Message-ID: <"lj6Ns.0.-F3.bwUJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1191 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 08:37 PM 9/28/96 -0400, Frank wrote: >Scott when I get this darn Yusmar going you and Hal are going to have be the >first to confirm our claims. Frank, despite all my negative comments about this Yusmar situation, I would jump instantly at the chance to confirm your o-u measurement. For what its worth, I've still got every bit of my Yusmar setup just sitting back in the lab, ready to go at a moment's notice. - 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-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 21:45:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA29631; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 21:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 21:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 23:02:37 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609290402.XAA13824@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: Wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"6pmKb3.0.uE7.gvVJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1193 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:33 PM 9/28/96 -0800, Jed wrote: >>EarthTech has no claims and no publications. They are not in the >>running. and Horace kindly wrote: >This only adds to their credibility in my book. This is evidence that they >are in earnest, honest, and persevering. They are also available. Thanks again Horace. Jed, perhaps it would be more correct to say that we have no positive (i.e. excess heat) claims. We have evaluated a number of devices made by others and a great number of our own experiments and, in quite a few cases, we have published our results on the Internet. We are indeed striving to see genuine excess heat or o-u behavior in our own lab but we are determined to measure things carefully and accurately. Finally Jed wrote: >If EarthTech wants to get into this game they must >first demonstrate the ability to play and win. We don't want to get into the game you are playing, Jed. - 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-request@eskimo.com Sat Sep 28 22:58:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA17074; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 22:56:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 22:56:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: BBC2 program To: vortex-l@eskimo.com (vortex-l) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 00:56:10 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0EMNm3.0.dA4.5-WJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1194 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I've just gotten a couple of notes from people in the UK telling me that Arthur C. Clarke's speech in which he held up the url to my web site has just been broadcast on BBC2 -- something to do with a program on global politics. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 01:28:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA15824; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 01:27:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 01:27:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: 29 Sep 96 04:25:45 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: BBC2 program Message-ID: <960929082544_100433.1541_BHG52-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"wSaG6.0.9t3.WBZJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1195 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John, > I've just gotten a couple of notes from people in the UK telling > me that Arthur C. Clarke's speech in which he held up the url to > my web site has just been broadcast on BBC2 -- something to do > with a program on global politics. Correct. I saw the programme but missed taping it. There have in fact been two references to CF recently on BBC TV - your website, which they followed up and described, and also in a programme on religion and science showing Italian CF researchers (Preparata and another fellow). The one with Clarke was about the increasing globalisation of the planet, and the increasing irrelevance of the politicians. I'm not sure I agreed with it. The incident with Clarke happened some while ago - dear Arthur misses no opportunity to plug CF, and I did refer to his waving the placard with your website in a CF article in the Brit mag Fortean Times, presently on sale. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 02:22:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA18516; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 02:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 02:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 02:10:52 -0700 Message-Id: <199609290910.CAA25892@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, need a stroboscope/timer Resent-Message-ID: <"WLd0a2.0.EX4.dqZJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1196 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greetings vors; I just received the Levitron I ordered and wanted to make some measurements to look for any interaction with 160 minute solar acoustic resonances. I am looking for coupling to the solar system which then might give a reason for Bodes "law" to work. I want to test the various parameters of the thing and one of them is the rpm at which the gyro falls down. If you don't know about this thing it consists of a base magnet, about 4 inches square that is a molded in platform, and a little top, which is like a little childs top about an inch diameter disk with the plastic shaft to spin it up with your fingers. You can move the top around, above the base and feel the magnetic field shape. It is repulsive all the way around the perimeter, pushing the top up. And there is a circular region in the middle of the base that is attractive, "pulling" the top downward. What you do is to spin the top, and then lift it into the air with a secondary plastic platform. At about 1.5 inches above the base, the top begins to float on top of the magnetic fields in a sort of magnetic saddle. Due to the low friction (air is the only drag component I know of), it spins for about 2 minutes while floating in the air, and then drops. I would like to measure the rpm of the rotation when the thing drops. I thought that a simple LED circuit might do the trick, or a stroposcope with a frequency measure on the side. I could put a white line on the side of the black disk of the top and strobe that. If the LED and a simple digital square wave timing circuit were used, then I could put two lines, and adjust the frequency of the pulse train until the two lines meshed with each other in the resulting optical image as perceived by the eye. In this manner, I think I could use a simple pulse generator with some sort of circuit. I might be able to borrow a pulse generator, but I am an electronic moron. Any one have a stroboscope I could borrow, or could anyone put together a couple of components to run from the pulse generator? I think the LED circuit would need some op amp and resistors or something????? Any one got an idea? Thanks, Ross From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 06:50:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA08025; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 06:49:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 06:49:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 05:54:59 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"2Elgg3.0.Jz1._vdJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1197 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Horace Heffner writes: > > "Yes but look at the score. No one is keeping track but by guess is > 7000 to 20 for excess heat and 10 to 5 for transmutations, and a bunch > of maybes." > >WHAT?!? Are you suggesting that 7000 people have tried CF and there have only >been 20 clear cases of excess heat reported? [snip] That's exactly what I am saying, as a rough guess. Clear means clear. At minimum it means excess energy exceeding concerns about recombination, etc. I include in that 7000 number all the maybes and unreporteds. I am referring to "parties" not "trials". I think the number who have tried CF is growing daily. There has probably been much activity in the east. Consider that india graduates over 100,000 engineers and/or scientists a year. It would not be a surprize that 7000 attempts at CF have been made in India alone. BARC may have stimulated the interest initially, but surely there must be a small interest remaining. Then consider high schools around the world. There is still science project activity in this area, and it may be increasing. It would be interresting to know many teens have carried the interest forward to adult life. Difficult to determine any of the above, including the success rates. If there had been any big successes or many successes in any of this it seems likely it would have emerged from the crowd. On the other hand, Michael Belcher seems to have been somewhat successful on his first time out doing transmutations (he called them fusion products, but I am including all above He in "transmutation", and excluding all products below), and that was looking for specific products in the electrodes and electrolyte based upon a specific hypothesis. It would have been good if a mass spectrometer might have been available to cover the range of elements better. It would be nice to have a simple technique for transmutation and it's detection with a high success rate. Then the smaller efforts might be more rewarding. > > > "For all I know the electrolysis gadget running right now in my kitchen > may be doing it." > >I doubt it. Electrolysis gadgets (like batteries) have been used in industry >and laboratories for 150 years, and nobody has noticed massive element >changes. To get the CF effect, you must tweak the device and force it to load >to the gamma phase. It is hard to do that on purpose, nobody can do it by >accident. Getting back to my pancake analogy, you could never whip up a nice >hotcake by wearing a blindfold and randomly selecting ingredients off the >pantry shelf. Orange juice mixed with oatmeal will not substitute for milk >and flour. Believe me, my daughter has tried every combination. You are focused on H2 loading. There may be more than one way to skin this cat. [snip digressing arguments about incremental improvements] > > "Transmutation seems to be a more wide open and newer ball game." > >It is not a bit more wide open. The status is exactly the same as with heat, >because the same devices and techniques are used to produce both effects. Heat Not necessarily true. It's just that with which you are familiar. This is a new field, much to explore. I think H2 and/or H2O is not necessary at all. All the old CF "rules" are out the window. [snip] > > > "There also seems to be a lot more progress in a much shorter time." > >That is incorrect. The success of the 20 U. Illinois cells came about because >Patterson spent five years [snip] What there is *not* is much in the way of negative studies. Those who look find. It doesn't take 5 years. How many journal articles have you seen where transmutation products were look for and not found? The problem does not seem to be so much one of generating results as that of analyzing the results. > >Regarding E-Quest and the Cincinnati crowd, Horace writes: > > "Publication does not make measurements any better or worse." > [snip] Sorry, that was a placement error on my part. The above comment was meant to apply only to the following portion of quote: ">With all due respect for EarthTech, they have no standing in the o/u or >transmutation fields yet. They have not succeeded in any experiment yet, >whereas several hundred other labs in the world have. There is no one place >I would nominate as *the* preeminent lab, but I guess the top six in the >U.S. would be . . . U. Illinois, Los Alamos (Claytor et al.), SRI, the >basement of Ed Storms' house, Patterson, and Jet Technologies (if their >gadget can be successfully tested by an independent party, as I expect will >be the case.) These labs have published results and established track records." [snip] > Earnest & honest are not worth a plugged nickel in >technology. Only results count. As far as I am concerned, these are the primary issues both in science and in investing. Industry and governments are another matter, of course. [snip a bunch of stuff about Earthtech] > >- Jed Getting to the bottom line, I readily agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The main issue as I see it is the absence of evidence for the difficulty of doing transmutations at low energies, especially by electrolysis. There simply are not a lot of papers reporting attempts that failed. This is to be expected, because who would think it would work in the first place? A failure would not be news and thus would not be published. However, you would think that the publications of successful CF attempts would include some failures to produce heavy nuclei. This is a gap that needs to be filled in, not only for the scientific value, but because it represents enormous prospects for material resource development, and for understanding CF better. There is another energy issue at stake here as well. If transmutation, especially transmutation that tends to produce only stable nuclei, is feasible using reactants at the heavy end of the spectrum, then there may be the ultimate route available to unleashing the enegy of the vacuum. If a sufficiently massive element can be created, the electrostatic gradient at the center of the atom will be sufficient to separate positron/electron pairs created from the vacuum near the nucleus. Positron annihilation with the attendant gamma production, as well as xray production from the continuiong electron displacements, would occur on a continuous basis in the electron cloud about such a heavy nucleus. A renewable and infinite source of energy would then be available. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 08:32:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA21258; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 08:31:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 08:31:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 11:29:53 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Help, need a stroboscope/timer In-Reply-To: <199609290910.CAA25892@li.oro.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"KiUbd1.0.0C5.FPfJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1198 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear VO. "john boy's" so simple, dumb and crude tach, strobo: More than one way: a] take signal generator, can be guitar and microphone, and feed to audio amp. b] fix light mirror to 'raw' speaker [play around] c] look at target [top with line in this case] through mirror. 2]] a]set up mirror with light source and slit [s] to 'chop' light 3]] you can even HUM REAL LOUD and the vibration is coupled through bone to the eyes to and one can often time object this way. I take no credit for this. Just a few from a collection of methods. J On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Ross Tessien wrote: > Greetings vors; > > I just received the Levitron I ordered and wanted to make some measurements > to look for any interaction with 160 minute solar acoustic resonances. I am > looking for coupling to the solar system which then might give a reason for > Bodes "law" to work. I want to test the various parameters of the thing and > one of them is the rpm at which the gyro falls down. > > If you don't know about this thing it consists of a base magnet, about 4 > inches square that is a molded in platform, and a little top, which is like > a little childs top about an inch diameter disk with the plastic shaft to > spin it up with your fingers. You can move the top around, above the base > and feel the magnetic field shape. > > It is repulsive all the way around the perimeter, pushing the top up. And > there is a circular region in the middle of the base that is attractive, > "pulling" the top downward. > > What you do is to spin the top, and then lift it into the air with a > secondary plastic platform. At about 1.5 inches above the base, the top > begins to float on top of the magnetic fields in a sort of magnetic saddle. > Due to the low friction (air is the only drag component I know of), it spins > for about 2 minutes while floating in the air, and then drops. > > I would like to measure the rpm of the rotation when the thing drops. I > thought that a simple LED circuit might do the trick, or a stroposcope with > a frequency measure on the side. > > I could put a white line on the side of the black disk of the top and strobe > that. If the LED and a simple digital square wave timing circuit were used, > then I could put two lines, and adjust the frequency of the pulse train > until the two lines meshed with each other in the resulting optical image as > perceived by the eye. In this manner, I think I could use a simple pulse > generator with some sort of circuit. > > I might be able to borrow a pulse generator, but I am an electronic moron. > Any one have a stroboscope I could borrow, or could anyone put together a > couple of components to run from the pulse generator? I think the LED > circuit would need some op amp and resistors or something????? > > Any one got an idea? > > Thanks, Ross > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 09:01:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA25736; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 08:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 08:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: 29 Sep 96 11:57:00 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Wish list Message-ID: <960929155659_72240.1256_EHB44-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Fc3OC1.0.