From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 1 01:55:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA24710; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 01:53:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 01:53:06 -0800 (PST) Date: 01 Nov 96 04:49:39 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: A matter of universal importance. Message-ID: <961101094938_100433.1541_BHG41-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"g0LN62.0.x16.1YSUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1894 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I rarely resent junk mail, but this one managed to irritate me. It is lengthy (and therefore costly) and as for being "A matter of universal importance" it is of very limited interest to the many of us outside the USA. Please send no more stuff like this through our mailing list. It is an abuse of the list. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 1 07:47:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA16822; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 07:42:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 07:42:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 06:43:03 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Thanks to Wharton, Pons, Mizuno Resent-Message-ID: <"Ixg2P.0.k64.MfXUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1895 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > >If I may insert a simple possibility here - how about the equivalent to >superheating of water in a smooth container or at a smooth surface where the >rapid gas generation due to the sudden increase in current creates an increase >in potential gas volume which fails to form immediately and then explosively >releases. This might even cause local cavitation on the surface of the bead. >If I'm correct then it might pay to make the surface of the last metal layer >roughened or granular to encourage gentle gassing at all current densities. > >Norman Just some thoughts: 1. Superheating occurs for a liquid, i.e. water. The hydrogen is already in a gas phase. 2. Heating increases the diffusion rate. Doesn't it also increase the total amount of hydrogen that can be adsorbed? 3. Oddly enough, cooling the lattice with the hydrogen already adsorbed increases the pressure in the lattice by contracting it. There have been fusion experiments based on this principle I think. If this is true, then heating due to the increased current in the electrode should reduce the pressure in deeper layers of the lattice, at least until more hydrogen can diffuse in. Reducing the internal pressure - could either speak against a sudden surface "boil off", or justify it. 4. For the above reasons attempting to get the sudden resistance change after a low wattage, low heat producing, but high current pulse may be a helpful experiment to sort out some of the possible explanations. Maybe more important is looking at the electrodes for which sudden resistance changes have occured and correlating the resistance change to isotopical shifts or to physical changes like cracking, pitting. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 1 08:17:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA24910; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:12:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:12:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 09:13:43 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: Thanks to Wharton, Pons, Mizuno Resent-Message-ID: <"VI8Yr3.0.856.U5YUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1896 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >>> > McKubre, for >>example, achieves high loading, but as soon as he raises current density, the >>loading appears to drop off dramatically. He ascribes this to some event in >>which the gas in the surface layers of the cathode "blows off >>catastrophically." Evidence for this is seen in sudden changes in cathode >>resistance. >[snip] >>- Jed > I was at ICCF6. McKubre was highlighting data that showed, under conditions where Pd cathodes were loading well with D and just short of the desired high loading, when unexpectedly a few percent of the loaded D came out rapidly out. If the process occurs faster than the time required for D to diffuse from the interior of the cathode, then one concludes that it came from the near surface. Resistance is how McKubre measures the amount of D in Pd. So hold your horses. I don't think McKubre meant anything like an explosion, and the cathodes were not damaged. 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 Nov 1 08:49:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA28725; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:24:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:24:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 11:23:37 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199611011623.LAA01329@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: (Schaffer@gav.gat.com) Subject: Re: Thanks to Wharton, Pons, Mizuno Resent-Message-ID: <"yE8pO1.0.k07.wGYUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1897 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer (Schaffer@gav.gat.com) said: > I was at ICCF6. McKubre was highlighting data that showed, under > conditions where Pd cathodes were loading well with D and just > short of the desired high loading, when unexpectedly a few percent > of the loaded D came out rapidly out. If the process occurs > faster than the time required for D to diffuse from the interior > of the cathode, then one concludes that it came from the near > surface. Resistance is how McKubre measures the amount of D in > Pd. So hold your horses. I don't think McKubre meant anything > like an explosion, and the cathodes were not damaged. If the D starts acting as a Bose condensate at the desired loading, then it makes sense that in a sample with a small area of the surface which "leaks" gas that when the condensate forms ALL the D will act as if it is near to the leak point. As soon as you lose the condensate, the D is trapped again. (Or stated differently, if it is only D+ ions above the ground state that form part of the condensate, the D will leak out until only the ground state sites are occupied.) 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 Nov 1 14:04:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA16992; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:29:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:29:11 -0800 (PST) Date: 01 Nov 96 16:26:09 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: A matter of universal importance. Message-ID: <961101212608_100433.1541_BHG58-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"TOrzu2.0.P94.YkcUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1906 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Pecksniffian - selfish and corrupt behind a mask of seeming benevolence, sanctimonious. From the Dickens character Seth Pecksniff in "Martin Chuzzlewit". Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 1 14:12:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA15854; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:25:34 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:25:34 -0800 (PST) Date: 01 Nov 96 16:20:48 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: A matter of universal importance. Message-ID: <961101212047_72240.1256_EHB134-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"N5_ir2.0.Zt3.ugcUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1905 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Much as I adore politics, I request that this discussion be moved to some other forum. Please remember that Vortex-L readers in places like Russia have to pay a lot to download these messages, so let us not post too many bytes off topic. Speaking of downloading, Robert Huggins complained to me that the archived Vortex-L files in Bill Beaty's home page are too long, which makes them awkward to download. I have not attempted to download one. Perhaps we should form an off line committee to fix this problem. Not sure how. Maybe by breaking the files into smaller chunks, or breaking them into topics based on the message title? If there is anything that can be done to process the text with a Pascal program, I can do it. The problem is that a long ASCII file lacks structure. Someday, discussion groups will allow cross referencing, hot links, footnotes, Abstracts, graphics and other features to improve information access. We will probably be too lazy to use the features, or too old to learn them by that time. I myself would be happy if the darn thing allowed underlines, italics and degree ("itty-bitty-superscript-circle") marks. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 1 15:24:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA05161; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 14:56:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 14:56:21 -0800 (PST) From: epitaxy@localaccess.com Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961101145951.00752778@mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 14:59:53 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Thanks to Wharton, Pons, Mizuno Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"ALwQd1.0.RG1.G0eUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1910 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 06:43 AM 11/1/96 -0800, you wrote: >[snip] >> >>If I may insert a simple possibility here - how about the equivalent to >>superheating of water in a smooth container or at a smooth surface where the >>rapid gas generation due to the sudden increase in current creates an increase >>in potential gas volume which fails to form immediately and then explosively >>releases. This might even cause local cavitation on the surface of the bead. >>If I'm correct then it might pay to make the surface of the last metal layer >>roughened or granular to encourage gentle gassing at all current densities. >> >>Norman > >Just some thoughts: > >1. Superheating occurs for a liquid, i.e. water. The hydrogen is already >in a gas phase. > >2. Heating increases the diffusion rate. Doesn't it also increase the total >amount of hydrogen that can be adsorbed? > >3. Oddly enough, cooling the lattice with the hydrogen already adsorbed >increases the pressure in the lattice by contracting it. There have been >fusion experiments based on this principle I think. If this is true, then >heating due to the increased current in the electrode should reduce the >pressure in deeper layers of the lattice, at least until more hydrogen can >diffuse in. Reducing the internal pressure - could either speak against a >sudden surface "boil off", or justify it. > >4. For the above reasons attempting to get the sudden resistance change >after a low wattage, low heat producing, but high current pulse may be a >helpful experiment to sort out some of the possible explanations. Maybe >more important is looking at the electrodes for which sudden resistance >changes have occured and correlating the resistance change to isotopical >shifts or to physical changes like cracking, pitting. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 1 16:03:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA02551; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 15:36:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 15:36:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 18:32:44 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: A matter of universal importance. In-Reply-To: <961101212608_100433.1541_BHG58-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"ZZ34n1.0.ld.jbeUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1911 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Cool! GOOD word...... even though it has a LOT of letters, it conveys a lot. As a long word it combines polysyllabism and the terse! J On 1 Nov 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Pecksniffian - selfish and corrupt behind a mask of seeming benevolence, > sanctimonious. From the Dickens character Seth Pecksniff in "Martin > Chuzzlewit". > > Chris > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 1 16:47:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA11074; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 16:12:36 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 16:12:36 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611020010.QAA22649@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, 01 Nov 1996 16:11:21 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: A matter of universal importance. Resent-Message-ID: <"JasqB.0.vi2.o7fUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1913 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:20 PM 11/1/96 EST, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >Much as I adore politics, I request that this discussion be moved to some >other forum. Please remember that Vortex-L readers in places like Russia have >to pay a lot to download these messages, so let us not post too many bytes off >topic. > >Speaking of downloading, Robert Huggins complained to me that the archived >Vortex-L files in Bill Beaty's home page are too long, which makes them >awkward to download. I have not attempted to download one. Perhaps we should >form an off line committee to fix this problem. Not sure how. Maybe by >breaking the files into smaller chunks, or breaking them into topics based on >the message title? message threads. the only issue is the variable headers, teaching the parser to validly recognize beginning and end. to avoid that, the best way is to generate a routine to take the email reader program and automatically spit them out into individual text files, then automatically churn them over into html files, then automatically title them by some algorythm, then automatically write a file list, then automatically churn the file list file into an html page with proper linking, tben ftp the whole mess to the server. Each topic thread should have it's own dir for easiest management. Done this way, it will be very easy retroactively to kill stuff which was mistakenly sent. Manual linking wouldn't be bad for awhile with a few volunteers because it can be done pretty damn fast. It is the parsing and naming of messages into the files and their churn into html which needs to be automated. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 1 18:45:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA19500; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 18:32:03 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 18:32:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 18:29:22 -0800 Message-Id: <199611020229.SAA19835@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: atech@popd.ix.netcom.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: "Dennis C. Lee" Subject: Re: A matter of universal importance. Cc: billb@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"JuKBk1.0.Um4.UAhUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1914 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sorry if I was off base on this one. It seemed like a good idea at the time. A few points to consider perhaps are: 1. Would Perot's no nonsense 'get the job done' attitude be conducive to our work in advanced physics theory if he were President? I met Mr. Perot when he gave the OU commencement speech in the summer of '92. I gave him an envelope with the summary of "Tapping The Zero Point Energy" and the "Manual Of Free Energy Devices" description of the Swiss ML device. He is at the very least, aware of this technology. 2. Clinton's own budget plans predicts economic disaster in the near future. In this event, what will be the effect on our work? Regards; Dennis C. Lee At 04:49 AM 11/1/96 EST, you wrote: >I rarely resent junk mail, but this one managed to irritate me. It is >lengthy (and therefore costly) and as for being "A matter of universal >importance" it is of very limited interest to the many of us outside the >USA. > >Please send no more stuff like this through our mailing list. It is an >abuse of the list. > >Chris > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 1 19:50:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA10035; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 19:47:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 19:47:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611020346.WAA25621@nic.wat.hookup.net> X-Sender: nafziger@wat.hookup.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 22:47:04 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: R & D Nafziger Subject: Re: A matter of universal importance. Resent-Message-ID: <"fX6wh1.0.iS2.9HiUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1915 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:20 PM 11/1/96 EST, Jed wrote: > I myself would be happy if the darn thing >allowed underlines, italics and degree ("itty-bitty-superscript-circle") >marks. I haven't figured out underlines and italics but =B0F is done quite easily using <248> where the 248 is typed on the numeric keypad=20 while holding done the Alt key. Also: =95 the bullet is <249> =BD one half is <171> =B2 squared is <0178> =B3 cubed is <0179> Just a little trivia :-) Hoping we never have to see deg.F again, Rick Nafziger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 2 00:09:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA11687; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 00:05:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 00:05:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 23:05:45 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: A matter of universal importance. Resent-Message-ID: <"zmshh1.0.Xs2.j2mUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1916 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 04:20 PM 11/1/96 EST, Jed wrote: > >> I myself would be happy if the darn thing >>allowed underlines, italics and degree ("itty-bitty-superscript-circle") >>marks. > >I haven't figured out underlines and italics but =B0F is done quite easily >using <248> where the 248 is typed on the numeric keypad >while holding done the Alt key. Also: >=95 the bullet is <249> >=BD one half is <171> >" squared is <0178> >" cubed is <0179> >Just a little trivia :-) > >Hoping we never have to see deg.F again, Rick Nafziger =46or Mac fans you get =B0F by typing "shift alt 8" together prior to typing= the F. However, what prints on one system may not print the same on another. For example here's what I see from the above: >=95 the bullet is <249> ------- I see a square box. >=BD one half is <171> ----------- capital Greek Pi >" squared is <0178> --------- close quotes >" cubed is <0179> ----------- open quotes and does not work. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 2 02:09:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA03435 for billb@eskimo.com; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 02:09:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 02:09:10 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: root@pax.axionet.com Sat Nov 2 02:09:07 1996 Received: from axionet.com (pax.axionet.com [204.174.222.20]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA03419 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 02:09:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from pax.axionet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by axionet.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA24515 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 02:04:23 -0800 (PST) To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Thanks to Wharton, Pons, Mizuno Received: from mail.eskimo.com ([204.122.16.4]) by pax.axionet.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.0) with ESMTP id AAA15833 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 23:47:59 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA08092; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 23:43:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 23:43:02 -0800 (PST) Old-Date: 01 Nov 96 02:41:06 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> Message-ID: <961101074105_100060.173_JHB82-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"johGj2.0.L-1.5eQUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1893 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored X-Diagnostic: Possible loopback problem X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Hank, >> Do we get cavitation here too? Hank Scudder << Its quite possible under pseudo-superheating by local high density current flow causing "bumping" of the gas creation process where there are few gas generating nodes in a very smooth surface of the electrode. Just a personal surmise you understand from general lab experience - no other grand theory!! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 2 02:55:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA29870; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 14:25:00 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 14:25:00 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 17:23:00 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders Resent-Message-ID: <"z3Iim.0.YI7.uYdUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1908 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >I have been discussing Chris Tinsley's cylindrical homopolar experiments >with him privately. I think I can explain his results by conventional >Faraday's law analysis. He still has some reservations. We have agreed to >post a summary of our conclusions. > There can be no doubt that the DC cylindrical homopolar generator works as it is supposed to if the disk homopolar generator works as has been claimed here. That is because the cylindrical potential difference may be equated to the sum of the potential drop across the two end disks of the cylinder. If anyone missed my posting proving this or did not understand it then I could go over it in private communication. There is no way around it - if the disk works the cylinder works as long as we have (divergence B) = 0 which has been measured to very high precision. There has been an extensive search for magnetic monopoles and they have never been found. Therefore div dot B = 0 and the cylindrical homopolar generator works. This argument applies to the AC component also but a different approach must be used. The induced electric field is: E = v cross B - dA/dt where A is the magnetic vector potential and the d's denote partial derivatives. There is a grad(scalar potential) term which is not relevant since it will have a zero curl. The big mistake here is to neglect the last term in this equation. When this term is included, as it must be, then the curl, as shown in my 10/18/96 vortex posting, is curl(v cross B-dA/dt) = w cross B-(v dot grad)B-dB/dt = w cross B-DB/Dt where DB/Dt denotes the convective derivative and the velocity has been set to v = w cross r, with w the angular rotation vector. This curl is always zero if the magnetic field rotates with the conducting cylinder. Then we may construct a complete circuit loop by combining the cylinder section with two end disk sections. These disks don't actually have to be there, one could just think about them being there. There would be no induced emf along the axis of the cylinder so that section of the loop may be neglected. Since the curl of the induced electric field is zero the line integral along the cylindrical section plus the two end disk sections is zero. So once again we have V1 + V2 + Vr = 0 where the emf from the two end disks are V1 and V2 and the cylindrical emf is Vr. In most of the experiments that Chris Tinsley has done the magnetic flux going out of the two ends of the cylinder is the same. In this case the end emfs would cancel and we have Vr = 0 in accord with Chris' measurements. Thus the cylindrical homopolar generator does not work for both AC and DC output and theory and experiment are consistent. Chris found some books that apparently were wrong and that issue is one of educational interest. For this forum the interest should derive from the fact that Chris performed a null experiment and found no signal. If the -dA/dt term in the electric field were to be incorrectly neglected the experiment would have yielded a signal very much in excess of the noise. Any modification of this term, such as implied in the Marinov force or Ampere's magnetic force would give a significant signal. It would have to be checked out more carefully but it looks like the null cylindrical homopolar generator experiment disproves the Marinov force and Ampere's magnetic force. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 2 03:05:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA11269 for billb@eskimo.com; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 03:05:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 03:05:00 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: root@pax.axionet.com Sat Nov 2 03:04:59 1996 Received: from axionet.com (pax.axionet.com [204.174.222.20]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA11257 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 03:04:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from pax.axionet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by axionet.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA00814 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 03:00:17 -0800 (PST) To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Homopolar cylinders Received: from pax.axionet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by pax.axionet.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.0) with SMTP id AAA6329 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 00:44:43 -0700 X-UNIX-From: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Oct 31 14:49 PST 1996 Received: from mail.eskimo.com (mail.eskimo.com [204.122.16.4]) by axionet.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA22112 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:49:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA14177; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:14:53 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:14:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Old-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:15:51 -0800 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Resent-Message-ID: <"iEYE01.0.OT3.RJIUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1887 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored X-Diagnostic: Possible loopback problem X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: I have been discussing Chris Tinsley's cylindrical homopolar experiments with him privately. I think I can explain his results by conventional Faraday's law analysis. He still has some reservations. We have agreed to post a summary of our conclusions. Brief description of rotor: The flat permanent magnets were mounted into slots in a thick-wall iron tube (cylinder). They had like poles radially aligned, and the ends forced together along the axial length of the assembly. The circumferential spacing left 5mm wide iron 'vanes' between the rows so that there was a path for the radial flux for all the magnets. To quote from Chris, "... we were after - an ac homopolar machine. we were after - an ac homopolar machine. An outer brass cylinder was a sliding fot over the magnet and iron core assembly. Spring-loaded carbon brushes were mounted on the frame to contact the brass cylinder at any position along the length of the brass cylinder and wired to a dvm. Schaffer's Explanation: The iron spacer vanes act as nearly ideal poles to return the flux from the inward-facing poles of the magnets. The iron poles provide a low reluctance path for this local radially-out-radially-in flux. The HOMOpolar (ie. uniformly radial) component of the magnetic field at the outer surface of the rotor will be very small, except near the ends where some of the flux fringes around the ends, because the reluctance for the homopolar flux path is large. This is why Chris sees DC generation only near the ends. The magnetic field away from the ends looks a lot like that from a conventional multipole rotor from an AC alternator. However, Chris informed me that he got no AC signals. I can explain this. Indeed, there is an axial electric field induced at the SURFACE of the rotor by the v X B (v=velocity, B=magnetic induction field) whose sign alternates around the circumference with the polarity of the passing radial magnetic field. This is by the same mechanism as invoked for homopolars, and it should be detected by brushes contacting the surface and leading to a measuring instrument. However, this is a bit naive, because the rotating alternating radial flux also induces an axial electric field in the SPACE outside the rotor, and this E-field integrates up to an EMF equal and OPPOSITE to that at the rotor surface. If the leads running to the measuring device are far enough away from the cylinder that all this alternating flux is linked by the lead-plus-rotor-surface loop, then this external EMF exactly cancels the part directly contacted by the brushes. Because the radial flux in Chris's machine extends only 10mm or so out from the rotor, his leads would have to run parallel to and just a few mm away from the surface in order to avoid picking up too much opposite EMF. I did not try to address some of Chris's concerns about his DISK homopolar and multipolar experiments. Tinsley's Position: My own feeling about the whole thing is that I'm really rather uncomfortable, both about my own measurements and about your explanations. At present I can't really do a full and proper set of tests (the apparatus is packed away). What I think is needed is some very careful thought to make a 'yes/no' test experiment, I found that this was the best approach - to avoid quantitative determination. I never got around to designing one for this basic test - that of determining whether a cylindrical device (be it multi- or homo-polar) really is an analogue of a disc. I'll be honest, and say that I am sceptical about it being an analogue. If it were, then I would expect to have seen at least some kind of result at some stage. Certainly I see no clear distinction between the multi-polar disc (which gives a clear ac scope signal) and the similar cylinder (which *appears* not to do so. However, I am by no means wedded to that idea, and I think it is essential to design a definitive experiment to find out once and for all. One good thing is that the multipolar variants are pretty easy to make, they require no special machining or even a massive iron core. It should be possible to mount the high-power flat magnets onto a conductor tube and have little problem with them 'fighting' one another mechanically, and the whole thing coming apart under the stress! Similarly, a large-radius disc would be pretty easy, keeping the gaps between the magnets at fairly constant width. I'd like to see whether the emf can be shown to be a function of angular or linear velocity - will a small-radius disc at high omega show the same emf as a larger, slower one with the same omega*r of its magnets? All I can say at this stage is that other (very mundane) things have more important calls on my time - regrettably. I believe it possible to devise both qualitative and quantitative methods for testing this idea. I am not at all sure that my results so far are by any means definitive, and I am (mildly) sceptical of the (very welcome) explanations I've seen to date. 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 Nov 2 03:33:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA14472; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:18:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 13:18:59 -0800 (PST) Date: 01 Nov 96 16:00:47 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: McKubre's "catastrophe" Message-ID: <961101210047_72240.1256_EHB182-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"c1bM33.0.yX3.xacUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1904 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I mentioned that McKubre thinks the outer layers of gas in his cathode often deload rapidly when current density is increased. I quotes his description of this: "it blows off catastrophically." Mike Schaffer comments: McKubre was highlighting data that showed, under conditions where Pd cathodes were loading well with D and just short of the desired high loading, when unexpectedly a few percent of the loaded D came out rapidly out. If the process occurs faster than the time required for D to diffuse from the interior of the cathode, then one concludes that it came from the near surface. Resistance is how McKubre measures the amount of D in Pd. So hold your horses. I don't think McKubre meant anything like an explosion, and the cathodes were not damaged. Right. I did not mean an explosion. I meant, and McKubre meant, catastrophic in the mathematical sense; abrupt. The onset is sudden and the event goes quickly. McKubre later explained to me that the actual amount of gas lost must be small because there is no measurable temperature rise. When Pd out gasses it heats up as D2 is formed on the surface (the "cigarette lighter effect"). In air, the D2 burns, making it even hotter. The cathode could only have lost a small percent of the total gas. However, Mike said, it loses gas close to the surface, and he believes the CF reaction is triggered at the surface. He thinks it might later spread down inside the bulk but you must have high loading at the surface or the reaction never kicks on in the first place. I have been writing up my notes on this subject . . . I think I'll take a break from typing Japanese and post 'em. After the lecture I spoke with Mike McKubre and Ed Storms. I asked Mike: "Are you sure the resistance change is caused by degassing? Could it be the formation of cracks or some other problem described by Ed?" Here is a summary his response. I have few exact quotes because I did not have a tape recorder turned on. Mike said he is sure he does not have cracks because he does not see any. Ed said you don't see them; they are microscopic, often on the inside only, and the ones on the surface close up and become invisible even to a light microscope after the cathode degasses. The cracks cause swelling and formation of lines of bubbles on the surface. Mike began by saying, "measuring resistance is the worst way to determine loading -- except for all the other methods" meaning it is problematic and difficult, but better than any other method, and the resistance changes do not mean anything but loading -- not cracks. He reiterated he does not have any cracks anyway. But when I pressed him, he explained that he has not looked for cracks or swelling. This boggled my mind but unfortunately I had to break off the conversation, so I missed an interesting exchange of views between Mike and Ed. I called Ed later to get the scoop. Mike meant that there are no visible cracks at the surface. There might be internal cracking but he doesn't think so and he cannot look for it with the procedures Ed describes. He cannot look for lines of bubbles that form as microscopic surface cracks open up because the cathode in inside a stainless steel chamber. (Ed's calorimeter is glass.) Mike's rod-shaped cathode has wires attached to it to measure loading. Unfortunately these make it difficult to check for swelling by measuring the diameter before and after experiments with a micrometer. Furthermore it is best to check for swelling when the cathode is fully hyperloaded, because it will degas and shrink back down again. Some shrink in after 10 minutes, some take an hour. Ed's calorimeter is designed to allow quick access to the cathode. You can turn off electrolysis, pull the cathode out, and have it sandwiched in the jaws of a hand-held micrometer caliper in about 5 minutes with practice. Ed designed it with this in mind. With Mike's calorimeter it takes hours to remove the cathode. Although he acknowledges that resistance is a good method, Ed thinks it interferes with other aspects of the experiment. He prefers to measure loading with the Open Circuit Voltage (OCV) method, which is described in I.E. issue #8, p. 51. I need to learn more about this . . . Bockris recommends it as well. More about this later. Now, if I may inject my own opinion here it seems to me Ed's calorimeter was designed to investigate problems with material such as cracking, swelling, and so on, whereas the SRI calorimeter is designed primarily to be ultra-precise and to investigate electrochemical techniques. (I suppose this is because Ed is a materials science guy and Mike is an electrochemist -- whaddya know!) Both approaches are vital, of course, but I think Ed has had greater success, and he is making faster progress. So at this stage more emphasis should be put on materials. Then again there are some interesting fancy electrochemical techniques like Ragland's triode (dual anode) configuration, and the electromigration in wire cathodes the Italians are working on. I guess I reach a muddy conclusion in a run-on sentence that you should pay more attention to materials especially things like thin film, and you should learn how to pre-test cathodes, but then again you might have fun exploring electrochemical solutions but be sure they are the novel ones like Chelani or Ragland uses, not the marginal ones that other people have been doing for years. Another big difference between Mike and Ed is that Ed frequently rebuilds his instruments to fit the task, and his tasks evolves as the work progresses. When he finds the calorimeter does not do what he needs, he makes another one. The SRI calorimeter was originally designed to run at high pressure. High pressure did not improve the reaction rate and after the tragic 1992 accident I believe they abandoned that approach. But they are still using the same basic type of calorimeter. I guess they are stuck with it because it costs so much money and it is so darn good. Too good, you might say. A friend of mine who once worked with it calls it "the great white elephant." Imagine an astronomer with a superb telescope that can see four times farther than any other, but it will not point to the part of the sky this particular astronomer wants to see. Ed's calorimeter is not as good as SRI's. As Ed says, "it isn't as pretty." But the differences are not as great as you might think. Mike says his is good to the nearest 50 mW, Ed says he can measure with 200 mW precision, and it is remarkably stable, accurate and reliable. The thing is, Ed's excess heat usually ranges from 1 to 5 watts, so his instrument is fine for the job. See the graphs and error bars in I.E. #8, p. 54 and 55. Mike's excess heat is usually zero. Precision does not help that. Ed's instrument allows greater flexibility, new & different protocals. You can see inside it. You can take it apart quickly. You can raise or lower the temperature, whereas the SRI calorimeter is designed to keep the temperature the same for the entire run, by backing off or increasing compensation heater power. At this stage in the research, I think it is best to trade off precision for flexibility. I have discussed this subject at length with Ed, Dennis Cravens and others. Choosing the right instrument is a critical aspect of experimental science, and a fascinating topic in its own right. I wish I could talk to Mike McKubre more, but he seldom opens up. He sometimes acts defensive, or brusk and imperious. He can be difficult to approach. I know several scientists who complain that he does not listen well. Ed Storms is a genial fellow who gets along with everyone and sees everyone's point of view. He is even friendly with Morrison, he sat next to him during many sessions at ICCF6, chatting aimably between lectures. (I couldn't bring myself to give Morrison the time of day. If he ever sat next to me I would say something nasty in English & Japanese, get up and go sit somewhere else.) Ed learns about other people's mindset and motivations. Then he reaches firm conclusions. I have asked why he thinks SRI, NEDO, IMRA and others have put so much effort into improving precision. He says he thinks it comes of letting the opposition -- the pathological skeptics as he calls them -- define the problem. The skeptics said that excess heat is difficult to measure. They claimed that it requires high precision and top quality instruments to be sure you have excess heat. SRI went along with that. They jumped through the hoop and built the most precise calorimeter money can buy. They did not realize that the skeptics planned to hold up another hoop, and another after that, ad infinitum. In reality, there is no rational, scientific reason to demand such high precision. It is *not* difficult to measure 1 to 5 watts of excess, with about 20 watts input. The job is best done with ordinary lab equipment using standard techniques. As Ed put it, "instead of improving the precision of the instrument, SRI should have boosted the signal." Yes, it is that simple. You can measure 5 watts with confidence, and Stanley Pons can measure 200 watts with even more confidence. All this extra precision is meaningless. It is a distraction. I have confronted Mike McKubre and the people at the NHE with Ed's dictum: "boost the signal." They say fine, but how do you do it? We are stuggling to get any effect, even a tiny one, so we want to do everything we can to improve the signal to noise ratio, attacking it from both ends. I say, well, try using Ed's techniques. Or use nickel. Or raise the temperature. ("We can't," they say. "The instrument isn't designed for high temperatures." Yet another million dollar telescope that doesn't point where you want to look.) I suggest they get more help from people who claim to measure a large effect. Go visit them. Maybe you will find they are making a mistake and not seeing this large effect after all. I say try something, and if it does not work, try something else. Alas, my advice falls on deaf ears. They go right back to doing it the same old way. I am not the only one who is frustrated. I am deeply gratified to hear from people who have been spurred into writing to the NHE agreeing with me. Especially people I hold in awe, like John Bockris, who wrote to me: "I totally support the memorandum you wrote on the experiments in Hokkaido. I have written to Ikegami and I will send you a copy of my letter to him." Bockris made several technical recommendations to Ikegami, and he closed by saying: One last thing, a matter of common sense but doesn't seem to be realized, and that is to stop going on with experiments that don't succeed. I learned from reports I got from Tom Passel, that IMRA did 28 experiments with zero results. That is absurd. After six or seven experiments, of course the method should be changed. Amen to that! - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 2 04:08:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA17958; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 04:07:27 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 04:07:27 -0800 (PST) Date: 02 Nov 96 06:55:51 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: A matter of universal importance. Message-ID: <961102115551_100060.173_JHB60-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ozfUr3.0.WO4._bpUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1917 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed, >> Perhaps we should form an off line committee to fix this problem. Not sure how. Maybe by breaking the files into smaller chunks, or breaking them into topics based on the message title? << My OLR OzWIN 2.11 now strips out all the internet routing rubbish automatically, and that saves about 50% of msg space for the shorter stuff. Where a lot of the other space is wasted is in the overlong quotations from other msgs, sometimes the whole megilla is quoted just to refer to a couple of lines. We keep on requesting that this should stop, but some vortexians seem to have an auto-quote button instead of a brain. Sorry folks but it annoys me to have to slog through so much redundant guff after a single line comment. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 2 04:37:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA09056; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 04:36:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 04:36:01 -0800 (PST) Date: 02 Nov 96 06:44:32 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Thanks to Wharton, Pons, Mizuno Message-ID: <961102114431_100060.173_JHB78-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"upo431.0.LD2.m0qUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1918 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace, >> 1. Superheating occurs for a liquid, i.e. water. The hydrogen is already >in a gas phase. << I know that - what I was suggesting was an _analogue_ in the electrolysis situation, not actual superheating. Is it possible that the surface condition of the electrodes, among other things, might create local sudden gas evolution and possible local cavitation in the electrolyte? Call it"supercharging" of the electrode. Might even be caused by local polarisation due to bubble formation which fails to separate from the surface. When the bubble/s eventually separate/s down goes the cell resistance very suddenly and whoosh! Highly scientific terminology. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 2 06:28:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA27097; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 06:27:29 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 06:27:29 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 09:26:58 -0500 Message-ID: <961102092656_221538735@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: galtek Resent-Message-ID: <"lxRGy.0.Gd6.GfrUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1921 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Galtek stock takes a nose dive. It went from $4 / share to $1 / share. For thouse of you who are bent on buying it now is a good time. I should have sold at $4 but I got greedy. I do learn from mistakes like this. Symble on the OTC exchange GTSM Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 2 06:30:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA26772; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 06:24:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 06:24:19 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 09:23:05 -0500 Message-ID: <961102092303_221537803@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, Puthoff@aol.com, RVargo1062@aol.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro Subject: Miley/Murtha/Lockheed Resent-Message-ID: <"m1fZ13.0.DY6.IcrUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1920 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Miley has found out about my tenuous job situation (I am still working) and has invited me to come out to UIUC to be a member of a team he is building. We are going to discuss the details. I would like to come with money, technology, and a plan. A part of my plan is to pick up some classes while I am there. I wrote to our Congressman Jack Murtha about the situation. I sent him Miley's and many other reports. He is going to see what can be done. I believe he understands that the situation is becoming a matter of national priority. He is a very powerfull congressman on many military appropriation commities. I wrote to the president of Locheed Energy Systems Gorden G. Fee. Lockheed has a branch in Johnstown. And told him I would like to begin a serious effort to develop new energy technologies. I told him about my efforts to bring Miley and Jack Murtha together and that I am trying to pull something together. I asked Gorden to jump in with both feet. My group and I are hell bent on getting the Yusmar working. I invited Congressman Murtha to go to Moldova with me. Many things are in the pot cooking. I'm really trying. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 2 07:40:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA10895 for billb@eskimo.com; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:40:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:40:00 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: root@pax.axionet.com Sat Nov 2 07:39:57 1996 Received: from axionet.com (pax.axionet.com [204.174.222.20]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA10833 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:39:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from pax.axionet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by axionet.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA24638 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:35:07 -0800 (PST) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Thanks to Wharton, Pons, Mizuno Received: from mail.eskimo.com ([204.122.16.4]) by pax.axionet.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.0) with ESMTP id AAA3303 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 07:46:46 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA16822; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 07:42:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 07:42:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Old-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 06:43:03 -0800 From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Resent-Message-ID: <"Ixg2P.0.k64.MfXUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1895 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored X-Diagnostic: Possible loopback problem X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > >If I may insert a simple possibility here - how about the equivalent to >superheating of water in a smooth container or at a smooth surface where the >rapid gas generation due to the sudden increase in current creates an increase >in potential gas volume which fails to form immediately and then explosively >releases. This might even cause local cavitation on the surface of the bead. >If I'm correct then it might pay to make the surface of the last metal layer >roughened or granular to encourage gentle gassing at all current densities. > >Norman Just some thoughts: 1. Superheating occurs for a liquid, i.e. water. The hydrogen is already in a gas phase. 2. Heating increases the diffusion rate. Doesn't it also increase the total amount of hydrogen that can be adsorbed? 3. Oddly enough, cooling the lattice with the hydrogen already adsorbed increases the pressure in the lattice by contracting it. There have been fusion experiments based on this principle I think. If this is true, then heating due to the increased current in the electrode should reduce the pressure in deeper layers of the lattice, at least until more hydrogen can diffuse in. Reducing the internal pressure - could either speak against a sudden surface "boil off", or justify it. 4. For the above reasons attempting to get the sudden resistance change after a low wattage, low heat producing, but high current pulse may be a helpful experiment to sort out some of the possible explanations. Maybe more important is looking at the electrodes for which sudden resistance changes have occured and correlating the resistance change to isotopical shifts or to physical changes like cracking, pitting. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 2 07:50:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA13788 for billb@eskimo.com; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:50:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:50:43 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: root@pax.axionet.com Sat Nov 2 07:50:39 1996 Received: from axionet.com (pax.axionet.com [204.174.222.20]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA13767 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:50:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from pax.axionet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by axionet.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA02961 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:45:28 -0800 (PST) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Thanks to Wharton, Pons, Mizuno Received: from mail.eskimo.com ([204.122.16.4]) by pax.axionet.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.0) with ESMTP id AAA11188 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:21:14 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA24910; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:12:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:12:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Old-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 09:13:43 -0800 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Resent-Message-ID: <"VI8Yr3.0.856.U5YUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1896 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored X-Diagnostic: Possible loopback problem X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: >>> > McKubre, for >>example, achieves high loading, but as soon as he raises current density, the >>loading appears to drop off dramatically. He ascribes this to some event in >>which the gas in the surface layers of the cathode "blows off >>catastrophically." Evidence for this is seen in sudden changes in cathode >>resistance. >[snip] >>- Jed > I was at ICCF6. McKubre was highlighting data that showed, under conditions where Pd cathodes were loading well with D and just short of the desired high loading, when unexpectedly a few percent of the loaded D came out rapidly out. If the process occurs faster than the time required for D to diffuse from the interior of the cathode, then one concludes that it came from the near surface. Resistance is how McKubre measures the amount of D in Pd. So hold your horses. I don't think McKubre meant anything like an explosion, and the cathodes were not damaged. 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 Nov 2 07:55:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA13470; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:49:44 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:49:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <327B6D77.6D47@dsuper.net> Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 10:49:11 -0500 From: ryb Reply-To: ryb1989@dsuper.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: a matter of UNimportance or is it ? References: <199611012008.MAA27876@mail.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"QGnCx3.0.KI3.LssUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1922 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Just would like to ad that Dennis Lee's comments are ? What is needed are facts,tangible about what the Democrats,Republicans and Reformers are doing in regards to new energy,unconventional inventions that seem to defy the scientific establishment. Also,possibility of people to attach diagrans to their e-mails as sometimes it is quite difficult to grasp what they are talking about. Better would be to do computer simulations,maybe a basic exec program written in C,Vbasic or ?Thanks... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 2 07:57:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA14230; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:52:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:52:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 16:47:51 +0100 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: Mass Balance in Miley's paper Resent-Message-ID: <"mxYEh.0.FU3.eusUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1923 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >*** Reply to note of 10/31/96 08:55 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Mass Balance in Miley's paper >Maybe someone can give Jean Miley's Email address. This sounds like a very >ligitimate question to pass on to George. According to Mark Hugo's suggestion, I would appreciate getting Miley's Email address if someone knows it. Jean de Lagarde From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 2 08:04:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA17550 for billb@eskimo.com; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 08:04:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 08:04:24 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: root@pax.axionet.com Sat Nov 2 08:04:21 1996 Received: from axionet.com (pax.axionet.com [204.174.222.20]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA17531 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 08:04:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from pax.axionet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by axionet.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA14295 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 07:59:36 -0800 (PST) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Thanks to Wharton, Pons, Mizuno Received: from mail.eskimo.com ([204.122.16.4]) by pax.axionet.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.0) with ESMTP id AAA16836 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:52:15 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA28725; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:24:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:24:28 -0800 (PST) Old-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 11:23:37 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199611011623.LAA01329@spectre.mitre.org> In-reply-to: (Schaffer@gav.gat.com) Resent-Message-ID: <"yE8pO1.0.k07.wGYUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1897 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored X-Diagnostic: Possible loopback problem X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer (Schaffer@gav.gat.com) said: > I was at ICCF6. McKubre was highlighting data that showed, under > conditions where Pd cathodes were loading well with D and just > short of the desired high loading, when unexpectedly a few percent > of the loaded D came out rapidly out. If the process occurs > faster than the time required for D to diffuse from the interior > of the cathode, then one concludes that it came from the near > surface. Resistance is how McKubre measures the amount of D in > Pd. So hold your horses. I don't think McKubre meant anything > like an explosion, and the cathodes were not damaged. If the D starts acting as a Bose condensate at the desired loading, then it makes sense that in a sample with a small area of the surface which "leaks" gas that when the condensate forms ALL the D will act as if it is near to the leak point. As soon as you lose the condensate, the D is trapped again. (Or stated differently, if it is only D+ ions above the ground state that form part of the condensate, the D will leak out until only the ground state sites are occupied.) 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 Nov 2 08:10:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA18444 for billb@eskimo.com; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 08:10:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 08:10:30 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: root@pax.axionet.com Sat Nov 2 08:10:28 1996 Received: from axionet.com (pax.axionet.com [204.174.222.20]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA18425 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 08:10:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from pax.axionet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by axionet.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA19192 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 08:05:45 -0800 (PST) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: A matter of universal importance. Received: from mail.eskimo.com ([204.122.16.4]) by pax.axionet.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.0) with ESMTP id AAA7587 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 16:48:57 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA11074; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 16:12:36 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 16:12:36 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611020010.QAA22649@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" Old-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 16:11:21 +0800 From: Michael Mandeville Resent-Message-ID: <"JasqB.0.vi2.o7fUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1913 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored X-Diagnostic: Possible loopback problem X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: At 04:20 PM 11/1/96 EST, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >Much as I adore politics, I request that this discussion be moved to some >other forum. Please remember that Vortex-L readers in places like Russia have >to pay a lot to download these messages, so let us not post too many bytes off >topic. > >Speaking of downloading, Robert Huggins complained to me that the archived >Vortex-L files in Bill Beaty's home page are too long, which makes them >awkward to download. I have not attempted to download one. Perhaps we should >form an off line committee to fix this problem. Not sure how. Maybe by >breaking the files into smaller chunks, or breaking them into topics based on >the message title? message threads. the only issue is the variable headers, teaching the parser to validly recognize beginning and end. to avoid that, the best way is to generate a routine to take the email reader program and automatically spit them out into individual text files, then automatically churn them over into html files, then automatically title them by some algorythm, then automatically write a file list, then automatically churn the file list file into an html page with proper linking, tben ftp the whole mess to the server. Each topic thread should have it's own dir for easiest management. Done this way, it will be very easy retroactively to kill stuff which was mistakenly sent. Manual linking wouldn't be bad for awhile with a few volunteers because it can be done pretty damn fast. It is the parsing and naming of messages into the files and their churn into html which needs to be automated. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 2 08:30:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA22791; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 08:27:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 08:27:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Date: 02 Nov 1996 08:25:08 PST From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: Re: Mass Balance in Miley's paper To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 11/02/96 08:25:08 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"FgOzn3.0.uZ5.dPtUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1924 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 11/02/96 07:54 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Mass Balance in Miley's paper Just happen to have it by me Jean: g-miley@uiuc.edu Mark Hugo From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 2 09:23:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA03521; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 09:15:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 09:15:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 10:16:38 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: A matter of universal importance. Resent-Message-ID: <"M6fhQ.0.xs.Q6uUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1925 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 04:20 PM 11/1/96 EST, Jed wrote..... Rick Nafziger replied: >I haven't figured out underlines and italics but =B0F is done quite easily >using <248> where the 248 is typed on the numeric keypad >while holding done the Alt key. Also: >=95 the bullet is <249> >=BD one half is <171> >" squared is <0178> >" cubed is <0179> Only if we all agree to use the same font. Monaco font on my PowerMac displayed degree and bullet correctly, but the others appear as various other characters. 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 Nov 2 13:09:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA20177; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 13:05:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 13:05:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 15:05:13 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611022105.PAA19704@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: Yusmar-steam Resent-Message-ID: <"Zmb2A3.0.Bx4.bUxUo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1926 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: recently Frank Z said: >The collapse of the steam bubbles produces extreme cavitation. A while back, Frank, we had a setup in our lab that was feeding steam into water and, indeed, there was violent collapse of the bubbles. It sounded like someone was hammering on the container of water. We performed calorimetric measurements on this process and found no sign of excess heat, possibly because our steam bubbles were relatively large and thus relatively infrequent. Perhaps if you can make zillions of very fine steam bubbles collapse at a very high rate you will observe something significant. Scott From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 2 16:24:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA29716; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 16:16:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 16:16:16 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611030015.QAA23414@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, 02 Nov 1996 16:15:38 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: galtek Resent-Message-ID: <"JNCIy1.0.EG7.FH-Uo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1927 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:26 AM 11/2/96 -0500, you wrote: >Galtek stock takes a nose dive. It went from $4 / share to $1 / share. For >thouse of you who are bent on buying it now is a good time. I should have >sold at $4 but I got greedy. I do learn from mistakes like this. > >Symble on the OTC exchange GTSM > >Frank Z > > why did it take such a tumble? did a disgruntled early investor put out all of his stock? somebody in the know made a move. why? From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 3 18:54:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA08877 for billb@eskimo.com; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 18:54:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 18:54:23 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: daved@nimbus.anu.edu.au Sun Nov 3 18:54:21 1996 Received: from nimbus.anu.edu.au (nimbus.anu.edu.au [150.203.126.21]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA08849 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 18:54:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from daved@localhost) by nimbus.anu.edu.au (8.8.0/8.8.0) id NAA21634 for vortex-l@eskimo.com; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:54:01 +1100 (EST) Old-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:54:01 +1100 (EST) From: Dave DAVIES Message-Id: <199611040254.NAA21634@nimbus.anu.edu.au> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Thanks to Wharton, Pons, Mizuno X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: > From: "Robert I. Eachus" >... > Michael J. Schaffer (Schaffer@gav.gat.com) said: > > > I was at ICCF6. McKubre was highlighting data that showed, under > > conditions where Pd cathodes were loading well with D and just > > short of the desired high loading, when unexpectedly a few percent > > of the loaded D came out rapidly out. If the process occurs > > faster than the time required for D to diffuse from the interior > > of the cathode, then one concludes that it came from the near > > surface. Resistance is how McKubre measures the amount of D in ... >... If the D is approaching full loading then it doesn't seem appropriate to talk about diffusion. More like squirted out through interstitial channels and/or, as Robert suggests, from the collapse of a condensate. This could happen from deep within the metal. dave From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 3 19:28:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA15375 for billb@eskimo.com; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 19:28:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 19:28:47 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: Elizabeth@lovelight.com Sun Nov 3 19:28:42 1996 Received: from shell.flinet.com (root@shell.flinet.com [205.216.85.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA15318; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 19:28:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from wpb183.flinet.com (wpb183.flinet.com [206.102.216.183]) by shell.flinet.com (8.8.2/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA02840; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 22:25:38 -0500 (EST) Old-Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 22:25:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199611040325.WAA02840@shell.flinet.com> X-Sender: healing@mail.flinet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tesla@EINSTEIN.ssz.com From: Elizabeth@lovelight.com (Elizabeth Miller) Subject: tachyon,firewalking,catalyst altered water X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Hi, we received your address on a list that leads us to believe you will find these subjects of interest. We invite you to learn more about: TACHYON, first described by physicist Gerald Feinberg as a sub-atomic particle moving faster than the speed of light, and the bio-available energy attracted and amplified by tachyon antennae. Tesla technology applied for human health enhancement... http://www.lovelight.com/tachyon CATALYST ALTERED WATER: water that heals. More than 30 years documented results. Safely enhances agricultural production, human metabolism, etc. Full report online. http://www.lovelight.com/water FIREWALKING, including photos, http://www.lovelight.com/firewalk Thanks for your interest. Please write us if you'd like to be on our mailing list in future. Otherwise, we won't write unsolicited again. Love & Light, Elizabeth Miller Elizabeth@lovelight.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 3 23:00:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA29091; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 22:50:45 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 22:50:45 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <327D1776.875@loc100.tandem.com> Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 23:06:46 +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: Swiss company RQM? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"joaMZ2.0.O67.49PVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1928 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A friend recently send me a clipping he had saved from the business oppportunities section of the Wall Street Journal of 8/15/96. It is about a Swiss company called RQM (Raum-Quanten-Motoren AG), or in english, Space Quantum Manipulation. They have a web page at http://www.rqm.ch. He sent it to me mainly as a joke, since he knew my interest in Cold Fusion and other non-mainstream (he would say crackpot) technologies. After glancing through the web page, it is hard to say what they are doing, but it seems to have something to do with excess energy from some device with magnets. They even have a price list -- just 30,000 Swiss Francs for a 25kW Space Quantum Manipulater (I wonder if the Space is included or must be purchased separately.) The company has been in business since Feb 93, and has raised alot of money. So I was wondering if Chris, Jed or Gene had ever run across this company. Is it an investment scam, or are they doing something interesting? -- Bob Horst From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 4 04:57:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA01434; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 04:54:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 04:54:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:51:13 +0100 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: galtek Resent-Message-ID: <"hwoEF2.0.KM.IUUVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1929 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Galtek stock takes a nose dive. It went from $4 / share to $1 / share. For >thouse of you who are bent on buying it now is a good time. I should have >sold at $4 but I got greedy. I do learn from mistakes like this. > >Symble on the OTC exchange GTSM > >Frank Z Before buying, I would be interested to get news of the motor itself. This thing must be easier to test than Correa's PAGD. Could someone tell us what is the situation in this respect ? Jean de Lagarde From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 4 08:03:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA26089; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 07:55:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 07:55:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:54:41 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199611041554.KAA05617@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <199611022105.PAA19704@natashya.eden.com> (message from Scott Little on Sat, 2 Nov 1996 15:05:13 -0600 (CST)) Subject: Re: Yusmar-steam Resent-Message-ID: <"IDKL_1.0.YN6.Q7XVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1930 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little (little@eden.com) said: > Perhaps if you can make zillions of very fine steam bubbles > collapse at a very high rate you will observe something > significant. If the energy is coming from ZPE, you need a non-symmetric process. (Note that this assumes that the water in the Yusmar conducts.) Look at it this way--forming the bubble gives up energy, and collapsing the bubble gains enery back. If you can't tell a movie of a collapse from a a bubble creation event run backwards, then there is no net energy gain or loss. Now change the shape of the bubble either by shearing in the vortex, squeezing it through a mesh or cracks, etc. If you do this just right, the non-linear nature of the Casmir Effect allows you to remove net energy from the vacuum. (Or put energy in. So figures showing net energy loss in some runs would be theoretically significant, although not very useful in a practical sense.) 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 Nov 4 08:28:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA28343; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:03:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:03:22 -0800 (PST) Date: 04 Nov 96 11:01:16 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Swiss company RQM? Message-ID: <961104160115_76570.2270_FHU47-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"0WE99.0.kw6.7FXVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1931 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bob, Thanks for the prompt on RQM. Yes, I have information on them, which I was sent last June by one of our subscribers in the Netherlands. He too wanted to know if they are for real. Since we were in the process of moving, I did not have time to address this; now I will. I will try to summarize what I can from their very glitzy color flyer -- it is almost entirely in German. I can read German reasonably, but not well enough to be accurate unless I look up some words, which I do not have the time right now to do. Perhaps I will scan the German text and post it here. Then anyone who can translate -- e.g. Peter Glueck -- may be able to help us out. I also put in a call to RQM. Their number has changed from the flyer. They are now at: 41-55-214-23-50 fax: 41-55-210-01-10. A secretary speaking not very good English answered, so the info transfer was not great. She told me that they have a device that puts out 25KW of electricity with only about 1/2 that as input - this later inof on input may not be right. There may actually be no claimed input. Further investigation by one of our German subscribers this morning established the following claims: * They are working to set up a pilot plant operation that will be announced within the next 60 days. * If an engineer such as Crhis Tinsley were to arrive (when they are ready) to verify what they have, they would want him or her to buy a share of the company -- 1,600 Swiss F. -- something like $1,000 US. That is a bad sign of Inventor's Disease already, but I'll grant that they may just be very needy (like the rest of us). The color brochure that I have states that the work they are doing is based on the theories of Oliver Crane (of whom I had never heard). They give an ISBN # fro the Crane book: 3-9520261-0-7 ( Volume 1) Zentraler Oszillator und Raum-Quanten-Medium (Central Oscillator and Space Quantum Medium) They sell the Crane book - 243 pages, 53 diagrams, 6 3-D illustrations, there is reference to the Monstein-Effect 1991, the Hooper-Monstein Experiment 1992, the Barnett/Monstein Effect 1992, etc. They also sell a 12 minute VHS video tape. They also sell nine different color posters with various ellipsoidal zones around bar magnets detailing the theoretcal foundations of whatever... The address to write to for all this wonderment is: RQM, Raum-Quanten-Motoren AG Schmiedgasse 48 CH-8640 Rapperswil Switzerland The flyer shows the outside of their research building -- three stories tall.It has a large sign on the upper floor roof "RQM INSITITUT FUR RAUM-QUANTEN-FORSCHUNG. They also apper to have a glitzy "road show" -- a portable exhibit with data displays and various modularized electronic bays laid out; They have a chart with "Technical Data on the RQM Generators" (Provisional) Type RQM25 RQM200 ( in 1996) Electric output 0 to 25 kW 190 to 210 kW Elekctric (output form?) 24 to 400 VDC 400 to 1000 VDC Thermal (output - loss?) 1 to 3 kW 10 to 20 kW Aufnahmeleistung _ Startlesitung kW, max 30 sek. 5 to 10 kW 50 to 100 kW -Dauerbetrieb kW 2 to 3 kW 19 to 21 kW Gesamtwirkungsgrad (ohne Wechselrichter) 0.8 to 0.9 0.8 to 0.9 outside measurements (HxBxT cm) 130x56x60 150x140x80 Volume, including housing (m^3) 0.44 1.70 Volume, without housing 0.34 1.00 Total weight 230 kG 1200 kg On the ouside of the depicted unit it says, in part, Raum-Quanten-Motor/Generator. Other remarks state that it for mobile as well as stationary applications -- that it can substitute for solar power, etc., etc. Lots of claims, but we shall see... Best, Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 4 09:03:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA07659; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:44:04 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:44:04 -0800 (PST) Date: 04 Nov 96 11:39:39 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: galtek Message-ID: <961104163938_76570.2270_FHU68-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"PRbWE1.0.Yt1.JrXVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1932 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In response to Jean Lagarde's query: The situation is this, in brief. Galtek will mount the claimed O/U motor or more likely the motor/generator on a scooter -- they were influenced in this direction by the Takahashi scooter depicted in Infinite Energy #5&6. They think they can do this by the end of 1996. Initially they were going to use a dune buggy. This installation in the scooter they hope will provide a totally definitive test. I would agree. In the meantime, I am trying to get more information on the Galtek motor for an upcoming story in IE. I hope they will take my advice and be completely public about this motor -- its mode of operation and test data. My understanding from direct sources is that the Takahashi Scooter only went 35 miles in a California test, which would make its performance completley normal and non-remarkable. However, it was stated by Takahashi that there were some problems with the electronics -- some diode problems, which were indeed found by the testers. I am not sure the testers are willing to devote more time to this. I will pass the word back to Dr. Takahashi that his allowing a public showing of his self-sustaining motor/generator last April (in video) puts him on notice that we expect to see either A. the real thing working or B.) a disclaimer and explanation for the video tape. Gene Mallove Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D. Editor-in-Chief and Publisher INFINITE ENERGY Magazine Cold Fusion Technology P.O. Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302-2816 Phone:603-228-4516 Fax: 603-224-5975 76570.2270@compuserve.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 4 09:53:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA17340; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 09:24:49 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 09:24:49 -0800 (PST) Date: 04 Nov 96 12:13:50 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Swiss company RQM? Message-ID: <961104171349_100433.1541_BHG65-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"QwPD63.0.kE4.URYVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1933 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gene, > If an engineer such as Crhis Tinsley were to arrive (when they are > ready) to verify what they have, they would want him or her to buy > a share of the company -- 1,600 Swiss F. -- something like $1,000 > US. That is a bad sign of Inventor's Disease already, but I'll > grant that they may just be very needy (like the rest of us). Well, I certainly do not have $1000. What I do have is the ability to report on whatever they have, and a positive report (even with my own recognised limitations reducing its impact) would, I suggest, be worth a great deal more than $1000. After all, even I can see a 2:1 power ratio with reasonable ease... Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 4 14:02:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA04712; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:45:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:45:59 -0800 (PST) Date: 04 Nov 96 16:41:56 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: R. Kopecek thesis Message-ID: <961104214155_72240.1256_EHB186-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ZKuV-2.0.W91.LGcVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1937 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex This just in: Radovan Kopecek, "Electrolysis of Titanium in Heavy Water," A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in PHYSICS, Portland State University 1995, 113 pages. ABSTRACT An abstract of the thesis of Radovan Kopecek for the Master of Science in Physics presented June 29, 1995. Title: Electrolysis of Titanium in Heavy Water The purpose of these studies was to determine if results similar to those of Fleischmann and Pons could be obtained using a titanium cathode instead of palladium in an electrolysis in a heavy water cell. The electrolyte consists of D2O and H2SO4. Two experiments have been performed to examine the features of this electrolysis. As titanium shows the same properties to attract hydrogen, it seemed possible that excess heat could be produced. Radiation was monitored. and the surface of the titanium cathode was examined before and after electrolysis for any changes in the morphology and composition, hoping to discover new elements that can be created only by fusion reactions in the cell, i.e. by transmutation. The heat and radiation effects have been evaluated in comparison to a control cell, using the same electrolyte and current. The only difference was the cathode, which was of platinum. It appears that excess heat is produced during electrolytes of heavy water with a titanium cathode. The amount of this excess heat was 750 cal in a one hour period, an energy gain of 44%. No significant emission of any of the products associated with a "classical" deuterium-deuterium fusion was observed during either experiment, i.e. heat but no radiation. Unexpected elements were found in both experiments, i.e. K. Cr. Fe, Ni and Zn. Remarkable is the fact that the new elements always occur very close in the periodic table to an impurity element, i.e. Cu and Zn. Some results, from page 46: [Figs 24 & 25] show the temperatures and power input for both cells [C Control, D Deuterium Ti live cell] during the first hour. The decrease of the power input during the experiment despite the constant current is due to the increasing temperature of the cells.. This means that the resistance is decreasing (theory in experiment 1). The temperature in the D cell is higher from the beginning on. After 22 minutes the difference is 4 deg C. The power input into the D cell is low all the time. The difference is up to 0.5 W . . . - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 4 17:34:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA20589; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:09:47 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:09:47 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961104201435.006fa998@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 20:17:59 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Swiss company RQM? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"_GFqx.0.Q15.PFfVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1938 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Gene: At 11:01 AM 11/4/96 EST, you wrote: >Bob, They sell the Crane book - 243 pages, 53 diagrams, 6 3-D illustrations, there is reference to the Monstein-Effect 1991, the Hooper-Monstein Experiment 1992, the Barnett/Monstein Effect 1992, etc. >Best, Gene Mallove Could you have any additional information to help guide me to looking up those three references? Thanks, Colin Quinney From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 4 19:15:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA08387; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 18:28:14 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 18:28:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611050224.SAA19009@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 18:24:34 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Inventors disease counterpart is Groupie disease Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"V6pHU3.0.x22.qOgVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1939 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Seeing as snide quips of "inventors disease" seem to crop up on Vortex often I propose some effort be made to level the playing field. I propose a new disease category "Groupie Disease". A few of the characteristics of a Groupie I have noticed follow. I am sure we can edit and refine these characteristics so appropriate diagnosis can be made. Who knows maybe we can discover a cure or at least an effective pesticide. Key characteristics of "Groupie Disease" are: Short attention span as indicated by changing fixation regularly from old stars to the next bright star on the hit parade. Appointment of oneself as the judge of other peoples work along with self agrandisement and proclamations of "expertise" inspite of the lack of any demonstrable personal expertise in the field in question. Domineering and arrogant attitude toward others especially those with an alternative point of view or Groupies who worship other stars. Jealous fascination with other peoples work and open resentment of those people who have made the committment to work to develop talent, knowledge, and know how. Insistance that everything that is known about the Groupies fixation be revealed to the Groupie. In the extreme those afflicted with Groupie disease decline to become complete airheads. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 4 20:32:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA04643; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 20:23:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 20:23:21 -0800 (PST) Date: 04 Nov 96 23:21:25 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Inventors disease counterpart is Groupie disease Message-ID: <961105042124_76570.2270_FHU33-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"MPOjZ3.0.Q81.u4iVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1940 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Russ me 'Boy! C'mon, Russ, you know darn well you have Inventor's Disease, so please don't try to divert attention by this new, admittedly amusing alleged malady -- "Groupies Disease." The first step to rehabilitation is to admit the "illness"!! For a long time you have been talking about the Stringham/George E-Quest device, but honestly, I'll bet there is no one on Vortex who can really say for sure whether your calorimetry is right or wrong. Adequate details have not been published. Or at least SRI/EPRI or you have not given us their report on Roger's and your device. I look forward to receiving it. *"Short attention span as indicated by changing fixation regularly from old stars to the next bright star on the hit parade." Are you jealous, perhaps,that other technologies are being discussed objectively to determine their merit? As a true cold fusioneer, certainly you cannot object to paradigm shaking in other areas? After all, if standard physics is wrong in one major way ("cold fusion"), it could be wrong in many other ways, couldn't it? I think Hal Puthoff has been most eloquent and specific on that. *Appointment of oneself as the judge of other peoples work along with self agrandisement and proclamations of "expertise" inspite of the lack of any demonstrable personal expertise in the field in question.* Who could you possibly be talking about here? Certainly not Jed Rothwell, Gene Mallove, or Chris Tinsley, I trust! *Domineering and arrogant attitude toward others especially those with an alternative point of view or Groupies who worship other stars.* ????? Twinkle, twinkle, little star.... *Jealous fascination with other peoples work and open resentment of those people who have made the committment to work to develop talent, knowledge, and know how.* *Who* is "jealously fascinated" by what work? *Insistance that everything that is known about the Groupies fixation be revealed to the Groupie. Since most of my friends are Omniscient, they do not need to have anything revealed! (Now Jupiter and Athena, be quiet back there!) *In the extreme those afflicted with Groupie disease decline to become complete airheads. Do you mean the groupie *refuses* to become an airhead or do you mean the groupie *degenerates*? Please be precise! All in good fun.... Best, Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 4 20:56:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA12458; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 20:53:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 20:53:31 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961105000539.006a3be0@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 00:06:00 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Gravity Society Intro USA (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"zWWeV3.0.a23.9XiVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1941 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:23 PM 11/4/96 -0500, you wrote: > The Gravity Society > > We started one. > > JHS May The "force" be with us. :-} Colin. From vortex-l-request@ESKIMO.COM Mon Nov 4 21:11:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA02375; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:29:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:29:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:23:23 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex Subject: Gravity Society Intro USA (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"BFR2J1.0.ya.oNZVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM Reply-To: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1935 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@ESKIMO.COM Status: RO X-Status: The Gravity Society A short time ago during a discussion about gravity Giovanni Modanese wrote: "It is too bad there is not a society to discuss and share ideas about this". We started one. The Gravity Society Post Office Box CN 652 Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387 USA The domain: gravity.org PLEASE DO NOT USE DOMAIN YET, it is in the process of being registered. The process is not complete as yet. There is quite a bit of interest among few in the possibility of some form of modifcation of gravity. The statement and concept "modification of gravity" is broad and can and probably will be used and taken in both the broadest and narrowest senses. The intent of the society is to share ideas and news of work in the area. JHS From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 4 22:20:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA01031; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 22:10:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 22:10:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 07:37:11 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <327ed28d.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Re: Swiss company RQM? Resent-Message-ID: <"olxy63.0.xF.VfjVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1942 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:03:22 -0800 (PST), vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > The address to write to for all this wonderment is: > > RQM, Raum-Quanten-Motoren AG > Schmiedgasse 48 > CH-8640 Rapperswil > Switzerland > Lots of claims, but we shall see... > > Best, Gene Mallove Dear Gene and the other Vortexers, Please send the German text and I'll translate it immediately. It seems to be an interesting development, on the line of many similar devices. As far I remember , I have not met them on the Net, neither at INE nor at Wolfram Bachmann's group. If we decide that it is worth to start a discussion/collaboration with them, I am ready..speaking both German and Switzerlandese:-) 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 Nov 4 22:21:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA02485; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:29:41 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:29:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:26:08 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex Subject: A Survey of Gravity Effects (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"7UrEq3.0.gc.IOZVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1936 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gravity Society, Yellow Springs. Survey of Effects on Gravity from 123 perovskite YBCO in reduced temperature condtions and exposed to fields. This is a collective work of Giovanni Modanese, formerly at Max-Planck-Institute and Eugene Podklentnov formerly at Tampere University of Technology and John Schnurer. G. M. and E. P.k have contributed to this brief update and survey of results. All measurements by E.P. will be so noted, same with Schnurer, as S. E. P. a) PK measured up to 3 meters, not 30; no variation in weight loss in 1 part in 1000 b) PK follows shape of disk or toroid, does not diverge - OK c) PK said: there is one room above his laboratory, then comes the roof; thus, he observed effect through one ceiling. As relayed by G. M. d) PK nothing underneath assembly - OK or no gravity effect below assembly e) PK and Schnurer: RPM or rate of rotation VS magnitude of effect is not linear. No precise data. G. M." In my opinion it should not necessarily be linear." f) PK effect reproducible - OK Informal, opinion, Schnurer ----------------------------- > > 8]'more' is not better ... it is an accuracy thing > > GM : What do you mean exactly? > JHS I mean more raw power does not necessarily mean more effect. Correct application of all parameters, ie., spin, fields, etc... make effect .... simply 'throwing more juice at it' does not necessarily get you more effect. --- John Schnurer From vortex-l-request@ESKIMO.COM Mon Nov 4 22:37:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA01704; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:26:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:26:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:22:48 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex Subject: Gravity Society, Italy (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"WTJAo.0.RQ.rKZVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM Reply-To: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1934 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@ESKIMO.COM Status: RO X-Status: From the Gravity Society *************************************************************************** I have been working in the field of gravity and quantum gravity since 1987. I read the first article of Podkletnov in '94 (the paper in Physica C). I contacted him immediately and he was kind and helpful; only, he was quite afraid of publicity. I was at that time a post-doc at the Max Planck Institute in Munich. Since then, we have always been in contact. After 6 months of reflections and calculations I concluded that the observed effect was impossible to explain in General Relativity but could have a theoretical explanation in the framework of quantum gravity and I wrote the article "Theoretical analysis ...", which is now published in Europhysics Letters. As a regular and electronic preprint the paper was sent to over 1500 addresses worldwide. Many people wrote to me expressing their interest, curiosity or scepticism. In the fall of '95 I was contacted by Ning Li, of the NASA group in Huntsville and by C.S. Unnikrishnan, who was the first to partially repeat the experiment, using only a static magnetic field, with negative result. In the summer of '96 John Schnurer started a full-time, energic experimental work aiming at re-obtaining the shielding effect through a modified and simplified version of Podkletnov's technique. He reached a first positive result in September. We have been in constant contact all the time and we kept informed Eugene Podkletnov, who expressed his encouragement and appreciation for this work. We agree that the difficulties connected to the theoretical and experimental work on the weak gravitational shielding are serious and that the (partial) results available must not be over-emphasized. But we are convinced that this phenomenon is a very interesting scientific challenge, which could be investigated by "human-sized" groups in several countries. In this spirit we have constituted a non-profit organization for stimulating the research on the subject and collecting the available information, named "Gravity Society". ************************************************************************* Contributor Giovanni Modanese, Italy From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 5 00:03:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA22935; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 00:00:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 00:00:58 -0800 (PST) Date: 05 Nov 96 02:56:52 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Inventors disease counterpart is Groupie Message-ID: <961105075652_100433.1541_BHG158-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"7-C-u1.0.Fc5.uGlVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1943 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Russ, > In the extreme those afflicted with Groupie disease decline to > become complete airheads. Yeah, blow in my ear and I'll thank you for the refill. But there's no guarantee I'll "follow you anywhere". Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 5 00:12:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA25214; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 00:11:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 00:11:28 -0800 (PST) Date: 05 Nov 96 03:09:50 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Inventors disease counterpart is Groupie disease Message-ID: <961105080949_100060.173_JHB59-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"M52Jt1.0.o96.lQlVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1944 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: It would help if everyone would sign off their messages with their full names these days, as the internet travel document which precedes all vortex-l stuff is hard to decipher. Anyway my OLR strips out all that blurb other than the first few lines which only says: >> Date: 05-Nov-96 03:10:23 MsgID: 257-23226 ToID: 100060,173 From: >INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com >INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subj: Inventors disease counterpart is Groupie disease Chrg: $0.00 Imp: Norm Sens: Std Receipt: No Type: Text << which hardly gives much away. Norman Horwood From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 5 03:27:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA15110 for billb@eskimo.com; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 03:27:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 03:27:32 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: freeway,net@freeway.net Tue Nov 5 03:27:30 1996 Received: from onramp.freeway.net (onramp.freeway.net [206.153.72.40]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA15088 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 03:27:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from pantera (PM1-00.freeway.net [206.153.73.65]) by onramp.freeway.net (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id GAA04234 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 06:27:19 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961105112658.008c55bc@freeway.net> X-Sender: estrojny@freeway.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Old-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 06:26:58 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: R. Kopecek thesis X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: At 04:41 PM 11/4/96 EST, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >This just in: > >Radovan Kopecek, "Electrolysis of Titanium in Heavy Water," A thesis submitted >in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE >in PHYSICS, Portland State University 1995, 113 pages. >> >- Jed > Who is the faculty advisor? Is R. Kopecek still at PSU? I would like to get a copy of this thesis. Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 5 06:06:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA00615; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 05:50:30 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 05:50:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 14:46:52 +0100 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: galtek Resent-Message-ID: <"N1iZ51.0.W9.bOqVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1945 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >In response to Jean Lagarde's query: > >The situation is this, in brief. Galtek will mount the claimed O/U motor >or more >likely the motor/generator on a scooter -- they were influenced in this >direction by the Takahashi scooter depicted in Infinite Energy #5&6. They think >they can do this by the end of 1996. Initially they were going to use a dune >buggy. > >This installation in the scooter they hope will provide a totally definitive >test. I would agree. In the meantime, I am trying to get more information >on the Snip > >Gene Mallove I am afraid this solution is both too complicated and too indirect to provide a totally definitive test. If they have a motor/generator (supposedly on the same axle), input and output are both electric and any competent engineer has - as put by Chris Tinsley for the swiss RQM - "the ability to report on whatever they have" If (more probably) they have only a motor which is supposed to be over unity, the output is mechanical and can be measured with a Froude break, or even in coupling the motor with an ordinary electric generator whose output could be compared with the electric input with due consideration to losses and efficiencies. All this seems to be simpler and more convincing than the scooter Jean de Lagarde From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 5 06:48:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA08363; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 06:42:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 06:42:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 15:56:38 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <327f479b.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Subject: Groupie Disease Resent-Message-ID: <"6GEPk3.0.b22.z8rVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1946 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Friends, I think that Russ's little essay re "Groupie Disease" carries some messages which are important for our group, and for the CF community as well: a)"changing fixation"- the absence of a global, holistic, developmental VISION of the field; the lack of understanding of the real complexity and active-sites bound nature of the phenomena and of the unbelievable extension of the field. Ergo, emphasizing of particular aspects and focusing on only a few systems; internal reactionarism - some people cannot transcend the limits of the electrochemical devices or of the solid Pd blocks based systems. In correlation with this fixation, the passive approach to the problem; an extreme case is criticized in Jed's letter to NHE , where the stubborn focusing on measurement and not on the enhancement of the effect could be detrimental for the future of cold fusion by delaying the inexorable acceptance of it. b)"judges, domineering"--it is a great pity and shame that CF was not institutionalized, no Cold Fusion International Society does exist despite the great problems encountered by almost all workers from the field. Vortex is a group with limited possibilities, however it could be the nucleus of such a society. It is better when small groupies and Big Groups are healthy. And prosperous. And have internal harmony. 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 Nov 5 07:39:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA17372; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 07:28:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 07:28:02 -0800 (PST) Date: 05 Nov 96 10:25:03 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: galtek Message-ID: <961105152502_100433.1541_BHG151-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"LtxR93.0.HF4.xprVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1947 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jean writes concerning the scooter test for Galtek: > I am afraid this solution is both too complicated and too indirect > to provide a totally definitive test. If they have a > motor/generator (supposedly on the same axle), input and output > are both electric and any competent engineer has - as put by Chris > Tinsley for the swiss RQM - "the ability to report on whatever > they have" I agree entirely. The only point here being that (however my competence may be seen) people know who I am and where I am coming from, which removes one possible problem. This is of course also true of others in this group. There is only one test better than those which Jean describes, and that is to couple the thing to drive itself. However, all should realise that this would normally require the power to be converted to DC at some point between the motor and generator, and also that there would need to be some kind of energy buffer (like a large capacitor or very low- capacity battery) between them. Frankly, I feel it is significant that there are precisely *no* data for any of these motors. For CF, for Correa, for Griggs - data are abundant. For 'funny motors' or for Meyer - no data at all. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 5 08:06:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA22367; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 07:44:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 07:44:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Peter Glueck , Vortex-L Subject: RE: Groupie Disease Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 07:42:00 -0800 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: <"Sfn852.0.PT5.73sVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1948 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter In America, the word institutionalized carries the meaning of being put into an insane asylum. Some of us may need this, :>} -Hank Scudder _____ b)"judges, domineering"--it is a great pity and shame that CF was not institutionalized, no Cold Fusion International Society does exist despite the great problems encountered by almost all workers from the field. Vortex is a group with limited possibilities, however it could be the nucleus of such a society. It is better when small groupies and Big Groups are healthy. And prosperous. And have internal harmony. Peter From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 5 08:21:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA01030; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 08:14:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 08:14:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 11:12:34 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: galtek In-Reply-To: <961105152502_100433.1541_BHG151-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"P_K2E.0._F.TVsVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1949 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo., Why not just let the Galtek folks put the thing on a dune buggy, or bike. Then, if you want to test, take it over to a dynamometer, and to make a real good press splash, use one of the ones at an EPA emissions test facility. Those guys would probably get a kick out of testing a true ZP vehicle and the dyno gives print out and could then be traceable, at least to the degree of EPA accuracy,.....? On 5 Nov 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Jean writes concerning the scooter test for Galtek: > > > I am afraid this solution is both too complicated and too indirect > > to provide a totally definitive test. If they have a > > motor/generator (supposedly on the same axle), input and output > > are both electric and any competent engineer has - as put by Chris > > Tinsley for the swiss RQM - "the ability to report on whatever > > they have" > > I agree entirely. The only point here being that (however my competence > may be seen) people know who I am and where I am coming from, which > removes one possible problem. This is of course also true of others in > this group. > > There is only one test better than those which Jean describes, and that > is to couple the thing to drive itself. However, all should realise > that this would normally require the power to be converted to DC at some > point between the motor and generator, and also that there would need to > be some kind of energy buffer (like a large capacitor or very low- > capacity battery) between them. > > Frankly, I feel it is significant that there are precisely *no* > data for any of these motors. For CF, for Correa, for Griggs - data are > abundant. For 'funny motors' or for Meyer - no data at all. > > Chris > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 5 14:47:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA01304; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 14:38:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 14:38:24 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 17:35:47 -0500 Message-ID: <961105173546_1680492880@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, GeorgeHM@aol.com, Puthoff@aol.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, little@eden.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov Subject: EPRI visits Resent-Message-ID: <"ofwai1.0.AK.U7yVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1950 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The following guests were hosted on Tuesday Nov. 5th at the Johnstown Yusmar test site. Robert L. Frank P.E. Director the EPRI Instrumentation and Control Center Kingston TN...near and connected with Oak Ridge Labs in TN. Rabon W. Johnson Manager EPRI Instrumentation and Control Center. Robert and Rabon were impressed with our efforts. Robert Frank is planning to speek with Gorden Fee president of Lockheed Energy Systems. He hopes to involve Lockheed in our effort. We still have not obtained excess energy by I believe that given enough time and capital that we will. I also mentioned to the EPRI folks what a spendid job G Miley at UIUC and Scott Little and the Inst for adv Studies are doing. Frank Znidarsic fznidarsic@aol.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 5 16:00:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA14634; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 15:33:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 15:33:26 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <327FC8A0.794BDF32@math.ucla.edu> Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 15:07:12 -0800 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: EPRI visits References: <961105173546_1680492880@emout19.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"UZTLU.0.Xa3.-wyVo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1951 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > > The following guests were hosted on Tuesday Nov. 5th at the Johnstown Yusmar > test site. > > We still have not obtained excess energy by I believe that > given enough time and capital that we will. > I fail to see how time and capital translate into excess energy, especially when the device in question was supposedly O/U from the start. This whole effort is all rather ludicrous---the inventor supposedly has hundreds or thousands of functioning units back in Moldovia, but can't manage to ship a complete set-up to the US (hell, ship the water too, and a Moldovian battery pack to supply the power!). -- 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 Nov 5 21:19:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA02320; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 21:00:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 21:00:59 -0800 (PST) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 23:58:38 -0500 Message-ID: <961105235837_1813960521@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Gravity, Groupies and soapbox Resent-Message-ID: <"GW44p.0.5a.6k1Wo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1952 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: OK guys, listen up. I've watched the recent dialogue and it's my turn on the soapbox. 1. Gravity & Patents. Under international patent law, ***any*** publication before filing a patent application will absolutely doom any chances of getting a patent. In the US, you have a year to file; not elsewhere. If anyone has a hot item he would be absolutely nuts to publish before filing, especially something as stunning as a working gravity device. And the courts narrowly define "publication". You can't patent a natural phenomenon, but you can sure patent a device. And the US courts have awarded patents for genetically engineered living organisms. Think about it. 1a. Patents on o/u devices have been granted in the US, including the Kawai motor, the Correa PAGD reactor, the Patterson cell, etc. It helps to be a bit wise in the wording and not upset the natives too much. You can't patent a principle, but you can patent devices. Harley Davidson is trying to patent the sound produced by their classic engine configuration, which is also found in several Japanese motorcycles. 2.Think also about the confusion surrounding the P&F disclosure; Gene documents this well, and I may err in saying that much might have been different if they had openly stated the difficulty of replication and given some indications of the necessary recipie. 3. Many want commercialization to prevent suppression and to confound the establishment. Three cheers. However, the reported effect is feeble and no-one is going to pour gobs of money without a head start by a)patents or b)secrecy. 3a. Governments might get very interested in anti-gravity devices and attempt to classify the whole thing, which they can do with patents as well. Only defense is dissemination; however the ***only*** secret is that something can be done; the rest are details that others can catch up with. The general construction of an implosion a-bomb is well known, but building an effective one is a very difficult engineering task. Same for Pentium microprocessors. 4. The reason I was able to publish an extensive analysis of the Correa PAGD reactor was the three issued patents and I learned almost nothing beyond their scope, except what is contained in the extensive theoretical writings of Aspden. Yet that data was not satisfying to a number of our group. 5. Jed's arguments are cogent -- in the end the only salvation is to run faster than anyone else. But a head start is needed and that is what the patent law is for. I know everyone is impatient for a variety of reasons, all valid. But it very rare for the entrepreneur and inventor to exist in one person, and even they have a hard time. All of these development are chicken & egg problems and it is very hard to make both at the same time. 5. The "Inventor's Disease" is a mirror in which to study oneself -- even Jed admitted some infection -- not a weapon with which to whip someone into action. Its mirror image, the "Groupie" list, is equally inappropriate to this forum. Gentlemen, we have enough of labels in this world, and no label encompasses the facts of a situation nor the constellation of motives that may beset any of our colleagues. We congregated here to escape the food fights on spf, let's not despoil this forum. 6. While I disagree with Jed on occasion, I think his letter to NHE is appropriate, although I am distressed that it is necessary. He is perhaps uniquely positioned to write it, not being connected to any institution but IE (and let's hope that IE doesn't become institutionalized -- at least not yet). Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 5 21:43:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA13244; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 21:39:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 21:39:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 07:27:40 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <328021d3.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: RE: Groupie Disease Resent-Message-ID: <"Zx9Sk3.0.sE3.hI2Wo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1953 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 5 Nov 1996 07:44:08 -0800 (PST), vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > Peter > In America, the word institutionalized carries the meaning of > being put into an insane asylum. Some of us may need this, :>} > -Hank Scudder Dear Hank, Being so far from my friends who are using English as their native language, if I have problems with a word, my authoritary source is the good old Webster. In this case it says; v.t. 1, establish as an institution 2, to place (a person) in an institution. (why just a nuts-house?) The choice is free, however the message was that we need a professional society (1). Please tell me what's the proper word for this action. And please help to do it! Thanks, Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 6 06:13:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA05787; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 06:04:15 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 06:04:15 -0800 (PST) Date: 06 Nov 96 09:02:15 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: EPRI visits Message-ID: <961106140214_76016.2701_JHC112-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"WbYhk1.0.IQ1.Th9Wo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1954 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry Merriman writes: >> (hell, ship the water too, and a Moldovian battery pack to supply the power!)<< I know it might sound silly, but does Moldovia have a 50 Hz power system and could this be the reason attempts in the US have not met with success? I know that the Yusmar is different from the Griggs device in that the latter's RPM is directly affected by the source frequency; however, how do we know that we are not missing some subtle ingredient in our replication efforts? Might there be some small cyclic pulsing overlying the gross water pressure caused by the incrementing vanes of the pump whose resonance in the cavity is critical? If so, the number of vanes in the pump and frequency of the motor would be likewise critical. Terry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 6 08:56:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA22832; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 08:37:44 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 08:37:44 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199611061629.IAA00344@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Swiss company RQM? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 08:29:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19961104201435.006fa998@inforamp.net> from "Quinney" at Nov 4, 96 08:17:59 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: <"D3nNW1.0.ga5.LxBWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1955 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > They sell the Crane book - 243 pages, 53 diagrams, 6 3-D > illustrations, there is > reference to the Monstein-Effect 1991, the Hooper-Monstein Experiment 1992, > the Barnett/Monstein Effect 1992, etc. > Could you have any additional information to help guide me to looking up > those three references? > Thanks, > Colin Quinney Hooper and Barnett each discovered unconventional, and little recognized electromagnetic effects. Hooper in the late 1960s and early 1970s -- an electric field, possibly gravitic, from a stationary electric current. Barnett in the early 1900s -- a magnetic field developed by mechanically spinning magnetic material. Anyone know anything about Monstein? Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 6 10:16:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA15160; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 10:08:27 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 10:08:27 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199611061801.KAA00605@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Swiss company RQM? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 10:01:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <199611061629.IAA00344@shell.skylink.net> from "Robert Stirniman" at Nov 6, 96 08:29:49 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: <"baPGa.0.ji3.OGDWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1956 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: RQM has set up a fairly eleaborate website at: http://www.rqm.ch/eng/ (English) http://www.rqm.ch/ger/ (German) It's a publicly held company. The main sources of revenue at this time appear to be sales of: common stock, books, videos, copies of technical articles -- and oh yes, the all important posters, to hang on your wall. One might ask if this seems to make sense for company which has a working model of a 200% efficient all-magnet motor. Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 6 12:13:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA10502; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 11:54:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 11:54:06 -0800 (PST) Date: 06 Nov 96 14:52:10 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: EPRI visits Message-ID: <961106195210_100433.1541_BHG105-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"3dptT2.0.0a2.SpEWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1957 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Terry, If it matters, then certainly Moldova (like the whole of the civilised world) does indeed have a 50Hz supply. Personally, I suspect it will take more than 50Hz to save the machine. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 6 12:36:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA17268; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 12:26:41 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 12:26:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 14:25:59 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611062025.OAA15410@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: Galtek's testing! Resent-Message-ID: <"zsWE81.0.eD4._HFWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1958 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gene Mallove said: >The situation is this, in brief. Galtek will mount the claimed O/U motor or more >likely the motor/generator on a scooter -- they were influenced in this >direction by the Takahashi scooter depicted in Infinite Energy #5&6. They think >they can do this by the end of 1996. Initially they were going to use a dune >buggy. Absolutely amazing! Reminds me of Newman using his o-u motor to saw 2x4's! Why do you suppose they don't mount their motor on a dynamometer and measure both its output power and its input power? Scott From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 6 14:56:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA15904; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 14:27:33 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 14:27:33 -0800 (PST) Date: 06 Nov 96 17:24:29 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Galtek's testing! Message-ID: <961106222428_76570.2270_FHU55-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"aR4bd2.0.Hu3.E3HWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1959 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, You wrote: "Absolutely amazing! Reminds me of Newman using his o-u motor to saw 2x4's! Why do you suppose they don't mount their motor on a dynamometer and measure both its output power and its input power?" Who said they have NOT measured I/O? We'll see what data emerges.... I'm sure they view the scooter test as something that would convince anyone who could also be assured that there was no hidden power source -- i.e. if the scooter was followed by a TV netork crew *non-stop taping* for 1,000 miles and then the single start-up battery aboard was checked by the TV crew and found to be fully charged. I don't care how many I/O curves were published from a device like this, it will NEVER be believed in that form -- any more than CF O/U is believed no matter how replicated the data has been, no matter how many different calorimetric methods have been applied, no matter where it is published. You could have a small motor/generator lighting a 100 watt light bulb for three weeks -- hanging from the ceiling by a thin cable -- and this would still not be believed! The lesson of this field is this: commercial products or nothing -- as far as being accepted by the larger community. Hell, we have people on this forum who don't agree that CF is rea1, that CF cold tritium is real, etc, etc. It was MIT PFC Richard Petrasso who laid down the gauntlet in Popular Science, August 1993: "I suppose I'll beleive it when they drive a car up from New Jersey." He'll keep ripping off Uncle Sam with his tokamak crapola until that car does do the job -- even then he won't believe it unless he can *buy* said car! I thought he was just kidding in 1993. He wasn't... Best, Gene From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 6 16:03:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA27491; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 15:20:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 15:20:39 -0800 (PST) Date: 06 Nov 96 18:08:51 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Galtek's testing! Message-ID: <961106230851_72240.1256_EHB178-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"_qocL2.0.Lj6.3rHWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1960 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little asks, rhetorically: Why do you suppose they don't mount their motor on a dynamometer and measure both its output power and its input power? I suppose they do not because they are very, very stupid. Or frauds. The two are functionally equivalent. I have had quite enough of idiots who refuse to do simple, straightforward, convincing experiments to prove their point. Such experiments should not be dependent upon calibrations (which is not to say you don't calibrate; it just means you do not have to in principle). Ideally, they should not be dependent upon instruments at all, but on first principles instead. For example, high temperatures should be shown with boiling water rather than a thermometer. Naturally, the best experiment would be a self-sustaining machine, but there are other convincing demonstrations short of this. Many CF scientists do not have devices capable of doing such experiments. The best proof they can offer is indirect, such as thermistor readings or after-the-fact fogged of x-ray film. They have an excuse. The people at Galtek, Meyer and CF people who claim high power with a large input to output ratios have no such excuse. either they do a convincing experiment, or I dismiss them, and I think everyone else should too. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 6 16:14:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA00125; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 15:32:17 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 15:32:17 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 18:29:35 -0500 Message-ID: <961106182933_1747801229@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Merryman's comments Resent-Message-ID: <"vpUG9.0.r1.i_HWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1961 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The reason I keep on working on the cavtation technologies is that I believe that cavitation is the best route to cold fusion. I believe that I can improve on Yury's technique. Little and Miley have, to the contrary, encouraged me to go forward. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 6 17:01:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA12228; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 16:31:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 16:31:42 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com>, Vortex-L Subject: Re: Galtek's testing! Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 16:28:00 -0800 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: <"aWQ411.0.w-2.jtIWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1962 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gene As an engineer I feel just putting the device on a scooter or automobile is only a circus illustration, I would think they would want to do both, put the motor on a dynamometer, get meaningful technical data and publish it. Then put the same device on a scooter, cross the country, show the newspapers and TV shows. A scooter can have any power source from a one person-0.2 horsepower human to 750 HP Harley. Any financial source worth its salt would want to have a Professional Engineer verify the motor's performance before investing anyhow. -Hank Scudder ---------- From: Eugene Mallove To: INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Galtek's testing! Date: Wednesday, November 06, 1996 2:24PM Scott, You wrote: "Absolutely amazing! Reminds me of Newman using his o-u motor to saw 2x4's! Why do you suppose they don't mount their motor on a dynamometer and measure both its output power and its input power?" Who said they have NOT measured I/O? We'll see what data emerges.... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 6 18:23:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA02073; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 17:53:25 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 17:53:25 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <328140C3.3F54BC7E@math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 17:52:03 -0800 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: Merriman's comments References: <961106182933_1747801229@emout05.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"mPlb51.0.IW.B4KWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1963 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > > The reason I keep on working on the cavtation technologies > is that I believe that cavitation is the best route to cold fusion. > I believe that I can improve on Yury's technique. > Little and Miley have, to the contrary, encouraged me to go forward. > Frank: I don't want to discourage you from looking for cavitation energy, but I do want you to proceed down the most efficient path. You are to be commended for your persistence---the "bad guy" here is Yury. He is the one that claims to have this all working fine, yet he is burning your time and effort reinventing his wheel. In my way of thinking it is reprehensible for him to be your business partner, yet allow you to flounder while he supposedly already has 10 x over untiy device in production back in his factories. If I were you, I would say your priorities should be: (1) Using the rig that you have, set up and benchmark your testing equipment and protocols. (Quit worrying about excess heat for now). (2) Take the test eqipment and protocols from (1) to Yury's home site, and do on site testing of his *best* available device. (3) Return to your lab with *the device* and all necessary protocols and test equipment from (2), and do independent replication and additional follow up testing. Anything less direct is a waste of your efforts, at this point, since you have already established that his device does not just "work" for anyone, anywhere. Given that, You need to make a gradual transition from a working device to a device under your complete control. -- 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 Nov 6 18:55:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA11449; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 18:33:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 18:33:11 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32813C85.59E2B600@math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 17:33:57 -0800 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: Galtek's testing! References: <961106222428_76570.2270_FHU55-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"cnXuO2.0.ho2.afKWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1964 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Eugene Mallove wrote: > > > I don't care how many I/O curves were published from a device > like this, it will NEVER be believed in that form -- any more than > CF O/U is believed no matter how replicated the data has been Gene: As editor of the major CF magazine, it is sad to see that you have retreated to this sort of anti-scientific viewpoint. You seem to be saying that the scientific community at large cannot be convinced of a radically new principle via scientific experiments. I think it is good to remember the case of high temperature superconductivy, which was certainly a radical innovation. Yet all scientists were convinced of the reality of it within a few months, by simply seeing a replication of the meisner effect. Note the meissner effect is not a direct demonstration of superconductivity---i.e., it is not the same as directly seeing a current persist in a wire loop for 10,000 hours. However, the Meisner effect was robust, repeatable, and is a sufficiently bizarre consequence of superconductivy that, given it, we were willing to believe that the material was a superconductor in accordance with the rest of the more detailed measurements the discoverers claimed to have made. Similarly, scientists would not insist on seeing a scooter travel 1000 hours without refueling, or on a CF device powering itself entirely for many days---if instead their were simply a readily repeatable anomolous demonstration a la' the meisner effect. It is quite sad the CF produces no apparent radiation---if one could turn on an electrolysis cell and see a signal on a gieger counter, CF and its excess energy claims would have been accepted a long time ago. Overall, my point is that what is lacking is a reasonable scientific demonstration, not an experiment to end all experiments. You can't blame scientists for being skeptical of radical claims given that. And moreover, going beyond that I have made a personal extensive effort to investigate certain CF claims, and have not met with any positive results, and morepover have not even found a willingness of those in possesion of positive results to share them with me for scientific purposes. So, who is to blame here? willingness be the sort of test you imply is necessary with scooters travelling 1000 miles, 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 Wed Nov 6 20:41:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA09050; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 20:28:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 20:28:40 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611070412.UAA12662@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, 06 Nov 1996 20:27:53 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: RE: Groupie Disease Resent-Message-ID: <"3wsfS2.0.GD2.sLMWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1965 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:27 AM 11/6/96 GMT, you wrote: >On Tue, 5 Nov 1996 07:44:08 -0800 (PST), vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: >> Peter >> In America, the word institutionalized carries the meaning of >> being put into an insane asylum. Some of us may need this, :>} >> -Hank Scudder > Dear Hank, >Being so far from my friends who are using English as their native >language, if I have problems with a word, my authoritary source is >the good old Webster. In this case it says; > > v.t. 1, establish as an institution 2, to place >(a person) in an institution. (why just a nuts-house?) >The choice is free, however the message was that we need a >professional society (1). Please tell me what's the proper word for >this action. And please help to do it! >Thanks, >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 > > Hank was serving you up a bit of humor. Your definition and your use of the word are both correct. As example, we can institutionalize a science by creating a university department. But when people are institutionalized, there is the VERY strong vernacular meaning that they are going to a nut house of some sort (or a prison). To avoid such association, we say, for example, that when old people who can no longer care for themselves are placed in custodial care, they are placed in a rest home, nursing home, or retirement center, but definitely not in an institution, definitely not as institutionalized. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 6 21:03:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA12609; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 20:43:00 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 20:43:00 -0800 (PST) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 23:41:47 -0500 Message-ID: <961106234145_1148496447@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Merriman's comments Resent-Message-ID: <"Xq9sM1.0.t43.HZMWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1966 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, As a friend, I agree with Merriman's 1-2-3 approach. I do not want to see you in a Don Quixote mode. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 6 21:05:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA15507; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 20:53:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 20:53:28 -0800 (PST) Date: 06 Nov 96 23:51:20 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Galtek's testing! Message-ID: <961107045120_76570.2270_FHU30-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"YZX662.0.9o3.6jMWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1967 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry: You wrote "As editor of the major CF magazine, it is sad to see that you have retreated to this sort of anti-scientific viewpoint. You seem to be saying that the scientific community at large cannot be convinced of a radically new principle via scientific experiments." I am not anti-scientific at all. It is merely my considered observation of the goal post- shifting and criminality of the scientific establishment that has occurred these past 7+ years. I am indeed saying that *in the matter of cold fusion and other over-unity processes* the scientific community at large cannot be convinced of radically new principles. Just take the case of cold tritium - compendiously proved and documented. *You* are a perfect example the the inability of the scientiic community to see that a radically new phenomenon is at large. What about Wolf's data, what about Arata's data, what about, what about, what about, what about.... Look in the mirror! You say: " It is quite sad the CF produces no apparent radiation---if one could turn on an electrolysis cell and see a signal on a gieger counter, CF and its excess energy claims would have been accepted a long time ago." Baloney! Again, the tritium, which is measured by standard techniques and beyond standard techniques just to be sure -- look at Fritz Will et al's work -- look at Claytor. It is seen over and over again. You and your goal-post-shifting bretheren refuse to believe it. Again, look in the mirror! You say: " And moreover, going beyond that I have made a personal extensive effort to investigate certain CF claims, and have not met with any positive results, and morepover have not even found a willingness of those in possesion of positive results to share them with me for scientific purposes. So, who is to blame here?" You are very admirable for your efforts -- particularly being on the HF dole, but you are a FOOL if you think you have even come close to replicating the conditions of the CETI cell. You need their damned beads, among other things! This has been pointed out time and time again. I am angrier than anyone on this planet -- other than maybe Jed-- that CETI will not sell these beads all over creation! It's an accident of history that demonstration units are in the hands of people who do not realize how to achieve commercial success quickly. That may change. We are certainly working toward that end. I have to say that I am in complete agreement with Chis Tinsley's aphorism -- that *practically speaking* most scientists "believe what they are paid to believe". Eight years ago I would not have thought that. Now I am convinced it is true. The scientific establshment is utterly corrupt and bankrupt as to radically new ideas -- and it is not just in CF. CF is just the tip of the iceberg. It's in medicine, astrophysics, biology, everywhere. That is why it is necessary to have organizations like the Society for Scientific Exploration, of which I am proud to be a member. CF will, of course, eventually win, because it is real. And when it does, perhaps there is hope that the people who pay for science in this country will demand a thorough house-cleaning, because the establsihment went way-overboard in their mockery, thievery, and treachery in this case -- a matter of profound national/world interest. It may be too much to expect, however, but I hope public outrage happens. Above all, people will look back at things like the egregious, fraudulent MIT "null experiment" data of 1989 and the highly biased DOE panel (proved conclusively by the quotations and admissions of Taubes and Huizenga), among aother things. Heads will roll, I hope. Good night! Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 6 21:29:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA25543 for billb@eskimo.com; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:29:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:29:26 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: mike@zenergy.com Wed Nov 6 21:29:23 1996 Received: from inficad.net (root@inficad.net [208.198.100.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA25510; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:29:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from zenergy.zenergy.com (ip48.ts5.phx.inficad.com [208.198.101.48]) by inficad.net (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA12504; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 23:22:34 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <32817352.7129@zenergy.com> Old-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 22:27:47 -0700 From: Mike Fisher Reply-To: Mike Fisher Organization: Zenergy Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: Vortex Subject: Re: Galtek's testing! References: <961106230851_72240.1256_EHB178-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > To: Vortex > > Scott Little asks, rhetorically: > > Why do you suppose they don't mount their motor on a dynamometer and > measure both its output power and its input power? > > I suppose they do not because they are very, very stupid. Or frauds. The two > are functionally equivalent. > 1. I talked to Jeff Jowett from the AZ Energy Office. He hasn't tested or seen the device. He certainly would like to, but he can't say it works or not because Galtek doesn't return his calls. This illustrates how things can get blown out on this board. Who said Jeff claimed Galtek was a fraud? He never said that. 2. I finally got in touch with Galtek. A tentative meeting is setup for next week...and we do have a dynamometer and ample test gear. He's very open to us testing the motor however we want. The results will stand for themselves. - Reed -- Reed Fisher Zenergy Corporation 390 South Robins Way, Chandler Arizona 85225 Phone: 602.814.7865 Fax: 602.821.0967 Email: reed@zenergy.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 6 21:43:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA27225; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:36:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:36:23 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611070519.VAA23508@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, 06 Nov 1996 21:35:40 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Galtek's testing! Resent-Message-ID: <"eoqHV.0.Af6.LLNWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1968 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:24 PM 11/6/96 EST, you wrote: >I don't care how many I/O curves were published from a device like this, it will >NEVER be believed in that form -- any more than CF O/U is believed no matter how >replicated the data has been, no matter how many different calorimetric methods >have been applied, no matter where it is published. You could have a small >motor/generator lighting a 100 watt light bulb for three weeks -- hanging from >the ceiling by a thin cable -- and this would still not be believed! The >lesson of this field is this: commercial products or nothing -- as far as being >accepted by the larger community. Hell, we have people on this forum who don't >agree that CF is rea1, that CF cold tritium is real, etc, etc. > >Best, Gene > > > Holy smokes, you are getting as cynical as I am. How terrible! What it takes is a paying customer. In the course of my own journey through this very strange land I have gained the impression that you are right when it comes to the experts or the media. Hell, we even can't find investors nor any form of outside financial support for a technology which has been working for seven years, has lots of in the field applications, and which will revolutionize the oil industry in ways easily provable. My own strategy now is to complete the set-up of my oil/water separator business in Houston, which should be installed about December 1, 1996 and use the growing cash-flow from that business to bring both Muller and radioactivity transmutation into demonstrable prototypes. Even though frankly, I would rather somebody else do it and profit thereby but I have been completely unsuccessful at catalyzing any action. So our own bootstraps, every nickel and dime we could wring out of our lives, are being used to set-up our own cashcow. Luckily, this is enough, slow, but sure. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 6 21:46:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA27328; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:36:41 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:36:41 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611070520.VAA23572@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, 06 Nov 1996 21:35:59 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Tinsley's Aphorism Resent-Message-ID: <"BKqNV1.0.vg6.dLNWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1969 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:51 PM 11/6/96 EST, you wrote: > >I have to say that I am in complete agreement with Chis Tinsley's aphorism -- >that *practically speaking* most scientists "believe what they are paid to >believe". Eight years ago I would not have thought that. Now I am convinced it >is true. The scientific establshment is utterly corrupt and bankrupt as to >radically new ideas -- and it is not just in CF. CF is just the tip of the >iceberg. It's in medicine, astrophysics, biology, everywhere. That is why it is >necessary to have organizations like the Society for Scientific Exploration, of >which I am proud to be a member. CF will, of course, eventually win, because it >is real. And when it does, perhaps there is hope that the people who pay for >science in this country will demand a thorough house-cleaning, because the >establsihment went way-overboard in their mockery, thievery, and treachery in >this case -- a matter of profound national/world interest. It may be too much to >expect, however, but I hope public outrage happens. Above all, people will look >back at things like the egregious, fraudulent MIT "null experiment" data of 1989 >and the highly biased DOE panel (proved conclusively by the quotations and >admissions of Taubes and Huizenga), among aother things. Heads will roll, I >hope. > >Good night! > >Gene Mallove > > Well, I had not heard of this aphorism by the inestimable Tinsley, but the sense of that truth seems to ring rather broadly. Hear Hear for this rest of this rant! In every academic field that I have looked into, the currently prevailing American establishments are naked emporers. All too often, taking due note of many great exceptions, not only can they not teach, ie motivate learning for the greater number, they can't even properly put their own research and assumptions into a properly examined and tested context. Do you remember my rant early this year about how "fakers" have seemable taken over? Part of the answer lies in convincing people that science does not belong to University departments and academic specialties, that perhaps the most creative science is in businesses and their neighbor's garage. We need professional science roles, recognition, and grants for persons, quite aside from institutions and academics, which will tend to create more sources of science authority outside of the very weird power zones of academic departments and specialties. I look to engineers to eventually make this work...they are generally more concerned about things which work as opposed to their color and ideology. One sound way to press the criticism is that the new science and tech you are talking about is in the division zone of the traditional specialties, it is all the stuff which has fallen through the cracks, and there is a lot of it, more than enough to re-write many of the fundamentals of science. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 6 21:52:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA29057; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:43:27 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:43:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:41:28 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex Subject: O/u Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"xlyYT1.0.w57.zRNWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1970 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo, If one were to take a wheel, say like a bicycle wheel, and have it rotatre, with no apparent outside power, and in turn 'motor about' a six fool circular track, for, say, 6 or 7 days, un aided..... would then this be considedred o/u by all? Press and scientific community alike? It one were to take such a wheel and manufacture and sell it as a toy and novelty, would then this be condsidered o/u .... if it ran for days and days durung and after the holiday season? Would curves and 6 digit accuracy be required? J From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 6 22:35:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA08350; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 22:28:49 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 22:28:49 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32818191.FF6D5DF@math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 22:28:33 -0800 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: Galtek's testing! References: <961107045120_76570.2270_FHU30-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0ObF42.0.O22.W6OWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1971 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Eugene Mallove wrote: > > you are a FOOL if you think you have even come close to > replicating the conditions of the CETI cell. > You need their damned beads, among other things! Just to set the record straight on this for you and Jed and others: I obviously cannot claim to have done a true replication of the CETI experiments, primarily because I do not have beads produced by their precise process and using whatever trade secrets they mat have. The principle motivation for me doing my experiment was to examine the hypothesis that CETI results were not true cold fusion, but rather some exotic artifact. Also, I was encouraged by the fact the Miley had gotten the CETI effect using an *entirely different* bead coating process. The difference between Miley's beads and the original CETI beads are like night and day---this suggested to me that the precise contruction of the beads was not an essential factor, and I would have a good chance of obtaining some effect, which I could then test for being an artifact. Of course, it turned out I got no effect at all. One could actually take this to be a good result for cold fusion, for it suggests some detailed physics is afoot, not simply depending on the obvious geometry, schematics and materials present. This actually makes it less likely that it is a simple artifact. Personally, I don't view my experimental results as a "failure"---rather they tell us some important information about this system. That one gets null results with such a close replica of the CETI system is quite interesting, especially when Miley gets positive results with a much less close replica. This ia all very interesting, and I plan to continue to pursue it, as my personal budget of time and money allows. However, I can't wait for CETI anymore. Instead, I am planning to pursue my own thin film ideas, along with a partner who has a plenty of sputter coating equipment, independently and publicly. In the not too distant future we will set up a web page outlining our plans, and all ideas will be put there in the public domain. We want to pursue this entirley in the open, so that no patent issues cloud peoples priorities. Once we get going, everyone will be welcome to contribute ideas for us to pursue, contingent only on a "copyleft" that the ideas go into the public domain---no more patents! If CF really does work, there will be plenty of wealth to go around, patents or no. And since the patents that are out there are not really sufficient to replicate the effetcs, they are of no practical value to our efforts anyways. -- 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 Nov 6 23:44:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA25907; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 23:39:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 23:39:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 09:00:39 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <3281891c.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Groupie Disease. Resent-Message-ID: <"LBpaV.0.fK6.U8PWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1972 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Hank, dear Mike Mandeville, OK with "institutionalization", I met with this polysyllabic thing e.g. in a fine paper," Eight I's that create successful We's" by Elisabeth Moss-Kanter, Harvard Review, July-Aug 1994 p100. I appreciate humor very much, however after reading the ICCF-6 abstracts kindly sent by a good friend and having seen the slow progress in the field..I wasn't too happy. The best paper, according to me is that of Storms; Ed had described the essential features of the CF processes "The anomalous reaction occur only in special, small, isolated regions within the host material" For this reason, excess heat is proportional to the NUMBER of active sites, and only inherently catalytic systems work. It is absolutely useless to work with solid, bulky Pd cathodes. Arata, Patterson, George, Piantelli, Reifenschweiler, Karabut, Dufour, Kamada have understood this; the NHE people--not. Once this will be history of our science, now it is disturbing. 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 Nov 7 00:02:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA01161; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:01:15 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:01:15 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32819738.31DFF4F5@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 00:00:56 -0800 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: Groupie Disease. References: <3281891c.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"D_e3C2.0.3I.ATPWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1973 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter Glueck wrote: > > after reading the > ICCF-6 abstracts kindly sent by a good friend and having seen > the slow progress in the field..I wasn't too happy. It sort of sounds like ICCF 6 was something of a fizzle, especially compared to last years "big CETI demo". While we don't have much in the way of direct reviews, I haven't heard Jed or Gene rejoicing at the imminent death of the hot fusion power structure. I recall before the conference Jed said it looked like CETI was going to be kicking butt and taking names....I am right in guessing this did not come to pass? -- 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 Nov 7 00:43:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA07817; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:42:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:42:21 -0800 (PST) Date: 07 Nov 96 03:40:16 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Galtek's testing! Message-ID: <961107084016_100060.173_JHB63-4@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"6Evbt.0.1w1.i3QWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1976 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, >> We want to pursue this entirley in the open, so that no patent issues cloud peoples priorities. Once we get going, everyone will be welcome to contribute ideas for us to pursue, contingent only on a "copyleft" that the ideas go into the public domain---no more patents! If CF really does work, there will be plenty of wealth to go around, patents or no. And since the patents that are out there are not really sufficient to replicate the effetcs, they are of no practical value to our efforts anyways. << More strength to your elbow! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 00:43:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA07852; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:42:29 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:42:29 -0800 (PST) Date: 07 Nov 96 03:40:14 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Merryman's comments Message-ID: <961107084013_100060.173_JHB63-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"EIOp03.0.Vv1.a3QWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1975 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, >> The reason I keep on working on the cavtation technologies is that I believe that cavitation is the best route to cold fusion. << OK, but surely if you really believe in cavitation as a source of ou energy, then why not go for controllable input methods like high intensity vibrators in water, or the Griggs rotating "whistle" (which it really is, like the wartime sirens only in water not air). I feel that you are flogging a dead horse with the Yusmar as a research device. Too many inter-related variables outside your direct control. Here's a thought. What about a contra-rotating Griggs with multi plate discs with cavities in the sides opposite each other, like a multi-stage centrifugal pump or turbine? Go get it Frank! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 00:48:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA07782; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:42:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:42:13 -0800 (PST) Date: 07 Nov 96 03:40:12 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Galtek's testing! Message-ID: <961107084011_100060.173_JHB63-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"cSgBm3.0.Mv1.a3QWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1974 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> either they do a convincing experiment, or I dismiss them, and I think everyone else should too. - Jed << Absolutely correct! The only problem then is that one or more of these idiots might really have something worth while which will be missed if they are ignored completely. I know its a bore, but I feel that they should be placed under constant pressure to prove their gadget in public, after they have done their due diligence with patents etc. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 02:08:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA15145; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 02:06:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 02:06:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 11:30:12 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <3281ac2b.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Re: Groupie Disease. Resent-Message-ID: <"qGZc43.0.Zi3.iIRWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1977 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:01:15 -0800 (PST), vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > Peter Glueck wrote: > > > > after reading the > > ICCF-6 abstracts kindly sent by a good friend and having seen > > the slow progress in the field..I wasn't too happy. Dear Barry, The emphasis is on "too" because some results are quite encouraging, as all from the CETI group + Miley, then Longchampt (very serious), Claytor, R. Takahashi (amazing, no metal cathode, only carbon), Dufour Oriani, Mizuno, Ohmori, but beyond our expectation. One of the reasons for that is that a lot of people are merrily marching in "cul of sacs", the other is that we (me included!) are not able to comprehend the novelty, complexity, difficulty of these processes and we demand too much. The field is not dead, and it will prosper..but this needs too much time. I want call your attention to a different subject, the "causal physics" of Oliver Crane (the basis of the RQM device, see ). According to this, "mathematical methods are not the way to solve the problem of physics. NO SINGLE ABSTRACT FACTOR IS ALLOWED. The empty (mathematical) space of the theory of relativity is such a factor....absolute, ideal parameters., with values of zero or infinity cannot exist" A very interesting position, a new concept in epistemology, a challenge for physics and philosophy. At the other extreme taking equations as reality, is also only a partial truth. Do you know that joke about engineers, physicists and mathematicians? Engineers are right, we have to accept reality even if it contradicts our beloved equations or theories. Sad but inavoidable. 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 Nov 7 03:17:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA22309; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 03:16:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 03:16:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 12:56:47 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <3281c073.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Subject: How to cope with them. Resent-Message-ID: <"19kGB.0.RS5.NKSWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1978 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortexers, Just to remind a classical writing about the problems of CF: Chris Reynolds: "How genius gets nipped in the in the bud" New Scientist, 68-69 (14 July 1988)...excerpts. "Suddenly, you realise that there is a far more serious problem. THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE IS NO SUCH A THING AS A RADICALLY NEW IDEA. Each new paper is required to climb on the back of a plethora of earlier published papers, and does little more than add another layer of gloss to the cited references. Genuinely new ideas do not have a heap of existing papers to support them. This means that the standard of proof expected will be very much higher than for a typical "me too" paper. You look out of the window and admire the sweet peas, and remember that major ideas are sometimes not recognised until after the originator has died. You sit there in your stationary chair, watching the sun charge across the the sky, and realise that being right is no shields against being held to ridicule by the establishment.... Your mind is made up. You can easily dash, off a couple of third "rate me too" papers a year.." Sad story! Please excuse me if it's folklor for you. In any case I have started my lecture on the Patterson cell and similar devices at the local, international congress of electrochemistry in this way: Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you all are reasonable people and well know that the history of science was, in great lines written and all what we can do, all what we have to do is to focus on the aplication of the known principles.. Unfortunately, sometimes some of the most decent, disciplined field of science give birth to ideas which contradict our final truths, a terrible example being CF, a son, daughter or product of electrochemistry..." This introduction has shocked the audience and so I got the opportunity to tell the basic data re. Arata, Patterson, Fiber Power Cell and about CF research worldwide. And fairly reasonable people know that the history of science is NOT written yet. The opposition was defeated. You can be a reactionary, but it is not good to seem a reactionary. 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 Nov 7 04:11:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA26717; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 04:09:12 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 04:09:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 23:08:57 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Galtek's testing! In-Reply-To: <32818191.FF6D5DF@math.ucla.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"x32lg.0.NX6.d5TWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1979 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Barry Merriman wrote: > Eugene Mallove wrote: > > > > you are a FOOL if you think you have even come close to > > replicating the conditions of the CETI cell. > > You need their damned beads, among other things! > [snip] > > This ia all very interesting, and I plan to continue to pursue > it, as my personal budget of time and money allows. However, I can't > wait for CETI anymore. Instead, I am planning to pursue my own > thin film ideas, along with a partner who has a plenty of > sputter coating equipment, independently and publicly. In the not too > distant future we will set up a web page outlining our plans, and all > ideas will be put there in the public domain. We want to pursue > this entirley in the open, so that no patent issues cloud > peoples priorities. Once we get going, everyone will be welcome to > contribute ideas for us to pursue, contingent only on a "copyleft" > that the ideas go into the public domain---no more patents! If CF > really does work, there will be plenty of wealth to go around, > patents or no. And since the patents that are out there are not > really sufficient to replicate the effetcs, they are of no practical > value to our efforts anyways. Barry, this is great! I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments of openness and to hell with patents. I do have a question though. Miley's paper has direct quotes asking for replication attempts. The best source of sputtered beads would have to be Miley himself. How come you're not getting them from him? Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 06:21:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA16085; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 06:14:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 06:14:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 06:13:37 -0800 Message-Id: <199611071413.GAA02727@dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Chris! Wha-happen to your post? Re: Galtek's testing! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: 100433.1541@compuserve.com Resent-Message-ID: <"q8kX91.0.Ex3.3xUWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1980 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: November 7, 1996 Thurs. 4:45 AM approx. Chris, I started to read your remarks on Mallove quoting you on institutionalized scientists (or rather, scientists in formal institutions), when the screen blanked out and reverted to the server screen. Your posting disappeared completely and could not be revived into the vortex. Where do you suppose did it disappeared? Compuserve, Eskimo's vortex service, or my Netcom service? Or were you able to pull the posting? Or did somebody, something else did? I wonder. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 06:35:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA20116; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 06:29:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 06:29:28 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 05:30:25 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: O/u Resent-Message-ID: <"rgJpu1.0.Ew4.79VWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1981 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Dear Vo, > > If one were to take a wheel, say like a bicycle wheel, and have >it rotatre, with no apparent outside power, and in turn 'motor about' a >six fool circular track, for, say, 6 or 7 days, un aided..... would then >this be considedred o/u by all? Press and scientific community alike? > > It one were to take such a wheel and manufacture and sell it as a >toy and novelty, would then this be condsidered o/u .... if it ran for >days and days durung and after the holiday season? > > > Would curves and 6 digit accuracy be required? > > > > J You need to establish the energy output required to achieve this "motoring about", and the mass or volume of the energy producing unit. A clock "motors about" for years on a simple "D" battery. The best chemical output I have seen per volume is the oxidation of Be, while the best per pound is the oxidation of octane (gasoline). The most dense chemical storage I could come up with in a prior but brief search was Be (10.8 kcal/cc). Second best was pentaborane (B5H9 at 10 kcal/cc). The oxygen is assumed to be supplied by the atmosphere and not part of the volume or mass. Bicycle wheels are very effecient. An over 200 lb person (e.g. me, when in my youthful prime) consuming less than 3 kcal/day can easily push two of them over 100 miles in a day, including himself. So 1 cc of fuel could propell a single wheel with 100 lb load over 600 miles. I think on the flat and level you could easily get over 1000 miles. Knock down the load from 100 lbs to 10 lbs and you may get 5000 miles per cc of fuel. Running 24 hrs/day at 1 mi/hr you could run for over 200 days on one cc of fuel, assuming 100 percent efficiency in the energy conversion unit and motor. I think you have your work cut out for you on this one! No need for extreme accuracy, that only makes the data less believable. Overkill is what is needed. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 06:55:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA23708; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 06:45:57 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 06:45:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 05:46:57 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Galtek's testing! Resent-Message-ID: <"zesNx1.0.Jo5.ZOVWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1982 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > >This ia all very interesting, and I plan to continue to pursue >it, as my personal budget of time and money allows. However, I can't >wait for CETI anymore. Instead, I am planning to pursue my own >thin film ideas, along with a partner who has a plenty of >sputter coating equipment, independently and publicly. In the not too >distant future we will set up a web page outlining our plans, and all >ideas will be put there in the public domain. We want to pursue >this entirley in the open, so that no patent issues cloud >peoples priorities. Once we get going, everyone will be welcome to >contribute ideas for us to pursue, contingent only on a "copyleft" >that the ideas go into the public domain---no more patents! If CF >really does work, there will be plenty of wealth to go around, >patents or no. And since the patents that are out there are not >really sufficient to replicate the effetcs, they are of no practical >value to our efforts anyways. > > >-- >Barry Merriman Bravo! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 07:29:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA02920; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 07:21:34 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 07:21:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 10:19:43 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Galtek's testing! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"4boSy1.0.Xj.yvVWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1983 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dead VO< Is it Barry Merriman who will be doing his own testing and sputtering? I have seen so many 'little carrot' marks in the text I am a] confused b] which I where an electronic rabbit! Thanks. JHS On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Horace Heffner wrote: > [snip] > > > >This ia all very interesting, and I plan to continue to pursue > >it, as my personal budget of time and money allows. However, I can't > >wait for CETI anymore. Instead, I am planning to pursue my own > >thin film ideas, along with a partner who has a plenty of > >sputter coating equipment, independently and publicly. In the not too > >distant future we will set up a web page outlining our plans, and all > >ideas will be put there in the public domain. We want to pursue > >this entirley in the open, so that no patent issues cloud > >peoples priorities. Once we get going, everyone will be welcome to > >contribute ideas for us to pursue, contingent only on a "copyleft" > >that the ideas go into the public domain---no more patents! If CF > >really does work, there will be plenty of wealth to go around, > >patents or no. And since the patents that are out there are not > >really sufficient to replicate the effetcs, they are of no practical > >value to our efforts anyways. > > > > > >-- > >Barry Merriman > > Bravo! > > > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 07:42:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA04828; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 07:29:14 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 07:29:14 -0800 (PST) Date: 07 Nov 96 10:10:42 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Galtek's testing! Message-ID: <961107151041_100433.1541_BHG86-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"7Os3c.0.MB1.71WWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1985 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, > Also, I was encouraged by the fact the Miley had gotten the CETI > effect using an *entirely different* bead coating process. I suspect that what is vital here is the nature of the interface between the Ni and the other metals or between the Ni and the bead substrate. At least, Miley tells us that with an Ni/glass interface little effect will be seen. > That one gets null results with such a close replica of the CETI > system is quite interesting, especially when Miley gets positive > results with a much less close replica. I feel that his may be much closer than yours. > We want to pursue this entirley in the open, so that no patent > issues cloud peoples priorities. Once we get going, everyone will > be welcome to contribute ideas for us to pursue, contingent only > on a "copyleft" that the ideas go into the public domain---no more > patents! If CF really does work, there will be plenty of wealth to > go around Quite. A refreshing approach. > And since the patents that are out there are not really sufficient > to replicate the effetcs, they are of no practical value to our > efforts anyways. I know of no attempts to follow those patents to the letter. I think it is always worth re-reading Jed's excellent essay on the Wrights. On CF, I note with interest that the effect with H in Pd seems to be as clear as that with D, at least with the Ragland twin-anode cell. This doesn't surprise me any more, since the Pd/Ni interface works in the Patterson cell with H. I'm now rather happy with the idea that high loading and elevated temperature are just a way of getting the real required conditions - the localised loading and high proton/deuteron mobility which can more easily be obtained with the thin-wire cathode of Cellani and others or electrically switching between twin anodes. As for D being better than H, I suspect that is because of the reported easier penetration of Pd by D. I also think that more attention should be paid to the Ti systems. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 07:46:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA04796; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 07:29:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 07:29:07 -0800 (PST) Date: 07 Nov 96 10:10:52 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Galtek's testing! Message-ID: <961107151052_100433.1541_BHG86-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"bpzf.0.nA1.11WWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1984 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > You seem to be saying that the scientific community at large > cannot be convinced of a radically new principle via scientific > experiments. I think we have to accept that this is the simple truth. Even as we write, the history of the Helicobacter Pylori (stomach ulcer and probably stomach cancer bug) is being frantically rewritten to make it look better. The BBC/Australian Broadcasting Corporation "Horizon" programme in 1994 shows the truth as it was then. Eleven years after conclusive clinical trials showed the existence of the bug, the fact that it was almost always eradicated with a cocktail of antibiotics and that almost all stomach ulcers were cleared up by such treatment, many doctors simply refused to believe it was possible. Every single piece of the proof was in place, had been for years - and almost all doctors continued chopping out people's stomachs or allowed them to live in chronic pain while they spent a fortune each year on palliative therapy. Cold fusion has never been so simple and clear cut, apart from the thermal anomaly. So I would suggest that if Barry Marshall (who found the bug and campaigned remorslessly for years) could say: "Well, after ten years about 10% of doctors believe this, so maybe in a century they all will," then the hope for CF being accepted on the basis of scientific evidence alone is just about precisely zero. A cheap and reliable demo device on sale *might* help a lot. A commercial product doing well *would* help a lot. Scientific evidence - hah! Note the real interest from even the rational scientists was not sparked by the erratic and difficult boil-offs of F&P, but by the CETI Anaheim demo. To attract scientists, one needs just what attracts investors - a combination of high ratio between power out and power in, and a large and useful difference between power out and power in. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 07:48:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA04911; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 07:29:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 07:29:21 -0800 (PST) Date: 07 Nov 96 10:10:47 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Tinsley's Aphorism Message-ID: <961107151046_100433.1541_BHG86-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"zbCcJ3.0.YC1.F1WWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1986 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael and Gene have discussed the question of my so-called "aphorism" - actually I am not posh enough to do aphorisms. I do have to say that it really was just a throwaway line - a joke. To my surprise, everyone laughed. So, the question is: how true or fair a comment is it? Well, first we have to say that for most working scientists it is a job like any other job, and there is exactly nothing wrong with that. There is no good reason why a scientist should do more than learn without doing any more questioning than is necessary for him to do in order to learn his trade (here "the masculine embraces the feminine - assuming the feminine will let him"). Certainly there are people in science who see it is more than mere scholarship - though I do believe that many physicists now see any experimentation other than particle research as being 'crackpot', and feel that there is nothing new to be found in messing with wires and magnets and funny solid-state devices. Equally, such honest working men should not arrogate to themselves some high status based on their self-perceived relationship to the great scientists of the past - mostly scientists whom they themselves would at the time have trashed as 'tinkerers' or 'cranks' or 'crackpots'. Nor should they deny that the Wrights or Wegener or other outsider iconoclasts were merely lucky. That is like the English Literature establishment arguing that Ol' Bill Shakespeare didn't write the plays because he was just a glove-maker's son and "not one of us." But is the joke about funding fair? Well, it is true enough that you cannot easily work without funding. And it is true that research is not easy without some belief in your goal. So, I think that if major funding for 'new energy' devices became available, it would not be hard to perusade scientists to work on them. There is the other side to the coin. Do physicists believe in things that aren't so? Well, I did coin the word 'fizzix' to describe mathematical fantasising being raised to the status of fact. I think that if there is any theoretical construct which is 'beautiful' (I am the mathematical equivalent of tone-deaf, so I'm immune to matehmatical beauty) then it will be believed regardless. For example, the eclipse data which was taken as an early test of relativity had error bars which included both theoretical options - but the seduction of Einsteinian mathematics proved too much to resist. Of course, later, better data showed that the observations fitted the Einstein mathematics very well indeed, but that isn't quite the point. More relevant is a question I saw asked on the science forum on Compuserve: What does a magnetic field consist of? And of course the answer came back that it can be considered as virtual particles. Perhaps someone will ask whether these particles have real existence. If they do not, then the question has not been answered. If so, then how come they are undetectible? Yet people still believe in these elusive little beasties, and argue that we cannot apply commonsense to the microcosm. As to the question of whether the paradigm grips more strongly in the US, I would say that I think it does - and at the same time its opponents are far more active, vocal and impressive. Personally, I would rather see combat than the quiet of the graveyard, even though neither is ideal. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 08:40:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA20353; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 08:24:32 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 08:24:32 -0800 (PST) From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9611071020.ZM19765@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 10:20:17 -0600 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Dreamers, Charlatans, Fools, and Galtek's Testing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"zMrfF.0.sz4.-qWWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1987 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ENOUGH! Dreamers, charlatans, and fools are all around us everywhere. No matter what the topic, person, or situation never forget the most powerful aspect of it all; the idea. Inspiration sometime comes from ordinary, and sometime the ridiculous. Most of all, do not underestimate the obvious demostration. People like to see things work, and investors like to brag to their friends about what they are spending their money on, even when they have no concept of the implications, and actully have no clue whether it really does work or not. Yes, it is sometimes pandering to the lowest common denominator, but perseverance is it's own reward, and sometime you have to roll up your sleaves and get your fingers dirty with "scooters" to advance great ideas. Scientific documentation is desperately needed, but so is getting as many people involved as possible. Just look at where just the concept of CF has taken us! Elitism and infighting helps no one and advances nothing. Let's not fixate on the trivial and lose sight of what is truely important. There is too much at stake. Just my opinion. John E. Steck johnste@ecg.csg.mot.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 08:45:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA23364; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 08:36:04 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 08:36:04 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611071619.IAA09938@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, 07 Nov 1996 08:35:21 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Galtek's testing! Resent-Message-ID: <"8c63W3.0.wi5.p_WWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1992 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Personally, I don't view my experimental results as a "failure"---rather >they tell us some important information about this system. That one >gets null results with such a close replica of the CETI system >is quite interesting, especially when Miley gets positive results >with a much less close replica. > >This ia all very interesting, and I plan to continue to pursue >it, as my personal budget of time and money allows. However, I can't >wait for CETI anymore. Instead, I am planning to pursue my own >thin film ideas, along with a partner who has a plenty of >sputter coating equipment, independently and publicly. In the not too >distant future we will set up a web page outlining our plans, and all >ideas will be put there in the public domain. We want to pursue >this entirley in the open, so that no patent issues cloud >peoples priorities. Once we get going, everyone will be welcome to >contribute ideas for us to pursue, contingent only on a "copyleft" >that the ideas go into the public domain---no more patents! If CF >really does work, there will be plenty of wealth to go around, >patents or no. And since the patents that are out there are not >really sufficient to replicate the effetcs, they are of no practical >value to our efforts anyways. > > >-- >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: We probably disagree on quite a few things but I sure like these thoughts. Best of luck! If you need help or ideas on web pages, let Hawkins or myself know, or for that matter, let the vortex group know because there are a few webheads here who will probably help you at zero cost, given your attitude above. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 08:45:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA20676; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 08:25:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 08:25:21 -0800 (PST) Date: 07 Nov 96 11:12:35 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Chris! Wha-happen to your post? Re: Galt Message-ID: <961107161235_100433.1541_BHG41-5@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"rP5O01.0.y25.krWWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1990 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Akira, Are you sure it was my post? I don't recall saying anything about all that until later today - I posted some comments in the same session as I picked up this message from you. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 08:50:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA20528; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 08:25:05 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 08:25:05 -0800 (PST) Date: 07 Nov 96 11:12:25 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: How to cope with them. Message-ID: <961107161224_100433.1541_BHG41-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"cUPlh3.0.g05.RrWWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1989 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter, > Each new paper is required to climb on the back of a plethora of > earlier published papers, and does little more than add another > layer of gloss to the cited references. I was reading the biography of David Stirling, the WWII founder of the SAS Regiment. I noted a curious similarity to CF. He had invented an entirely new form of strategic warfare, and the reactions he got from the lower ranks of the British Eighth Army was very good - many volunteers for his arduous and dangerous methods. And from the highest reaches he also got some support - because these were men whose jobs were on the line. But he had endless problems with the middle ranks of the Staff officers, and came up with a remarkable descriptive phrase for them: "Layers of fossilised shit." Interestingly, Stirling (who, among other things, destroyed more German aircraft than did the whole of the Royal Air Force) said that these people were a far more serious enemy than Rommel. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 08:51:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA20883; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 08:26:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 08:26:23 -0800 (PST) Date: 07 Nov 96 11:12:37 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: O/u Message-ID: <961107161237_100433.1541_BHG41-6@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"OYukA1.0.965.hsWWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1991 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > An over 200 lb person (e.g. me, when in my youthful prime) > consuming less than 3 kcal/day can easily push two of them over > 100 miles in a day, including himself. I think you will find that a dietary calorie is much bigger than an ordinary science calorie - a thousand times bigger, I think. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 08:54:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA20493; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 08:25:00 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 08:25:00 -0800 (PST) Date: 07 Nov 96 11:12:22 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Groupie Disease. Message-ID: <961107161222_100433.1541_BHG41-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"M0h8z1.0.405.MrWWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1988 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter, > One of the reasons for that is that a lot of people are merrily > marching in "cul of sacs", the other is that we (me included!) are > not able to comprehend the novelty, complexity, difficulty of > these processes and we demand too much. Exactly. Accepting that CF is at least largely a nuclear process, it is as complex vis-a-vis nuclear physics as biochemistry is vis-a-vis normal chemistry. > The field is not dead, and it will prosper..but this needs too > much time. Again, precisely correct. Progress will need to be short-circuited by the discipline of the commercial market-place. > Do you know that joke about engineers, physicists and > mathematicians? The one I know has these three fellows shipwrecked on a desert island, with much canned food but no can opener. The physicist attempts to burn a hole through a can with his convex spectacle glasses, and the engineer sets to work to saw through them with a series of seashells. Meanwhile the mathematician says: "Let us postulate a can-opener." Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 09:42:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA05629; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 09:22:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 09:22:20 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Date: 07 Nov 1996 09:19:09 PST From: "MHUGO@EPRI" Subject: NOTE 11/07/96 08:59:00 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 11/07/96 09:19:47 SMTP Resent-Message-ID: <"4hEL11.0.sN1.BhXWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1993 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: *** Resending note of 11/07/96 08:59 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: NOTE 11/07/96 08:59:00 From: Elio Conte To: MHUGO --EPRINET HUGO, MARK Subject: NOTE 11/07/96 08:59:00 Received: from GIASONE.TESEO.IT by EPRINET.EPRI.COM (Soft*Switch Central V4L40P1A); 07 Nov 1996 08:59:03 PST Received: from delta.teseo.it by giasone.teseo.it; (5.65/1.1.8.2/03Oct95-0808PM ) id AA05567; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 15:59:43 -0100 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 15:59:43 -0100 Message-Id: <9611071659.AA05567@giasone.teseo.it> X-Sender: conte@teseo.it Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: MHUGO@EPRINET.EPRI.COM From: conte@teseo.it (Elio Conte) Subject: X-Mailer: Dear Mark Hugo, please,do you know why I do not receive vortex-l from several months? Have you some material on experiments on transmutations and cold fission? May you give detailed informations? If you want,I have also a fax number 080 5239840. Thank you.Yours Sincerely.Elio Conte --- Prof Elio Conte Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 12:56:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA28673; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 12:48:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 12:48:06 -0800 (PST) Date: 07 Nov 96 15:45:31 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Calories Message-ID: <961107204530_72240.1256_EHB48-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"yYIuW.0.t_6.5iaWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1994 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Chris writes: "I think you will find that a dietary calorie is much bigger than an ordinary science calorie - a thousand times bigger, I think." Yup. See American Heritage Dictionary definition 3.a.: The unit of heat equal to the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 C at 1 atmosphere pressure. Also called kilocalorie, kilogram calorie, large calorie. b. A unit of energy-producing potential equal to this amount of heat that is contained in food and released upon oxidation by the body. Also called nutritionist's calorie. Encarta 96: A large calorie, or kilocalorie (Cal), usually referred to as a calorie and sometimes as a kilogram calorie, equals 1000 cal and is the unit used to express the energy-producing value of food in the calculation of diets. That's confusing! Remember it this way. A light adult diet is around 2000 calories per day. A person sitting at rest generates about 100 watts of heat, or 1,400 calories per minute. So, if nutritionist's calories equaled regular ol' calories, you would starve to death in a minute and a half. Since it is really a kilocalorie, it should keep you going with no exercise for about 25 hours per day. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 13:14:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA28706; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 12:48:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 12:48:13 -0800 (PST) Date: 07 Nov 96 15:45:42 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Barry & Gene both right Message-ID: <961107204542_72240.1256_EHB48-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"SiROv.0.N07.AiaWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1995 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex There was a flood of frustration expressed here yesterday, in which Barry & Gene appeared to take opposite sides. Actually, I agree with both of them. Scientists *would* be persuaded with a convincing demo, and they would not be. What I mean is: Some would Many others would not We have to concentrate on those who would, and forget about the eternal naysayers. It's simple, really! Chris says it might take doctors 100 years to agree that Helicobacter Pylori cause ulcers. That's about right. Sixty years after Pasteur, right here in the U.S. of A., where my mother was growing up in New York City, there were many doctors, cooks and teachers who did not really, in their heart of hearts, believe in the germ theory. You know I always go back to early aviation. It is convenient, because it is so well documented. In 1914 the first barnstormers were traveling around the country giving air shows. I have books describing what happened to some of them. They would collect $20 in quarters from a crowd to do a demonstration flight and then the sheriff and a bunch of toughs would ride up and threaten to tar and feather the pilots for fraud, because everyone knows a man can't fly. People still didn't believe it, six years after the Wrights got gold medals from Parliament and Congress. Lots of people today think the moon landings were faked. When large numbers of people routinely see it happen, like when we commute to the moon, then everyone will believe it. But not before that. As for scientists, they are no different from anyone else. They believe what they are paid to believe, and what they read in the newspapers. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 15:15:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA25379; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:37:54 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:37:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:37:46 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: O/u and Calories Resent-Message-ID: <"iAT4K3.0.PC6.-IcWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1996 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: OK Chris and Jed, Mea culpa! However, I just want to cling to my caloric fantasy for a few more hours while the brownies last! Don't ya just hate it when wishful thinking meets reality. I wrote: "Running 24 hrs/day at 1 mi/hr you could run for over 200 days on one cc of fuel, assuming 100 percent efficiency in the energy conversion unit and motor." Correct the above to say "200 days on one liter of fuel." I still think you have your work cut out for you on this one! No need for extreme accuracy, that only makes the data less believable. Overkill is what is needed. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 15:57:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA04822; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 15:21:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 15:21:56 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32826E5D.2F1CF0FB@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 15:18:53 -0800 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: Galtek's testing! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"_EDgh.0.FB1.GycWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1997 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Schnurer wrote: > > Dead VO< > > Is it Barry Merriman who will be doing his own testing and sputtering? > Yes, along with my partner Dave Sleeter, who is a dealer in scientific equipment and has a great deal of his own in his home lab. Our first line of attack will be to replicate the early published thin film work of Miley (approximately), and assuming we can get that working as well as Miley did, we will go off in our own directions trying to improve the consistency and durability of the films. Stay tuned, it will take us a few weeks to get Dave's sputtering equipment redirected at this particular process. We are also considering plasma implantation techniques as well, in the mid term future. We have the gear needed for that as well. -- 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 Nov 7 16:55:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA15115; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 16:11:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 16:11:31 -0800 (PST) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 19:10:17 -0500 Message-ID: <961107191016_223767638@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: O/u Resent-Message-ID: <"d2KdZ1.0.0i3.jgdWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1998 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Schnurer asked: " If one were to take a wheel, say like a bicycle wheel, and have it rotatre, with no apparent outside power, and in turn 'motor about' a six fool circular track, for, say, 6 or 7 days, un aided..... would then this be considedred o/u by all? Press and scientific community alike?" John, if you have such, bring it here for test. We will get it in front of the right people, investors, scientists, gov, whatever; no doubt it will make dent and revolutionize everything. Don't worry about how to make a dent. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 17:07:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA18606; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 16:27:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 16:27:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961107191758.0069c17c@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 19:39:43 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: O/u Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"3RFSj1.0.TY4.PvdWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1999 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:41 AM 11/7/96 -0500, you wrote: > > > Dear Vo, > > If one were to take a wheel, say like a bicycle wheel, and have >it rotatre, with no apparent outside power, and in turn 'motor about' a >six fool circular track, for, say, 6 or 7 days, un aided..... would then >this be considedred o/u by all? Press and scientific community alike? > > It one were to take such a wheel and manufacture and sell it as a >toy and novelty, would then this be condsidered o/u .... if it ran for >days and days durung and after the holiday season? > > Would curves and 6 digit accuracy be required? > > J > John, are you trying to tell us something? ..Or is my imagination working overtime here? The scientific community will just ask you to first subtract the power used to make it work. And then they will probably criticize it till they're blue in the face. The media?-- Who knows..it probably depends on how VISUALLY *stunning* your display is. The media has to be spoon fed. They have no imagination. But are we talking A/G or O/U ? Colin Quinney From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 17:08:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA19333; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 16:30:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 16:30:26 -0800 (PST) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 19:29:07 -0500 Message-ID: <961107192904_223776844@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Galtek's testing! Resent-Message-ID: <"vErwf1.0.xj4.WydWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2000 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Go for it Barry, and keep us tuned! Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 18:00:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA04136; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 17:35:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 17:35:37 -0800 (PST) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 20:33:47 -0500 Message-ID: <961107203347_1383334239@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Sad that CF produces no radiation???? Resent-Message-ID: <"6-VTQ3.0.K01.ZveWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2001 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 96-11-06 21:53:51 EST, Barry Merriman wrote: << It is quite sad the CF produces no apparent radiation---if one could turn on an electrolysis cell and see a signal on a gieger counter, CF and its excess energy claims would have been accepted a long time ago. >> It is indeed sad that the HF establishment needs to see a lethal signal from a process to accept its existence. It is precisely the lethal readiation from the fission processes that results in the astronomical costs of the nuclear power industry and its long-term liability to the environment. Barry, think about what you said! -------------------------------------------------------- But also you are on track with the puzzles of what does/does not constitute replication of the Patterson beads. Your experiments are points on a curve. It seems unlikely that a spherical shape is of the essence, or that a polystyrene substrate is of the essence. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 18:03:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA08061; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 17:50:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 17:50:40 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <328291D3.7DE14518@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 17:50:11 -0800 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 & Gene both right References: <961107204542_72240.1256_EHB48-2@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"WUAev1.0.hz1.k7fWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2002 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Scientists *would* be persuaded with a convincing demo, > and they would not be. > What I mean is: > > Some would > > Many others would not > A few comments on scientific sociology, from a scientist: Basically, I agree with Jed. Though I think the the percentage that would be readily convinced is fairly high. I know that many scientists were prepared to be convinced when the original CF work of P&F came out, especially when the process looked more like normal fusion (neutrons, gammas, etc). Of course, there will be holdouts as well, most likely those who in the past have taken strong anti-positions. (My own position has been more of a "prove-it-to-me" position, rather than an "anti" position. So far, it has been proven to me that there are interesting phenomena deserving of scientific study here...I reserve judgement as to what that phenomena is/are). As for the comment that scientists believe what they are paid to believe: "believe" is the wrong word---it has little to do with beliefs, which are free and need not be purchased. It is more accurate to say that as a group, scientists _work_ on what they are paid to work on (by funding agencies). Personally, I view this as a negative aspect of the present funding structure, since I think individual scientists are better judges of what is important to work on than are funding agency managers. Of course, in real life we find ways to twist our personal goals and agency goals into some degree of alignment, so it all works out sort of ok in the end. As for how this relates to cold fusion. It would be nice if DOE would put a few million a year into some focused CF research, but it probably won't happen at that programatic level, since their is no agreement about the basic reality/possibility of CF. I think the more realistic path is for each individual researcher to do their own projects on the side, get something going that is "interesting", and then seek government funding. Someone like Miley is at this stage too, and I think he deserves a few 100k$ from the gov. to continue his efforts. I -- 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 Nov 7 19:12:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA27209; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 19:02:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 19:02:37 -0800 (PST) Date: 07 Nov 96 21:58:50 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Must be round and polystyrene Message-ID: <961108025849_72240.1256_EHB57-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"MyOkD3.0.2f6.CBgWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2003 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Mike Carrell wrote: It seems unlikely that a spherical shape is of the essence, or that a polystyrene substrate is of the essence. I disagree. The spherical shape is very important. It helps hold the thin film to the substrate. Miley pointed out at TAMU that with other geometries, the film peels off in no time. As one person put it, with a sphere the metal reaches around and holds on to itself. The polystyrene is also essential, apparently. Beads made with other core material did not work for Miley. A couple more things to keep in mind: We do not know what was wrong with the batch of beads Barry used, but it was obvious early on that they would never work. The thin film peeled right off. That's fatal. As I have pointed out several times, Patterson himself had that problem, and worked for years to fix it. I don't understand the techniques, but they ain't easy. As shown in the patents, your beads will not work until they 1.) Hold together and 2.) Absorb hydrogen quickly. Miley did not understand the techniques either. He said he benefitted a great deal from Patterson's assistance. I repeat: it ain't easy. I do not think, however, that we can make a case that the patent is not enabling. Not yet. I'll bet there are lots of Persons Skilled In The Art who could replicate it. If it can possibly be arranged, I urge Barry to get beads from Miley. I spent all morning with Miley buying train tickets and showing him around Sapporo and U. Hokkaido, and in between I pitched the value of wider cooperation. As we parted he reminisced about his discovery of a new kind of laser years ago, and about how quickly it was recognized. He said, you know, I am beginning to understand why you [Jed] are so gung-ho on this demonstration kit idea. Maybe he can talk sense into CETI, or maybe he is not completely beholden to them. Or maybe you can make some kind of arrangement to cover their patent rights. It is worth the call. On another subject, I posted a humongous message titled "ICCF6 review" that several people have been asking me about. It has not been regurgitated by Vortex yet, but it's in there somewhere. Or . . . uh . . . have I exceeded the message size limit? I believe it was 40-something-kilobytes. If it does not show up by tomorrow morning I'll break it into two parts and post it again. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 19:32:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA02645; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 19:27:15 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 19:27:15 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3282A883.4487EB71@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 19:26:59 -0800 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: Must be round and polystyrene References: <961108025849_72240.1256_EHB57-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"OcR_x2.0.Bf.HYgWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2004 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > If it can possibly be arranged, I urge Barry to get beads from Miley. I'll probably contact Miley soon and see whats up, but I seriously doubt beads are forthcoming. From discussions with him at the TAMU meeting last month, as well as with CETI representatives, I did not see any inclination to give out bead samples to interested scientists. I believe CETI would sell me some for ~$10,000, though. :-). Instead, I want to try and pursue Miley's original thin film work---this I think he would be much more free to discuss, and I think its more promising than CETI's beads in any case. Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think beads are an optimal geometry, simply because the point contacts with adjacent beads destroy the symmetry. Actually, I think that a better geometry will be a flat thin film with built in stress relief lines, based on semiconductor deposition technology. If we can get Miley's original thin film stuff to work---albeit the coating loses integrity quickly---we will purse such strategies to improve its robustness. That is one inital line of work we want to pursue. -- 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 Nov 7 20:05:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA08728; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 19:54:17 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 19:54:17 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: O/u Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 03:53:54 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3282a899.4931699@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: <"KNOyF3.0.G82.cxgWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2005 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:41:28 -0500 (EST), John Schnurer wrote: > > > Dear Vo, > > If one were to take a wheel, say like a bicycle wheel, and have=20 >it rotatre, with no apparent outside power, and in turn 'motor about' a=20 >six fool circular track, for, say, 6 or 7 days, un aided..... would then= =20 >this be considedred o/u by all? Press and scientific community alike? [snip] I doubt it :). This is very nearly a description of the Finsrud "work or art", which as far as I know has been going for months. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 20:11:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA08766; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 19:54:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 19:54:24 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Galtek's testing! Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 03:53:58 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3283a9db.5254498@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <961107045120_76570.2270_FHU30-1@CompuServe.COM> <32818191.FF6D5DF@math.ucla.edu> In-Reply-To: <32818191.FF6D5DF@math.ucla.edu> 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: <"8BpUG3.0.s82.lxgWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2006 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 06 Nov 1996 22:28:33 -0800, Barry Merriman wrote: [snip] >This ia all very interesting, and I plan to continue to pursue >it, as my personal budget of time and money allows. However, I can't >wait for CETI anymore. Instead, I am planning to pursue my own >thin film ideas, along with a partner who has a plenty of=20 >sputter coating equipment, independently and publicly. In the not too >distant future we will set up a web page outlining our plans, and all >ideas will be put there in the public domain. We want to pursue=20 >this entirley in the open, so that no patent issues cloud >peoples priorities. Once we get going, everyone will be welcome to=20 >contribute ideas for us to pursue, contingent only on a "copyleft" >that the ideas go into the public domain---no more patents! If CF >really does work, there will be plenty of wealth to go around, >patents or no. And since the patents that are out there are not=20 >really sufficient to replicate the effetcs, they are of no practical >value to our efforts anyways. [snip] Barry, if you are interested, I have one or two ideas you might like to try. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 20:22:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA11107; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 20:05:44 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 20:05:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 23:03:14 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: O/u ... What is A/G??? In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19961107191758.0069c17c@inforamp.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"hP08W3.0.Sj2.M6hWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2007 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo, Header said 'er .... at eh bottom of this letter, which I wll high light, I have quesion in terminology, On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Quinney wrote: > At 12:41 AM 11/7/96 -0500, you wrote: > > > > > > Dear Vo, > > > > If one were to take a wheel, say like a bicycle wheel, and have > >it rotatre, with no apparent outside power, and in turn 'motor about' a > >six fool circular track, for, say, 6 or 7 days, un aided..... would then > >this be considedred o/u by all? Press and scientific community alike? > > > > It one were to take such a wheel and manufacture and sell it as a > >toy and novelty, would then this be condsidered o/u .... if it ran for > >days and days durung and after the holiday season? > > > > Would curves and 6 digit accuracy be required? > > > > J > > > John, are you trying to tell us something? ..Or is my imagination working > overtime here? AND, YES: Q and A: Q: If you are asking me if I am tying to release a 'self motoring' bicycle wheel, or the equivalent ..... A: ....the answer is "yes". Q: Will if push 5 brake HP A:.... the answer is no. Just a demonstration of principle. The ethic is simple..... to spread technology, toys work well. Q: Will I be done by Christmas? A: Probably not. q: Will I make a 'wheel'? A: Yes. Q: Have I already shown at least one individual [with machine shop capability] and one 'press person' [meaning media] this technology? A: Yes. Q: Have I made and sent a couple of video tapes showing how in prinicople it is done, demonstrating reduction to practice? .... With force differential measure demonstrated? A: Yes. Q: Is it hard? A: No. Q: Does it use ZPE or esoteric math or materials? A: No. Q: Does it violate the laws of conservation? A: No. > The scientific community will just ask you to first subtract the power used > to make it work. Bug 'em ..... it's a TOY! And then they will probably criticize it till they're blue > in the face. The media?-- Who knows..it probably depends on how VISUALLY > *stunning* your display is. They are already in it. The media has to be spoon fed. They have no > imagination. ************************************* O/U equals "over unity" What does A/G mean? **************************************** > > But are we talking A/G or O/U ? > > Colin Quinney > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 21:38:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA25890; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 21:14:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 21:14:11 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 20:14:52 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: O/u Resent-Message-ID: <"sP6QK2.0.LK6.X6iWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2008 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >On Thu, 7 Nov 1996 00:41:28 -0500 (EST), John Schnurer wrote: > >> >> >> Dear Vo, >> >> If one were to take a wheel, say like a bicycle wheel, and have >>it rotatre, with no apparent outside power, and in turn 'motor about' a >>six fool circular track, for, say, 6 or 7 days, un aided..... would then >>this be considedred o/u by all? Press and scientific community alike? >[snip] >I doubt it :). This is very nearly a description of the Finsrud "work >or art", which as far as I know has been going for months. > > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk Those who have an interest in Finrud can find information and photos of the device at: The gadget was designed as a work of art. It is almost a Rube Goldberg style contraption including a 2 lb steel ball going around a 25" track at about 20 RPM. If you look at the photo you will see the device contains some fairly large springs and levers and is built massively. A very notable work of art, IMHO. An estimate of energy output is stated in the article of 0.16 W based on the assumption that if the ball were moving at 1 m/s it would stop after 30 seconds due to track resistance. On this basis it is estimated the device produces/consumes 415 KJ/month, or about 100 KCal/month. According to my previous estimates it would have to be abundantly clear that there was less than 10 cubic centimeters of "hidden" space where the energy originates for each of the total months of operation to eliminate an electro-chemical energy source as a possibility. A one liter "battery" could potentially drive such a gadget for 100 months, if I have calculated correctly. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 21:51:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA01790; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 21:41:53 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 21:41:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 16:41:02 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: O/u ... What is A/G??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"jGKJB2.0.tR.UWiWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2009 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Schnurer has (I think) stated that he has a bicycle wheel turning all by itself. From the research he has previously told us about I'm guessing that this the "H.G. Wells" unbalanced wheel above a gravity shielded region as described by John Logajan. Is this true John? If it is true, then get it down to Earthtech as soons as it travels well. As for a good demo, just couple it to a generator of appropriate power level and make it drive some light bulbs or car CD players or Ever-ready Bunny toys or something that looks like it uses energy. If the Tempere effect is real and can be demoed like that I predict you will have created a whole new field of research by the middle of next year. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 7 21:54:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA05216 for billb@eskimo.com; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 21:54:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 21:54:03 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: joeflynn@delpi.com Thu Nov 7 21:54:01 1996 Received: from bos1e.delphi.com (SYSTEM@bos1e.delphi.com [192.80.63.5]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA05143 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 21:53:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.delphi.com (bixmgr@bix.com) by delphi.com (PMDF V5.0-7 #10880) id <01IBL0J8DH4G8ZFLYP@delphi.com> for vortex-l@eskimo.com; Fri, 08 Nov 1996 00:13:53 -0500 (EST) Old-Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 00:13:29 -0500 From: joeflynn@delpi.com (Charles J. Flynn) Subject: Re: Subj: RE: NOT WHETHER BUT HOW YOU SPIN X-Sender: joeflynn@pop.delphi.com (Unverified) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-id: <01IBL0JBISZM8ZFLYP@delphi.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: >[snip] >> >>If you would like a diagram of the actual coil arrangement >>email me and I'll send or fax you a thousand word picture. >>If you have a scope available, wrap the coil as described, move >>a small magnet back and forth over the coil, you'll see the >>induced voltage. >> >>Joe Flynn > > >Joe, > >Moving a small magnet back and forth over the coil is totally different >from the originally described rotating magnets because you are generating >an AC output by changing the net amount of magnetic flux going *through* >the coil. Another way to look at it is that you are creating a momentary >imblance in the number of lines of flux cutting the coil per second. Each >complete pass of the magnet over the coil should produce *two* pulses one + >and one - pulse. If you time it right and don't go completely over the >coil you can merge the two adjacent + peaks and the two adjacent - peaks >into a single pair of + and - peaks so it looks like the waveform is in >synch with the hand motion, but it is actually 90 degrees out of phase. > >In the orginal case of the rotating magnets (assuming they are very uniorm) >there is complete balance at all times - so you should get no induced >current. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > Horace, the moving of the smaller magnet was in response as to whether the coil as wound would be effective in responding to a change in B, nothing more. The experiment would be as the original. If your assumption about flux always entering and leaving in FIXED geographic locations is true then the coil would show an induced voltage. Joe Flynn Flynn Research P.O. Box 11657 Kansas City, Mo. 64138 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 8 01:09:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA09938; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 01:08:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 01:08:39 -0800 (PST) Date: 08 Nov 96 04:05:56 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Sad that CF produces no radiation???? Message-ID: <961108090556_100060.173_JHB112-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Ti_TW.0.CR2.MYlWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2010 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mike, >> It seems unlikely that a spherical shape is of the essence, or that a polystyrene substrate is of the essence. << I've a suspicion that we might get some milage with a fractal approach to the surface to increase the "catalytic-type" surface activity of the film. Sputtering might give a better micro-fractal effect. Etching a smooth deposit could also produce benefits. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 8 06:02:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA10130; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 05:50:27 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 05:50:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:48:52 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: O/u ... What is A/G??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"0gN4w3.0.BU2.YgpWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2011 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo., My usual correspondance method for exchanging information with my peers and associates is to insert notes within the body of the received text. SO: Please see notes in body of letter. Also please know I am not the worlds' best spller or typist. On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Martin Sevior wrote: > > John Schnurer has (I think) stated that he has a bicycle wheel turning > all by itself. N: I do not have as yet such a wheel, but may soon. From the research he has previously told us about I'm > guessing that this the "H.G. Wells" unbalanced wheel above a gravity > shielded region as described by John Logajan. > N: I have never said, nor do I have any intention of creating such a wheel based on, nor do I have knowldge of the " H. G. Wells" unbalanced wheel, not is what I have, in any manner, realeted to the on going gravity modification work. > Is this true John? > > If it is true, then get it down to Earthtech as soons as it travels well. > N: An earlier conceptual version of such a wheel and its method of operation was conveyed to Scott Little and Co. months ago and they missed the main point. I think,, as I recall, they even tried to build a working model, and again mis communication or mis conception took a hand, and the point was missed. > level and make it drive some light bulbs or car CD players or Ever-ready > Bunny toys or something that looks like it uses energy. N: The idea of a toy, as opposed to an energy producing demo, or fixed installation such as the one at Finstrud, is to enable wide exposure. A well selling toy makes a little money [usually] and a lot of money [sometimes], and get wide exposure. The operative word-set is 'wide selling' N: On a completely un related issue there is every intention of producing a 'do-it-your-self" kit for replicating some aspect of gravity modification. This is a big job for several reasons, but can be done. > > If the Tempere effect is real and can be demoed like that I predict you > will have created a whole new field of research by the middle of next year. > > Martin Sevior In good faith, John Schnurer > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 8 06:08:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA12756; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 06:05:12 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 06:05:12 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 05:06:08 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: More copyleft ideas Resent-Message-ID: <"5at2-2.0.A73.NupWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2012 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Mike, > >>> It seems unlikely that a spherical shape is of the essence, or that a >polystyrene substrate is of the essence. << > >I've a suspicion that we might get some milage with a fractal approach to the >surface to increase the "catalytic-type" surface activity of the film. >Sputtering might give a better micro-fractal effect. Etching a smooth deposit >could also produce benefits. > >Norman Here are some more copyleft ideas: If the active sites are at boundaries, like the Ni/Cu or Ni/Pd boundaries, then maybe the effect can be made into more of a volume effect by sputtering multiple metals simultaneously to create a collage of boundaries. The obvious is to try various combinations of Ni, Pd, and maybe additives of Pt, Ir, Cu, Ag, and Au, which are all cubic, face centered. It would also be interresting to dope with Ti, even though (and especially because) it forms a hexagonal structure. Maybe some mix of Ti, Ni and Pd would give an extreme in hydrogen adsorbtion and density of active sites. Corrosion resistance may be a problem due to the wide variations in local surface potential. Maybe a thin plated surface layer of Pd or Ni could avoid that. As an alternative to beads, why not start with a fine foil or gold leaf, maybe plate it with Cu, and then sputter an outer film. Another obvious alternative substrate would be a fine woven fiber, like nylon or silk. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 8 06:12:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA13058; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 06:07:14 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 06:07:14 -0800 (PST) Date: 08 Nov 96 09:04:28 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: ICCF6 Review (Part 1) Message-ID: <961108140427_72240.1256_EHB90-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"6vs4X2.0.yB3.HwpWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2013 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex November 7, 1996 Version, sans footnotes Greetings, all. Here are some notes on ICCF6. Gene will write short reviews of some of the papers listed below, as noted. Longer, more detailed reviews with graphics will appear in Infinite Energy #10. If you wish to reprint these summaries in a journal or post them in another forum, please contact us first to obtain the latest version, and please be sure to give full credit to Infinite Energy Magazine and the authors. Because of a bureaucratic snafu I did not get tapes of the conference until last week, so this review has been delayed. After I get comments and corrections from the readers of this forum and elsewhere I will post a final version of this document in my home page, where the ILENR2 report also lives. The home page is: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JedRothwell Vortex files are limited to 40 KB, so I have split this file into two parts and uploaded them separately. The document itself is divided into three main sections, or movements, not unlike Mahler's Fifth Symphony, which begins with a funeral march. MY OVERALL IMPRESSIONS OF ICCF6 Overall, my impression of the field of cold fusion as it represented in these big international physics conference is . . . that it is going to hell in a handbasket. It is moribund, just as Morrison and others predicted it would be by now, but not for the reasons they predicted. The number of attendees has drastically declined to 175 people, the quality of the papers is down, and little progress has been made toward technologically useful devices. While some workers report large improvements, many other report no excess heat or any other sign of a CF reaction. In my previous reviews of ICCF3, 4 and 5 I have described grave misgivings about the direction of the field. In my review of ICCF5 I wrote: Many of the papers were disappointing, because many workers are stuck in the rut of trying to replicate the 1989 simple palladium - heavy water electrolysis method. This requires high loading and other conditions which are nearly impossible to achieve. Why anyone would still be trying to use this method so many years after better methods have been invented is a mystery to me . . . [T]he majority of scientists in the field ignore these promising approaches and continue using only palladium. Instead of selecting the easiest and most successful methods, they insist on using the oldest, least effective, and most frustrating technology, as if they were computer scientists who insist on building a vacuum tube machine in the age of transistors . . . Six years of low level results have failed to convince mainstream scientists that CF is real. Six more years will not convince anyone either . . . I can report that the situation is still like that, only worse. It turns out that even one more year of puny results was too much for the Japanese establishment. The whole program in danger of being shut down, and cold fusion in Japan -- the last bastion of large scale research -- is in imminent danger of collapse. Frankly, if I were in charge at MITI, I would have shut it down the main programs last year, and handed out the remaining funds to researchers who have achieved technologically significant results. If you are looking for the people to blame for the demise of cold fusion, in the U.S. you can point the finger at the pathological skeptics and the DoE. In Japan, you can blame the project managers and scientists at places like the NHE lab and IMRA Japan. The NHE did more than 50 experiments in a row with no success, and IMRA did 32 experiments without success. They have ignored the literature. They have ignored improved techniques and alternatives. They make the same mistakes year after year. I do not know what causes this behavior. Perhaps they are closed-minded, timid, conservative, or locked into a bureaucratic plan written years ago by project managers who have no experience in the field. These scientists seem to think they will be funded forever even if they produce no results, in a miniature version of the hot fusion program. Some even say this is how science is supposed to work, as if progress doesn't matter! Politics is partly to blame. Officially, the NHE was supposed to cooperate with the universities and with successful researchers elsewhere, but people outside the program tell me that the managers have scotched all cooperation. Whatever the causes, the outcome is tragic folly. I wrote an open letter to the NHE directorate decrying the situation. I posted a preliminary version here, and I have improved it thanks to various comments and suggestions people have e-mailed me. I am translating it into Japanese. I will send copies to the NHE, MITI and to various Japanese newspapers and scientific journals. While I do not expect the letter to have any effect, I want to go on record and sound the alert. Frankly, I feel that we, the supporters of this field, have been pussyfooting around for too long with these inept researchers, and making too many excuses for them. The cold fusion effect is said to be exceptionally difficult to replicate. I do not think so: I think many of the people who are trying to replicate are doing slipshod, unprofessional jobs. They have not made a concerted effort to learn the techniques of successful scientists like Storms. They have not done serious, careful, step-by-step replications of successful cells. At this conference, the French Atomic Energy Agency described their successful replication Pons and Fleischmann's 1992 boil-off results. They followed the directions, used the proper materials, and they got repeated, large bursts of excess heat with a performance profile remarkably similar to the original experiment. SRI also made a concerted effort to replicate this experiment, and they reported similar success. So it can be done right. Some people do not see the 50 failed NHE experiments as a disaster. McKubre said he can learn from the data. Hagelstein told me I am much too harsh and the results have scientific value. Storms thinks the technical points in my Open Letter are sound, but the tone is too emotional and strident, making the letter counterproductive. Others, including Fleischmann, Mallove, Bockris and Mizuno agreed with me. FLEISCHMANN RETIRED, ALIENATED Martin Fleischmann has retired from active research and returned to England. He was originally scheduled to give a one-hour keynote lecture at the conference, but this was canceled. I asked him why. He replied he "has already said everything there is to say." He feels alienated from mainstream research in the field, which he thinks is politicized. He feels that people have not listened to his advice and ideas. I told him that but people do not understand him because his lectures are so technical and because he sometimes talks in riddles, like the Delphic Oracle. I said the message does not get through, so he should consider writing a paper in collaboration with someone who communicates in simpler, more understandable prose. OKAY, SOME GOOD NEWS I should not grouse too much. There was some good news and some outstanding news too. Here are some of the papers that impressed me. These are listed by Abstract number, principal author and title. Abstracts are numbered O (oral) 1 to 44, TS (transmutation session) 1 - 7, and P (poster) 1 - 79. In my opinion the two best papers were from Miley and Pons. O-019 G. Miley, "Experimental Observations of Massive Transmutations Occurring in Multilayer Thin-Film Micropheres After Electrolysis" This was similar to Miley's lecture and paper given at the Second International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Conference (ILENR2), discussed here, and published in Infinite Energy #9. Miley showed some additional data strengthening the observations of three zones of transmutation. He explained that zones are characteristic of fission reactions. He showed data for beads with glass cores. These produced little heat and only a small number of apparent transmutations, with large sections of the spectrum flat compared to the plastic core beads. In conversation, he explained that the make up of the beads was different in each of the twenty runs. Some came from CETI while others were fabricated at the University of Illinois. Some had multiple layers of nickel and palladium, some were nickel only, and thickness was varied. He said he sees no point in doing the same experiment over and over. He wants to explore a variety of materials and thin film configurations. Several companion papers about the CETI device were scheduled for the same hour that Miley talked, but none were delivered. Some of the authors, Cravens, Nix, and Claytor, did not show up at the conference. This was good and bad. Good, because it gave Miley more time. The conference organizers had scheduled a one hour for the CETI session, giving Miley only 15 minutes. It was bad because the other papers apparently include vital information about the CETI cell, judging by the footnotes in the Miley paper and the titles of the missing papers: "Electrical Control of New Hydrogen Energy," "Design Considerations for Multilayer Thin-Film Patterson-Type Microspheres," "Producing Excess Enthalpy . . . with Near 100% Reliability" and so on. CETI did not explain these last minute cancellations and other sudden changes in their plans. I regard this as yet another tragic missed opportunity for CETI to get their message out and excite interest in their technology. One other paper about the CETI cell was given, by McKubre: O-020 "Electrochemistry and Calorimetry in a Packed-Bed Flow-Through Electrochemical Cell." This was a sophisticated analysis of the electrochemistry of a Patterson style cell. McKubre showed that the most active and highly loaded beads are probably those at the top of the bead pack near the anode. He concluded that the best way to scale up a Patterson cell would be to increase the diameter, making a broad, flat bead pack with just a few layers of beads. Patterson himself has reached the opposite conclusion. Before McKubre's talk, I asked him how he plans to scale up his cells. He said he will make them long and thin, adding many layers of beads. McKubre and Patterson should get together and hash this out. O-014 S. Pons, "The ICARUS 9 Calorimeter: Summary of Three Years Designing, Testing and Operation of this Device at the IMRA Europe Science Center" Gene Mallove is working on a description of this paper. It describes a cell that was held at boiling for three months, producing hundreds of megajoules from cathodes weighing a fraction of a gram. It is a gorblimey calorimeter, but hey, it works. (Okay, I'll translate "gorblimey" into science-ese: Several people said they thought the static calorimeter is too complicated, and inappropriate for this power and temperature domain. It depends on three different calibration curves for thermocouples in three locations. People suggested that a Seebeck calorimeter would be better.) O-001 P. L. Cignini, D. Gozzi et al., "X-Ray, Heat Excess and 4He in the Electrochemical Confinement of Deuterium in Palladium" Excess heat, helium and x-rays were observed. Helium was measured by drawing off samples of gas, filtering out everything but helium, and putting the gas into a QMS (quadrupole mass spectroscopy) chamber integrated into the experimental apparatus. In a four-cell experiment lasting 950 hours, more than 1000 samples were taken from each cell. At first glance, the helium did not appear to be correlated with heat, but a sophisticated statistical analysis, taking into account the sampling periods and percent of total gas in one sample, shows that did actually appear together. The curves for helium change completely after the complex statistical massaging. X-Rays were measured with x-ray film positioned 5 cm from the cell. X-ray film placed next to a Pt blank cell showed no fogging. Film next to Pd cells that produced heat were fogged, with a shadow where the anode blocked the cathode. A sophisticated microscopic analysis of the film was performed, based on the physics of film and comparisons to film of the same stock exposed to known levels of x-rays. It was concluded that the "energy of radiation" (the power of the x-rays) was 89 +/- 1 keV and the total energy intercepted by the film was 12.0 +/- 0.4 kJ. This experiment contributes nothing to reproducibility, which is the main problem of cold fusion. Excess power levels were low in absolute and percent terms, so it has no immediate technological significance. The sigma level for the heat was high. The x-ray energy levels and helium may contribute to a theoretical understanding, and they prove that the heat cannot be of chemical origin. The instrumentation is superb, so it is hard to see how anyone could quarrel with the results. However, D. Morrison did quarrel, insisting that an x-ray detector would have been better than x-ray film. He said that Steve Jones offered to lend one to any CF scientist and he cannot understand why nobody has taken Jones up on the offer. Gozzi replied that he did not think a detector would work in this configuration, and that the physics of x-ray film are well understood. Gozzi's cathode is a bundle of palladium wires, rather than a single block of palladium. This increases surface area. O-005 E. Botta, "Further Measurements on 4He Production from PdD2 Systems in Gas Phase" Another solid job from the Italian university and INFN (Italian government Nuclear Physics Laboratories). They showed more evidence for helium production in one run. They use an interesting technique to achieve high loading. Deuterium gas is loaded palladium plate under pressure, and "a constant electric field of a few hundred millivolt per cm" is applied from one edge of the plate to the other, which moves the deuterons across it by electromigration. The ends of the plate are sealed with gold, and I think this causes to the deuterium to "pile up" against the ends. This electromigration technique was used by several other Italian workers to enhance the CF effect, and it is the basis of the proton conductors used by Mizuno, Biberian (ICCF5), Oriani and Karabut (P-001). With a proton conductor, you charge both sides of the plate (rather than the ends). If you leave a direct current charge running continuously, one side of the plate would become highly loaded with deuterons but the other side would not, so you use a square wave current that alternates every minute or so, charging first one side, then the other. Mizuno and others speculate that this also causes the deuterons to "slosh around" inside the conductor, occasionally piling up in local spots at a loading ratio much higher than the average for the entire conductor, which causes a powerful CF reaction in that isolated spot. O-015 F. Celani, "High Power Microsecond Pulsed Electrolysis Using Long and Thin Pd Wires in Very Diluted LoOD-D2O Solution: Observations of Anomalous Excess Heat" Gene will tackle this one. This was another interesting electromigration experiment. O-016 S. Storms, "Some Thoughts on the Nature of Nuclear-Active Regions in Palladium" This covered much of the same ground as the paper published in Infinite Energy # 8, p. 50. As I mentioned in my message here titled "McKubre's 'disaster'," Storms recommends the Open Circuit Voltage (OCV) method of measuring loading. Many electrochemists recommend this, including Bockris in his recent letter to the NHE. It involves the use of a platinum wire (a "reference electrode") set inside a small glass straw (a "luggin capillary"). The end of the capillary fits between the anode wires. It can be held close to the cathode making a conduction path between the reference electrode and one spot on the cathode. To measure loading, electrolysis power to the cell is temporarily turned off, and the voltage difference between the cathode and the reference electrode is measured. Because the cathode and the reference electrode are different metals, they have different electrochemical potential. When he begins the experiment, Storms measures 0.00 to 0.02 volts. As the palladium fills with hydrogen, the electrochemical potential changes, the voltage goes up. Strictly speaking, the OCV measures chemical activity on the surface, not loading per se. After a highly loaded cathode reaches saturation, the OCV sometimes continues to rise to much higher levels than normal, reaching 1.3 volts, even though the cathode is probably not absorbing any more deuterium. This is a good indication that the cathode has entered the special state of matter (or "the special state of grace") in which the CF effect can occur. Another indication of this special state is seen when a cathode degasses over an hour or so. The OCV falls, then rises again briefly after about 30 minutes, then resumes its decline. Outgassing is steady, it does not reverse and rise briefly, so the OCV must be "decoupled" from the loading ratio. When it reaches these abnormally high levels, the OCV is no longer a reliable measure of loading, but instead it indicates some other poorly understood state of the cathode. This poorly understood state just happens to be exactly what you are want: metal-ready-for-CF. O-055 G. Lonchampt, "Reproduction of Fleischmann and Pons Experiment" This paper was presented by Biberian because Lonchampt does not speak English well. It describes a marvelous series of experiments performed by French Atomic Energy Commission (CEREM), in association with the ENSEEG (Ecole Nationale Superieure d'Electrochimie et d'Electrometallurgie de Grenoble). Biberian worked on the project, although he is not listed as an author. Lonchampt is a CEREM commissioner, and an engineer not a scientist, thank goodness. These experiments are exact replications of the 1993 boil off experiments reported by Pons and Fleischmann in Physics Letters A 176. This is exactly what cold fusion cries out for: careful, step by step replications done by people who follow directions. Biberian said that he and the other scientists involved in the project wanted to incorporate various "creative improvements" but Lonchampt insisted on doing a precise replication with assistance from Pons and Fleischmann. That is why it worked, as Biberian cheerfully admits. It takes an engineer to do these things right! Everything about this work is superb, even the Abstract. Let me quote it extensively: Experiments have been performed in calorimeters identical to the ones used by Fleischmann and Pons . . . [T]hese experiments can be analyzed in three temperature domains: - At low temperatures, below 70 deg C, excess enthalpy is the difference between the heat radiated to the water bath, and the enthalpy input due to electrolysis. - At intermediate temperatures, between 70 deg C and 99 deg C, excess enthalpy is the difference between the heat radiated towards the water bath plus the enthalpy contents of the gas stream, plus the variation of enthalpy of the contents of the calorimeter . . . - In the boiling regime (without condensation), excess enthalpy is calculated from the difference between the total amount of water contained in the calorimeter evaporated and the theoretical quantity of water that should be evaporated by the energy introduced in the calorimeter . . . Six calibration runs with platinum cathodes and 17 runs with different palladium type cathodes have been performed. At low temperature, 8 experiments have produced an excess energy rate between 1 and 5%. In the intermediate regime the water vapor carried away by the gases of the electrolysis are large, and cannot be evaluated precisely . . . At boiling, three positive experiments have been successful, giving excess enthalpies rates of 80% to 150% . . . In conclusion, we confirm the results published by Fleischmann and Pons more particularly in the boiling regime. The Abstract says "three positive experiments" but a table shown during the lecture listed five. Here are the last two columns from that table, showing excess heat a percent of input before boiling and during boiling: 16% 153% -0.2% 0% With a platinum null electrode 3% 18% 7% 36% 20% 97% 7% 29% Other runs with palladium generated no excess heat. The conclusion presented during the lecture was: "The Fleischmann-Pons calorimeter is very accurate and well adapted to this work, however several precautions must be taken. The Dewar must be of excellent quality. Calibration of the thermistors must be very precise. Care must be taken to minimize the thermal losses by heat conduction. All electrical feed-throughs must be sealed off . . ." Finally, below 70 deg C there is sometimes a small level of artifactual excess heat "due to heat conduction not included in our equations." Pons and Fleischmann do take these factors into account in their equations. In any case, the excess below 70 deg C is marginal, just as Fleischmann has been saying all these years. Whattyaknow! This project is continuing. They plan to build larger cells to avoid spilling, and cells with condensers like IMRA Europe's ICARUS 9, for experiments with continuous boiling. P-004 S. Crouch-Baker, "Mass Flow Calorimetric Studies Under Non-Steady State Conditions" SRI also did a quality replication of the Pons-Fleischmann boil-off experiment. They used high precision equipment and extensive modeling to examine the power levels just before boiling ensues, and during boiling. The goal was to answer an interesting chicken-and-egg question. Does the heat the CF reaction, or does an increasing CF reaction cause the heat? It could be a combination of the two, what Fleischmann calls "'positive feedback' between the temperature and the rate of excess enthalpy generation." SRI concluded that the cell begins to heat up because of normal electrochemical processes. The cathode surface changes, resistance rises, more power is consumed, and the temperature rises. You can accomplish the same thing with a platinum cathode. You can even drive a platinum cathode to boiling with this mechanism, but you get no excess heat. With fully loaded palladium however, the temperature rise triggers a burst of excess heat. I conclude that you should be able to trigger a CF reaction in fully loaded palladium by raising the temperature by some other means, like raising the temperature of the incoming electrolyte in a flow calorimeter, or perhaps even by heating the cathode with a laser. It would be interesting to find out if this works. P-016 E. Ragland, "Triode Cell Experiments for Controlled Fleischmann/Pons Effect" Ragland has been working on the triode configuration cold fusion since 1989. We published a brief note about this work in Infinite Energy #3, p. 42. A triode is a cathode with two anodes: in the configuration he is now using, it is a 1 cm square palladium plate cathode, and two separately powered platinum wire anodes, one on each side of the plate. High power is shifted back in forth between the anodes for periods lasting from 1 to 16 seconds, usually 8 seconds. The low-power side anode is not turned off completely, because it would start degassing. This shifting back and forth apparently causes high deuteron mobility. This is the sloshing deuteron model described by Mizuno and Biberian (see the discussion of Botta, above). The method might also be compared to the high-low Takahashi loading. Ragland had a cell running all summer. He says input was between 1 and 2 watts, the flow rate was 25 ml/min, and the Delta T was generally 4 to 5 deg C, indicating total output of 8 or 9 watts. Over the past year he has tested four palladium plates from Johnson Matthey. All four successfully generated heat at about the same level. He measured swelling with a micrometer and found it was less than 6%. He did not see cracks or other signs of bad palladium. So these might have been four particularly good samples that would have worked with an ordinary 1-anode cell. On the other hand, this method appears to speed up loading and to produce heat reliably at a high input to output ratio. Ragland says that after the cell begins working, he can progressively cut the purity of the heavy water until it is down to about 20%, and the heat continues. That is the first time I have ever heard that claim! It's extraordinary if true. It is one of several aspects of the report that make me nervous. I must see independent testing of this device before I can accept it. Fleischmann was impressed by this work. I listened to his conversations with Ragland. He said, "this [triode configuration] is something I have wanted to try for years." He thinks a cylindrical cathode might work well. A wire going down the center of the cylinder would constitute one anode, and a wire wrapped in a spiral around the outside would constitute the second one. Biberian was also impressed with this design. He said he hopes to try it soon. Ragland is a retired engineer with eight U.S. patents. He invented one of the first daisywheel printers, the prototype of which is now in the Smithsonian. Ragland collaborated with Cravens a few years ago. When Cravens began working with CETI he quite the collaboration to avoid a conflict of interest. He says that with 1 watt input he observed about 3 watts output. The calorimeter was fairly crude. He was reasonably confident of these results but not totally convinced. I myself have not learned enough about Ragland's calorimetry to judge the work, but I think it is interesting, and I look forward to learning more about it. I was impressed by neat, businesslike engineering of the sample triode he brought to the conference, and by the photographs of his experimental setup. O-031 T. Claytor, "Tritium Production From Palladium and Palladium Alloys" This was presented by Ed Storms, because at the last minute the DoE told Claytor he was not authorized to go to ICCF6. It was similar to the paper Claytor gave at ILENR2, so I will not discuss it here. Claytor's presentations are lucid, but I found that Storms even easier to follow. (Biberian, who presented Lonchampt's paper, remarked that perhaps we should arrange to have all papers given by someone else.) Storms said that this project has been peer reviewed at Los Alamos for several years running, and it has passed this review, which is much tougher than any journal peer-review. Nevertheless, he said that "because of pathological skepticism" all funding for the project will probably end this year. Since the government is planning to spend $3 billion dollars on a new reactor to generate tritium, the decision to terminate this program is a threat to national security and a fantastic waste of money. O-004 M. Miles, "Heat and Helium Measurements Using Palladium and Palladium Alloys in Heavy Water" Miles always gives good presentations. His instruments and techniques are second to none. Unfortunately, this project has been terminated for lack of money, so many of the results reported here were old. However, some of his best results have not been reported previously because they came at the end of the project, using palladium alloys. Also, the calorimeter, which was already superb, was improved in the last year of the study, increasing the sigma level of the results. Quotes from Abstract: Our best experiments produced up to 30% excess heat, 0.52 watts of excess power, and 1,400 KJ of excess enthalpy . . . You might doubt these results coming from some labs, but Miles can measure 0.5 watts with as much confidence as most people measure 5 watts. There is a remarkable correlation of excess power with the source of the palladium. The best reproducibility was obtained using Pd-B materials supplied by the Naval Research Lab. Seven out of eight experiments that used Pd-B cathodes produced excess power. A high success ratio was also obtained using Johnson-Matthey materials. Seventeen out of twenty-seven experiments that used this palladium source produced excess heat. In contrast there were several palladium sources that never produced excess power in any experiment. That is an important observation! Materials are the key to cold fusion, as everyone aught to know. Perhaps a clever technique like Ragland's triode can transform any Pd or Ni sample into a good one. (Ragland thinks so.) But if that is not the case, then the only way to improve reproducibility is to focus on materials: the cathode, anode, electrolyte, lead wires, glass, and everything else that goes into the cell. At ILENR2 several people criticized the Naval Research Lab's poor showing in cold fusion, yet it produced one type of cathode that worked 88% of the time. This one success alone justifies the entire Navy Program. It is way ahead of the NHE. Unfortunately, all Naval Research Labs projects have been terminated for lack of money. (Maybe I should make that a fill-in-the-blank macro: "All [blank-blank] projects have been terminated . . ." I'll surely need if there is an ICCF7.) The main purpose of Miley's experiments was to correlate helium in the gas stream with excess heat production. Quote: "Thirty experiments have shown a correlation between either excess power and heat production or no excess power and no excess helium . . . The only valid experiments that showed significant excess power by no excess helium involved a Pd-Ce cathode. The odds are less than one in a million that our complete set of thirty-three heat and helium results could be obtained from random experimental errors." I asked him where he thinks the helium from that Pd-Ce experiment is. He said it is probably still sitting inside the cathode, or it leaked out gradually after the experiment. O-036 R. Oriani, "A Confirmation of Anomalous Thermal Power Generation from a Proton-Conducting Oxide" Oriani is working with proton conductors that Mizuno fabricated by hand. Neither he nor Mizuno has seen the dramatic heat bursts that Mizuno observed years ago, but they do get significant excess heat and heat after death. Oriani's best heat after death result was 0.8 watts lasting 17 hours. Oriani originally duplicated Mizuno's static gas calorimeter. He found that contamination from air and other gasses caused unexpected results that might be mistaken for excess heat. I do not think this could explain the tremendous heat bursts and melted solder connections Mizuno observed, but it does call into question the low grade heat produced by most of the samples. To get around this problem, Oriani built an excellent Seebeck calorimeter designed to operate at 400 deg C. (Proton conductors only work at high temperatures.) The design requires an internal heater that takes a lot of power, which unfortunately creates a lot of thermal noise, so the sigma is low even when the conductors produce a half-watt or so. However, two of the specimens "produced positive deviations from the calibration curve by more than four standard deviations . . ." Oriani concludes "verification of the claims has been achieved." This paper has been accepted for publication in Fusion Technology. Oriani is sending some of his successful used cathodes back to Mizuno, who will look for evidence of transmutation. Oriani plans to try a molten salt CF device, like the one that produced a few bursts of heat at the University of Hawaii years ago. I wish he would stick with proton conductors instead. O-035 T. Passell, "Search for Nuclear Reaction Products in Heat Producing Pd" This is a work-in-progress, with no convincing results yet. Passell is looking for host metal transmutations, using prompt gamma activation analysis (PGAA). He thinks he has found an ~18% reduction in the ratio of boron-10 to palladium-105 in a cathode that generated excess heat at SRI. This just happens to fit a theory of his. It fits too well, enough to make you uneasy. Unfortunately, he has only looked for boron and palladium, he has not produced an entire spectrum of all elements and isotopes, the way Miley, Mizuno and others have done. I do not understand why not. I am dissatisfied with this work for another reason. Passell began by saying that he has a whole drawer of cathodes from a variety of successful cathodes and virgin material samples from many labs, not just SRI, but also IMRA Europe and the Navy. But he has only looked at one pair, and only for one transmutation. I expect he is sitting on a gold mine of information! Some of these cathodes produced thousands of megajoules per mole of metal. If Passell would hurry up and look under the surface layers of some of them, I expect he will find what Bockris and Minevsky found: areas of massive transmutation, where 70% of the palladium is transmuted into Something Else. This should be a top priority. I do not understand why this kind of research takes so long. When a dynamic worker like Mizuno or Miley decides to do something like this, he gets it done in a matter of weeks, where others seem to take months or years. Well . . . there were many other good papers. I wish I could describe them all, but I don't have time and I would end up reproducing a large chunk of the proceedings. J. Dash, Srinivasan, S. Crouch-Baker, Y. Arata, T. Mizuno, T. Ohmori and others presented interesting work. As always, I urge all readers to get the proceedings. Read original sources! (And Infinite Energy, too!) As always, I have ignored a number of theory papers and highly technical papers, because they are over my head. Someone else like Peter Hagelstein ought to give us a round-up of these. (Continued in Part 2 . . .) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 8 06:54:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA21236; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 06:44:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 06:44:37 -0800 (PST) Date: 08 Nov 96 09:42:56 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: ICCF6 Review (Part 2) Message-ID: <961108144256_72240.1256_EHB100-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"7YBmR1.0.gB5.KTqWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2014 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex (. . . continued) CLOSING SUMMARIES Let me return to my grousing mode, in honor of Bob Dole the curmudgeon candidate. The Summaries presented at the end of the conference by Bressani, McKubre and Ikegami were, noteworthy. I found them excruciating. They were symptomatic of everything that is wrong with the field. Never have I felt so alienated from the cold fusion mainstream as I did listening to these talks. Don't get me wrong: these were carefully researched, high quality presentations. The experimental evidence mustered by Bressani and McKubre cannot be disputed. But it is only the tip of the iceberg. Bressani cited the increasing number and quality of experiments detecting helium correlated with heat, now at KEK, U. Osaka, Torino, China Lake and elsewhere. He concluded that the evidence of helium and x-rays proves beyond any doubt that cold fusion is a form of d-d fusion, in which all paths but the formation of helium are suppressed, and who knows what happens to the energy. I find this hypothesis just about as preposterous as Morrison must find it, for opposite reasons of course. Morrison is upset because this violates his holy textbook theories. I am upset because Bressani has dismissed a gigantic chunk of experimental evidence, from nickel and light water to the transmutations reported by Miley, Mizuno, Ohmori, Minevski and (soon) many others. Bressani and most other scientists at the conference completely ignored Miley and all other evidence transmutations and anything else but d-d helium transmutations. At Japanese conferences people not only ignore Ohmori, they laugh at him. You would think that someone of Miley's status would command respect, especially from a group of scientists who have suffered from tje bigoted rejection of closed-minded mainstream scientists, but . . . no such luck. Bressani concluded by saying how pleased he was that the conference attracted no attention from the press and "no newspapers." From my point of view the lack of publicity and the conference organizers' total disregard for public relations are two more nails in the coffin. Good press coverage leads to funding. No press coverage leads to oblivion. This is true of any branch of science, industry, fine arts, law or any other human endeavor. Imagine what the situation would be like if major newspapers were to report the fact that the French Atomic Energy Commission has fully replicated Pons and Fleischmann's high heat results. Here we have results that prove beyond any doubt that cold fusion has the potential to be technologically useful, if only it can be scaled up. If this news was broadcast by the major media, cold fusion funding would increase to billions of dollars per year and more progress would be made in the next six months than we have seen in the last seven years. Yet the NHE, the mainstream scientists, CETI and most other major players at this conference are doing everything they can to hide this light under a bushel, and to prevent the media from learning about these results! McKubre's presentation upset me because it was so darned good. It was a brilliant analysis of all the problems that he has been ignoring for seven years -- problems pointed out to him time after time by Fleischmann, Cravens, Dash and many others, including me. This summary reminded me of McKubre's ICCF4 presentation I cite in the Open Letter, in which he described a heat burst caused when the flow was accidentally blocked and the cathode temperature rose higher than planned. At that time, McKubre said "we should have listened more carefully to Martin at ICCF3 when he talked about the importance of temperature." That is what McKubre said, back in 1994. Then he and the rest of the mainstream went on ignoring Martin for two more years. McKubre began his summary by saying he is "pleased with the results of this conference" -- a statement I find appalling. He said "I think the fire that was fueled by the fever of enthusiasm from the beginning, that has sustained many of the people in this room, has sort of resolved itself into a seriousness of purpose" He defined this purpose to "explain the phenomena, first to ourselves, then to the world." Others say explanations are not needed at this stage, just make the thing reproducible the way Miley and Storms are doing, and then demonstrate it to the world. He cited the helium and heat correlations, which surely are impressive and important. He said: "the transmutation products I think are the wild card in more ways than one. I just don't know how to assess the transmutation business. It is already spinning off mini-conferences of its own. Should that work hold up, it will certainly evolve to dominate future conferences." He cited more than 20 groups reporting excess heat. He described what he called "the mass flow calorimetry 'problem'," and he said what should have been said four years ago. The failed experiments at IMRA, NHE and SRI are all in SRI-style flow calorimeters. He cited his own model, in which excess heat is caused by loading, high current density and flux, and he said that an SRI-style flow calorimeter prevents flux. McKubre agreed with Celani's dictum: "You need to depart from the steady state." Then he said: With the mass flow calorimeter -- the most sluggish and stable of animals -- the hardest thing to do is to depart from the steady state . . . What we have done in part, partly in response to our critics [skeptics, not Fleischmann], is to make calorimeters in such a way as to improve the data quality. You improve the data quality by averaging things for a long time, never changing anything. . . . so the lines on a viewgraph are very clear with few irregularities you have to explain. In doing that, of course, you maintain the system as closely as possible in a steady state. We have engineered our systems to do that. That is what flow calorimeters do well. I question, now, whether that is wise. Great! He questions that now, three years after Pons and Fleischmann made it abundantly clear that steady state, low temperature conditions are the kiss of death. He questions it now: how many years will it take him, the NHE and the others to *act* on these newly expressed doubts? How long will Tom Passell leave those used cathodes in his drawer? He is hiding a great mother load of knowledge -- an astounding scientific breakthrough -- in a drawer, for crying out loud! Is this an incurable bad habit common to scientists? How many years did Newton hide the Principia Mathematica in a dresser drawer? I thought that to do basic scientific research you must constantly reexamine your ideas, fiddle with the machinery, build new instruments, and try new approaches. It should not take three years for people to listen to advice from Pons and Fleischmann. They are the leading practitioners of this field. They have reported the biggest, best, most dramatic and important results. SRI replicated the boil-off results. Why didn't they move to build a calorimeter like ICARUS-9, with a condenser, designed to operate at continuous boiling? As Franklin D. Roosevelt put it: "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." Also citing common sense, that rare commodity, Bockris wrote to the NHE: One last thing, a matter of common sense but doesn't seem to be realized, and that is to stop going on with experiments that don't succeed. I learned from reports I got from Tom Passell, that IMRA did 28 experiments with zero results. That is absurd. After six or seven experiments, of course the method should be changed. McKubre cited some of the exciting new techniques reported at the conference, and said he wants to try some of them, particularly electromigration, which spurs a departure from the steady state. "The take home message from this conference, that I will act on immediately, is to reinvestigate, or re-re-re-investigate electromigration effects. We have started on this several times, found that it is very difficult to do, and given up." He said that Preparata's experiments with high voltage electromigration require courage. I asked him if he meant they take moral or physical courage. He said he thinks there is a distinct possibility that high voltage in such an electrochemically active cell will trigger an explosion, even without a large head space. Ikegami concluded the conference by saying how pleased he is that these gatherings have "grown up to be normal scientific conferences." I say that if the field has reached maturity, it is suffering from progeria (the Hutchinson-Gilford syndrome), a horrifying, invariably fatal disease in which children starting at age three develop grey hair, high blood cholesterol, arteriosclerosis, senility and other physical changes typical of old age, resulting in death before the age of twenty. - Jed Rothwell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 8 07:37:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA01628; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 07:28:00 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 07:28:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961108103949.00686ebc@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 10:40:15 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: A/G is AntiGravity.. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"y5CEQ3.0.LP.-5rWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2015 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:03 PM 11/7/96 -0500, you wrote: > Dear Vo, > >I have quesion in terminology, > >On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Quinney wrote: >> But are we talking A/G or O/U ? >> Colin Quinney > >Q.(JS): What does A/G mean? > A. (CQ): Sorry John, but I didn't want to use the "A" word...(AntiGravity). I referred to A/G in the same context as Martin Sevior's post yesterday..">John Schnurer has (I think) stated that he has a bicycle wheel turning all by itself. From the research he has previously told us about I'm guessing that this the "H.G. Wells" unbalanced wheel above a gravity shielded region as described by John Logajan."(Martin Sevior) Regarding my suggestion that you not trust the media; My family has been involved in the media for years, John. I would suggest that you might want to hire a good media consultant if you want to make a visually interesting presentation that has, as a rider, your point, or your agenda.(good thing). Otherwise they will use THEIR agenda.(not NECESSARILY a good thing)...or it just won't get on air. But if this is just a TOY,..YOU may have the correct approach. CQ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 8 08:27:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA12024; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:15:57 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:15:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611081616.IAA07828@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:15:33 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: ICCF6 Review (Part 1) Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"HD_XI2.0.ox2.yorWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2016 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Let's ponder for a moment what the implications are of the "fact" that SIMS analysis cannot detect noble gases due to technical limitations of the method. If noble gases are claimed from SIMS data what other mistakes have been made. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 8 09:12:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA21307; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:55:34 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:55:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:55:17 -0800 Message-Id: <199611081655.IAA19924@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: Forests, trees and wolves; Resent-Message-ID: <"FqGul1.0.pC5.4OsWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2017 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Great! He questions that now, three years after Pons and Fleischmann made it >abundantly clear that steady state, low temperature conditions are the kiss of >death. He questions it now: how many years will it take him, the NHE and the >others to *act* on these newly expressed doubts? How long will Tom Passell >leave those used cathodes in his drawer? He is hiding a great mother load of >knowledge -- an astounding scientific breakthrough -- in a drawer, for crying >out loud! Is this an incurable bad habit common to scientists? How many years >did Newton hide the Principia Mathematica in a dresser drawer? >I thought that >to do basic scientific research you must constantly reexamine your ideas, >fiddle with the machinery, build new instruments, and try new approaches. The forest, and the trees. It is all there and all so plain to see. The problem with the above devices, and the ones described in the abundant journal is that there have been a lot of sheep, and far too few wolves. Sheep flock to see what is going on. Wolves search the hills and the valleys for their next meal, impatient with dry, arid, vacant locations. Wolves carefully sniff out the direction to that next little sheep, or rabbit, around the bend. Wolves don't care why the smell is in the air, they only care that it *is* in the air, and, about which direction the breeze is blowing. The lack of publicity ought to have gotten the promoters of the conference shot, because obviously they don't stand behind the researchers. They are, from their actions, obviously only concerned with making a buck off of the organization of the event, or, about being an important person at the meetings. But they obviously don't care about advancing the field. If they did, they would at the very least submit some articles to the news syndicates regarding the French atomic commissions replication of P/F. Later, Ross From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 8 11:58:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA23376; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 11:22:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 11:22:20 -0800 (PST) Date: 08 Nov 96 14:18:39 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: ICCF7, yes, SEVEN Message-ID: <961108191838_76570.2270_FHU46-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"5JB3y.0.6j5.fXuWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2018 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have just had confirmation that ICCF7 will be held in Vancouver, Canada during August 19-24, 1998. It will be at the Vancouver Convention Center. ICCF7's organizer is ENECO of Salt Lake City. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 8 12:02:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA24056; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 11:24:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 11:24:39 -0800 (PST) Date: 08 Nov 96 14:21:32 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: ****CORRECTION ON ICCF7**** Message-ID: <961108192131_76570.2270_FHU46-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"2muMl2.0.mt5.qZuWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2019 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ICCF7 will be held APRIL 19-24, 1998 (NOT August as in earlier post) at the Vancouver Convention Center in Vancouver, Canada. ENECO of Salt Lake City is the organizing group. Sorry for earlier error! Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 8 12:23:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA27930; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 11:42:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 11:42:01 -0800 (PST) Date: 08 Nov 96 14:02:14 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: What are you talking about, Russ? Message-ID: <961108190214_100433.1541_BHG85-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"2XI9G2.0.Bq6.2quWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2020 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Russ, "Let's ponder for a moment what the implications are of the "fact" that SIMS analysis cannot detect noble gases due to technical limitations of the method. If noble gases are claimed from SIMS data what other mistakes have been made." What exactly are you talking about? Whom are you accusing, and of just exactly what are you accusing them? I've seen several postings in which your sole intent seems to be to impugn the work of others. At the same time you seem to be trying to suggest that you do that from knowledge which we lesser mortals lack. I for one doubt that you do have such gnostic connections, because you fail (as for example in your recent message decrying Arata's work) to do anything more than to make veiled and suggestive remarks. In future please state clearly what you are implying, giving factual references to support your comments. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 8 16:32:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA02969; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 16:27:27 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 16:27:27 -0800 (PST) Date: 08 Nov 96 19:26:03 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: More copyleft ideas Message-ID: <961109002603_100060.173_JHB40-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"m4CN-2.0.Ik.k_yWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2021 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> Another obvious alternative substrate would be a fine woven fiber, like nylon or silk. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 << How about fluffy balls or blankets - random fibres, not woven - or even tufted carpet wrapped in a swiss roll - Aha! so thats what the Swiss are doing! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 8 16:57:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA08841; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 16:52:03 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 16:52:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611090052.QAA07961@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 16:51:10 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: What are you talking about, Russ? Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"-3wrz3.0.u92.kMzWo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2022 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Stuff it Chris I have never criticised Arata's work. Indeed I think his work is some of the best in the field. He is in fact the only person in the field who has seen as much 4He as we have. Further he and I are on very good terms and in communication. I am not criticising any particular person in regard to SIMS evidence nor would I. It is simply a fact that SIMS does not see nobel gases. Any standard text on SIMS techniques will reveal this. Furthermore it is very easy to mistake peaks at various masses for interfering ions in SIMS work even with the best equipment available one cannot often attain resolution sufficient to resolve individual mass peaks from multiple ions. Those who follow this field should be aware that the technology needed identify isotopic shifts is barely available. I have spent many days working on what is widely accepted to be the finest TOF SIMS machine in the world and it is only barely useful in this field. Everyone claiming isotope identifications other than trituim helium for which sound techniques are available is being very careful with those claims. People with no experience in this area fanning the flames with their unbridled enthusiasm do the field no service. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 8 19:34:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA13897; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 19:24:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 19:24:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 18:25:10 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: More copyleft ideas Resent-Message-ID: <"TWvDS1.0.yO3.Ub_Wo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2023 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >How about fluffy balls or blankets - random fibres, not woven - or even tufted >carpet wrapped in a swiss roll - Aha! so thats what the Swiss are doing! > >Norman Cocooning! 8-) To continue the thought, such a mess might be oxidized into carbon fibers and then electroplated. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 9 00:29:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA17114; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 00:27:14 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 00:27:14 -0800 (PST) Date: 09 Nov 96 03:24:41 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: More copyleft ideas Message-ID: <961109082441_100060.173_JHB79-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"GIdXK3.0.GB4.X14Xo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2024 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> To continue the thought, such a mess might be oxidized into carbon fibers and then electroplated. Regards, << Now that raises an interesting issue - What is the effect of having the substrate conducting? The whole question of how does the Patterson cell work has been highlighted by McKubre's decision to go for a large-area-flat-bed-shallow configuration and Patterson wants to go long-and-thin as Jed reported in pt.1 snip>< McKubre showed that the most active and highly loaded beads are probably those at the top of the bead pack near the anode. He concluded that the best way to scale up a Patterson cell would be to increase the diameter, making a broad, flat bead pack with just a few layers of beads. Patterson himself has reached the opposite conclusion. Before McKubre's talk, I asked him how he plans to scale up his cells. He said he will make them long and thin, adding many layers of beads. McKubre and Patterson should get together and hash this out. snip>< Looking at first principles there is:- 1) the need to present the maximum area of cathode to the liquid (I purposely did not use the word "electrolyte") containing D2O. 2) the need to remove any gas generated as a by-product of the heat production as rapidly as possible. 3) presumably the need to keep the components producing the heat in continuous mutual contact both with each other and with the current supply electrode. A question - Is electrolysis per se necessary to trigger the CF heating effect? Could it be that even the Patterson bead-cell might work like a proton conductor after H-loading? If that were the case then heating by HF induction with glass beads, or even solid Ni beads plated with multi-layers of Pd and Ni or whatever, sitting in a heat-transfer bath might work. I think that what I'm trying to say is that all the electrolysis does in the Patterson cell is to load up the bead coating with H/D, and if the config is right then you get "life-after-death" or nothing if its wrong. Once started a good cell carries on without further current flow (or pd applied) if the min. temp is maintained by some means. Waffle mode off! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 9 03:09:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA29731; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 03:08:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 03:08:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 12:47:04 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <3284612f.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: SL and CF, theory in trouble Resent-Message-ID: <"YJieW2.0.SG7.YO6Xo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2025 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortexers, Before analyzing cold fusion, especially at ICCF-6, in the CONTEXT of physics I want call your kind attention to an interesting paper re. sonoluminescence: James Glanz: "The Spell of Sonoluminescence" Science 274, 5288 Issue of 1 Nov 1996 pp 718-9. There are no real theoretical underpinnings for this challenging phenomenon. or there are too many explanations which contradict each other and, as Yogi Berra would say, vice-versa. 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 Sat Nov 9 05:31:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA09010 for billb@eskimo.com; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 05:31:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 05:31:21 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: freeway.net@freeway.net Sat Nov 9 05:31:19 1996 Received: from onramp.freeway.net (onramp.freeway.net [206.153.72.40]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA08988 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 05:31:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from pantera (PM1-08.freeway.net [206.153.73.73]) by onramp.freeway.net (8.8.2/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA07410 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 08:31:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961109133037.008db878@freeway.net> X-Sender: estrojny@freeway.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Old-Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 08:30:37 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: ICCF6 Review (Part 1) X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: At 09:04 AM 11/8/96 EST, you wrote: >To: Vortex >> > >Ragland says that after the cell begins working, he can progressively cut the >purity of the heavy water until it is down to about 20%, and the heat >continues. That is the first time I have ever heard that claim! It's >extraordinary if true. It is one of several aspects of the report that make me >nervous. I must see independent testing of this device before I can accept it. > An explanation: There is deuterium present in the vicinity of the active site (below the surface) which takes a while for it to be displaced by hydrogen. Thus, you will activity until this deuterium is gone. Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 9 05:47:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA09762; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 05:45:48 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 05:45:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 04:46:52 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: More copyleft ideas Resent-Message-ID: <"UrLJ52.0.SO2.Bi8Xo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2026 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >Now that raises an interesting issue - What is the effect of having the >substrate conducting? The whole question of how does the Patterson cell work >has been highlighted by McKubre's decision to go for a >large-area-flat-bed-shallow configuration and Patterson wants to go >long-and-thin as Jed reported in pt.1 > >snip>< That highlights one difference between the plastic subtrate which works, and the glass one which does not - the plastic substrate is sulfonated, and thus is a conductor, or at least a semiconductor. Another point is that the third cell embodiment in Patterson's patent is co-axial, with a single layer of beads on the outer wall of the coax. Such a cell would work well long and thin and wrapped in layers. Is there a possibility of a communication problem there regarding Patterson's plans? > >McKubre showed that the most active and highly loaded >beads are probably those at the top of the bead pack near the anode. He >concluded that the best way to scale up a Patterson cell would be to increase >the diameter, making a broad, flat bead pack with just a few layers of beads. >Patterson himself has reached the opposite conclusion. Before McKubre's talk, >I asked him how he plans to scale up his cells. He said he will make them long >and thin, adding many layers of beads. McKubre and Patterson should get >together and hash this out. My own experiments with a 1 meter long cell and a 10 meter long cell showed that almost all the electrolysis occurred in the last cm of the electrodes. This is an obvious consequence of Ohm's law. The electrodes have a high conductance, the electroyte a low conductance. These represent parallel current paths. The current in parallel current paths is proportional to the conductance of each path. > >snip>< > >Looking at first principles there is:- > >1) the need to present the maximum area of cathode to the liquid (I purposely >did not use the word "electrolyte") containing D2O. > >2) the need to remove any gas generated as a by-product of the heat >production >as rapidly as possible. > >3) presumably the need to keep the components producing the heat in >continuous >mutual contact both with each other and with the current supply electrode. I am not sure about this - wasn't there some success reported with a fluidized bed? In a case like that the beads would not maintain contact but their frequent contact would convey the potential through the bed due to the bead capacitance. It's not first principles - but one practical observation is that an oscillating component to the electrolysis current seems to improve the COP. This may have a bearing on all of the above. See my comments at the end. > >A question - Is electrolysis per se necessary to trigger the CF heating effect? >Could it be that even the Patterson bead-cell might work like a proton >conductor >after H-loading? If that were the case then heating by HF induction with glass >beads, or even solid Ni beads plated with multi-layers of Pd and Ni or >whatever, >sitting in a heat-transfer bath might work. > >I think that what I'm trying to say is that all the electrolysis does in the >Patterson cell is to load up the bead coating with H/D, and if the config is >right then you get "life-after-death" or nothing if its wrong. Once started a >good cell carries on without further current flow (or pd applied) if the min. >temp is maintained by some means. > >Waffle mode off! > >Norman Suppose that you are correct about no need for futher current low, at least a large flow. Maybe the main thing is maintaining precise voltage at the interface, or even at active site boundaries within the electrode. This critical voltage, if it exists could be less than, or almost exactly eqaul to, that required to permit electrolysis. It is maybe a misfortune that almost everyone experimenting uses constant (settable) current supplies instead of constant voltage supplies. This is useful for determining molar quantities invovled in electrolysis, i.e. greatly simplifies electrochemical calculations. However, this may prevent the likelyhood of creating and replicating the required conditions for sustained heat generation, i.e. a very specific voltage. It is also true that a very small voltage change can cause a very large voltage gradient change at the interface. This is due to the very narrow width of the interface. If there is any truth to this hypothesis, then use of "poor" power supplies with large ripple, like the Radio Shack supply used by Cravens in his demo, or the use of pulsed electrolysis current, would increase the likelyhood of being at some critical voltage at least some of the time, and would increase the depth within the bead bed at which the exactly correct voltage would be reached at least *somewhere* in the A/C cycle. However, the effectiveness of an oscillating component would only be in proportion to how imprecise the required voltage might be and yet still create the desired effects, and how long the oscillating voltage remained in the required range of effectiveness for each cycle. To waffle a bit - maybe a "sloshing effect" (e.g. sloshing deuteron model by Mizuno and Biberian) - like that used in protons conductors reported at ICCF6 by INFN, and in Ragland's triode experiment (per Jed's report) is useful, but in electrolysis cells only with a correct bias at the boundary across which the "sloshing" occurs. Such a "sloshing" related potential would also clearly be related to ambient heat, because the kinetic energy of the particles traversing a boundary at an active site would contain a random variation due to heat. Bottom line of suggestion - a complete investigation of a particular cell design should include an investigtion, subsequent to loading, of a range of voltages, superimposed voltage oscillations, and temperatures. The focus should be on controlling voltage, not current. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 9 15:54:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA14794; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:52:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:52:39 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Web page update Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 23:52:31 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32891250.25639218@mail.netspace.net.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.326 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"ByyUL2.0.3d3.6bHXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2030 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: My web page has just undergone an important change. See the section marked "This last point is important". Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 9 15:55:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA14722; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:52:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:52:31 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Hal Fox Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 23:52:23 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3284daef.11460374@mail.netspace.net.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.326 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"Q7HDn1.0.yb3.zaHXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2027 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have just read PLASMA-INJECTED TRANSMUTATION by Hal Fox, Robert W. Bass, Shang-Xian Jin. I would like to make a comment, but have no email address for Hal. Could someone on this list provide same? I promise to make only very sparing use of it. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 9 15:56:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA14754; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:52:34 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:52:34 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Crystallography Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 23:52:27 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3286faba.19600327@mail.netspace.net.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.326 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"RXhdB1.0.Nc3.1bHXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2028 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: If anyone on this list has a background in crystallography, would they please contact me by private email. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 9 16:01:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA14781; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:52:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:52:37 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ICCF6 Review (Part 1) Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 23:52:29 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3287fbd6.19884236@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <961108140427_72240.1256_EHB90-2@CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <961108140427_72240.1256_EHB90-2@CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.326 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"32uC41.0.sc3.4bHXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2029 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 08 Nov 96 09:04:28 EST, Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip] >Ohmori and others presented interesting work. As always, I urge all = readers to >get the proceedings.=20 I would love to. Any suggestions on how? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 9 16:45:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA22814; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 16:41:53 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 16:41:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 19:40:02 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Crystallography In-Reply-To: <3286faba.19600327@mail.netspace.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"pyTPq1.0.Na5.GJIXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2031 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Have background, consult for som eof the more obscure and top end outfits. X On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > If anyone on this list has a background in crystallography, would they > please contact me by private email. > > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on > temperature. > "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 9 18:37:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA12885; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 18:34:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 18:34:01 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: More copyleft ideas Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 02:33:52 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32863e98.19244141@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.326 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"wEv8D2.0.893.NyJXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2032 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 8 Nov 1996 05:06:08 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >If the active sites are at boundaries, like the Ni/Cu or Ni/Pd = boundaries, >then maybe the effect can be made into more of a volume effect by >sputtering multiple metals simultaneously to create a collage of >boundaries. The obvious is to try various combinations of Ni, Pd, and >maybe additives of Pt, Ir, Cu, Ag, and Au, which are all cubic, face >centered. It would also be interresting to dope with Ti, even though = (and >especially because) it forms a hexagonal structure. Maybe some mix of = Ti, >Ni and Pd would give an extreme in hydrogen adsorbtion and density of >active sites. Corrosion resistance may be a problem due to the wide >variations in local surface potential. Maybe a thin plated surface layer= of >Pd or Ni could avoid that. Horace, I think you could have something here. See my updated web page for the reason why. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 9 19:45:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA26463; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 19:43:49 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 19:43:49 -0800 (PST) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 22:43:17 -0500 Message-ID: <961109224316_1647678853@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Dick Blue's analysis of Miley's claims Resent-Message-ID: <"Jf_zs2.0.NT6.qzKXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2033 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dick Blue has been conductiong an analysis of Miley's claims for transmutation on spf. Has anyone here been following it, and does it have any merit? Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 9 20:03:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA28753; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 20:01:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 20:01:28 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32855388.500F9F30@math.ucla.edu> Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 20:01:12 -0800 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: 99 cent/gallon gas References: <961109224316_1647678853@emout09.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"TSoPh.0.517.MELXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2034 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Certainly one reason that alternative energy sources of all types receive little notice these days is the low cost of oil. Gas prices in LA have dropped below $1 gallon---check it out at http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/gasprices/99cents.html -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 9 21:59:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA18112; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 21:53:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 21:53:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 21:53:07 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: forward from Bill Page Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"XVQv5.0.wQ4.QtMXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2035 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 07:51:30 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Page To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Neddy Seagoon's suggested "CF" device Hi there! I've been silent a long time, but I've been here listening, at least that is, as often as available time has permitted - not too much in the last six months I'm afraid. I haven't found much of interest in the discussions of various claimed over-unity devices and the small amount of theoretic stuff on electromagnetics leaves me a bit cold. I'm glad however for even the small amount of news about "CF" itself. Thanks, Jed, for your ICCF6 review. I was hoping for a lot more information about the actual presentations, but I suppose I will have to find a copy of one of the "CF" publications for that. Anyway, although I was unable to attend ICCF6 for personal reasons. I can say now that I think I am glad I wasn't able to re-arrange my schedule, because it sounds a lot like going to ICCF6 (at least for the conference itself, anyway) would have been a waste of time and money. ICCF5 (Monte Carlo) was bad enough in that regard. Anyway, what I have been doing (when a little time did become available) is continuing my dialogue with Ned Seagoon (remember him?) concerning his theory of non-conservative phase transitions. Neddie claimed a few months ago, that one might be able to explain excess heat without radiation in Palladium and some other hydrogen loaded systems, as being due to a loading induced phase transition. Neddie supported this claim, citing recent studies on the location of hydrogen in the Palladium lattice (which changes significantly depending on concentration). Plus he claimed that the excess energy observed might be theoretically explained in terms of "quantum non-equilibrium" induced by the phase transitions in Palladium which occurs above the beta-phase (called by Fleischmann et al. the "gamma phase") between the beta-phase and the gamma phase. "quantum equilibrium" is a concept defined in Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics which refers to the departure of statistical distribution of some particle species from the abs(Psi)^2 distribution normally expected in QM. Such distributions are easily defined in a crystal lattice which can be considered from the solid state physics point of view to consist of a very large number of approximately independent, but identical quantum systems - the unit cells of the lattice. Bohm's theory predicts that for such a system of particles (Yes, *particles*. Bohm's theory includes both "real" particles as well as the QM wavefunction as a "real" field.), if the statistical distribution of particles is different than Born's assumption of abs(Psi)^2, then the net effect is that the quantum potential evaluated at the locations of all particles based on the QM wavefunction, will result in a net *input* of energy into the classical particle mechanics sub-component which ultimately (in fact quite rapidly) restores the particle distribution to the abs(Psi)^2 equilibrium distribution. Yes, this would constitute a kind of "over-unity". It is possible however (if you must insist on energy conservation) to posit that the input energy comes from the so called zero point background field. Neddie's insight was to suggest that such a "population inversions" might be produced in the Pd/H system when a rapid and coherent transition in small bulk domains within the Pd/H crystal occurs between beta and gamma phases. So, now I am glad to see from Jed's report that "CF" researchers are finally thinking about following the direction given by Fleischmann et al. at ICCF4 (Hawaii, 1994) in their paper on the "Alpha, Beta, Gamma of Pd/H ..." which is focused on replication of Alfred Coehn's electromigration experiments in Pd/H. One of their main points in that paper was how electromigration can induce the gamma phase transition which in turn affects electromigration. The result being the propagation of a kind of "phase transition wave" within a Pd/H loaded wire. My recent discussions with Neddie have concerned how to improve on and to control this sort of effect. Neddie's main point has been that a *metal* lattice is actually a very poor environment in which to study electromigration of protons. The problem is that the much larger population of mobile conduction band electrons in metals largely cancels out the applied electric field. Hydrogen loaded metals are really "mixed" conduction materials. Conduction occurs in both the electron conduction band as well as (and to a much smaller extent) the proton conduction band. Pure proton conductors, such as Mizuno's "ceramic" proton conductors which Jed reports are now being re-considered by various researchers, offer a much better environment in which to produce such electro- migration effects. Of course, for Neddie's theory, such materials must also undergo an appropriate phase transition and the operating point (determined by temperature and hydrogen loading) must be near this transition point. So we get to Neddie's most recent suggestion: Why not consider electromigration of protons in water? Water is a proton "semi-conductor" quite analogous to the usual electron semi-conductors such as silicon, etc. Very pure water is a fairly good electron-ic insulator. However, proton-ic conduction occurs quite readily, especially with the addition of a small amount of an acid (proton acceptor) or base (proton donor) dopant (controlled impurity). These are studied in depth in electrochemistry as aqueous electrolytes. Neddie also points out that water, in comparison to almost all other known substances, has the largest number of phase transitions - there being now more than 10 known cystaline forms of ice. Further, the migration rate of protons in ice is known to be among the highest found in nature. Then Neddie's suggestion (which he worked out with a little help from me) might be summarized in the following diagram (shown in cross-section): O2 gas H2 gas /||\ /||\ || || || O O O O O O || || ----- O O ------ || -||--| | O O | |--||- -V | = \---------/ = | +V ----------| = doped ice = |-------- electrode | = /---------\ = | electrode -----| | O O O | |----- ----- O O ------ O O O O O O // *\\* ---------\ // *\\* electric heater // *\\* with thermostatic // *\\* control /.\ _//_ *\\*------/ . | | \\ . | | constant ||:.......... temp | | rate pump || sensor | | coolant discharge |_ __| (at constant temp) || || coolant source // (at constant temp) // \\ // \\____________________________// \ coolant reservior / \ (liquid nitrogen?) / \************************/ thermostatic controlled refrigerator = The = symbols above represent a proton permeable membrane. = The electrode are housed in chambers containing suitable liquid- state electrolyte (containing glycol?). The O2 and H2 gases are produced only as byproducts of the net proton migration. The point of this device is to produce a large electromigration pulse of protons (proto-migration? pulse) within the central region. Probably a pulsed high power source would be needed to supply the +V -V potentials. Obviously the chambers and many of the components need to be made of good insulating materials, both electron-ic and proton-ic insulators. Note: some plastics are quite good proton conductors - poor proton insulators. Power input is measured as V*I electrolysis minus gas production. Power output is measured as the delta electric heater power input between the zero applied potential state and the applied potential state taken over a suit measurement time period. This is null balance calorimetry so the heat loss (environment) of the device must also be carefully controlled. Finally, the operating temperature of the device (as defined by the coolant reservior temperature) should be choosen to be close to known phase transition. Note that is might also be necessary to operate the device at a specific pressure. Phase transitions in ice are also produced by pressure. So. What do you think? Do Neddie and I have a chance of convincing some well equipt "CF" researcher to attempt the above experiment? Comments welcome. (But be warned; it may sometimes take me a while to find the time to respond.) Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 01:13:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA17781; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 01:09:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 01:09:28 -0800 (PST) Date: 10 Nov 96 04:07:52 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: forward from Bill Page Message-ID: <961110090752_100060.173_JHB65-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"1ZwIa2.0.lL4.7lPXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2036 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bill, >> So we get to Neddie's most recent suggestion: Why not consider electromigration of protons in water? Water is a proton "semi-conductor" quite analogous to the usual electron semi-conductors such as silicon, etc. Very pure water is a fairly good electron-ic insulator. However, proton-ic conduction occurs quite readily, especially with the addition of a small amount of an acid (proton acceptor) or base (proton donor) dopant (controlled impurity). These are studied in depth in electrochemistry as aqueous electrolytes. << You must have read my msg of 9 Nov MsgID 257-61139 Very interesting I would have thought! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 01:44:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA19744; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 01:42:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 01:42:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 00:43:24 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: A method of air dropping food Resent-Message-ID: <"S9ico3.0.Qq4.xDQXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2037 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sorry for this off topic post but I have to start somewhere: Please feel free to copy any part of this document. Any ideas herein that are mine I place in the public domain. This is a simple idea for air dropping food to starving groups of people in places where no typical landing or drop zone is available or mobility is restricted because the area is under fire. The method might also be useful for supplying downed pilots without giving away a specific position or forcing the drop plane to come under close range fire. The method is also useful for obtaining a fairly uniform distribution of the food and thus avoiding complete domination of the supply by the strong at the expense of the weak. The idea is to adapt some existing military Meals Ready to Eat (MRE) packaging techiniques and recipies to use in small packages similar in size to ketchup, mayonaise, or hot sauce squeeeze packets. Such squeeze packets are typically 1.5 inches by 3 inches and about .25 inches thick. This idea has the following advantages: 1. The ratio of packing materials to food is reasonable, for both weight and cost. 2. No additional weight or expense is required for chutes, ruggedized pallets, etc., for dropping the small packets. The packets can be dropped as-is due to their terminal velocity being slow due to their small size. They can survive at a high rate in most conditions. 3. The likelyhood of injury to people in the drop area is small provided they don't look up and get hit in the eye by a falling packet. Even then the risk of permanent injury is small, unlike the risk of being hit by a one ton pallet, or being trampled in a mad rush to a food container. 4. The food can be distributed over a wide area, like a city, or along a travel route. The wide area uniform distribution and subsequent wide area scavenging gives a more fair opportunity for everyone in the drop zone to obtain food. The uniform distribution also reduces the chances that the entire drop will be lost due to falling into an inaccesable or under fire area or by being damaged in the drop. 5. The packets will not tend to be caught in trees, but rather fall through to the ground. 6. A diverse range and mix of foods, vitamins, medicines, bandages, re-hydration fluids and electrolytes, baby food, etc. can be distributed simultaneously in a single drop. 7. The drop can occur from high altitudes or low altitudes. 8. Such drops could be made by pilotless planes using GPS locating, or by remotely piloted aircraft. 9. Errors due to wind drift will be less than that for parachuted material due to the faster rate of fall. 10. The food would not require cooking or decontamination equipment. 11. The food would be useful for storage and for travel and would be in a convenient size for barter and rationing. 12. Packets can be made to float so they are not lost in swamps, streams, etc. 13. Packet visibility can be increased through use of flourescent paint, aluminization, etc. It is not the packets lost to the enemy that is important, but the packets reaching the needy. 14. Packets can be attached in strings to increase the likelyhood of finding a good mix. The suggested technology might be of use in supplying troops under fire. Having this technology available could have helped much in supplying civilians in the war torn areas of Ethiopia, where relief trucks were regularly hijacked or destroyed. It could have similarly saved lives in Chad, Somalia, the Bulkans, Rawanda, and could even at this moment be used in Zaier. I don't know who might actually use such an idea. If you do, please send this document to them or let me know at hheffner@anc.ak.net. Thanks for your consideration. Regards, Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 03:55:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA26501 for billb@eskimo.com; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 03:55:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 03:55:42 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: freeway.net@freeway.net Sun Nov 10 03:55:40 1996 Received: from onramp.freeway.net (onramp.freeway.net [206.153.72.40]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA26473 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 03:55:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from pantera (PM1-06.freeway.net [206.153.73.71]) by onramp.freeway.net (8.8.2/8.6.5) with SMTP id GAA03593 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 06:55:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961110115454.008d69ac@freeway.net> X-Sender: estrojny@freeway.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Old-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 06:54:54 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: ICCF6 Review (Part 1) X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: At 09:04 AM 11/8/96 EST, you wrote: >To: Vortex >> > >Ragland says that after the cell begins working, he can progressively cut the >purity of the heavy water until it is down to about 20%, and the heat >continues. That is the first time I have ever heard that claim! It's >extraordinary if true. It is one of several aspects of the report that make me >nervous. I must see independent testing of this device before I can accept it. > An explanation: There is deuterium present in the vicinity of the active site (below the surface) which takes a while for it to be displaced by hydrogen. Thus, you will activity until this deuterium is gone. Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 05:17:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA01726; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:15:41 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:15:41 -0800 (PST) Date: 10 Nov 96 08:13:15 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: 99 cent/gallon gas Message-ID: <961110131315_100433.1541_BHG52-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"NBQTt2.0.qQ.zLTXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2038 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, > Certainly one reason that alternative energy sources of all types > receive little notice these days is the low cost of oil. Gas > prices in LA have dropped below $1 gallon---check it out at > > http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/gasprices/99cents.html Nice one. Maybe this also explains why there is much more enthusiasm on this side of the Pond - in the UK we pay that per *litre*, and UK prices are far from being the highest in Europe. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 05:26:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA02518 for billb@eskimo.com; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:26:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:26:21 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: SUKHANOV@srdlan.npi.msu.su Sun Nov 10 05:26:19 1996 Received: from satty.npi.msu.su (satty.npi.msu.su [158.250.2.251]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA02454 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:26:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from king.npi.msu.su (king.npi.msu.su [158.250.20.11]) by satty.npi.msu.su (8.8.2/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA02220; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 16:25:33 +0300 (MSK) Received: from KING/SpoolDir by king.npi.msu.su (Mercury 1.21); 10 Nov 96 16:25:08 +0300 Received: from SpoolDir by KING (Mercury 1.21); 10 Nov 96 16:24:40 +0300 From: "Valery Sukhanov" Organization: SINP MSU To: Vortex-L@eskimo.com Old-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 16:24:34 MSK-3MSD Subject: Re: [Fwd: Biological nuclear transmutation] CC: Vortex-L@eskimo.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.30 Message-ID: <1A978CA51C3@king.npi.msu.su> X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: This letter was returned (rmforall@rt66.com - host unknown). Would you like to deliver it to Dr. Richard Thomas Murray. Hello Dr. Richard Murray, Thank you for your letters for me. This information is very interesting for us because we work close to the problem of nuclear transmutation, and we are ready for broad co-operation. I send you our last three works (WinWord Format) presented to the 6-th International Conference on Cold Fusion. May be, it will be interesting for you. Sincerely Yuri Bazhutov From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 05:26:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA02549 for billb@eskimo.com; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:26:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:26:25 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: SUKHANOV@srdlan.npi.msu.su Sun Nov 10 05:26:23 1996 Received: from satty.npi.msu.su (satty.npi.msu.su [158.250.2.251]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA02460 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:26:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from king.npi.msu.su (king.npi.msu.su [158.250.20.11]) by satty.npi.msu.su (8.8.2/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA02223; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 16:25:34 +0300 (MSK) Received: from KING/SpoolDir by king.npi.msu.su (Mercury 1.21); 10 Nov 96 16:25:08 +0300 Received: from SpoolDir by KING (Mercury 1.21); 10 Nov 96 16:24:40 +0300 From: "Valery Sukhanov" Organization: SINP MSU To: Vortex-L@eskimo.com Old-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 16:24:32 MSK-3MSD X-pmuue: ERZBASK.DOC X-finfo: DOS,"ERZBASK.DOC",,,,MS-Word Subject: Re: [Fwd: Biological nuclear transmutation] CC: Vortex-L@eskimo.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.30 Message-ID: <1A978C65F09@king.npi.msu.su> X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: * This message contains the file 'ERZBASK.DOC', which has been * uuencoded. If you are using Pegasus Mail, then you can use * the browser's eXtract function to lift the original contents * out to a file, otherwise you will have to extract the message * and uudecode it manually. begin 660 ERZBASK.DOC MVZ4M`#%`"0@```@`+0``````````````@`$``&\=``!C4@`````````````` M`````````.\;``````````````````````````````````````````````!. M```X``!.```X`#A.`````#A.`````#A.`````#A.`````#A.```.`$9.```\ M`().`````().`````().`````().`````().```H`*I.```N`().`````-A. M```_`!=/``!X`8]0`````(]0`````(]0`````(]0`````(]0`````(]0```` M`(]0`````(]0```"`)%0`````)%0`````)%0```I`+I0```@`=I1`````-I1 M```>`/A1```T`"Q2```W`/A1`````#A.`````````````/A1`````/A1```` M````&@`@``8`!P`````````````````````````````````````````````` M````````````````````````````````#0H-"@T*4&]SFAU=&]V+"!6+E`N2V]R971S M:WD-"@T*17)Z:6]N($-E;G1E"`Q-CDL(#$P-3`W-R!-;W-C M;WFEO;B!-;V1E;"X@5&AE(&9I;F%L M('!R;V1U8W1S(&]F('1H92!TF5D+@T*#0H- M"E1H92!%7-T(&-A7-E9"!; M,UTN(%1H92!F:6YA;"!P&]T:&5R;6EC(')E86-T:6]N M7-T('!AFEO;G,@$T5-0D5$($5Q=6%T:6]N(!0!%2!A;F0@ M$T5-0D5$($5Q=6%T:6]N(!0!%2!W97)E(&1E9FEN960@9F]R(&5A8V@@&%M<&QE6UB;VPB%2T[("`34UE-0D],(#$P,R!<9B`B4WEM8F]L(A4[#0H).3E4 M8RC=+2S=,"DY.4UO"2L),2PP.`E-958[("`V-FAR.R`@("`34UE-0D],(#DX M(%QF(")3>6UB;VPB%2T[("`34UE-0D],(#$P,R!<9B`B4WEM8F]L(A4[#0I4 M:&5S92!R96%C=&EO;G,@8V%N('!R;V-E960@=F%L:61L>2!A71I8R!P87)T:6-L92`H$T5-0D5$($5Q=6%T:6]N(!0!%2P@$T5-0D5$($5Q M=6%T:6]N(!0!%2!O2X@4V]M92!F:7)S="!I2X-!SDX36\-"CDY36\-"C$P,%1C#0HQ,#!2=0T'6UB;VPB%3$P-GDN#02X-!PT'#0HT,$L-!PT* M,2PS$U-934)/3"`R,34@7&8@(E-Y;6)O;"(5,3`V>2X-!S,Y07(-"C0P07(- M"C0Q2PT*-#%#80T',BPW>2X-"G-T86)L90T*6UB;VPB%3$P-7DN#06UB;VPB%3$P-'DN#02X-!S(Q,%!B#06UB;VPB%3$P-7DN#0IS=&%B;&4-"G-T86)L M90T*,2PW:'(-!PT',3`V4G4-!S,W,F0N#02X-"G-T86)L90T'#0<-"C4W0V\-!PT*,C2X-!S(S.4YP#0HR-#!.<`T',BPS-60N#0HV-6UI;BX-!PT' M#0HR-#%0=0T'#0HQ+#0T>2X-!S(T,$YP#0HR-#%.<`T*,C0P4'4-"C(T,E!U M#02X-!PT',C0Q M06T-!S0S,GDN#06UB;VPB%3$P,WDN#0HQ-"PT>2X-!PT',C,R5&@-!S$L-!-364U"3TP@,C$U M(%QF(")3>6UB;VPB%3$P,3!Y+@T',C,Q06,-!S2X-!S(S-U!A#02X-"C8L.&0N#0<-!S(T,T%M#02X-!S(T,E!U#0HR-#-0=0T',RPX M$U-934)/3"`R,34@7&8@(E-Y;6)O;"(5,3`U>2X-"C5H<@T'#02X-!S(T,T%M M#0HR-#1!;0T'-S,X,'DN#0HQ,"PQ:'(-!PT'#0H-"D%S(%1A8FQE(#$@:6QL M=7-T"!P;W-S:6)L92!E2!B92!TFEO;B!-;V1E;"(L(%!R;V,N M(#(M;F0@4FESFAO M;2P@,3DY,BP@,3$L(#(P#0HT+@E"87IH=71O=B!9=2X@3BXL($MU>FYE='-O M=B!!+B!"+BP@86YD($4N(%8N(%!L971N:6MO=BP@(E-P96-T2!O M9B!%6$@16YE6$L M(#$Y.3(L('8N-S,L(#(L(#$R#0H7B`$`?@"+@RZ,PD&-IP2.4P./W@:0;@0` MF@$``#H`"`#!`E<";B0``````````````````)`!5`'H`^@#```````````` M``````````````````$`"0```YL````"`!4```````4````)`@`````$```` M`@$!``4````!`O___P`$````+@$9``4````Q`@$````%````"P(`````!0`` M``P"(`*``@L````F!@\`#`!-871H5'EP90``4``%````%`*``00`$@```/L" M0/X```````"0`0```````@``4')A9VUA=&EC80`$!````"T!```'````(04! M`-T```````4````4`O`!A@$5````^P(`_P```````)`!`0`````"`!!4:6UE M7-T96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`! M`0`#``````!(!0,`G1/_``0#```.`!```@`$`2``AR0@``````!G%P```"`` M`````````)H!```Z``@`-`(1`B8C``````````````````!``2P!Z`/H`P`` M```````````````````````````!``D```.;`````@`5```````%````"0(` M````!`````(!`0`%`````0+___\`!````"X!&0`%````,0(!````!0````L" M``````4````,`N`!``(+````)@8/``P`36%T:%1Y<&4``!``!0```!0"P`$$ M`!(```#[`D#^````````D`$```````(``%!R86=M871I8V$`!`0````M`0`` M!P```"$%`0#=```````%````%`+Z`&X!%0```/L"`/\```````"0`0`````` M`@`05&EM97,@3F5W(%)O;6%N````!````"T!`0`$````\`$```<````A!0$` M,```````$````/L"$``(``````"\`@`````!`@(B4WES=&5M``8$````+0$` M``0```#P`0$``P``````C@FP`>8%J@=V#P``.`0``((,``#T`@``4')A9VUA M=&EC80````````````!Z`0``.@`(`%<"$0(^*P``````````````````5`$L M`>@#Z`,``````````````````````````````0`)```#E@````(`$@`````` M!0````D"``````0````"`0$`!0````$"____``0````N`1D`!0```#$"`0`` M``4````+`@`````%````#`+@`2`""P```"8&#P`,`$UA=&A4>7!E```0``4` M```4`L`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!0@#Z`,````````````````` M`````````````0`)```#FP````(`%0``````!0````D"``````0````"`0$` M!0````$"____``0````N`1D`!0```#$"`0````4````+`@`````%````#`+@ M`0`""P```"8&#P`,`$UA=&A4>7!E```0``4````4`L`!!``2````^P)`_@`` M`````)`!```````"``!0@$``#H`"`!7`A$"/BL``````````````````%0!+`'H`^@#```````` M``````````````````````$`"0```Y8````"`!(```````4````)`@`````$ M`````@$!``4````!`O___P`$````+@$9``4````Q`@$````%````"P(````` M!0````P"X`$@`@L````F!@\`#`!-871H5'EP90``$``%````%`+``00`$@`` M`/L"0/X```````"0`0```````@``4')A9VUA=&EC80`$!````"T!```'```` M(04!`-T```````4````4`OH`=`$0````^P(`_P```````)`!`````@`"`!!3 M>6UB;VP```0````M`0$`!````/`!```'````(04!`"T``````!````#[`A`` M"```````O`(``````0("(E-Y7-T96T`!@0` M```M`0``!````/`!`0`#``````!(!0,`G1/_``0#```.`!```@`$`2``AR0@ M``````!G%P```"```````````!8"```(``,``04```(````)````17%U871I M;VX```````````!@`````@$!`0`*`0@!`%!R86=M871I8V$``G_=`P\```L1 M`0*(,````````\````/@```'\```#_@``!_\```__@``?P`````````````` M``````````````````````!N`````04```4````-````3454049)3$5024-4 M`#0"``#O_?__:`$```@`-`(1`B8C`0`)```#FP````(`%0``````!0````D" M``````0````"`0$`!0````$"____``0````N`1D`!0```#$"`0````4````+ M`@`````%````#`+@`0`""P```"8&#P`,`$UA=&A4>7!E```0``4````4`L`! M!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!07-T96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`!`0`#```` M````````&V`#_```&V`#_``!&V`#_```%@(```@``P`!!0```@````D```!% M<75A=&EO;@```````````&`````"`0$!``H!"`$`4')A9VUA=&EC80`"?]T# M#P$`"P$2@TX`$0`````#P````^````?P```/^```'_P``#_^``!_```````` M`````````````````````````````&X````!!0``!0````T```!-151!1DE, M15!)0U0`P0(``*G]__]H`0``"`#!`E<";B0!``D```.;`````@`5```````% M````"0(`````!`````(!`0`%`````0+___\`!````"X!&0`%````,0(!```` M!0````L"``````4````,`B`"@`(+````)@8/``P`36%T:%1Y<&4``%``!0`` M`!0"@`$$`!(```#[`D#^````````D`$```````(``%!R86=M871I8V$`!`0` M```M`0``!P```"$%`0#=```````%````%`+P`88!%0```/L"`/\```````"0 M`0$``````@`05&EM97,@3F5W(%)O;6%N`&8`!````"T!`0`$````\`$```<` M```A!0$`3@``````$````/L"$``(``````"\`@`````!`@(B4WES=&5M``8$ M````+0$```0```#P`0$``P``````2`4#`)T3_P`$`P``#@`0``(`!`$@`(7-T96T`!@0````M M`0``!````/`!`0`#``````".";`!Y@6J!W8/```X!```@@P``/0"``!07!E```0``4````4`L`!!``2 M````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!0"```*P@``"P(```["```/`@``#T(```^ M"```0P@``$0(``!3"```5`@``%4(``!6"```K`@``*\(``"V"```N`@``,T( M``#0"```U`@``-4(``#6"```UP@``-@(``#9"```W`@``-X(``#?"```X`@` M`.$(``#M"```\`@``/0(``#U"```]@@``/<(``#X"```^0@``/P(``#^"``` M_P@````)```!"0``#0D```\)```3"0``%`D``!4)```6"0``%PD``!@)```; M"0``'0D``!X)```?"0``(`D``/OW\_?JX//W\_?7S?/W\_?$NO/WM/>T][2P MJO>PI+"TGK#WL/>TL*3WL*JPM)ZP][#WM+"J]["DL+2>L/>P```*```.``,` M&```(``+```6``,`&`````8+```6``,`$@```/H'```&``,`&`L``!0````2 M````!A(``A0````8````_@```,`@``4`$``*0``````````````$("L`$@`" M%````!@```#^````)!\`!0`0``I```````````````0(*0`2``(4````&``` M`/8```"('0`%`!``"D``````````````!/`F``<``@0````8!P``!````!@' M```$````'``^(`D``"P)```N"0``,@D``#,)```T"0``-0D``#8)```W"0`` M.0D``#L)```\"0``/0D``#X)``!*"0``3`D``%`)``!1"0``4@D``%,)``!4 M"0``50D``%@)``!;"0``7`D``%T)``!Q"0``<@D``(<)``"("0``B0D``(P) M``"-"0``HPD``*0)``"H"0``J@D``*X)``"O"0``L`D``+$)``"R"0``LPD` M`+4)``"X"0``N0D``+H)``#."0``SPD``.0)``#E"0``Y@D``.D)``#J"0`` M``H```$*``!!"@``0@H``%$*``!2"@``4PH``%0*``!6"@``5PH``&8*``!G M"@``:`H``/OU\>O[\>7Q]=_Q^_'[]?'E^_'9\?7Q^_'[U?O5Z_O5^]7[]?'K M^_'9\?7Q^_'[U?O5S_O5^]7[U?O&O-7[U?NSJ0`````2``(4````&````/X` M``#8(P`%`!``"D``````````````!#`O`!(``A0````8````]@```#PB``4` M$``*0``````````````$&"T`"P``%````!@````&!P`"!````!@+```6``,` M$@````8*```.``,`&```(``+```6``,`$@```/H+```6``,`&`````8'```& M``,`&`L``!0````2````!@<```0````8`$)H"@``:0H``&T*``!N"@``?0H` M`'X*``!_"@``@`H``"\,```R#```/`P``#\,``!##```1@P``%X,``!@#``` M:0P``&H,``"`#```@0P``(,,``"$#```B`P``(H,``".#```D`P``)0,``"7 M#```FPP``)X,``#`#```PPP``,H,``#+#```X0P``.(,``#D#```Y0P``.D, M``#L#```\`P``/,,```+#0``#@T``!8-```7#0``+0T``"X-```P#0``,0T` M`#4-```X#0``/`T``#\-``!##0``1@T``$D-``!,#0``<@T``'4-``"`#0`` M@PT``(<-``"*#0``H`T``*,-``"P#0``LPT``+<-``"Z#0``O@T``,$-``#< M#0``W@T``.8-``#G#0``_0T``/X-````#@```0X```4.```'#@``"PX```T. M```1#@``$PX``!8.```8#@``-@X``/OW^_?NY/OWWO?>]][WWO?[]_OWWO?> M]][WWO?>]][W^_?[]][WWO?>]][W^_?[]][WWO?>]][WWO?>]][WWO?>]][W MWO?>]][W^_?[]][WWO?>]][WWO<+```4````$@````82``(4````&````/X` M``!T)0`%`!``"D``````````````!$@Q``<```0````8!P`"!````!@`6#8. M```W#@``30X``$X.``!0#@``40X``%<.``!:#@``7PX``&`.``!V#@``=PX` M`'D.``!Z#@``?@X``($.``"/#@``D0X``)@.``"9#@``KPX``+`.``"R#@`` MLPX``+<.``"Y#@``O0X``+\.``#4#@``UPX``.,.``#F#@``]@X``/@.```& M#P``"`\```P/```.#P``$@\``!0/```8#P``&@\``!\/```@#P``-@\``#$P``^_7[]?OU M^_7[]?OU^_7[]?OU^_'[\?OU^_'[\?OU^_7[]?OU^_'[\?OU^_7[\?OQ^_7[ M]?OU^_'[\?OU^_7[]?OQ^_'[]?OU^_7[\?OQ^_7[]?OU^_7[\?OQ^_7[]?L` M```'``($````&`L``!0````2````!@<```0````8`%]>$P``81,``&\3``!R M$P``?A,``($3``"%$P``B!,``%$4``!3%```5Q0``%H4``!A%```8Q0``.,4 M``#E%````14```05```5%0``&!4``"45```G%0``-Q4``#D5``!V%0``>!4` M`/(6``#T%@``&1<``!L7``!I%P``7)I7E=7``````````````8` M``&()B`!!0$0EP$`"@```8@F(`$%`Q"7`0\%``$"'P````@```.()B`!!0,0 MF`$6>`````8`!/^()IX"!0,0EP$`$0```8@F1`$%`Q"F_!3P``\1``6E!H$/ MN!'O$QX@````````$P```8@F1`$%`Q"F_!3P``\4``:E!H$/N!'O$UT8'B`` M`````````!,```&()D0!!0,0IOP4\``/%``&&`:!#[@1[Q-=&!X@```````` M```&``3_B"8>!P4#$)#@``?@X``(4.``"-#@``CPX``)4.``"W#@``O0X``,,.``#* M#@``T@X``-0.``#;#@``XPX``.H.``#R#@``]`X``/8.``#\#@``_@X```8/ M```,#P``$@\``!@/```>#P``/@\``$8/``!.#P``50\``%#P``90\` M`-W5U@@@`04!$)2!3=6MH86YO=@```````````&X` end From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 05:26:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA02578 for billb@eskimo.com; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:26:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:26:29 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: SUKHANOV@srdlan.npi.msu.su Sun Nov 10 05:26:25 1996 Received: from satty.npi.msu.su (satty.npi.msu.su [158.250.2.251]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA02455 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:26:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from king.npi.msu.su (king.npi.msu.su [158.250.20.11]) by satty.npi.msu.su (8.8.2/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA02214; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 16:25:28 +0300 (MSK) Received: from KING/SpoolDir by king.npi.msu.su (Mercury 1.21); 10 Nov 96 16:25:02 +0300 Received: from SpoolDir by KING (Mercury 1.21); 10 Nov 96 16:24:40 +0300 From: "Valery Sukhanov" Organization: SINP MSU To: Vortex-L@eskimo.com Old-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 16:24:33 MSK-3MSD X-pmuue: YUSMAR1.DOC X-finfo: DOS,"YUSMAR1.DOC",,,,MS-Word Subject: Re: [Fwd: Biological nuclear transmutation] CC: Vortex-L@eskimo.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.30 Message-ID: <1A978C93B68@king.npi.msu.su> X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: * This message contains the file 'YUSMAR1.DOC', which has been * uuencoded. If you are using Pegasus Mail, then you can use * the browser's eXtract function to lift the original contents * out to a file, otherwise you will have to extract the message * and uudecode it manually. begin 660 YUSMAR1.DOC MVZ4M`#%`"0@``"0`+0``````````````@`$``-4Q``"]/P`````````````` M`````````%LP```````````````````````````````````````````````\ M```X```\```X`$L\`````$L\`````$L\`````$L\`````$L\```.`%D\```\ M`)4\```B`+<\`````+<\`````+<\`````+<\```6`,T\```0`+<\`````-T\ M```V`!,]```<`"\]`````"\]`````"\]`````"\]`````"\]`````"\]```` M`"\]`````"\]```"`#$]`````#$]`````#$]```I`%H]```@`7H^`````'H^ M```>`%\_```T`),_```J`)@^``#'`$L\`````````````)@^`````)@^```` M````&0`<``,``@`````````````````````````````````````````````` M````````````````````````````````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`H7-T96T@;V8@='5B97,@;V8@9&EF9F5R M96YT(&-R;W-S('-E8W1I;VYS("AT:&4@;&%R9V5S="!D:6%M971E&EM=6T@861M:7-S:6)L92!P61R;V9A8VEL:71Y(&ES(&5Q=6EP<&5D('=I=&@@:&5A M="!S96YS;W)S("@Q+30L($9I9RXQ*2P@82!P2!W87,@ M='5R;F5D(&]N('5P('1O(#$U('1I;65S(&9O2!S:&]R="!T:6UE("AB96QO=R`Q(&UI;BXI+B!);B!T:&ES M(&-A2!I;F-R96%S M960@9W)A9'5A;&QY(&1U2!A8V-O=6YT960@9F]R(&)Y(&EN:71I871I;VX@;V8@=FEO;&5N M="!C879I=&%T:6]N+@T*#0HS+B!42!M96%S=7)I;F<@8F5T M82UA8W1I=FET>2!I;B!T:&4@=V]R:VEN9R!F;'5I9"!S86UP;&5S('1A:V5N M('=H96X@=&AE(%EU2!W87,@;F]T(&EN(&]P97)A=&EO M;B!A;F0@869T97(@:70@=V%S('1U65A2!A(&QI M<75I9"!S8VEN=&EL;&%T92X-"E1H92!I;FET:6%L('-A;7!L97,@=V5R92`U M,"UM;"!P;W)T:6]N2!A;F0@;&EG:'0@=V%T97(N(%1H92!A8W1I=FET>2!O9B!T=V\@:6YI M=&EA;"!T87`@=V%T97(@2!O9B!T M:&4@:6YI=&EA;"!M:7AT=7)E('-A;7!L92!W87,@,CBQ,"XU($)Q+VUL+B!! M9G1E2!T;R!R86ES92!T:&4@2!O9B!T:&4@2!W87,@-K$P+C@@86YD(#6Q,"XX($)Q M+VUL(&EN(&5X8V5S"!C;W5N=&5R7!E('=I=&AO=70@82!M;V1E2!W:71H('1H M92!%2!A="!T:&4@;6]M96YT(&]F('!R97-S=7)E(')I2!IF4@*&UA;G5F86-T=7)E9"!I;B!/8W1O8F5R+"`Q M.3DR*2!A2!W87,@ M2!T:&4@ M2!O9B!T:&4@=V]R:VEN9R!F;'5I9"!D M=64@=&\@2P@87,@<')E9&EC=&5D(&)Y('1H92!M;V1E;"P@;G5C;&5A&-E961S('1H2!I;B!T M:&4@<')E2!W;W)K:6YG(&9L=6ED+@T* M3VX@=&AE(&]T:&5R(&AA;F0L('1H92!T2!I2!A;F0@ M;6%Y(&)E(#`N,BTP+C,@*&%S(&5S=&EM871E9"!I;B!T:&4@;F5U=')O;B!D M971E8W1I;VX@97AP97)I;65N="DN($)E2!C879I=&%T:6]N(&EN('1H92!F;'5I9"P@9F]R M(&ENF5D(&)Y+"!F:7)S="!O9B!A;&PL('9A2X@5&AE('!E;F1I;F<@97AT96YS:6]N(&]F('=O M2!A;F0@96-O;&]G>2X-"@T*4F5F97)E;F-E2!O9B!!<')I;"`R-BP@,3DY,RP@1FEL960@3V-T;V)E MFAU=&]V(&%N9"!'+DTN5F5R97-H:V]V+B!0FAU=&]V(&%N9"!!+D(N M2W5Z;F5T61R;V9A8VEL:71Y#0H)"3$M-"`@+2`@ M:&5A="!S96YS;W)S#0H)"34@("`@("T@(&9AFZ``0``UP$``-D!``#F`0``YP$``/4!``#V M`0``!0(```8"```4`@``%0(``","```D`@``,P(``#0"``!``@``00(``%(" M``!3`@``80(``&("``!E`@``9P(``&D"``"<`@``G@(``,@"``#*`@``$0,` M`!,#``!A`P``8P,``*@#``"L`P``S`,``,T#``#C`P``Y`,``&$%``!N!0`` M=@@``'<(``!X"```AP@``(@(``")"```C@@``(\(``"0"````@D```,)```$ M"0``8@D``&,)``!D"0``?`D``'T)``!^"0``@PD``(0)``"%"0``70H``%\* M``!B"@``9`H``&L*``!M"@``8PL``&0+``!E"P``:`L``&D+``!J"P``B0L` M`(H+``","P``C@L``(\+``"0"P``^_7OZ>_I[^GOZ>_I[^GOZ>_I[^GO]>GO MZ>_I[^GOZ>_U[^/OX^_=[]?1[]?I[]?I[]?1[]?1[]?I[]?I[\OOR^_+[]?1 M[]?%[]?I[]?1"P``%0```!@```'Z"P``%0```!(```$&"P``%0```!(```'Z M"@``!P`#`!@```$`"@``#0```!@``"$`"@`"!0```!@```$`"P``%0```!@` M``$&"@``!0```!@```$`"@$`!0```!@```$`!P``!````!P`3I`+``"O"P`` ML`L``+(+``"T"P``M0L``+8+``"Y"P``N@L``-(+``#3"P``V`L``-D+``#; M"P``W0L``-X+``#?"P``X@L``.,+``#\"P``_0L```(,```##```!0P```<, M```(#```"0P```P,```-#```$@P``!,,```J#```+`P``#`,```Q#```,@P` M`#4,```V#```-PP``#H,```\#```4PP``%4,``!9#```6@P``%P,``!>#``` M7PP``&`,``!B#```9`P```L0```,$```#A````\0```E$```)A```#<0```X M$```M!```,@0``"-$0``CA$``.@4``#I%```R14``,H5``"B%P``MA<``"@= M```\'0``AQT``(@=``"!'@``A!X``$4@``!&(```4B```%,@``"-(```CB`` M`*H@``"K(```M2```+8@``#Z].[Z].CZXOKB^O3H^O3N^N+ZXOKT[OKTZ/KB M^N+ZXOKT[OKTZ/KB^N+Z].CZ].[ZXOK<^MSZW/K<^M;ZZ/KH^NCZUOK6^NCZ MZ/K<^MSZW/K<^MP`````"@``#0```!@``"$`"P``%0```!@```'Z"P``%0`` M`!(```$&"P``%0```!@```$&"P``%0```!(```'Z"@``!P`#`!@```$`"@`` M!0```!@```%4MB```-X@``#?(`````0``L`$``-`P``*\0``"Q M$```RA```)@3``"=%P``GQ<``+@7```V&0``MAH``-,;```C'0``)1T``#X= M```Z(```@B```)\@``#B(```I2$``$'AX?/SVM/:VLS%M+2TM+2TM*W:VJ:?VMJ8F)&8 MVMJ*VMK:D::1VMJ8D8/:````!@```F@E(`$%`Q#<```&```):"4@`04#$-P` M``8```-H)2`!!0,0W```!@``!&@E(`$%`Q#<```&```+:"4@`04#$-P```8` M``AH)2`!!0,0W```!@``#&@E(`$%`Q#<```0```!:"5$`04#$-P`%7@`#PX` M!,4"B@7X":$+````````!@`$_V@EK`L%`Q#<```&```':"4@`04#$-P```8` M``5H)2`!!0,0W```!@```6@E(`$%`Q#<```*```!:"4@`1#<``\(``)O!*8& M````!@```F@E(`$%`1#<```&```!:"4@`04!$-P```7]``%H)5`!!0$`,WPH M``"6*```MRH``#TM```_+0``2RT``*PM```;+@``7BX``-8N``!!+P``I"\` M``XP```0,```(3```$TP``!E,```EC```)@P```@,0``(C$``-4Q``#Y\NOY MY=S6UB;VP`""8` M07)I86P`#08`4')A9VUA=&EC80!2`@``:0(``,+P``6S```!,Y%003 M.14```!(4"!,87-E; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 05:26:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from king.npi.msu.su (king.npi.msu.su [158.250.20.11]) by satty.npi.msu.su (8.8.2/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA02226; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 16:25:34 +0300 (MSK) Received: from KING/SpoolDir by king.npi.msu.su (Mercury 1.21); 10 Nov 96 16:25:09 +0300 Received: from SpoolDir by KING (Mercury 1.21); 10 Nov 96 16:24:40 +0300 From: "Valery Sukhanov" Organization: SINP MSU To: Vortex-L@eskimo.com Old-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 16:24:29 MSK-3MSD X-pmuue: ERZBAS2.DOC X-finfo: DOS,"ERZBAS2.DOC",,,,MS-Word Subject: Re: [Fwd: Biological nuclear transmutation] CC: Vortex-L@eskimo.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.30 Message-ID: <1A978C71153@king.npi.msu.su> X-Diagnostic: Submission size exceeds 40000 bytes X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: * This message contains the file 'ERZBAS2.DOC', which has been * uuencoded. If you are using Pegasus Mail, then you can use * the browser's eXtract function to lift the original contents * out to a file, otherwise you will have to extract the message * and uudecode it manually. begin 660 ERZBAS2.DOC MVZ4M`#%`"0@```@`+0``````````````@`$``'Q```!#`@$````````````` M`````````/P^``````````````````````````````````````````````#Z M```X``#Z```X`#CZ`````#CZ`````#CZ`````#CZ`````#CZ```.`$;Z``!* M`)#Z`````)#Z`````)#Z`````)#Z`````)#Z``!,`-SZ```6`)#Z`````/+Z M```_`#'[```^!6\``0```&\``0```&\``0```&\``0```&\``0```&\``0`` M`&\``0```&\``0`"`'$``0```'$``0```'$``0`I`)H``0`@`;H!`0```+H! M`0`>`-@!`0`T``P"`0`W`-@!`0```#CZ`````````````-@!`0```-@!`0`` M````;@!Z``P``P`````````````````````````````````````````````` M````````````````````````````````#0H-"@T*17)Z:6]N($UO9&5L(&]F M($-A=&%L>71I8R!.=6-L96%R(%1R86YS;75T871I;VX-"F%N9"!)=',@26YT M97)P7-I8V%L(%!H96YO;65N80T*#0H-"EEU+DXN0F%Z:'5T M;W8-"@T*17)Z:6]N($-E;G1E"`Q-CDL(#$P-3`W-R!-;W-C M;W71I8R!N=6-L M96%R('1R86YS;75T871I;VX@87)E(&1EFEO;B!- M;V1E;"!P97)M:71S('1H92!M86EN(&%N;VUA;&]U2!;,5T@22!A;F0@;7D@8V\M875T:&]R7!O=&AE&ES=&5N8V4@;V8@:'EP;W1H M971I8V%L('-T86)L92!M87-S:79E(&UEFEO;B!A;F0@;G5C;&5O;B`H$T5-0D5$($5Q=6%T:6]N(!0!%2`3 M14U"140@17%U871I;VX@%`$5*2!IFEO;B!N=6-L96D@87)E(&YO="!S=&%B;&4@ M86YD(&1E8V%Y(&)Y(&YU8VQE:2!L:69E=&EM92`H$U-934)/3"`Q,C8@7&8@ M(E-Y;6)O;"(5,3`M,C!S*2!I;G1O(&5R>FEO;G,@*&5N:6]N7!O=&AE=&EC86P@<&%R=&EC;&5S('=H:6-H(&1O97,@ M;F]T(&-O;G1R861I8W0@4TTL($-O2!A;F0@0V]S;6]G;VYY(&%N M9"!S;R!A;&P@:&EG:"!E;F5R9WD@<&AY'!L86EN(&QA'!E2!I;B!#;W-M M:6,@4F%Y65A2!I;B!T:&4@9FEE;&0@;V8@9&ER96-T(&5R>FEO;G,@2!P;&5A'!E M6EE;&0@ M&ES=&5N8V4@:6X@;6%T=&5R('=I=&@@9F5W(&-O;F-E;G1R871I M;VX@*$,34UE-0D],(#$R-B!<9B`B4WEM8F]L(A4Q,"TR,2`M(#$P+3$V(&YU M8VPN+3$I+B!%;FEO;G,@;6%Y(&)E(&-A<'1U6UB;VPB%3$@+2`Q,#!E5BD@8GD@6UB;VPB%3$P-B`M M(#$P.2!Y96%R2!N=6-L96%R(&EN M=&5R86-T:6]N2!E;FEO;G,@86YD(&5R>FEO;G,@=&%K92!P87)T(&]N;'D@:6X@97AC:&%N M9V4@FEO;B`H$T5-0D5$($5Q=6%T:6]N(!0!%2!O MFEO;B!E:71H97(@8VAA M;F=E6UB;VPB%1-%34)%1"!%<75A=&EO;B`4`14@;W(@$T5-0D5$($5Q M=6%T:6]N(!0!%1-364U"3TP@,36UB;VPB%1-%34)%1"!%<75A M=&EO;B`4`14I(&]R('1U6UB;VPB%1-%34)%1"!%<75A=&EO;B`4`14[(!-% M34)%1"!%<75A=&EO;B`4`1434UE-0D],(#$W-"!<9B`B4WEM8F]L(A4314U" M140@17%U871I;VX@%`$5.R`314U"140@17%U871I;VX@%`$5$U-934)/3"`Q M-S0@7&8@(E-Y;6)O;"(5$T5-0D5$($5Q=6%T:6]N(!0!%3L@$T5-0D5$($5Q M=6%T:6]N(!0!%1-364U"3TP@,36UB;VPB%1-%34)%1"!%<75A M=&EO;B`4`14[$T5-0D5$($5Q=6%T:6]N(!0!%1-364U"3TP@,36UB;VPB%1-%34)%1"!%<75A=&EO;B`4`14[(!-%34)%1"!%<75A=&EO;B`4 M`1434UE-0D],(#$W-"!<9B`B4WEM8F]L(A4314U"140@17%U871I;VX@%`$5 M*2X@26X@=&AI6UB;VPB%3$I('!R M97-EFEO;BUN=6-L M975S(&5X8VAA;F=E(')E86-T:6]N2!T&-H86YG92!R96%C=&EO M;G,@9F]R(&%L;"!S=&%B;&4@6S$Q72!A;F0@=6YS=&%B;&4@6S$R72!I2!I;B!#1B!B=70@:6X@1V5O<&AY6UB;VPB M%3$P,',I('!O=V5R9G5L("@34UE-0D],(#$R-B!<9B`B4WEM8F]L(A4Q:UFUO:60@6S$S72X@06QT:&]U9V@@86)O=70@,3`P(&)A;&PM M;&EG:'1N:6YG('1H96]R971I8R!M;V1E;',@97AI2!A8V-E<'1E9"!A;6]N9R!T:&5M("AT:&4@&]T M:6,@<&AE;F]M96YO;BX@5V4@6UB M;VPB%4,I(&%N9"!T;R!T=7)N(&]N('1H92!F;VQL;W=I;F<@8V%T86QY=&EC M(&YU8VQE87(@2!O9B!P;&%Z;6]I9"!M871T97(@=VEL;"!B92!A(&9E=R!M;W)E('1H86X@ M86ER(&1E;G-I='DN(%1H96X@;&5T('5S(&9I;F0@;W5T('=H870@6-L92X-"D9O6UB;VPB%1-%34)%1"!%<75A=&EO M;B`4`14I(&ET('=I;&P@8F4@*#4I(&%N9"`H-BD@6-L92`H$T5-0D5$($5Q M=6%T:6]N(!0!%1-364U"3TP@,36UB;VPB%1-%34)%1"!%<75A M=&EO;B`4`1434UE-0D],(#$W-"!<9B`B4WEM8F]L(A4314U"140@17%U871I M;VX@%`$5*2!I="!W:6QL(&)E("@Q,BDL("@Y*2P@*#6-L92`H$T5-0D5$($5Q=6%T:6]N M(!0!%1-364U"3TP@,36UB;VPB%1-%34)%1"!%<75A=&EO;B`4 M`1434UE-0D],(#$W-"!<9B`B4WEM8F]L(A4314U"140@17%U871I;VX@%`$5 M$U-934)/3"`Q-S0@7&8@(E-Y;6)O;"(5$T5-0D5$($5Q=6%T:6]N(!0!%2D@ M:7,@<&]S6-L92!F6UB;VPB%2`Q M,#$Q6UB;VPB%2`P+#`Q+B!! M6UB;VPB%2`Q M,#9S+3$L(&%N9"!T:&4@97%U:79A;&5N="!C>6-L92!P;W=E6UB;VPB%2`Q:U6UB;VPB%2`P+#%M;2X@270@:7,@;75C:"!L97-S('1H86X@ M0DP@2!T:&4@;6ED9&QE($),(&QI M9F4@=&EM92!M=7-T(&)E(&]N;'D@$U-934)/3"`Q,C8@7&8@(E-Y;6)O;"(5 M(#%S(&1U92!T;R!E2!W87,@87,@8V]N9&5N6UB;VPB%2`Q356UB;VPB%3$P,W,L(&%N9"!"3"!R861I=7,@+2!U M<"!T;R`34UE-0D],(#$R-B!<9B`B4WEM8F]L(A4@,3!C;2X@268@0DP@6UE=&AY;&UE=&AA M8W)Y;&%T+B!!="!H:6=H('9O;'1A9V4@9&ES8VAA6-L92!R96%C=&EO;G,@;VX@=&AE($@@ M86YD($\@:7-O=&]P97,N(%1H92`Q-T\@86YD(#)((&1E;G-I=&EE6-L92!F6UB;VPB%2`Q,"TR M5RX@270@8V]R6UB;VPB%2`Q+#8@958I(&UA>2!B92!I;G1E2!E;FEO;G,@7-I8V%L('!H96YO;65N82!D97-C M'1E;F1S(&UO7-I8W,@86YD($=E;W!H>7-I8W,[#0H),BD@26YT97)P7-H979S:WDL(%`N22Y';VQU8FYI8VAI>2!A;F0@ M02Y)+DML:6UO=B!F;W(@=7-E9G5L(&1IFEO;B!I M9&5A+@T*#0I2969E7,N+"!V+C0V+"`Y+"`Q.3@R+"`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`Q.3DT#0HQ-"X)1V]L=6)N:6-H>2!0+B!)+B!E="!A;"XL M(%!R;V,N(&]F($EN=&5R;F%T:6]N86P@4WEM<&]S:75M(")#;VQD($9U2!3;W5R8V5S(BP@36EN2!O9B!%;F=I;F5E7!O=&AE`A````#[`D#^```````` MD`$````"``(`$%-Y;6)O;```!````"T!`0`$````\`$"``<````A!0$`N@`` M````!0```!0"P`'K`Q4```#[`D#^````````D`$```````(`$%1I;65S($YE M=R!2;VUA;@````0````M`0(`!````/`!`0`'````(04!`'L```````4````4 M`L`!^08'````(04!`'T```````4````4`L`!PP<'````(04!`#L```````4` M```4`L`!F005````^P)`_@```````)`!`0`````"`!!4:6UE7-T96T` M!@0````M`0(`!````/`!`0`#``````````````````$``0`````````````` MV@(``#H`"`!G"'L"EBL``````````````````,0$:`'H`^@#```````````` M``````````````````$`"0```S\!```#`!4```````4````)`@`````$```` M`@$!``4````!`O___P`$````+@$9``4````Q`@$````%````"P(`````!0`` M``P"0`*@!PL````F!@\`#`!-871H5'EP90``0``(````^@(``!`````````` M!````"T!```%````%`(P`*4$!0```!,",`#G!04````4`L`!!``2````^P)` M_@```````)`!```````"``!06UB;VP```0````M M`0$`!````/`!`@`'````(04!`+H```````4````4`L`!S0,5````^P)`_@`` M`````)`!```````"`!!4:6UE6UB;VP```0````M`0(`!````/`!`0`'```` M(04!`+H```````4````4`L`!-005````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"`!!4 M:6UE,)!P```"$%`0!]```````0````^P(0``@``````+P"```` M``$"`B)3>7-T96T`!@0````M`0(`!````/`!`0`#``````#_____________ M_____________________________P``.@(``#H`"``B!)X"KBX````````` M`````````%@"?`'H`^@#``````````````````````````````$`"0```^@` M```"`!4```````4````)`@`````$`````@$!``4````!`O___P`$````+@$9 M``4````Q`@$````%````"P(`````!0````P"8`+``PL````F!@\`#`!-871H M5'EP90``4``%````%`+``00`$@```/L"0/X```````"0`0```````@``4')A M9VUA=&EC80`$!````"T!```'````(04!`-T```````4````4`OH`=`$0```` M^P(`_P```````)`!`````@`"`!!3>6UB;VP```0````M`0$`!````/`!```' M````(04!`"T```````4````4`L`!5@(5````^P)`_@```````)`!`0`````" M`!!4:6UE[?GNW__ M\W[_]^__?__S``#:`0``.@`(`$X#$0*F+0``````````````````X`$L`>@# MZ`,``````````````````````````````0`)```#Q`````(`%0``````!0`` M``D"``````0````"`0$`!0````$"____``0````N`1D`!0```#$"`0````4` M```+`@`````%````#`+@`0`#"P```"8&#P`,`$UA=&A4>7!E```0``4````4 M`L`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!07-T96T`!@0````M`0$`!``` M`/`!```#`````````````````````````````````````````)H!```Z``@` MP0)7`FXD``````````````````"0`50!Z`/H`P`````````````````````` M```````!``D```.;`````@`5```````%````"0(`````!`````(!`0`%```` M`0+___\`!````"X!&0`%````,0(!````!0````L"``````4````,`B`"@`(+ M````)@8/``P`36%T:%1Y<&4``%``!0```!0"@`$$`!(```#[`D#^```````` MD`$```````(``%!R86=M871I8V$`!`0````M`0``!P```"$%`0#=```````% M````%`+P`88!%0```/L"`/\```````"0`0$``````@`05&EM97,@3F5W(%)O M;6%N`&8`!````"T!`0`$````\`$```<````A!0$`3@``````$````/L"$``( M``````"\`@`````!`@(B4WES=&5M``8$````+0$```0```#P`0$``P`````` M2`4#`)T3_P`$`P``#@`0``(`!`$@`(@#Z`,````````````` M`````````````````0`)```#E@````(`$@``````!0````D"``````0````" M`0$`!0````$"____``0````N`1D`!0```#$"`0````4````+`@`````%```` M#`+@`2`""P```"8&#P`,`$UA=&A4>7!E```0``4````4`L`!!``2````^P)` M_@```````)`!```````"``!08%J@=V#P``.`0``((, M``#T`@``4')A9VUA=&EC80````````````":`0``.@`(`#0"$0(F(P`````` M````````````0`$L`>@#Z`,``````````````````````````````0`)```# MFP````(`%0``````!0````D"``````0````"`0$`!0````$"____``0````N M`1D`!0```#$"`0````4````+`@`````%````#`+@`0`""P```"8&#P`,`$UA M=&A4>7!E```0``4````4`L`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!0 M@$``#H`"`!7`A$" M/BL``````````````````%0!+`'H`^@#```````````````````````````` M``$`"0```Y8````"`!(```````4````)`@`````$`````@$!``4````!`O__ M_P`$````+@$9``4````Q`@$````%````"P(`````!0````P"X`$@`@L````F M!@\`#`!-871H5'EP90``$``%````%`+``00`$@```/L"0/X```````"0`0`` M`````@``4')A9VUA=&EC80`$!````"T!```'````(04!`-T```````4````4 M`OH`=`$0````^P(`_P```````)`!`````@`"`!!3>6UB;VP```0````M`0$` M!````/`!```'````(04!`"T``````!````#[`A``"```````O`(``````0(" M(E-Y@#Z`,` M`````````````````````````````0`)```#E@````(`$@``````!0````D" M``````0````"`0$`!0````$"____``0````N`1D`!0```#$"`0````4````+ M`@`````%````#`+@`2`""P```"8&#P`,`$UA=&A4>7!E```0``4````4`L`! M!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!08%J@=V M#P``.`0``((,``#T`@``4')A9VUA=&EC80````````````":`0``.@`(`,$" M5P)N)```````````````````D`%4`>@#Z`,````````````````````````` M`````0`)```#FP````(`%0``````!0````D"``````0````"`0$`!0````$" M____``0````N`1D`!0```#$"`0````4````+`@`````%````#`(@`H`""P`` M`"8&#P`,`$UA=&A4>7!E``!0``4````4`H`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`! M```````"``!07-T96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`!`0`# M``````!(!0,`G1/_``0#```.`!```@`$`2``AR0@``````!G%P```"`````` M`````)H!```Z``@`-`(1`B8C``````````````````!``2P!Z`/H`P`````` M```````````````````````!``D```.;`````@`5```````%````"0(````` M!`````(!`0`%`````0+___\`!````"X!&0`%````,0(!````!0````L"```` M``4````,`N`!``(+````)@8/``P`36%T:%1Y<&4``!``!0```!0"P`$$`!(` M``#[`D#^````````D`$```````(``%!R86=M871I8V$`!`0````M`0``!P`` M`"$%`0#=```````%````%`+Z`&X!%0```/L"`/\```````"0`0```````@`0 M5&EM97,@3F5W(%)O;6%N````!````"T!`0`$````\`$```<````A!0$`,``` M````$````/L"$``(``````"\`@`````!`@(B4WES=&5M``8$````+0$```0` M``#P`0$``P``````C@FP`>8%J@=V#P``.`0``((,``#T`@``4')A9VUA=&EC M80````````````":`0``.@`(`,$"5P)N)```````````````````D`%4`>@# MZ`,``````````````````````````````0`)```#FP````(`%0``````!0`` M``D"``````0````"`0$`!0````$"____``0````N`1D`!0```#$"`0````4` M```+`@`````%````#`(@`H`""P```"8&#P`,`$UA=&A4>7!E``!0``4````4 M`H`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!0@$``#H`"`!7`A$"/BL````````````````` M`%0!+`'H`^@#``````````````````````````````$`"0```Y8````"`!(` M``````4````)`@`````$`````@$!``4````!`O___P`$````+@$9``4````Q M`@$````%````"P(`````!0````P"X`$@`@L````F!@\`#`!-871H5'EP90`` M$``%````%`+``00`$@```/L"0/X```````"0`0```````@``4')A9VUA=&EC M80`$!````"T!```'````(04!`-T```````4````4`OH`=`$0````^P(`_P`` M`````)`!`````@`"`!!3>6UB;VP```0````M`0$`!````/`!```'````(04! M`"T``````!````#[`A``"```````O`(``````0("(E-Y@#Z`,````````````````````` M`````````0`)```#FP````(`%0``````!0````D"``````0````"`0$`!0`` M``$"____``0````N`1D`!0```#$"`0````4````+`@`````%````#`+@`0`" M"P```"8&#P`,`$UA=&A4>7!E```0``4````4`L`!!``2````^P)`_@`````` M`)`!```````"``!07-T96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`! M`0`#``````!(!0,`G1/_``0#```.`!```@`$`2``AR0@``````!G%P```"`` M`````````)H!```Z``@`-`(1`B8C``````````````````!``2P!Z`/H`P`` M```````````````````````````!``D```.;`````@`5```````%````"0(` M````!`````(!`0`%`````0+___\`!````"X!&0`%````,0(!````!0````L" M``````4````,`N`!``(+````)@8/``P`36%T:%1Y<&4``!``!0```!0"P`$$ M`!(```#[`D#^````````D`$```````(``%!R86=M871I8V$`!`0````M`0`` M!P```"$%`0#=```````%````%`+Z`&X!%0```/L"`/\```````"0`0`````` M`@`05&EM97,@3F5W(%)O;6%N````!````"T!`0`$````\`$```<````A!0$` M,```````$````/L"$``(``````"\`@`````!`@(B4WES=&5M``8$````+0$` M``0```#P`0$``P``````C@FP`>8%J@=V#P``.`0``((,``#T`@``4')A9VUA M=&EC80````````````!Z`0``.@`(`%<"$0(^*P``````````````````5`$L M`>@#Z`,``````````````````````````````0`)```#E@````(`$@`````` M!0````D"``````0````"`0$`!0````$"____``0````N`1D`!0```#$"`0`` M``4````+`@`````%````#`+@`2`""P```"8&#P`,`$UA=&A4>7!E```0``4` M```4`L`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!07-T96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`!`0`#````````````&V`#_```&V`# M_``!&V`#_```F@$``#H`"`#!`E<";B0``````````````````)`!5`'H`^@# M``````````````````````````````$`"0```YL````"`!4```````4````) M`@`````$`````@$!``4````!`O___P`$````+@$9``4````Q`@$````%```` M"P(`````!0````P"(`*``@L````F!@\`#`!-871H5'EP90``4``%````%`*` M`00`$@```/L"0/X```````"0`0```````@``4')A9VUA=&EC80`$!````"T! M```'````(04!`-T```````4````4`O`!A@$5````^P(`_P```````)`!`0`` M```"`!!4:6UE7-T96T`!@0````M M`0``!````/`!`0`#``````!(!0,`G1/_``0#```.`!```@`$`2``AR0@```` M``!G%P```"```````````'H!```Z``@`5P(1`CXK``````````````````!4 M`2P!Z`/H`P`````````````````````````````!``D```.6`````@`2```` M```%````"0(`````!`````(!`0`%`````0+___\`!````"X!&0`%````,0(! M````!0````L"``````4````,`N`!(`(+````)@8/``P`36%T:%1Y<&4``!`` M!0```!0"P`$$`!(```#[`D#^````````D`$```````(``%!R86=M871I8V$` M!`0````M`0``!P```"$%`0#=```````%````%`+Z`'0!$````/L"`/\````` M``"0`0````(``@`04WEM8F]L```$````+0$!``0```#P`0``!P```"$%`0`M M```````0````^P(0``@``````+P"``````$"`B)3>7-T96T`!@0````M`0`` M!````/`!`0`#````````````&V`#_```&V`#_``!&V`#_```F@$``#H`"``T M`A$")B,``````````````````$`!+`'H`^@#```````````````````````` M``````$`"0```YL````"`!4```````4````)`@`````$`````@$!``4````! M`O___P`$````+@$9``4````Q`@$````%````"P(`````!0````P"X`$``@L` M```F!@\`#`!-871H5'EP90``$``%````%`+``00`$@```/L"0/X```````"0 M`0```````@``4')A9VUA=&EC80`$!````"T!```'````(04!`-T```````4` M```4`OH`;@$5````^P(`_P```````)`!```````"`!!4:6UE7-T96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`!`0`#``````". M";`!Y@6J!W8/```X!```@@P``/0"``!0`F8I``````````````````"4`GP!Z`/H`P`````````````` M```````````````!``D```/H`````@`5```````%````"0(`````!`````(! M`0`%`````0+___\`!````"X!&0`%````,0(!````!0````L"``````4````, M`F`"(`0+````)@8/``P`36%T:%1Y<&4``%``!0```!0"P`$$`!(```#[`D#^ M````````D`$```````(``%!R86=M871I8V$`!`0````M`0``!P```"$%`0#= M```````%````%`+Z`'0!$````/L"`/\```````"0`0````(``@`04WEM8F]L M```$````+0$!``0```#P`0``!P```"$%`0`M```````%````%`+``4X"%0