-H6.RpfJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1200 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I asked, "Are you suggesting that 7000 people have tried CF and there have only been 20 clear cases of excess heat reported?" Horace Heffner responded: "That's exactly what I am saying, as a rough guess. Clear means clear. At minimum it means excess energy exceeding concerns about recombination, etc." I repeat, there are hundreds of clear reports of excess energy exceeding recombination etc. There are hundreds in Japan alone, and many more in Italy and the U.S. Not 20. That is a ridiculous number. There were 20 by the middle of 1989. Nobody would take CF seriously if only 20 people had seen it! "I include in that 7000 number all the maybes and unreporteds." Supposedly "thousands" of people tried to do CF experiments in 1989, but I believe that is a myth. I have tried to track down these phantom experimentors by talking to people at Georgia Tech and elsewhere. Professor X in the physics department says he heard a rumor the chemistry department tried it, chemistry says it was engineering, and engineering says it was over at physics. In reality only a few hundred people tried it in 1989, only 50 or so were qualified electrochemists (Bockris, Arata, Huggins, Hutchison, McKubre, Mizuno, Kuzmin, Liebert, Ohta and so on) and by the end of 1989 *they all reported positive results*, beyond recombination. "I think the number who have tried CF is growing daily. There has probably been much activity in the east." I am in frequent communication with east and I see no evidence of that. "Consider that india graduates over 100,000 engineers and/or scientists a year. It would not be a surprize that 7000 attempts at CF have been made in India alone." Out of the question. Srinivasan and my other contacts in India report nothing of the sort. There is some superb work going on at BARC and a few other places, but in most Indian universities and corporation, it would be carreer suicide to talk about CF, just as it is in the U.S. "Then consider high schools around the world. There is still science project activity in this area, and it may be increasing." That cannot be the case. I have heard from no more than 4 or 5 high school kids in all the years I have been doing this, and I know of no others except John Dash's students (who he told me about years ago). Besides, this experiment could never be done correctly by an untrained high school kid without equipment. Look at the list of expensive instruments Storms recommends! Where do you think a high school kid would get that kind of thing? - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 09:01:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA25728; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 08:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 08:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: 29 Sep 96 11:57:16 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: It isn't *my* game, Scott Message-ID: <960929155715_72240.1256_EHB44-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"lNRfi1.0.pH6.QpfJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1199 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little writes: "Jed, perhaps it would be more correct to say that we have no positive (i.e. excess heat) claims. We have evaluated a number of devices made by others and a great number of our own experiments and, in quite a few cases, we have published our results on the Internet." You should summarize you work and publish again in Infinite Energy. How many hydrogen-in-metal (CF) devices did you evaluate? How long did you run them? "We are indeed striving to see genuine excess heat or o-u behavior in our own lab but we are determined to measure things carefully and accurately." I hope so, and I expect that is the case. All professional CF scientists measure things carefully and accurately. I applaud your devotion to care and accuracy but please do not imagine that you have an edge over the likes of McKubre, Mizuno, Storms, Kunimatsu or Swartz. "Finally Jed wrote: >If EarthTech wants to get into this game they must >first demonstrate the ability to play and win. We don't want to get into the game you are playing, Jed." It isn't my game! Not my game at all. I am merely sitting in the stands, watching the professionals. You mean you do not want to get into the game that SRI, MITI, Toyota, Toshiba, the U. Tokyo, U. Illinois and Los Alamos are playing. That is quite understandable. The expense and the learning curve are formidable. It took Ed Storms a year of hard work to select and prepare five CF cathodes. I can well understand why Scott Little is not ready to devote the next 12 months to staring through a microscope at 80 metal foils! I myself admit that I could never handle it. I do not have the expert knowledge and I don't have a hundred thousand dollars to spare for fabrication and calorimetry, and that does not even cover SIMS machines! I do not have the Material Sciences Department at the University of Illinois standing by, ready to fabricate beads to my specification. It is fine for Scott or anyone else to admit that they cannot handle this level of research. But by the same token, he should not then set himself up as some kind of objective arbiter. He isn't qualified. A person who has not demonstrated a professional ability to do these experiments will not be chosen to evaluate other people's work at the bench. Not hands-on. You can talk about their work the way I do. The CF scientists will listen with respect, and they will assist and correct you, but they will not call on you to help replicate. That would be like asking a medical journal columnist to help in the operating room. I am reminded of what LaGuardia said once, after the Pope pontificated about sex: "You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules." - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 09:06:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA27552; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 09:05:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 09:05:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 11:05:09 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609291605.LAA18917@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: Help, need a stroboscope/timer Resent-Message-ID: <"f7UNa.0.Qk6.2vfJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1201 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:10 AM 9/29/96 -0700, Ross wrote: >Due to the low friction (air is the only drag component I know of), it spins >for about 2 minutes while floating in the air, and then drops. The Leviton is a cute little device that cleverly demonstrates Earhshaw's Theorem which states that it is impossible to create stable 3-D levitation (i.e. 6-axis) with only permanent magnets. However, if you remove some (3?) of the degrees of freedom by spinning the object, which gives it angular momentum like a top, you can achieve stable levitation. There is another drag component and that is eddy current loss due to the moving magnetic fields...this can be quite small if they're using non-conductive ceramic magnets. >I would like to measure the rpm of the rotation when the thing drops. Omron and others make the perfect thing for this job: a reflective photosensor. It consists of a LED and a photodiode in one compact package with a lens that directs the two "beams" at a point about 1cm away from the device. These things are cheap!...about $5 from Digikey...maybe even Radio Shack has them. WIth one of those, a 9-volt battery and a couple of resistors (~5k) you can make a simple little thing that will produce a nice, clean square wave output (if you paint half of the rotor white and half of it black). That signal can be connected directly to a low-cost (~$100) DVM that has frequency measurement capability and, bingo, you've got direct readout in Hertz. Ross, if this sounds daunting, just go out and buy the DVM. I'll provide the sensor, etc. free...I've got lots of 'em. - 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-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 10:27:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA18435; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 10:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 10:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: 29 Sep 96 13:19:29 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Help, need a stroboscope/timer Message-ID: <960929171929_100060.173_JHB75-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"NnSFx.0.tV4.r2hJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1202 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ross, If your looking for a low cost rev meter try the aero modeller shop for a hand-held prop rev meter. You can set it for 2 3 or 4 blades which you can simulate on your top with white paint, and then in dc light (daylight not 60Hz fluorescent is best!!) you just point the sensor at the object and you get a digital readout in real-time. Then plot revs / time - bingo! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 12:10:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA13004; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 12:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 12:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 14:05:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199609291905.OAA05256@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: Let's compromise, Jed Resent-Message-ID: <"BVZfw.0.6B3.WYiJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1203 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I'd like to end this unproductive thread. I offer the following: I agree that EarthTech cannot now perform a positive CF experiment. We do not have whatever it takes. In return, I'd like you to modfy this statement made in your last post: >...he should not then set himself up as >some kind of objective arbiter. He isn't qualified. We are obviously not qualified to replicate any CF experiments...but we are qualified to measure the heat output of a CF cell. Over the past 7 years we have performed numerous power/energy balance measurements on an incredibly diverse variety of experiments. In the end, every one of them has shown a unity power/energy balance (within the experimental error limits). This odessey is chronicled in about 8 lab notebooks which I would be glad to review with you. I believe that we can serve effectively as an objective arbiter of the measurement of excess heat. Our old offer still stands: Anyone with a suspected o-u or excess heat device is invited to send it to EarthTech for free confirmation. After our measurements are made, we will return the device along with a report of our findings. - 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-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 13:04:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA28587; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 12:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 12:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9609291955.AA01204@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 13:07:59 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us (David Doty) Subject: Re: D. Doty & Students of Ackerman Resent-Message-ID: <"OZD3d3.0.W-6.7IjJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1204 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Frank Znidarsic, Thanks for your response I will transfer your science experiments to some of the teachers at Ackerman and some home schoolers. I will try to complile some data and send it back to you. I did not see the film "Chain Reaction". I am getting Cold Fusion matterials together for student testing. I have bought some Potassiam BiCarbonate and Nickle electrodes but do not have a source of Pd yet. > Jim Griggs has a cold fusion cavatitaion machine in Rome George. > It works best with dirty water. No one knows why. Is the dirt >effecting > the surface tension of the water making it work better? ************************************ * David Doty * * 340 S Locust Canby, OR. 97013 * * home 503 266 3969 * * Custodian at Ackerman Junior High * * Canby School District 86 * ************************************ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 14:47:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA27906; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 14:33:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 14:33:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: 29 Sep 96 17:30:07 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Let's compromise, Jed Message-ID: <960929213007_72240.1256_EHB207-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"pHz0T2.0.yp6.4jkJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1205 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little writes: "I'd like to end this unproductive thread." I think it is most productive! We have stumbled upon many mistaken ideas about CF, such as Horace Heffner's belief that only 20 people have reported high sigma excess heat beyond recombination. "I agree that EarthTech cannot now perform a positive CF experiment. We do not have whatever it takes." Well, naturally, you don't have "whatever" it takes! If you did, you would have excess heat! So would I, for that matter. But "whatever" is no deep mystery. Just read the literature and you'll see what you need. Go visit some labs. Of course, seeing what you need and getting it are two different things. You can read about Intel and you will see what you need to make computer CPU chips. You are short a billion dollars and a hundred thousand employees. CF is a lot easier. "We are obviously not qualified to replicate any CF experiments..." How do you know? Have you tried? Have you been to Los Alamos to look at their tritium gizmo? ". . . but we are qualified to measure the heat output of a CF cell." Well . . . that's fine, but that is only one aspect of the experiment. And with a good cathode and good electrochemistry, anybody would be qualified to measure the heat output. You take a big CETI cell that produces 1000 watts out with 1 watt in -- that doesn't take Einstein to measure! Or take one of Ed Storms best cathodes: when the thing is cooking along with 10 watts in and 14 out, it is no big deal to measure the difference with confidence. "Over the past 7 years we have performed numerous power/energy balance measurements on an incredibly diverse variety of experiments. In the end, every one of them has shown a unity power/energy balance (within the experimental error limits). This odyssey is chronicled in about 8 lab notebooks which I would be glad to review with you." Please do! We'll publish it in Infinite Energy. "Scott Little's Energy Odyssey: In Search of O/U." How's that for a pretentious title? No doubt you are good at calorimetry, but that is only a fraction of what you need to know to do CF. "I believe that we can serve effectively as an objective arbiter of the measurement of excess heat." Honestly, I don't see how you can. How can you observe excess if you cannot make the thing turn on? I mean, you cannot expect the CF scientist to transport the cathode to your lab and babysit it for a week. If I was a CF scientist I just would not bother with someone who has not demonstrated the skills necessary to do the experiment independently. The only cells that supposedly work without a lot of hand-holding and expert knowledge are the CETI cells. They are supposedly selling kits now for an outrageous price, $10,000 I think. But even they put their users through a training course to make sure they can handle it. I wish they would just sell beads to adventurous folks like you, but they refuse to do so. No doubt you would roach several batches of beads before you got any results. But I suppose you would get the hang of it in a few months, if the beads really are as good as CETI and their users claim. That's what happens when you are first learning to do something like this. It is kind of like make a stained glass window: you break a lot and get cut at first. It will be interesting to hear SRI's report on their CETI cell. A CF cell today is similar to an automobile circa 1890, or a personal computer in 1976. You have to be your own mechanic and you have to learn a lot just to keep the clockwork running. If you had no talent for fixing flat tires and patching radiator leaks back in 1890, then you could never "serve effectively as an objective arbiter of" automobile performance for, say, a nascent auto fanciers magazine. You could not even have driven a car into town. Nobody would offer to sell you a car. You could not have gotten a personal computer back in '76 either, because if you did not build it yourself, you were out of luck. If you had showed up at a hacker's club in '76 and offered to "serve effectively as an objective arbiter of" the machines, except you yourself lacked the moxie to make one, people would have laughed at you -- and rightly so. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 15:19:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA10150; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 15:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 15:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 14:20:27 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Transmutation vs CF heat Resent-Message-ID: <"Z6_yN.0.WU2.5KlJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1206 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I readily agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The main issue as I see it is the absence of evidence for the difficulty of doing transmutations at low energies, especially by electrolysis in cold fusion (CF) type experiments. There simply are not a lot of papers reporting attempts that failed. This is to be expected, because who would think it would work in the first place? A failure would not be news and thus would not be published. However, you would think that the publications of successful CF attempts would include the examination of and noted failure to produce heavy nuclei. This is a gap that needs to be filled in, not only for the scientific value, but because it represents enormous prospects for material resource development, and for understanding CF better. There is another energy issue at stake here as well. If transmutation, especially transmutation that tends to produce only stable nuclei, is feasible using reactants at the heavy end of the spectrum, then there may be the ultimate route available to unleashing the energy of the vacuum. If a sufficiently massive element can be created, the electrostatic gradient at the center of the atom will be sufficient to separate positron/electron pairs created from the vacuum near the nucleus. Positron annihilation with the attendant gamma production, as well as x-ray production from the continuing electron displacements, would occur on a continuous basis in the electron cloud about such a heavy nucleus. A renewable and infinite source of energy would then be available. I think many typical kinds of CF experiments can be done in high schools. Much or all of what is needed can be obtained through one of the standard school supplier catalogs - "Science Kit and Boreal Laboratories", 1-800-828-7777. My son's science teacher sent the catalog home with him. They have nickel plating kits, by the way. What you need depends on what you want to do for a CF experiment. You don't have to do one according to Storms or Mills, etc., especially if your main interest is heavy element transmutation. I don't think basic equipment is a problem. Some schools are doing recombinant DNA, etc. It depends on the school and the mentors what resources are available. With the new Mac PowerPC school bundles including data gathering, the calorimetry can even be easily automated. It's no big deal to get a peristaltic pump. Mentor programs can provide the needed access to information, and catalogs/suppliers. The problem, though, is getting the experiments to work, to produce excess heat. Transmutation is another thing altogether. The experiments involving the creation of elements heavier the He appear to be relatively easy to get to work, but proving the results is more difficult. The high schooler Michael Belcher who was published in IE Vol. 1 No. 3. had the support of a local hospital for use of a spectrophotometer. He also was in contact with Mills, etc. Similar arrangements for analysis might be made by other HS students with univeristies, etc., for other devices, but only on a very limited scale. It would be really good to have some inexpensive homebrew method of identifiying *some* product before and after, or a comparatively inexpensive commercial test available. I have expressed an interest in producing a CF kit for high schoolers and the like, the purpose being to put the field into the mainstream, but maybe low energy transmutation is a much better idea to pursue. As to the more serious experimenters with somewhat bigger bucks than high schoolers, it seems like it would be useful to have a lab around that could measure the effectiveness of various transmutation processes for a reasonable fee. There are other problems to deal with here as well though, the potential to use, manufacture and/or mail toxic chemicals, etc. An experiment that is self contained is best. However this means the test lab needs to actually run the experiment - somewhat like NASA runs experiments on the shuttle. Nevertheless, I still don't see much evidence that transmutation experiemnts are difficult. The following diagram summarizes what I mean in regard to the literature: Looked For ------------------------------ |Excess Heat |Transmutations | |------------|---------------| | | | Found | Many | Some | | | | |------------|---------------| | | | Not | Many | Few to none | Found | | | ------------------------------ Creating CF excess heat is very difficult. Even He measurment is difficult. This tells me the fruitful place to look is heavier than He element transmutation. That's where the consistent success seems to be easy - but that is yet unproven. Why look in a creek bed mined by industrialists when over the hill people are yelling "Gold! Gold!"? To look where it is proven difficult when there seems to be a better hit record elsewhere is nonsensical. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 16:21:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA00286; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 16:15:47 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 16:15:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: 29 Sep 96 19:13:07 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Neophobia and neophilia Message-ID: <960929231306_100433.1541_BHG80-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"692_v3.0.I4.XCmJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1207 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: One more thing about Bill's iconoclast and conventionalist scientists. Without spelling the argument out in detail, I suggest that one thing they both have in common is the (to me deplorable) human habits of pattern-sensing and pattern-love. This process, essential to our survival in the evolutionary sense but perhaps highly inappropriate to a scientist, comes from our ability to see patterns in possibly unrelated events. We see a collection of facts, and (correctly) succeed as Newton and others did - we make Laws which combine them into simple and elegant formulae. But then we seek to explain these Laws by Theories, which are models of reality and quite different in purpose. Unfortunately, we then love our models more than we love the facts or laws from which we derived them. Evidence can be stretched to fit them, or can be angrily denied if it can't be made to fit. Both of Bill's groups follow this rule, because their pet ideas are much more important to them than the evidence. Yet the whole purpose of science (we are told) is the construction of good models! I feel unhappy about this, I would be much happier with just a set of laws which are expressions of fact without models. Models seem to help at first, they stimulate experiments. Then they work in reverse, to suppress experiment. If politics is the art of the possible, then physics has always been the art of the impossible. Far more often than the reverse, it tell us what we cannot do, what we can never know - until incontrovertible experimental evidence shows otherwise (and then often another 20 years has passed) and forces the old order to pass. When evidence comes along to upset the applecart (as it, curiously enough, seems to do each time a new century approaches) then the community is caught short with no model. This causes deep dismay, and a fight between the old model and various new ones which pop up like mushrooms. What I fear happened last time was that a model was chosen which survived tests for a short while, was then raised to the status of fact - and it was the wrong model. Whatever fixes and fudges may be done, quantum and relativity models sit uncomfortably together like the wave/particle duality. Endless and largely philosophical discourses are written to reassure people that all is really well, but some of us remain less than convinced. Perhaps we are now overdue for a return to 1894, with a clean sheet and all the evidence gathered since - evidence which fits and evidence which doesn't. Perhaps we will see a wholly new physics. And perhaps all that would be more relevant than having people argue the place of Earthtech in the scheme of things. Pack it in, Jed. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 16:53:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA07575; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 16:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 16:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <324F0839.5133@interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 19:37:29 -0400 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Let's compromise, Jed References: <199609291905.OAA05256@natashya.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"zr2Aw1.0.8s1.6XmJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1208 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: (A good stab at "let's kiss and makeup") > Gee, Scott, I still like you! Remember - "nothing happening" is a science newswriter's worst nightmare. I'll take your measured approach to CF any day over much of the wild-eyed fanaticism we good-heartedly munch on each day on this list. (I get pretty wild-eyed myself over some things, now and then.) When Scott Little @ EarthTech sees CF, I'll start to plan my home heating around it! Since we seem to be in this heavy track today, just what do all you guys and girls think we humans would do if we did have an infinitely USEABLE energy at our disposal? Since I'm over 60, I have no qualms about saying that sooner or later, we would turn this planet into an infinite pile of sh__. (probably sooner!) For myself, I think I'm just a techno-geek on a personal power trip - it's so "male" to control all that power! Hell, anomolous science is just FUN! OK, on my better days I hope that we WILL have the wisdom to shape-up man's future - maybe Horace didn't need to move to Alaska - maybe your average man will turn green - maybe our leaders will develop infinite wisdom - maybe clanish religiousness won't screw up human relations - maybe Earth won't be hit by a rogue asteroid - maybe I will finish remodeling this damn house ---------. Scott, I'll believe CF when you see it. Energy corrups, infinite energy corrups infinitely! (UH-OH, now I'm in for it --- sheesh) Cowering in his half-remodeled bathroom, ----- Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 17:05:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA10652; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 16:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 16:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 15:51:52 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Let's compromise, Jed Resent-Message-ID: <"tRa642.0.Ic2.-fmJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1209 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed writes: > >I think it is most productive! We have stumbled upon many mistaken ideas about >CF, such as Horace Heffner's belief that only 20 people have reported high >sigma excess heat beyond recombination. I would very much like to see a list of more than 20 parties (e.g. Patterson et al counts for one party, Cravens, if independent, counts for a 2nd party, etc.) that have created "excess energy exceeding concerns about recombination". That basically leaves CETI and CETI replicators, doesn't it? Everything else involves calculations which are suspect. Calculations are not measurements. Recombining the evolved gas and measuring the heat of recombination should count though, but it doesn't seem that anyone does this. Using a closed cell with recombination would of course count. CETI has the only published method good enough to permit ignoring the gas evolved, true? That leaves Miley et al, EPRI, etc., not much of a list. I don't think Motorola has published anything. > >A CF cell today is similar to an automobile circa 1890, or a personal computer >in 1976. You have to be your own mechanic and you have to learn a lot just to >keep the clockwork running. If you had no talent for fixing flat tires and >patching radiator leaks back in 1890, then you could never "serve effectively >as an objective arbiter of" automobile performance for, say, a nascent auto >fanciers magazine. You could not even have driven a car into town. Nobody >would offer to sell you a car. You could not have gotten a personal computer >back in '76 either, because if you did not build it yourself, you were out of >luck. If you had showed up at a hacker's club in '76 and offered to "serve >effectively as an objective arbiter of" the machines, except you yourself >lacked the moxie to make one, people would have laughed at you -- and rightly >so. > >- Jed You didn't have to be an electronics expert, or MBE expert, or any kind of expert on anything physical to build a PC and run a benchmark. All you really needed was the ability to read. Anyone expert at benchmarks on a mainframe could easily evaluate the performance of a PC, excluding the patience required to get the programs into the machines correctly! Since instruction execution times were available in the manuals, even that was not necessary. Anyone expert at calorimetry can evaluate the performance of a CF cell. Transmutations? That's a much more interresting question when it comes to evaluating results. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 17:44:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA21580; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 17:29:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 17:29:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 20:27:09 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Help, need a stroboscope/timer In-Reply-To: <199609291605.LAA18917@natashya.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"sqq3S2.0.4H5.dHnJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1210 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Dear Folks, Earhshaw di not deter the makers if the 'Space Pen'. It does not spin, but does float, no contact, 3-d levitation.. They sell from time to time in various catalogs ... I think the last one I saw was in a Fingerhut catalog someone left in the post office. BTW, what, in layman's terms does Earhshaw tell us? JHS On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Scott Little wrote: > At 02:10 AM 9/29/96 -0700, Ross wrote: > > >Due to the low friction (air is the only drag component I know of), it spins > >for about 2 minutes while floating in the air, and then drops. > > The Leviton is a cute little device that cleverly demonstrates Earhshaw's > Theorem which states that it is impossible to create stable 3-D levitation > (i.e. 6-axis) with only permanent magnets. However, if you remove some (3?) > of the degrees of freedom by spinning the object, which gives it angular > momentum like a top, you can achieve stable levitation. > > There is another drag component and that is eddy current loss due to the > moving magnetic fields...this can be quite small if they're using > non-conductive ceramic magnets. > > >I would like to measure the rpm of the rotation when the thing drops. > > Omron and others make the perfect thing for this job: a reflective > photosensor. It consists of a LED and a photodiode in one compact package > with a lens that directs the two "beams" at a point about 1cm away from the > device. These things are cheap!...about $5 from Digikey...maybe even Radio > Shack has them. WIth one of those, a 9-volt battery and a couple of > resistors (~5k) you can make a simple little thing that will produce a nice, > clean square wave output (if you paint half of the rotor white and half of > it black). That signal can be connected directly to a low-cost (~$100) DVM > that has frequency measurement capability and, bingo, you've got direct > readout in Hertz. > > Ross, if this sounds daunting, just go out and buy the DVM. I'll provide the > sensor, etc. free...I've got lots of 'em. > > - 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-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 18:36:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA05070; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:22:13 -0700 (PDT) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Wish list Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 01:20:45 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <325516d7.6031220@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"vThpV2.0.zE1.33oJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1211 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 29 Sep 1996 05:54:59 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >There is another energy issue at stake here as well. If transmutation, >especially transmutation that tends to produce only stable nuclei, is >feasible using reactants at the heavy end of the spectrum, then there = may >be the ultimate route available to unleashing the enegy of the vacuum. = If a >sufficiently massive element can be created, the electrostatic gradient = at >the center of the atom will be sufficient to separate positron/electron >pairs created from the vacuum near the nucleus. Positron annihilation >with the attendant gamma production, as well as xray production from the >continuiong electron displacements, would occur on a continuous basis in >the electron cloud about such a heavy nucleus. A renewable and infinite >source of energy would then be available. [snip] Horace, You should be aware, that there is also an alternative point of view regarding the ZPE, according to which there is no universal global sea of energy, but rather a local "inverted" sea of energy that exists only within the confines of individual particles. A good example of this point of view is expressed in the following article: Jennison, R.C. "What is an Electron?" Wireless World, June 1979. p. 43. If such is true, then the scenario you propose above would only result in the consumption of the mass of the nuclei involved, if it were to work at all. PS For those of you contemplating reading this article, please note that while IMO it starts out at a low level, and appears to be somewhat mundane and boring, it gets very interesting toward the end. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. 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 Sep 29 20:09:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA01301 for billb@eskimo.com; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 20:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 20:09:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: garyh@aa.net Sun Sep 29 20:08:51 1996 Received: from big.aa.net (root@big.aa.net [204.157.220.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA01202 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 20:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from horizon (morrison-c19.aa.net [204.157.220.151]) by big.aa.net (8.7.6/8.7.5) with SMTP id UAA11727 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 20:08:14 -0700 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960930031501.0067acec@pop.aa.net> X-Sender: garyh@pop.aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Old-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 20:15:01 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Reason for withdrawal of Podkletnov paper X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Linda Howe talked to Podkletnov this week. She is always interviewed in the first half hour of Art Bell's show called Dreamland, Sunday evening from 7 to 10 pm, Pacific time. For stations, see: http://www.artbell.com/ Podkletnov said his paper was withdrawn not for any political reasons, but that private companies have stepped forward to fund it, and there were "proprietary issues" to be dealt with. In other words, they want to protect their interests worldwide through the patent process first I would presume (and so it might take some time to try to cover all of the bases). Podkletnov said he does not understand why the effect occurs. For those who receive this right away, Art's guest tonight 'till 10 pm, Brian O'Leary, is talking about the world of "rebel science", and how rapidly things are changing. Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 21:03:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA13199; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 20:49:14 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 20:49:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 20:49:05 -0700 (PDT) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Help, need a stroboscope/timer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"tyop11.0.9E3.vCqJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1213 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, John Schnurer wrote: > Dear Folks, Earhshaw di not deter the makers if the 'Space Pen'. > It does not spin, but does float, no contact, 3-d levitation.. They sell > from time to time in various catalogs ... I think the last one I saw was > in a Fingerhut catalog someone left in the post office. I've seen a "space pen" in museum stores which does not float, it sits on its point and is held upright by a plastic structure holding a magnet over the "eraser" end. There's a bit on Earnshaw Theorem on my maglev page: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/maglev/maglev.html It deals with electric or magnetic poles in static fields, and says that 1/r^2 fields can't keep a pole stable. So if all you have is gravity and permanent magnets, there should be no way to stably levitate a permanent magnet over a combination of static permanent magnets. Diamagnetic or SC materials change the situation, as do dynamic fields, feedback systems, (and spinning magnets.) The Levitron is one of those neat little gagets that makes me a bit depressed, because the idea is one that I came close to and could have stumbled upon eventually, but now someone else has gone and found it first! ;) .....................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 Sep 29 22:34:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA23664; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 22:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 22:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: 30 Sep 96 01:08:04 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Read the lit., Horace. Pack it y'self, C Message-ID: <960930050803_72240.1256_EHB102-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Imwce1.0.cn5.khrJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1214 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Horace writes: "I would very much like to see a list of more than 20 parties (e.g. Patterson et al counts for one party, Cravens, if independent, counts for a 2nd party, etc.) that have created "excess energy exceeding concerns about recombination". That basically leaves CETI and CETI replicators, doesn't it?" This is beginning to sound like s.p.f. Look, Horace, you must read the literature. It is an indisputable matter of fact that hundreds of labs have reported excess heat beyond recombination. You will find the names and claims in the literature. Okay, maybe they are all wrong -- but they have reported it, and if you do not want to take my word for it please get yourself to the library and look them up. Read Mallove or Storms. In Fire from Ice on pages 246 - 248 you will find a handy table compiled by Fritz Will, listing 33 labs reporting excess heat by mid-1990. There have been many others subsequently, including people like Swartz (as I mentioned), who has contributed to this forum from time to time. Perhaps you dispute his experimental technique, but it is not good form to pretend he does not exist or he has not made any well-documented claims. Recombination has never been a factor in any competent lab. In every case that I am aware of it is either measured and accounted for; or done away with by using a recombiner; or rendered insignificant by output far beyond I*V. Recombination has never been a legitimate scientific issue in cold fusion. It is a silly bugbear raised by "skeptics" to confuse the issue. If Horace does not wish to read the literature he should refrain from commenting on it. I will *not* address this issue again. Horace also writes: "Anyone expert at calorimetry can evaluate the performance of a CF cell." You miss the point! Any expert in calorimetry can indeed evaluate the performance, but *he cannot get the damn thing to work*! I have sat and watched an electrochemist take all day to perform operations that a non-expert (like me) would try to do in a half-hour, and fatally botch. You need practice and "job-knowledge" to set up and run a CF experiment. You need far more skill to fabricate and test a cathode. As I said, Ed Storms devoted a solid year to making five cathodes, which he keeps in the deep freeze. Not long ago I asked him what he thought of lending one to EarthTech or some other independent evaluator. He said no, he has his own plans for vital tests, and additional performance data that he wants to derive from them. If he gives one to someone else who has not done CF, it is dollars to donuts the fellow will wreck it and two months of Ed's work will go down the tubes. If you were in Ed's shoes, you would not lend out this material, any more than I would have handed over my precious 1980 home computer to some amateur who wanted to "evaluate" it. You have to look at these things from the point of view of the scientists doing all the hard work. Chris Tinsley writes: "And perhaps all that would be more relevant than having people argue the place of EarthTech in the scheme of things. Pack it in, Jed." The issue we are debating here is far more important than EarthTech's role in the scheme of things. In this debate, we have uncovered a host of mistaken ideas about the nature of cold fusion experiments. To put it bluntly, both Scott and Horace have revealed that they do not understand what goes in the lab, what has been reported, and what is involved in the actual hands-on work of doing these experiments. Horace thinks that nobody has measured recombination! Now I am no great expert on these issues. I have not succeeded in replicating the CF effect. Many of techniques the electrochemists at TAMU discussed are over my head. But I have, at least, read their papers and watched them in the labs, and I understand what they are up against, and why they act the way they do. It may be that many readers of this forum are misinformed about the nature of this work. This spreads confusion and breeds resentment against the CF scientists, most of whom are doing the best they can under trying circumstances. It behooves us to try to grasp what they actually do, why it takes so long, and why it is so difficult. You might end up thinking that all CF scientists are deliberately withholding data and cutting Scott out the picture in order to prevent replications. CETI *is* doing that, I believe, which adds to the confusion. That is because of their business strategy. But CETI is not the only player. The rest are scientists who have no business strategies. If you cannot persuade CETI to be reasonable, perhaps you can work with the other people. Hal Fox had to stop working on a promising thin film Ni device months ago because he ran out of money. There are many others like him. Dash has been offering to help people replicate for years; he repeated that offer at TAMU. I have known about him and remarked on his work in several of my papers. Storms has spelled what must be done with bulk Pd D2O. Anyone who wishes to make a contribution to this field -- money and/or replications -- will find countless opportunities outside of CETI. If the scientists are ignoring EarthTech, I think EarthTech should ask themselves whose fault that is, what can be done about it, and how they might improve communication and sweeten the deal on their end. If you want the CF scientists to do you a big favor and help you replicate, you must offer them something in return, and you must prove you are worth working with. Would *you* be willing to hand Scott Little a delicate cathode that took you eight weeks of work and thousands of dollars to produce? Has he shown the necessary skill to handle it without destroying it? Not as far as I know, he hasn't. This *is* an important issue. It is not a squabble between me and Scott, it is a reflection of a much broader, tragic fiasco. These misunderstandings, these misperceptions (like Horace's claims about recombination), and this lack of communication on both sides have paralyzed cold fusion and contributed to tragic delays and useless anger. I see both sides of the arguments. I understand the frustrations of people like Scott, who honestly want to contribute. I also understand the point of view of people like Mizuno, Miley and Storms who are doing all the work, slaving in the labs until 3 am. They will not hand out precious cathodes or spend weeks training people who have not demonstrated professional aptitude. Perhaps that is self-destructive or self-defeating behavior, but it is understandable, and if you wish to alter it by persuasion you must begin by appreciating their point of view. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Sep 29 23:40:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA18305; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 23:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 23:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 22:42:57 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Read the lit., Horace. Pack it y'self, C Resent-Message-ID: <"9RjF3.0.xT4.-gsJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1215 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: It appears we will just have to agree to disagree. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 02:19:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA07601; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 02:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 02:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: 30 Sep 96 05:14:31 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Read the lit., Horace. Pack it y'self, C Message-ID: <960930091431_100060.173_JHB52-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"1YxbZ1.0.hs1.v_uJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1216 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Jed, I usually keep out of this type of discussion, interesting though it might be, but if I may I'll try to inject some basic thinking into the debate. Accepting all that you say about the significant numbers of successful implementations of CF, we still have a general lack of confidence among the vast majority who have not witnessed the event for themselves, or who are not able to plough through the published literature. What is needed is an independent lab to run any of the so-called real ou CF or whatever devices and give a full report on their findings. If this needs hand-holding by the designer - so be it. It appears to the outsider that by withholding sample devices from independent testing and publishing, there is either something to hide or a degree of uncertainty about the results. I can understand the commercial attitude of secrecy, but as you say there are plenty of successful operators who are not (yet) in that frame of mind, and who should be willing to let Scott, or someone who has their confidence (after personal inspection of their facilities and record if necessary), put their device through its paces and report the results to all of us. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 02:39:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA08933; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 02:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 02:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960930094326.006e5be8@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, 30 Sep 1996 02:43:26 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Neophobia and neophilia Resent-Message-ID: <"fYVCX2.0.VB2.gIvJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1217 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris said... >When evidence comes along to upset the applecart (as it, curiously >enough, seems to do each time a new century approaches) then the >community is caught short with no model. This causes deep dismay, and a >fight between the old model and various new ones which pop up like >mushrooms. The Hawkins Theory of Negativity: The ability to accept any new scientific fact is inversely proportional to the number of scientific accreditations, if the new understandings came from without the halls that bestowed those accreditations. This theory, and the battle over CF, would appear to disprove Einstein's Postulate of Relativity, which said: "The laws of physics are the same for observers in all inertial reference frames. No frame is singled out as preferred." Postulate to the Hawkins Theory of Negativity: The inertial desire of standard science to be preferred, fogs their ability to comprehend the true laws of physics. --Yours Truly :> From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 02:44:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA09317; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 02:43:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 02:43:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960930094949.006e8640@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, 30 Sep 1996 02:49:49 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Neophobia and neophilia Resent-Message-ID: <"qXtWr3.0.RH2.fOvJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1218 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >This theory, and the battle over CF, would appear to >disprove Einstein's Postulate of Relativity, which said: > "The laws of physics are the same for observers in all > inertial reference frames. No frame is singled out as preferred." Actually, it validates it. The halls of science would appear to be trying their best to ignore that postulate. :) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 04:04:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA13949; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 04:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 04:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: 30 Sep 96 06:21:20 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Let's compromise, Jed Message-ID: <960930102120_100433.1541_BHG71-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"W34l82.0.pP3.YZwJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1219 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace, > You didn't have to be an electronics expert, or MBE expert, or any > kind of expert on anything physical to build a PC and run a > benchmark. 1976 was the date to which Jed referred. Like I say, "history is slower when you are living through it." Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 04:04:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA13977; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 04:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 04:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: 30 Sep 96 06:21:32 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Read the lit., Horace. Pack it y'sel Message-ID: <960930102132_100433.1541_BHG71-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"CuvKZ.0.FQ3.bZwJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1220 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace writes: > It appears we will just have to agree to disagree. And I've read everyone else's contributions. The reason I said Jed should pack it in was more on the matter of tone than substance. Look, fellows (in the true sense of the word), we are supposed to be on the same side - in a sense. The side of rationality. 1. I respect Scott and Hal. However, Earthtech does sometimes give the impression (and is seen by some others here) of being the sole arbiter of reality. There is indeed something to be said for the "if you cannot show me, I will remain sceptical" approach but in view of the known status, thoroughness and competence of those who have observed the thermal anomaly of CF, there is a serious danger of raising that approach to a level which is simply not appropriate under the circumstances. 2. Historical similies are very useful, and poorly understood by many - including those who see Galileo and Bruno as the only scientists ever punished for their heresies, or by those who see the Wrights as either tinkerers or mistreated heroes. But history is a poor guide in the case of CF, where the lack of any performing CF experiment at Earthtech is more a result of a series of random events than a reflection of reality. 3. To remain sceptical of the thermal anomalies of CF is - quite simply - irrational. Scepticism has a nasty habit of losing its way and becoming an argument from authority. Many will say, "When the APS accepts cold fusion, then I will accept that it is real." A big improvement on that is to choose a lower-status (sorry, Scott, Hal) group as one's touchstone for reality - but the irrationality remains. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 04:44:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA17460; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 04:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 04:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: 30 Sep 96 07:38:50 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Read the lit., Horace. Pack it y'self, C Message-ID: <960930113850_100433.1541_BHG84-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"UNVCk2.0.kG4.e7xJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1221 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Norman, > Accepting all that you say about the significant numbers of > successful implementations of CF, we still have a general lack of > confidence among the vast majority who have not witnessed the > event for themselves, or who are not able to plough through the > published literature. But if someone is not willing (I fail to see how they cannot be able) to study the published literature, then how can their opinion be of value or relevance? > What is needed is an independent lab to run any of the so-called > real ou CF or whatever devices and give a full report on their > findings. If this needs hand-holding by the designer - so be it. But the commercial people don't want to, and the scientists feel that they have better things to do with their time. What may seem important to me or to others on this list does not necessarily seem important to the people actually involved. This is all that famous process of devising one's own reality test - like the man who said that when a CF car runs from New York to Boston he would believe it. If you want to know whether something is real, then you must go out there and find out - in this case from the published papers. To do it by setting it a milestone of your own devising is to raise subjectivity above objectivity. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 06:18:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA00734; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 06:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 06:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 09:17:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199609301317.JAA06172@ns1.ptd.net> X-Sender: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net (Jeff Fink) Subject: Re: PAGD Resent-Message-ID: <"HFt3Y3.0.KB.kXyJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1222 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > >I bought a Grainger refrigeration pump last week for $285 and have been producing pulsed abnormal glow discharges for most of the week. Before I describe what I have done I must make this disclaimer. I may be an engineer but I am not a scientist. I'm just playing around with this stuff to see if I can make something happen. This is however serious playing for me since I have 1500 bucks into it already. I have read the IE articles repeatedly and have gotten copies of the patents. I have not attempted to duplicate Correa's results for the following reasons: 1. I can't afford 700 volts worth of rechargable batteries. 2. I can't afford 3400 microfarads worth of 350v capacitors. 3. I don't know how to work with glass. It seemed to me that a glass tube was not the way to go. Plates in a glass tube are thermally insulated and will over heat. They are difficult to align accurately and it is hard to scale up a glass device. The largest tube the Correas published had plates of 264cm2 ea. and they said bigger is better. So this is what I did. I got a 9" dia. x 1/2" wall acrylic tube 2-1/2" long and machined "o" ring grooves in each face. I then got two 10" x 10" x 1/2 aluminum plates for end caps and sealed them with vacuum grease. This gave me 300cm2 per plate. I drilled a vac connection into the tube to epoxy a glass stem for the vac hose. According to the patents .05 to .1 torr is a good operating range. The pump I bought maxes out at .025 torr. For a high voltage power supply I bought a .750 kva distribution transformer and wired it for 110vac input and a 440vac output. For filter caps I used a pair of 5600mf 350v items in series wired to a 1000v bridge rectifier. I installed a 5 A fuse in the primary circuit. When I tested the power supply, the fuse went off like a flash bulb. The inrush current on these filter capacitors was something else. I solved this problem by wiring a 250 watt heat lamp in series with the fuse. When the capacitors are charged the lamp goes out and I then bypasss the lamp with a switch. I found that no load volts on this power supply exceeds 600v. I connected the power supply to the PAGD unit with 260 ohms of ballast in series and turned it on. I used a clip on ammeter in the primary circuit. As expected with no vacuum there was no power consumption. I turned on the vac pump and watched intently for any sign of a glow not knowing if my power supply was really enough to light it off. About 5 min. into vac operation the cathode suddenly lit up and I shut off the pump. A few seconds later my pump made a funny noise and regurgitated vacuum oil all over the inside of my tube shutting down the reaction. I spent the rest of the evening disassembling and cleaning the tube components. I bought an isolation valve the next day. Soon after start up the next day the glow was back followed by brilliant sparkles jumping all around the cathode surface. This was apparently the PAGD effect. Primary current hovered near 1.5 A. A scope wired across 10 ohms of my ballast resistance showed voltage spikes as the tube resistance dropped with each PAGD event. These events were flashing across the cathode surface at nearly 10 per second at some random frequency since the auto triggering on the scope could not get a stabilizing lock on it. It could be seen through the clear tube that pits were forming on the cathode surface. It could also be seen that a conical cloud radiated upward from each burst. A noticeable deterioration in visibility was occurring as the device ran. Vaporized aluminum was apparently condensing on the inner surface of the acrylic. I tried reducing the value of the ballast resistors. This caused the intensity of the bursts to increase. I tried putting a pair of series capacitors across the plates. These increased the intensity of the bursts dramatically while reducing the frequency. The frequency was also stabilized to some degree since the scope now displayed a more regular pattern of spikes which now trailed off because of the caps. The 22mf 350v caps lasted only a minute before exploding. My next effort was to go after any excess energy that might be present. And as usual I was going to do it my way. I had already tested with low voltage simulation an active control circuit to collect the pulse energy. This circuit consisted of an SCR to divert the energy pulses to a large storage capacitor with a pair of 100 watt light bulbs to bleed off the charge. I wired the two bulbs in series since I expected the voltage to get to around 300v. The SCR also controlled a FET in the drive circuit to shut down the drive power while collecting the pulse energy. This was done to keep the power supply from charging the collecting circuit. The circuit seemed to work very well, but it did not collect much energy. I did not come close to lighting the bulbs. However, with the bulbs disconnected the capacitor would reach 350v after a minute or two. Numerous adjustments and variations on this control circuit failed to provide much improvement. It was painfully clear that I would have to back up a bit and try it the Correa way (sort of). I went back to fig. 9 in IE and wired that circuit with the following exceptions: 1. C3 nad C5 were 490mf instead of 34,000mf. 2. The voltage doubling components of C7 a and b, and D7 and D8 were omitted. 3. I used my 5600mf charge capacitor and light bulbs in place of a charge battery pack. Even with a measely 490mf across the tube, this represented the largest capacitor I had ever put in this part of the circuit. When I started up this circuit the PAGD events were so incredibly violent that I am not sure that they were not vacuum arc discharges since hot spots could be seen on the anode also. The instaneous current flow was so intense that I could hear audible clicks coming from the 490mf caps. Inspite of these violent reactions, next to nothing was going into the charge capacitor or bulbs. With the bulbs disconnected the charge cap never topped 24v. Nevertheless it is unimaginable what would happen if my 490mf caps were 34,000mf. This brings us up to date. I welcome any comment, questions, or advice. To be continued: >> >> > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 06:49:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA05663; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 06:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 06:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: 30 Sep 96 09:45:00 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Norman is right; but they did already Message-ID: <960930134500_72240.1256_EHB74-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"YtXEU3.0.NO1.F-yJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1223 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Norman Horwood writes: "What is needed is an independent lab to run any of the so-called real ou CF or whatever devices and give a full report on their findings. If this needs hand-holding by the designer - so be it." I agree 100%! So do Pons and Fleischmann, so does McKubre and CETI and all other CF scientists. And that is exactly what has happened. Pons and Fleischmann were forced to publish in 1989 and subsequently many independent labs ran the devices and observed real ou, beyond recombination and far above the noise. SRI needed an independent check on their calorimetry, so they supplied the NEDO lab with a calorimeter lock, stock, and barrel. NEDO replicated them. What more can you ask for? The only major CF experiment that has not been replicated is the Los Alamos tritium generation work. The equipment for that costs a fortune, nobody can afford to replicate it. That is a pity. I have often criticized CETI for moving too slowly and for restricting the number of outside labs they deal with, but on the other hand nobody can deny they have had independent labs test their beads. To date, they have shipped beads to U. Illinois, U. Missouri, SRI, Motorola, Cravens and at least three other labs (not sure of the names). SRI will publish their results in two weeks, at ICCF6. "It appears to the outsider that by withholding sample devices from independent testing and publishing, there is either something to hide or a degree of uncertainty about the results." Who are we talking about? Surely not CETI. By any standard, they have done what Norman and I demand. I wish they had shipped bead to thousands of other labs, including EarthTech. I think their standards for picking labs are too high, and too restrictive. I think their pace is agonizingly slow, thanks to their business strategy, which I do not understand. But I would never go so far as to say they have withheld sample devices from independent testing and publishing. "I can understand the commercial attitude of secrecy, but as you say there are plenty of successful operators who are not (yet) in that frame of mind, and who should be willing to let Scott, or someone who has their confidence (after personal inspection of their facilities and record if necessary), put their device through its paces and report the results to all of us." There are indeed many scientists who would be willing to collaborate, but you have to reach out to them, and show them why they should spend time with you. Otherwise they will simply tell you "read my published papers, don't bother me." The CF scientists in general do not see any need for replication, because every major experiment already has been replicated, many times. The devices have already been put through their paces, and the reports are available to anyone who cares to read them. Even CETI's relatively new approach has now been done by a half-dozen highly qualified labs. The argument that EarthTech can add a note of legitimacy to the field falls flat. Frankly, it is ridiculous. George Miley is the head of the Fusion Studies lab and the editor of Fusion Technology, Laser Particle Beams and the Journal of Plasma Physics. Yet even he cannot change any minds or sway any opinions in the establishment. Does anyone seriously believe EarthTech has more influence than Miley? Does anyone think they are "more objective"? Some skeptics pay lip service to EarthTech but that is only because EarthTech has not gotten any positive results. The moment they report excess heat, the skeptics will condemn them as crackpots and frauds, and cast them to the lowest level of hell, down there with Hitachi and U. Illinois. In this field you are defined by your results: you are a scientist until you successfully replicate, then you become a fraud, or you drop off the radar screen and people like Horace Heffner deny that you ever existed. (Sorry! I won't mention it again.) EPRI is the biggest and most prestigious privately run energy R&D institution in the world. They replicated Pons and Fleischmann and stated that they are sure the excess heat is real and beyond the limits of chemistry. And what happened? Nothing! Nobody paid the slightest bit of attention. EPRI's final report sank like a stone. It should have been on the front page of every newspaper on earth, but nobody paid any attention to it. Their instruments cost millions, their calorimetry is impeccable, and their proof is better than anything EarthTech could come up with in a lifetime. If the world ignores EPRI, it is absurd to think it would pay attention to EarthTech. The CF scientists know it would not. They realize that EarthTech cannot help them on that score. No doubt Scott has a lot to contribute to this field, but he cannot add legitimacy or believability to experiments that have been independently certified in published papers by the likes of EPRI, the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Oak Ridge and Los Alamos. If he is offering "legitimacy" to Oriani, Bockris, Huggins or McKubre, he is barking up the wrong tree. That's like telling Steven Spielberg that you can make him a big success in show business if he'll just do as you say. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 07:00:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA07455; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 06:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 06:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 23:57:46 +1000 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Read the lit., Horace. Pack it y'sel In-Reply-To: <960930102132_100433.1541_BHG71-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"J9U-f3.0.Gq1.v7zJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1225 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I feel like putting my 2 cents worth in on this: On 30 Sep 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > > And I've read everyone else's contributions. > > The reason I said Jed should pack it in was more on the matter of tone > than substance. Look, fellows (in the true sense of the word), we are > supposed to be on the same side - in a sense. The side of rationality. > > 1. I respect Scott and Hal. However, Earthtech does sometimes give the > impression (and is seen by some others here) of being the sole arbiter > of reality. When I spoke with Dennis Cravens last year in my abortive attempt to evaluate a CETI cell I also asked about Scott coming along. I very much got this sense from Dennis Cravens. To paraphrase: "Why should he set himself up as arbiter of what's right?" > There is indeed something to be said for the "if you cannot > show me, I will remain sceptical" approach but in view of the known > status, thoroughness and competence of those who have observed the > thermal anomaly of CF, there is a serious danger of raising that > approach to a level which is simply not appropriate under the > circumstances. > Here I have to disagree! If a theory of CF is ever devised it will be the most radical departure from what is known ever in the history of Physics. What is currently known about Physics says the transmutations reported recently occur over 187 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE too fast. Under those cirmustances the onus is absolutely on the CF scientist to convince the sceptical scientist using every means at his disposal. The level of sceptisim shown by Scott and Earthtech is the minimum appropriate in the absence of an "In Your Face" demonstration. Why don't we have one or more of those CF Scientists here in vortex-l bevearing away, trying to convince us that he's got it? (My appologies to Joe Champion who is definately trying to do this here. The exception that proves the rule?) Scott has demonstrated complete openness and technical competence to me. I'd trust his results. > 3. To remain sceptical of the thermal anomalies of CF is - quite simply > - irrational. Scepticism has a nasty habit of losing its way and > becoming an argument from authority. Many will say, "When the APS > accepts cold fusion, then I will accept that it is real." A big > improvement on that is to choose a lower-status (sorry, Scott, Hal) > group as one's touchstone for reality - but the irrationality remains. > I couldn't disagree more Chris. It is not irrational to be sceptical of CF in the absence of a close knowledge of the Scientist doing the work given the extreme violation of known Physics it would imply. Scott's attempts to replicate on the basis of published patents of people with claimed spectacular results - like Piantelli - just adds an extra layer of caution to all the other claims and reports. Jed's statements that one needs to be "exceptionally skilled in the art" to do a successful experiment only means that the CF scientists have been expectionally poor in communicating their methods, which by definition reflects on their qualities as Scientists. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 07:04:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA08504; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 07:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 07:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 10:01:17 -0400 (EDT) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: PAGD In-Reply-To: <199609301317.JAA06172@ns1.ptd.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"ESmXB.0.l42.yBzJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1226 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Jeff, In a darkened room, with your rig shrouded to prevent light from escaping IT use a CRT from a scope which is off to see if you are generating X rays. Other phosphors work as well. One is from X ray film cassettes, a used one from when they upgrade. Have to talk to radiologist. A nice one will give you a cassette .... those wiht high JQ [jerk quotient] do not usually do so. JHS On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Jeff Fink wrote: > > > > > >I bought a Grainger refrigeration pump last week for $285 and have been > producing pulsed abnormal glow discharges for most of the week. Before I > describe what I have done I must make this disclaimer. I may be an engineer > but I am not a scientist. I'm just playing around with this stuff to see if > I can make something happen. This is however serious playing for me since I > have 1500 bucks into it already. > > I have read the IE articles repeatedly and have gotten copies of the > patents. I have not attempted to duplicate Correa's results for the > following reasons: > > 1. I can't afford 700 volts worth of rechargable batteries. > > 2. I can't afford 3400 microfarads worth of 350v capacitors. > > 3. I don't know how to work with glass. > > It seemed to me that a glass tube was not the way to go. Plates in a glass > tube are thermally insulated and will over heat. They are difficult to > align accurately and it is hard to scale up a glass device. The largest > tube the Correas published had plates of 264cm2 ea. and they said bigger is > better. So this is what I did. I got a 9" dia. x 1/2" wall acrylic tube > 2-1/2" long and machined "o" ring grooves in each face. I then got two 10" > x 10" x 1/2 aluminum plates for end caps and sealed them with vacuum grease. > This gave me 300cm2 per plate. I drilled a vac connection into the tube to > epoxy a glass stem for the vac hose. According to the patents .05 to .1 > torr is a good operating range. The pump I bought maxes out at .025 torr. > > For a high voltage power supply I bought a .750 kva distribution transformer > and wired it for 110vac input and a 440vac output. For filter caps I used a > pair of 5600mf 350v items in series wired to a 1000v bridge rectifier. I > installed a 5 A fuse in the primary circuit. When I tested the power > supply, the fuse went off like a flash bulb. The inrush current on these > filter capacitors was something else. I solved this problem by wiring a 250 > watt heat lamp in series with the fuse. When the capacitors are charged the > lamp goes out and I then bypasss the lamp with a switch. I found that no > load volts on this power supply exceeds 600v. > > I connected the power supply to the PAGD unit with 260 ohms of ballast in > series and turned it on. I used a clip on ammeter in the primary circuit. > As expected with no vacuum there was no power consumption. I turned on the > vac pump and watched intently for any sign of a glow not knowing if my power > supply was really enough to light it off. About 5 min. into vac operation > the cathode suddenly lit up and I shut off the pump. A few seconds later my > pump made a funny noise and regurgitated vacuum oil all over the inside of > my tube shutting down the reaction. I spent the rest of the evening > disassembling and cleaning the tube components. I bought an isolation valve > the next day. > > Soon after start up the next day the glow was back followed by brilliant > sparkles jumping all around the cathode surface. This was apparently the > PAGD effect. Primary current hovered near 1.5 A. A scope wired across 10 > ohms of my ballast resistance showed voltage spikes as the tube resistance > dropped with each PAGD event. These events were flashing across the cathode > surface at nearly 10 per second at some random frequency since the auto > triggering on the scope could not get a stabilizing lock on it. It could be > seen through the clear tube that pits were forming on the cathode surface. > It could also be seen that a conical cloud radiated upward from each burst. > A noticeable deterioration in visibility was occurring as the device ran. > Vaporized aluminum was apparently condensing on the inner surface of the > acrylic. > > I tried reducing the value of the ballast resistors. This caused the > intensity of the bursts to increase. I tried putting a pair of series > capacitors across the plates. These increased the intensity of the bursts > dramatically while reducing the frequency. The frequency was also > stabilized to some degree since the scope now displayed a more regular > pattern of spikes which now trailed off because of the caps. The 22mf 350v > caps lasted only a minute before exploding. > > My next effort was to go after any excess energy that might be present. And > as usual I was going to do it my way. > > I had already tested with low voltage simulation an active control circuit > to collect the pulse energy. This circuit consisted of an SCR to divert the > energy pulses to a large storage capacitor with a pair of 100 watt light > bulbs to bleed off the charge. I wired the two bulbs in series since I > expected the voltage to get to around 300v. The SCR also controlled a FET > in the drive circuit to shut down the drive power while collecting the pulse > energy. This was done to keep the power supply from charging the collecting > circuit. The circuit seemed to work very well, but it did not collect much > energy. I did not come close to lighting the bulbs. However, with the > bulbs disconnected the capacitor would reach 350v after a minute or two. > Numerous adjustments and variations on this control circuit failed to > provide much improvement. > > It was painfully clear that I would have to back up a bit and try it the > Correa way (sort of). I went back to fig. 9 in IE and wired that circuit > with the following exceptions: > > 1. C3 nad C5 were 490mf instead of 34,000mf. > > 2. The voltage doubling components of C7 a and b, and D7 and D8 were omitted. > > 3. I used my 5600mf charge capacitor and light bulbs in place of a charge > battery pack. > > Even with a measely 490mf across the tube, this represented the largest > capacitor I had ever put in this part of the circuit. When I started up > this circuit the PAGD events were so incredibly violent that I am not sure > that they were not vacuum arc discharges since hot spots could be seen on > the anode also. The instaneous current flow was so intense that I could hear > audible clicks coming from the 490mf caps. Inspite of these violent > reactions, next to nothing was going into the charge capacitor or bulbs. > With the bulbs disconnected the charge cap never topped 24v. Nevertheless > it is unimaginable what would happen if my 490mf caps were 34,000mf. > > This brings us up to date. I welcome any comment, questions, or advice. > > > To be continued: > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 07:10:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA06935; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 06:56:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 06:56:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 09:56:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Todd Heywood To: @minnie.nic.kingston.ibm.com:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Brown's gas...found on sci.systems (late) In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960926184539.006e1e8c@mail.eskimo.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"JGbwf.0.Di1.H6zJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1224 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 26 Sep 1996, Gary Hawkins wrote: > At 10:47 AM 9/23/96 PDT, you wrote: > > >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. > >Subject: Re: Brown's gas...found on sci.systems (late) > >Gary Hawkins: Thanks for that warning, it does put an interesting face > >on things! MDH > > Oh now there you go encouraging me. So you can only > blame yourself for what follows: > > As a public service, I feel it is important to let > all of those so unfortunate as to not be receiving > Dennis Lee's newsletter, in on the latest excitement. > Dennis Lee is now channelling God. I can see > channellers everywhere palm-slap-to-forehead going > jeez, why didn't I think of that? [snip] OK guys, but the real point here, and the reason it was forwarded here from the newsgroup it was found on, is that it seems that Brown of Brown's gas is now mixed up with these people. And my (maybe mistaken) impression was that Brown's gas had some credibly solid foundations. I though Micheal Mandeville's immediate reaction was appropriate! Todd Heywood From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 07:13:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA10809; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 07:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 07:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 06:15:21 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: PC Resent-Message-ID: <"b080F.0.pe2.1JzJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1227 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Horace, > > > You didn't have to be an electronics expert, or MBE expert, or any > > kind of expert on anything physical to build a PC and run a > > benchmark. > >1976 was the date to which Jed referred. Like I say, "history is slower >when you are living through it." > >Chris I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I know he refers to circa 1976. My wife and I built an Altair then. Just followed the instructions. Maybe you object to the word PC? At the time it was short for personal computer, nothing else. Like many others, I was unhappy with IBM stealing the term. Usually it works the other way around, trade to generic, Frigidair, Xerox etc. I couldn't believe IBM would get away with it but they did, at least until human laziness caught up with them. I think the word is now in generic use for "IBM PC or clone". Since the Altair was 8080 based, I see no reason not to call it a PC. Heh, why am I have feelings of justice done? :) Maybe that's PC. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 07:51:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA18388; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 07:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 07:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 06:53:21 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Read the lit., Horace. Pack it y'self, C Resent-Message-ID: <"acKv3.0.9V4.cszJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1228 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Hi Jed, > [snip] > >What is needed is an independent lab to run any of the so-called real ou CF or >whatever devices and give a full report on their findings. If this needs >hand-holding by the designer - so be it. > [snip] > >Norman I would even go much further. Cold fusion and other new energy schemes are in their infancies. The popularization is just beginning, and the snake oil salesmen are at it. I think in the US at least, the government should fund testing services, and mandate such at designated licensed facilities for anyone soliciting capital for improving or marketing a working device, or before issuing a patent for ou performance. If a gadget obtains a seal of approval as ou then matching government funds should be provided to assist in bringing the device to market. This would be a much better use of taxpayer's money than world junkets for the secretary of energy, among other things. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 08:03:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA19861; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 07:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 07:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 10:47:23 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960930104542.771fd20a@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: Lattice disruptions cause explosions? Resent-Message-ID: <"Kt0Yr1.0.Ds4.uxzJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1230 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:02 PM 9/27/96 +1000, Martin Sevior wrote: > > >On 26 Sep 1996, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> >> Why is a grain boundary like transmuted metal? Answer: they are both not >> lattice. Imagine that an immensely powerful reaction occurs at the atomic >> level (even smaller if it is ZPE or what-have-you). I think it is generally >> agreed that somehow the energy from the reaction spreads out through the >> lattice without tearing it apart. But suppose the lattice comes to an end, or >> an edge, at a disruption? When vibrations reach the edge of the grain >> boundary, particularly the pointy hexagon vertex, what can they do but bounce >> back? This would pull apart the grains or cause local heating. Maybe the magic >> energy sharing mechanism never crosses the boundary. Is one grain of metal big >> enough to safely disperse the heat from an MeV nuclear reaction? >> > >It's just numbers Jed. The typical atomic space is about 10^-9 meters, a >typical >nuclear "event" has an energy of about 10 MeV, to disperse to the level of >thermal vibrations you need to get it down to abou 0.1 eV, that's a factor >of 10^-8 so you need about 10^8 atoms to disperse one nuclear event. A one >micron grain would contain about ((10^-6)/(10^-9) = 10^3)^3 = 10^9 atoms. >Enough to do the trick. > >Interesting further speculations. > >Martin Sevior > > It is refreshing to see any science here or on spf at all. Nonetheless, not sure about your numbers. First, atomic space? is not ~1-2 10^-10 meters a little closer? if you mean lattice,it might be twice that, so 3.9 E-10 meters seems right for palladium. ok? Second, about your putative energy, it is halfway between heliums lowest and first excited nuclear states and the majority of other nuclear events which are even lower? (e.g. cobalt 60, technecium 99m, Sr 90) and beta-related reactions to suggest just a few. In summary, the range can extend to below on the minima, 100 keV, ok? Did you have a particular reaction in mind? Third, where are your numbers for thermal vibrations from? Are they measurements you have done? Thermal vibrations (phonons) in palladium hydrided (acoustic and optic branches exist) may have energies, with some in the range of about ~45-50 millieV. These phonons, and the role of such lattice explosions [which are secondary to positive feedback amongst other things] were discussed in considerable detail, with this same calculation in M. Swartz, "Catastrophic Active Medium Hypothesis of Cold Fusion", Vol. 4, Proceedings: "Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion", sponsored by EPRI and the Office of Naval Research, December (1994). The positive feedback appears to have recently been confirmed by P+F in their French paper. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 08:03:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA19593; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 07:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 07:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 10:48:35 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960930104654.771f5e7e@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: Transmutation vs CF heat Resent-Message-ID: <"MnKiz2.0.0o4.pwzJo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1229 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:20 PM 9/29/96 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: > >Nevertheless, I still don't see much evidence that transmutation >experiemnts are difficult. The following diagram summarizes what I mean in >regard to the literature: > > > Looked For > ------------------------------ > |Excess Heat |Transmutations | > |------------|---------------| > | | | >Found | Many | Some | > | | | > |------------|---------------| > | | | >Not | Many | Few to none | >Found | | | > ------------------------------ > > IMHO that is not what the literature shows or what has been found. Consider only the second column of your table. For example with tritium alone, after correction for multiple papers by the same author, about 70% of the papers found its generation after difficult to achieve conditions were attained. This will be in my forthcoming ILENR2 paper. This is not to discuss the quality of the papers, only the numbers. There are several negative papers. Also, contamination, corrosion, and other matters make many of the putative transmutation reports less substantive if they were not commented upon and measured each of those reports. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 08:29:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA26540; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 08:23:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 08:23:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: 30 Sep 96 11:21:40 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Cannot learn electrochemistry by ESP Message-ID: <960930152139_72240.1256_EHB201-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"IGMQ6.0.bU6.tN-Jo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1231 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Martin Sevior writes: "If a theory of CF is ever devised it will be the most radical departure from what is known ever in the history of Physics. What is currently known about Physics says the transmutations reported recently occur over 187 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE too fast. Under those circumstances the onus is absolutely on the CF scientist to convince the sceptical scientist using every means at his disposal." Well, many CF scientists have already used every means at their disposal. I mean, what more can you expect EPRI to do? They published a 128 page report + microfiche. If they could build power plants I know they would! They have said so many times. Miley volunteered to go on national television, and he will report at ICCF6. I do not know any other mainstream scientist who would stick his neck out so far in support of a despised, heretical field like CF. The 187 orders of magnitude business boils down to a difference of philosophy. It is something we must agree to disagree on. Chris and I don't care how many orders of magnitude get squashed, or how many theories are wrong. We believe in the absolute supremacy of high sigma, replicated data. In every case the data wins, theory loses. If we see replicated, high S/N experimental proof of antigravity, ESP, polywater, or anything else, we will automatically believe it. We think the onus is always on the theoreticians. It can never be on the experimentalists. No experimentalist ever has to justify his results according to a theory. No theory can ever disprove an experiment. One order or 187 -- it is all the same to me; I couldn't care less how wrong the theories are; and I know they cannot be right if they predict CF doesn't happen. "Scott's attempts to replicate on the basis of published patents of people with claimed spectacular results - like Piantelli - just adds an extra layer of caution to all the other claims and reports." Piantelli has nothing to do with Pons and Fleischmann, or CETI. A failed attempt to replicate Piantelli cannot add or subtract anything from EPRI's replication of Pons and Fleischmann, or U. Illinois successful replication of CETI. "Jed's statements that one needs to be "exceptionally skilled in the art" to do a successful experiment only means that the CF scientists have been exceptionally poor in communicating their methods, which by definition reflects on their qualities as Scientists." That's preposterous. Would you say the same about experiments to find quarks, or to generate large scale hot fusion? These experiments are many orders of magnitude more difficult to replicate than CF. They require the combined efforts of thousands of people who are "exceptionally skilled in the art." The paper published by the PPPL describing their hottest run to date does not include instructions for building a Tokamak reactor. By Martin's new standard, that makes it exceptionally poor. You cannot learn electrochemistry by ESP in one afternoon. When CETI handed over their beads to Mike McKubre, who is one of the world's top electrochemists, the first thing he did was to accidentally roach a set. (I mean he destroyed them. He removed the thin film.) If he makes that kind of mistake, why should anyone think they are so smart they can get it right the first time? People who wish to replicate CF will have to work at least as hard as you would to replicate a fax machine starting from chips, or a lightbulb starting with manual glass blowing equipment. If you do not want to work that hard, you have two choices: 1. Read the literature and try to judge from that. Do not judge CETI based on EarthTech's attempt to replicate Piantelli. There is no causal connection between them. 2. Wait for CETI, or someone else, to sell kits. We have heard from another group that hopes to begin selling them soon. They seem to have a better business sense than CETI. They plan to offer the kits at a sane price. Of course, it remains to be seen whether they can pull it off. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 08:38:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA27515; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 08:28:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 08:28:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 07:33:17 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Transmutation vs CF heat Resent-Message-ID: <"bkE2_2.0.lj6.5S-Jo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1232 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 02:20 PM 9/29/96 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: > >> >>Nevertheless, I still don't see much evidence that transmutation >>experiemnts are difficult. The following diagram summarizes what I mean in >>regard to the literature: >> >> >> Looked For >> ------------------------------ >> |Excess Heat |Transmutations | >> |------------|---------------| >> | | | >>Found | Many | Some | >> | | | >> |------------|---------------| >> | | | >>Not | Many | Few to none | >>Found | | | >> ------------------------------ >> >> > > IMHO that is not what the literature shows or what has been found. > > Consider only the second column of your table. > > For example with tritium alone, after correction for >multiple papers by the same author, about 70% of the papers >found its generation after difficult to achieve conditions >were attained. This will be in my forthcoming ILENR2 paper. > > This is not to discuss the quality of the papers, only >the numbers. There are several negative papers. > > Also, contamination, corrosion, and other matters make many >of the putative transmutation reports less substantive if they >were not commented upon and measured each of those reports. > > Best wishes. > > Mitchell Swartz Sorry, the second column in the above table should read or be footnoted "Transmutation producs above He." I did define what I meant by transmutations for purposes of this discussion in a prior post, but depending on definitions in prior posts is obviously bad form, especially if it is a change to an accepted term. It would be good if there were a handy term for "transmutations resulting in products heavier than He4", but I don't know of any. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 10:57:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA29930; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 10:30:03 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 10:30:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 10:30:43 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: PAGD Resent-Message-ID: <"rRK5C1.0.XJ7.QE0Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1233 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jeff Fink wrote: [snip] >It seemed to me that a glass tube was not the way to go. Plates in a glass >tube are thermally insulated and will over heat. True. Old timers will remember power amplifiers with red-orange plates inside their glass envelopes! >better. So this is what I did. I got a 9" dia. x 1/2" wall acrylic tube >2-1/2" long and machined "o" ring grooves in each face. I then got two 10" >x 10" x 1/2 aluminum plates for end caps and sealed them with vacuum grease. The first Correa patent in IE describes plastic tube in place of glass, so this is probably ok. The main difference is likely to be the mix of trace vapors emitted by the tube. [snip] >I connected the power supply to the PAGD unit with 260 ohms of ballast in >series and turned it on. I used a clip on ammeter in the primary circuit. The clip on ammeter will only give you only a qualitative indication of current, because even on the primary side the current wave form is very nonsinusoidal. All simple meters assume sinusiodal waves. RMS meters can deal with nonsinusiodal waves to a degree, but the readings can only be quantitatively interpreted in resistive circuits. Exercise your oscilloscope. [snip] >About 5 min. into vac operation >the cathode suddenly lit up and I shut off the pump. A few seconds later my >pump made a funny noise and regurgitated vacuum oil all over the inside of >my tube shutting down the reaction. Even "real" vacuum pumps can do this. Keep your pump running throughout, even when you are not pumping the chamber, to keep oil brom back flowing into your pump line, and use the isolation valve. [snip] >Soon after start up the next day the glow was back followed by brilliant >sparkles jumping all around the cathode surface. This was apparently the >PAGD effect. Primary current hovered near 1.5 A. A scope wired across 10 >ohms of my ballast resistance showed voltage spikes as the tube resistance >dropped with each PAGD event. These events were flashing across the cathode >surface at nearly 10 per second at some random frequency since the auto >triggering on the scope could not get a stabilizing lock on it. It could be >seen through the clear tube that pits were forming on the cathode surface. >It could also be seen that a conical cloud radiated upward from each burst. >A noticeable deterioration in visibility was occurring as the device ran. >Vaporized aluminum was apparently condensing on the inner surface of the >acrylic. These sparkles are common phenomenon called unipolar arcs. They arise at points of nonuniformity on the cathode when operating in the usual abnormal glow regime (the abnormal glow regime where the discharge resistance still increases with increasing current). If the ballast is large enough to prevent the discharge from becomming a steady arc, the unipolar arc will only disharge the capacitive energy stored in the plasma sheath and external circuit. The end result is that the nonuniformity that triggered the arc is replaced by a clean metal surface. Over time the unipolar arcs eliminate the seriously nonuniform points...if the system is clean enough that new nonuniformities are not being made too rapidly. I suspect that with Al + O2 you (and Correa) have continuous chemistry going on, and the unipolar arcs might never cease. Also, pump oil vapor can cause nonuniformities and unipolar arcs. The ususal minimum remedy for oil and water vapors is a liquid nitrogen cold trap between the pump and the chamber. However, from IE it appears that the Correas can get their phenomena with a mechanical pump and no mention (if my memory is still good) of an LN2 cold trap. The Correas' PAGD is a regime of negative resistance, ie. decreasing resistance with increasing current. While their patent quoted in IE describes this regime and their tubes, it does not clearly spell out how one can OPERATE in this regime. Normally it is unstable. Somehow, they get the PAGD to extinguish before it overheats the discharge spot and converts to an arc, and this is their "trick". It is also why they emphasize that they have a PULSED abnormal glow. (BTW: An arc is a discharged sustained by some combination of evaporated electrode material, thermionic emission and/or field emission. Electron emission in an arc is concentrated into one or more microscopic arc spots, each of which emits a few amps. Arc spots may be either stationary or mobile.) You do not want the arc regime, because your cathode will get melted and evaporated, and the Correas say that it is bad. I am not sure how to verify that you are in the Correas' PAGD operation with certainty, since I haven't tried it. However, if you observe the voltage across the tube and it drops to <100 V during the pulse, then you got an arc. The discharge overshot the PAGD. The discharge current got too high, and one or more cathode spots got too hot. [snip] >The 22mf 350v caps lasted only a minute before exploding. Electrolytic filter capacitors are far from ideal. In fact, they have substantial internal resistance (and energy dissipation) that increases rapidly as the current pulse duration decreases. They are strongly optimized for 100-120 Hz operation. I, too, learned this fact the hard way. [snip] >It was painfully clear that I would have to back up a bit and try it the >Correa way (sort of). I went back to fig. 9 in IE and wired that circuit >with the following exceptions: > >1. C3 nad C5 were 490mf instead of 34,000mf. > >2. The voltage doubling components of C7 a and b, and D7 and D8 were omitted. These components are more than a voltage doubler. C7 a and b couple the "AC" from the tube and C3 + C4 to the load (charge pack or whatever) while isolating direct DC from the driving energy source. It might be simpler than the active SCR + FET circuit you described. I am pleased that someone is trying to replicate the Correas' results. 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-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 12:21:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA22844; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 11:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 11:54:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609301851.LAA09993@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, 30 Sep 1996 11:51:33 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Wish list Resent-Message-ID: <"xjTlf3.0.ma5.CT1Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1234 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:54 AM 9/29/96 -0800, you wrote: >>To: Vortex >> >>Horace Heffner writes: >> > >Getting to the bottom line, I readily agree that absence of evidence is not >evidence of absence. The main issue as I see it is the absence of evidence >for the difficulty of doing transmutations at low energies, especially by >electrolysis. There simply are not a lot of papers reporting attempts that >failed. This is to be expected, because who would think it would work in >the first place? A failure would not be news and thus would not be >published. However, you would think that the publications of successful >CF attempts would include some failures to produce heavy nuclei. This is a >gap that needs to be filled in, not only for the scientific value, but >because it represents enormous prospects for material resource development, >and for understanding CF better. > >There is another energy issue at stake here as well. If transmutation, >especially transmutation that tends to produce only stable nuclei, is >feasible using reactants at the heavy end of the spectrum, then there may >be the ultimate route available to unleashing the enegy of the vacuum. If a >sufficiently massive element can be created, the electrostatic gradient at >the center of the atom will be sufficient to separate positron/electron >pairs created from the vacuum near the nucleus. Positron annihilation >with the attendant gamma production, as well as xray production from the >continuiong electron displacements, would occur on a continuous basis in >the electron cloud about such a heavy nucleus. A renewable and infinite >source of energy would then be available. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > Horace: You are certainly rising to the occassion. I cannot evaluate the direction in which you are going here, but I encourage you to think maximally creatively, drawing on experiences as detailed in the various reports and approaches. Regarding some of Jed's comments, I think he is a little too invested in the cold fusion = energy. My prediction is that the electrolysis cell pathway will end up being more of a lab technique than an engineering solution to the problem of supplying energy. I say this with absolutely nothing invested one way or the other. I would like to buy P&F's solution tomorrow if I could drive my gas-guzzling truck on it. Jed's comparisons are not completely appropriate. Until about six months ago, nobody wanted to seriously use the T word, and only early adapters are even willing to consider using it at this point. Therefore nothing could get published as science on the subject, not even in the off-beat and underground pubs. That does not mean there wasn't transmutation research and experimentation going on. There has research and experimentation going on for a long time, mostly by isolated experimenters, but an amazing amount has been shared by word of mouth and now by word of digital code. Very good analytic equipment is absolutely necessary to sorting out productive approaches in this field. At the current time, recipes pre-dominate. We don't truly have a science of it, just an art, but I believe that the Russell/Monti notions may provide the conceptual apparatus for integrating the recipes into the beginning of a scientific methodology which provides the ability to generalize. Re Scott's list, I don't think the lab needs to be on the scale of Scott's list, but of boy with immediate access to mass spec and good technicians running it, I personally know three experimenters who could within a few weeks resolve some important issues related to the sufficient and necessary causes. With immediate feedback loop on the experimental runs, none of which take very long, a progressive hunt through several hundred variations would establish a lot... I think some really mind-blowing results will be discovered...about the dumbest of things. Such as, I believe that certain batteries, if operated within very strong magnetic fields, properly oriented, will show transmutation results. Even nicads, if they were properly loaded with hydrogen...can you imagine that? - soaking a nicad in an elevated hyrdrogen environment for a while to enable it to transmute (within a strong magnetic environment)!!! (This is just a completely speculative, intuitive type of guess, guys, nothing particularly serious about this suggestion). So if Earthtech can set up the analytic side and open the door with rent-a-bay lab benches, so to speak, I think that much could be catalyzed. One thing it definitely should add to the wishlist. Really good grinding/pulverizing gear. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 12:29:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA22943; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 11:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 11:54:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609301852.LAA10016@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, 30 Sep 1996 11:51:52 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Transmutation vs CF heat Resent-Message-ID: <"XMl893.0.Nc5.WT1Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1237 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A > >Transmutation is another thing altogether. The experiments involving the >creation of elements heavier the He appear to be relatively easy to get to >work, but proving the results is more difficult. The high schooler Michael >Belcher who was published in IE Vol. 1 No. 3. had the support of a local >hospital for use of a spectrophotometer. He also was in contact with >Mills, etc. Similar arrangements for analysis might be made by other HS >students with univeristies, etc., for other devices, but only on a very >limited scale. It would be really good to have some inexpensive homebrew >method of identifiying *some* product before and after, or a comparatively >inexpensive commercial test available. I have expressed an interest in >producing a CF kit for high schoolers and the like, the purpose being to >put the field into the mainstream, but maybe low energy transmutation is a >much better idea to pursue. > >As to the more serious experimenters with somewhat bigger bucks than high >schoolers, it seems like it would be useful to have a lab around that could >measure the effectiveness of various transmutation processes for a >reasonable fee. There are other problems to deal with here as well though, >the potential to use, manufacture and/or mail toxic chemicals, etc. An >experiment that is self contained is best. However this means the test lab >needs to actually run the experiment - somewhat like NASA runs experiments >on the shuttle. > >Nevertheless, I still don't see much evidence that transmutation >experiemnts are difficult. The following diagram summarizes what I mean in >regard to the literature: > > > Looked For > ------------------------------ > |Excess Heat |Transmutations | > |------------|---------------| > | | | >Found | Many | Some | > | | | > |------------|---------------| > | | | >Not | Many | Few to none | >Found | | | > ------------------------------ > > >Creating CF excess heat is very difficult. Even He measurment is >difficult. This tells me the fruitful place to look is heavier than He >element transmutation. That's where the consistent success seems to be >easy - but that is yet unproven. Why look in a creek bed mined by >industrialists when over the hill people are yelling "Gold! Gold!"? To >look where it is proven difficult when there seems to be a better hit >record elsewhere is nonsensical. > > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > You seem to have a good command of the overall logic of the situation, even if your facts on the numbers of cf experiments can be vociferously disputed by one who has quite obviously made a sincere effort to be highly knowledgeable about them. I accept Jed's facts. I commend your logic. Keep going in this direction of thought. It may be that Jed is more politically astute about the cf field vis-a-vie the potential role of Earthtech. It may be that Earthtech cannot establish itself in that field. I cannot and don't care to try to evaluate that point. But I will observe that Earthtech definitely could in the transmutation field because there is not a faculty anywhere in the western world which will touch it at the moment (if I am wrong, please inform me because I would like to talk to them). Bockris's situation is obviously too dicey...so even Texas A&M, so far as use of facilities, is most likely not a good avenue. And, the paramount need is really good analytic chemical feedback, which is not cheap or easy, by people who are attuned in some way to bridge the gap between chemistry and physics, for this is an art which lies right on the dividing line of these two divergent practices. Here then, is a very good potential for role. If Scott Little and others want a convincing demonstration of transmutation, and are willing to travel to see it, they should say so very clearly and resolutely, because the universe is listening...but the papers at Bockris's conference should be enough to convince, even if, as is obvious, the communications of oddballs like Champion and myself fail. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 12:52:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA22912; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 11:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 11:54:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609301852.LAA10008@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, 30 Sep 1996 11:51:44 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Brown's gas...found on sci.systems (late) Resent-Message-ID: <"eQ5232.0.wb5.QT1Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1236 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:56 AM 9/30/96 -0400, you wrote: >On Thu, 26 Sep 1996, Gary Hawkins wrote: >> At 10:47 AM 9/23/96 PDT, you wrote: >> >> >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >> >Subject: Re: Brown's gas...found on sci.systems (late) >> >Gary Hawkins: Thanks for that warning, it does put an interesting face >> >on things! MDH >> >> Oh now there you go encouraging me. So you can only >> blame yourself for what follows: >> >> As a public service, I feel it is important to let >> all of those so unfortunate as to not be receiving >> Dennis Lee's newsletter, in on the latest excitement. >> Dennis Lee is now channelling God. I can see >> channellers everywhere palm-slap-to-forehead going >> jeez, why didn't I think of that? >[snip] > >OK guys, but the real point here, and the reason it was forwarded >here from the newsgroup it was found on, is that it seems that >Brown of Brown's gas is now mixed up with these people. And my >(maybe mistaken) impression was that Brown's gas had some credibly >solid foundations. I though Micheal Mandeville's immediate >reaction was appropriate! > >Todd Heywood > > Yeah, Brown has real stuff and some of his stuff is worth serious examination and adaptation. For instance, his use of the implosion is novel and would alter the economics of pump-storage of water for hydroelectric dams, offering the ability to double, maybe triple the peaking output of hydro, which nobody of course is interested in at the moment in these circles because of the believe that CF or o-u is going to carry the day. My reaction was an expression of sadness that he has gotten himself mixed up with one of the worst of the carnival promoters of this generation. However, I predict that this marriage will not last long. Brown is adamant about retaining his individuality and commercial freedom even if he is naive about American culture and American scams. He got his adamancy with the strength of an feral instinct from long exposure to Soviet and Turkish jails, just about the worst holes on this planet. The Dennis Lee crowd will naturally try every trick in the book to divest Brown of his self-control in their never-ending saga of attempting to get something for nothing because "they are right". Eventually these two forces will cause a violent rupture of all "social" containers in which the reaction has been placed. Dennis Lee crowd needs Brown, Brown does not need them and Brown does not give a damn about American commercial or legal niceties. It is not hard to figure out who will prevail. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 12:53:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA22857; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 11:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 11:54:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199609301851.LAA09996@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, 30 Sep 1996 11:51:38 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Let's compromise, Jed Resent-Message-ID: <"gtKgn3.0.3b5.DT1Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1235 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:30 PM 9/29/96 EDT, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >Scott Little writes: > > > "I'd like to end this unproductive thread." > >A CF cell today is similar to an automobile circa 1890, or a personal computer >in 1976. You have to be your own mechanic and you have to learn a lot just to >keep the clockwork running. If you had no talent for fixing flat tires and >patching radiator leaks back in 1890, then you could never "serve effectively >as an objective arbiter of" automobile performance for, say, a nascent auto >fanciers magazine. You could not even have driven a car into town. Nobody >would offer to sell you a car. You could not have gotten a personal computer >back in '76 either, because if you did not build it yourself, you were out of >luck. If you had showed up at a hacker's club in '76 and offered to "serve >effectively as an objective arbiter of" the machines, except you yourself >lacked the moxie to make one, people would have laughed at you -- and rightly >so. > >- Jed > > Isn't your position a little extrme here Jed, rather overly dicotomous? Sure, when you are trying to engineer the device, it is all in-house feedback, but once you want to communicate impersonally with the world at large, you need third party verification. Isn't there an important role here at this stage for an outfit like Earthtech? Sure, one might prefer to have the entire faculty of MIT or such endorse one's claims, but even getting to that stage requires third party claims, does it not? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 14:03:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA21162; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 13:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 13:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: 30 Sep 96 16:46:36 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: PC analogy Message-ID: <960930204636_72240.1256_EHB56-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"6K7O3.0.WA5.O83Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1238 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex This is a small matter, but I thought I'd clear up the meaning of the analogy Horace didn't follow. I thought it was a fairly hilarious analogy, and a stroll down memory lane. Horace wrote: "You didn't have to be an electronics expert, or MBE expert, or any kind of expert on anything physical to build a PC . . . I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I know [Jed] refers to circa 1976. My wife and I built an Altair then. Just followed the instructions." Chris & did not mean to suggest that it took an MBE, or that building a computer was as difficult as CF is today. Obviously it was much easier! CF is more like building your own RAM chip starting with sand. We meant you had to build computers yourself back then and furthermore . . . imagine, if you will, that your glorious 4 KB RAM machine is working at last, running a Tiny BASIC interpreter, making the lights on the front count in binary, which happens to be the only thing this machine can do. You hear a knock on the door. A man comes in and introduces himself. "My name is Scott Big, and I believe that I can serve effectively as an objective arbiter of the quality of your solder connections. I am especially qualified to do this, because I have spent months trying to build an Altair Kit, and mine never works worth a damn. It keeps going up in smoke!" You would not say: "Gee Mr. Big, thanks! I am sure you are qualified because your machines never work, you have made no claims and no publications. This only adds to your credibility in my book. This is evidence that you are in earnest, honest, and persevering." [Ahem . . . quoting your messages.] Nope. Put in the context of computer hacking circa 1976, those responses sound ridiculous. You would say: "sorry fella, if you can't make yours work, don't touch mine!" That is what any CF scientist says when Scott offers to diddle with his machine. You must remember that a CF scientist who sees 4 watts excess is *certain of his results*, just as you were certain the lights were counting 0000, 0001, 0010, 0011 . . . He does not need Scott or anyone else to verify it for him. He accepted the reality of CF years ago, when he first saw the excess heat continue for a week. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 14:06:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA22918; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 13:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 13:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: 30 Sep 96 15:59:56 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Read the lit., Horace. Pack it y'sel Message-ID: <960930195955_100433.1541_BHG134-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"z_TFX3.0._b5.6E3Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1239 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > I think in the US at least, the government should fund testing > services, and mandate such at designated licensed facilities for > anyone soliciting capital for improving or marketing a working > device, or before issuing a patent for ou performance. If a > gadget obtains a seal of approval as ou then matching government > funds should be provided to assist in bringing the device to > market. This would be a much better use of taxpayer's money than > world junkets for the secretary of energy, among other things. I love the idea, but it is and probably always will be an untopian dream. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 14:12:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA23050; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 13:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 13:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: 30 Sep 96 15:59:44 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Read the lit., Horace. Pack it y'sel Message-ID: <960930195944_100433.1541_BHG134-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"HriS9.0.yd5.YE3Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1240 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Martin, I simply cannot understand what you are saying. I speak (carefully and specifically) about the thermal anomalies of CF. To that, you respond by saying that the transmutations claimed are at 187 orders of magnitude too high. Can you not see the logical fallacy here? I'm sorry, but I have to say that here is an example of the illogic and confused thinking so prevalent today in modern society generally, and science in particular. Perhaps I should spell it out. The thermal anomaly (energy imbalance) has been demonstrated and replicated ad nauseam since 1989. The (possible) transmutations are at an almost infinitely lower level of evidential acceptability, having been reported by only a few of the workers in the field. The association between the two sets of findings is at present even weaker than the transmutation reports themselves, even it the transmutation hypothesis already (on an absolute scale) appears reasonably strong. I repeat. The transmutation reports are (in number) just not good enough for automatic acceptance. The idea and the reports suggest transmutation as a good *hypothesis* to explain the final composition of the CETI beads. So far, I do not regard these results as in *any way* approaching the quality of the calorimetric reports! > Under those cirmustances the onus is absolutely on the CF > scientist to convince the sceptical scientist using every means at > his disposal. Oh, but it is not. Unless he really cares, and most of them have given up long since - nobody will listen to CF scientists. The so-called 'sceptical scientist' is a rare bird indeed, since most simply follow whatever Authority they regard as their bellwether. If rational scepticism were a characteristic of doctors, the 1982 clinical trial results demonstrating that helicobacter pylori was almost invariably the cause of stomach ulcer would have taken one hell of a lot less than the 12 or more years they took to be accepted. Similarly, if physicists were rational sceptics, they would accept the calorimetric anomalies of CF. > Why don't we have one or more of those CF Scientists here in > vortex-l bevearing away, trying to convince us that he's got it? Again I must point out the essential fallacy here. Vortex-L - a cheer for Bill Beaty *again*, everybody - is an astonishing list, and I have great respect for its members, despite the occasionally irritable tone of my messages. But you are raising a discussion group above its true significance. Almost every professional group does this - doctors see themselves as the most important group. So do farmers. So do politicians. Often, musicians or other performing artists feel the same way - and are paid accordingly. *All groups overestimate their own importance*. Scientists are unusually guilty here, because they see themselves as the ultimate arbiters of rationality. Yet it can be argued that theoretical physicists (at the top of the pecking order of science) have done far more to impede human progress than they have ever done to advance it. > Scott has demonstrated complete openness and technical competence > to me. I'd trust his results. Then you must explain why you reject those of all the hundreds of CF scientists. If you reject them in Scott's favour without good reason, I suggest that this is not rational. > I couldn't disagree more Chris. It is not irrational to be > sceptical of CF in the absence of a close knowledge of the > Scientist doing the work given the extreme violation of known > Physics it would imply. If it *were* 'the scientist', I would agree. But it isn't. It's hundreds of the buggers. > Scott's attempts to replicate on the basis of published patents of > people with claimed spectacular results - like Piantelli - just > adds an extra layer of caution to all the other claims and > reports. Implication of guilt by false association. I privately advised Scott to avoid that experiment like the plague - I knew for damn certain it would never work for him. > Jed's statements that one needs to be "exceptionally skilled in > the art" to do a successful experiment only means that the CF > scientists have been expectionally poor in communicating their > methods, which by definition reflects on their qualities as > Scientists. The learning process requires pupils as well as teachers. Nuclear physicists demonstrated clearly in 1989 that they felt they could presume knowledge of electrochemistry and of calorimetry - knowledge they simply did not have. I myself have only limited knowledge of chemistry, yet I have been truly surprised in discussions of CF with physicists that their knowledge of chemistry is less even than mine! The simple fact is that at least one of Fleischmann's earlier papers remained impervious to replication *by his peer electrochemists for five whole years*. He is an FRS. He holds the Palladium Medal of the American Electrochemical Society. Bockris effectively wrote the book on electrochemistry. Sure, in 1989 they were as bad at nuclear measurements as the nuclear boys were at chemistry, but these are utter tops world-class scientists. I think I know enough chemistry to appreciate that I would not have a snowball's chance in hell of replicating the work of either of them. Those who wish to do so should first consider getting a classy degree in chemistry, followed by a PhD course in electrochemistry. At least I know enough to know when I am hopelessly outclassed. But I'm as bad in my way - I sometimes think I know enough about physics to understand or comment on it. One thing does seriously concern me, and that is that I may be contributing to s.p.f-ising this fine discussion group. In fact, I am well aware that I am not a scientist and that you and most of the people here are real scientists. Yes, I believe that Bockris is correct - a solid and fully-reliable (probably sealed!) CF experimental apparatus would advance the acceptance of CF among other scientists. But equally I believe that such acceptance would take *many* years, maybe decades. Lacking such patience, I feel that only an 'in-your-face' demonstration, or successful commercialisation, will ever speed that process. That belief means that I see science as essentially *irrelevant* in the short term. But I don't want to stir the pot too much here, and therefore I shall now make a serious effort to keep my gob shut for a while. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 14:36:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA02171; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 14:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 14:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: 30 Sep 96 17:20:54 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: EarthTech's role Message-ID: <960930212054_72240.1256_EHB143-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"dBxSH.0.qX.Lh3Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1241 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex ". . . but once you want to communicate impersonally with the world at large, you need third party verification. Isn't there an important role here at this stage for an outfit like Earthtech?" Yes! Absolutely. EarthTech could play a vital role here. They could go down in history. But of course, first they gotta learn how make the gadgets go. Right? I mean, you can't benchmark a gadget when you do not even know how to turn it on. "Sure, one might prefer to have the entire faculty of MIT or such endorse one's claims, but even getting to that stage requires third party claims, does it not?" Sure does! That's why we have NEDO verifying SRI, and U. Illinois verifying CETI. They are better than MIT by a long shoot. And there is room for plenty more. I'd love to see EarthTech join the ranks. Don't forget, CF *is* getting easier. Eventually someone will come out with a kit, and then EarthTech and a million others will get on board. It is a shame they cannot tackle the job now while it is still in the pioneering stage. But hey, I can't criticize! I can't do CF either! I do not want to give anyone the impression I think EarthTech are slackers. I can't criticize people for standing back and waiting 'till it gets easier. That's what I am doing. That's what I did in computers 20 years ago. I never leaned to hack the Altairs. I took one look at 'em, figured it would be a few years before they got hard disks, so I got a Data General mini instead. I was more interested in software apps than hardware hacking. I figured I could always rewrite the mini-software for the PCs. (I was right; it was a piece of cake.) - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 14:37:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA02750; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 14:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 14:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32503B2E.3F54BC7E@math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 14:27:10 -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: Cannot learn electrochemistry by ESP References: <960930152139_72240.1256_EHB201-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"jwSds3.0.ig.5j3Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1242 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > The 187 orders of magnitude business boils down to a difference of philosophy. > It is something we must agree to disagree on. Chris and I don't care how many > orders of magnitude get squashed, or how many theories are wrong. We believe > in the absolute supremacy of high sigma, replicated data. In every case the > data wins, theory loses. If we see replicated, high S/N experimental proof of > antigravity, ESP, polywater, or anything else, we will automatically believe > it. Jed: I don't think you will find a scientist on this earth who doesn't believe in the supremacy of data. The point we try to make in citing theories is that (a) *some* theory is always used in interpreting experimental data, and (b) existing theory is a proven good guide to finding bugs in experiments (or, correcting misinterpretation if you like). For example, in this business of the ``new'' elements observed in cathodes being far too deep to have gotten their by diffusion. This statement is based on the classical theory of diffusion in solids, which in turn represents, I presume, classical experiments on diffusion in solid materials. When Bockris said at the meeting that it was not worth entertaining transport of impurities into the material because the effect is 10 orders of magnitude too small, he's making an essentially theoretical statement, but one supported by a certain body of experiment. Howver, his conviction with that statement is no different from that of the nuclear physicist who says cold fusion is impossible because the reaction rate is 20+ orders of magnitude too small. Bottom line is: yes, experiment is the final arbiter, and every scientist agrees with that in principle...it is part of the foundation of the mopdern scientific method. BUT, experiment and theory are intertwined in a more complex fashion than you suggest. -- 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 Mon Sep 30 15:01:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA06658; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 14:39:53 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 14:39:53 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32503E14.FF6D5DF@math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 14:39:32 -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: Let's compromise, Jed References: <199609301851.LAA09996@big.aa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"htKhS2.0.wd1.eu3Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1243 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael Mandeville wrote: > > Isn't there an important role here > at this stage for an outfit like Earthtech? > Sure, one might prefer to have > the entire faculty of MIT or such endorse one's claims, My personal opinion is that EarthTech can play an essential role in filtering out devices that deserve more investigation from the vast sea of worthless free energy fantasies. The natural order of scientific enquiry is that once EarthTech finds something of interest, it would then be promoted another level, to investigation at a University or national lab. Since CETI has already progressed to that next level, I tend to agree that there is no *essential need* to have EarthTech look at their device. Their only value now would be as an additional line of inquiry, which may hit upon something overlooked elsewhere. Thats great, but they are not unique in their ability to play that role. So, I favor the Bizarro Universe -> EarthTech -> Nat'l Lab/Univ model. Of course, any discovery is free to violate this pathway, such as CETI has, but that such a pathway exists is important. So, scott: why don't you folks Buy a Brown's gas generator and start experimenting with that. (1/2 :-) ) -- 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 Mon Sep 30 15:40:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA17695; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 15:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 15:26:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 18:25:51 -0400 Message-ID: <960930182550_321151977@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EarthTech as Arbiter Resent-Message-ID: <"0AqQJ2.0.JK4.Za4Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1244 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Vortexians, This is in response to a series of posts by Jed, Scott, Horace and others with regard to the role of EarthTech as a player in the measurement of CF and related devices. Scott Little is preparing a synopsis of past measurement activities and will post it separately. Here I would like to address broader issues. (Hal Puthoff, President, EarthTech International, Inc.) Jed has asked (rightly so) (1) what does EarthTech have to offer in the measurement field, given that it has not carried out any successful CF experiments in-house; (2) why do we think we have the right to set ourselves up as arbiters anyway; (3) what is the advantage of working with us, even should we obtain and publish results, positive or negative, given that institutions such as SRI, EPRI, Los Alamos, etc., are already out in front doing just that? First, we eschew the concept of the long-sought-for-but-seldomly-achieved, super breakthrough that will turn the world on a dime, unequivocally accepted. Rather, we see scientific progress as a social process as much as a technical process, going forward, incrementally, step-by-step, on the basis of building up an argument for generality, replicability, and confirmation of a new concept or laboratory finding. (Hopefully a little faster-paced than Planck's oft-paraphrased statement that "Science only progresses funeral by funeral!") As part of that process we at EarthTech offer yet one more opportunity for an independent confirmation, yet another thread in the weave that builds up a tapestry strong enough to hang on the wall. Are we THE arbiter? Of course not. Can we contribute as a player to the arbitration process that constitutes scientific dialogue? Most assuredly. Specifically, then, what does EarthTech have to offer? On the one hand, I and my colleagues have worked to promote the concept that our novel energy field (CF, ZPE, etc.) is science, not pseudoscience, by publishing in Phys. Rev. and elsewhere that new energy source concepts are not to be seen as automatically violating physical principles. This advocacy position therefore means that should we obtain a negative result in the laboratory, it is not likely to be interpreted as simply a matter that our laboratory defends, knee-jerk fashion, the status quo. On the other hand, our previous publications yielding negative results for devices we have had a chance to examine in some detail (Potapov, MRA, etc.) also means that, although advocates of novel energy research, we so not see positive results behind every tree (or pipe or circuit) because of our wishful thinking. We think this establishes a platform of expertise and objectivity that constitutes a useful resource for the field. To get even more specific, when we report results, whether positive or negative, in our computer-automated calorimeter for example, one can access our web page and assess for himself exactly what he thinks of the measurement process, because all the specs are there. It is public. One's acceptance or rejection of whatever results we publish can be on the basis of informed judgement, not witness reports. If there are objections to our measurement procedures, we can either defend them on the basis of additional detail, or we can correct them on the basis of criticisms. Now what about Jed's concern that the inventor is expected to part with his expensive and fragile cathode, possibly to be destroyed in our apparatus, and his concern that proprietary, intellectual property rights may be exposed in the process? The answer is that we will work with the inventor to alleviate such concerns. His device can be treated as a black box, he can hand-hold the device never to leave his observation, we will sign nondisclosure agreements about trade-secret details, whatever. Again, what does EarthTech have to offer? What we offer is another dot on the graph of confirmation. We are willing to contribute what expertise and equipment we have to move the field along. We are in a position to assist with prototype-development design engineering if necessary. We have access to investment opportunities if required. If these elements are useful, one can take advantage of it, and it can't hurt. If, on the other hand, one wishes to do their own thing another way, that's OK. This is a self-selection process and each must choose the best path for themselves on a self-determined basis. We offer to make measurements on publically-defined instruments, write and publish the results on the net, and do this free of charge. Have calorimeter, etc., will measure. Have computer, will publish. That's it. Hal Puthoff, Ph.D. EarthTech International, Inc. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 15:59:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA22543; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 15:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 15:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: 30 Sep 96 18:45:25 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Norman is right; but they did already Message-ID: <960930224525_100060.173_JHB134-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"myaj22.0.9W5.pu4Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1246 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed, OK then - what the blazes is stopping the establishment from accepting all these confirmations? I know, I know!!! But someone is using the wrong spin doctors. Why not learn a lesson from the politicians - you gotta make a story, like say, get someone important to get blown up doing a test - not too badly, but enuf to attract some journalists, and feed them with the full 9 yards. Good honest travail seems to be out of fashion these days. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 16:00:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA22529; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 15:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 15:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: 30 Sep 96 18:45:22 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Read the lit., Horace. Pack it y'self, C Message-ID: <960930224522_100060.173_JHB134-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"CXDJ-2.0.xV5.ou4Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1245 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris, >> If you want to know whether something is real, then you must go out there and find out - in this case from the published papers. << OK give me the ref of a paper written by a substantial and qualified 3rd party, which confirms from their own testing, the ou of a CF cell, made by someone outside their organisation, without any ifs and buts and in unequivocal Engineering language. No assumptions about unmeasured losses and assumed power factors and leaking joints etc etc. It doesn't help to say that those who are supposed to be in the lead are unwilling to publish, cos that only leaves those who are still struggling to get a flipping glowworm worth of warmth out of 3 years of sweat. As you know, I've been there!!! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 16:01:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA22585; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 15:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 15:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: 30 Sep 96 18:45:28 EDT From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Read the lit., Horace. Pack it y'self, C Message-ID: <960930224527_100060.173_JHB134-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"CgGDv2.0.pW5.wu4Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1247 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> If a gadget obtains a seal of approval as ou then matching government funds should be provided to assist in bringing the device to market. This would be a much better use of taxpayer's money than world junkets for the secretary of energy, among other things. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 << Hear hear!!! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 16:45:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA02977; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 16:37:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 16:37:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: 30 Sep 96 19:31:45 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Norman is right; but they did already Message-ID: <960930233144_100433.1541_BHG81-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"xu-Hx.0.mj.-c5Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1249 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Norman, > OK then - what the blazes is stopping the establishment from > accepting all these confirmations? Stupidity and prejudice and the inability to think straight. > I know, I know!!! But someone is using the wrong spin doctors. > Why not learn a lesson from the politicians - you gotta make a > story, like say, get someone important to get blown up doing a > test - not too badly, but enuf to attract some journalists, and > feed them with the full 9 yards. Look, Norm baby, [he loves it when I call him 'Norm, baby'] we've been banging our heads against this brick wall for several years. We are not closed-minded people, but we've pushed against every possible weak spot - and made some small successes. Maybe we are tired and jaundiced, but we three firmly believe that the *only* things which would shift the log-jam are either a CF car limping across America OR successful commercialisation. Yet we keep it up the other efforts - who do you think is setting up a Hydrosonic device demo system in Darkest New Hampshire? > Good honest travail seems to be out of fashion these days. Can you possibly imagine how much work is involved in teaching high school for a year while producing IE single-handed? I don't compare myself with Gene, but often I put in 18-hour days on this job, and so does Jed. Misguided we may be, incompetents perhaps - but lazy we are not. Also, you forget that all these efforts need M O N E Y, one commodity we are damned short of. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 16:48:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA02933; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 16:37:35 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 16:37:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: 30 Sep 96 19:31:40 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Read the lit., Horace. Pack it y'sel Message-ID: <960930233140_100433.1541_BHG81-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"6wp3U2.0.dj.zc5Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1248 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Norman, > OK give me the ref of a paper written by a substantial and > qualified 3rd party, which confirms from their own testing, the ou > of a CF cell, made by someone outside their organisation, without > any ifs and buts and in unequivocal Engineering language. No > assumptions about unmeasured losses and assumed power factors and > leaking joints etc etc. Sounds good - but you've fixed motors on your goalposts. It used to be that independent replication was the acid test of new science. Now you want the labs to call in third party referees! As to all that about un-measured losses and stuff - where does that come from? It's very much news to me. Now, does Miley's full replication of beads fit your test? Nope. Does his (and others') tests of CETI beads with their own cell fit? Yep, as soon as he publishes, I think you will agree. Except ... he's much more interested in the possible source of the heat than in measuring the heat itself - so, around we go. > It doesn't help to say that those who are supposed to be in the > lead are unwilling to publish, cos that only leaves those who are > still struggling to get a flipping glowworm worth of warmth out of > 3 years of sweat. Hey? Who won't publish? The poor buggers have problems getting published at all. Some of them are happy that we publish their stuff, which makes me feel very proud. Sure, the CETI boys and all the ones who think that they've found the crock at the rainbow's end are equivocal about publishing, but that leaves quite a few who aren't. And, no, I do NOT like these F&P-type papers which tell of their results without giving a full protocol. Nip out and buy this month's Fortean Times - it shows quite a bit of my attitude towards all this, and that is after FT cut the more libellous bits out. Jed and Gene and I agree that most of the problems lie in 'our' camp. That one about leaky joints and such ... faintly niggling, is that. There's this kind of assumption going around that people who do CF are a bunch of half-arsed plumbers who can't do proper science. Sheesh. > As you know, I've been there!!! We've all been there, Norman. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Sep 30 18:06:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA19970; Mon, 30 Sep 1996 17:54:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 17:54:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: EarthTech as Arbiter To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 19:54:25 -2900 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <960930182550_321151977@emout01.mail.aol.com> from "Puthoff@aol.com" at Sep 30, 96 06:25:51 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"a6DZM2.0.wt4.Ml6Ko"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1250 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hal Puthoff, Ph.D. writes: > We offer to make measurements on publically-defined instruments, write and > publish the results on the net, and do this free of charge. As a long time observer, all I can say is that if I thought I had an O-U device, EarthTech would be my first stop. I have a high regard for the abilities of Scott Little. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan -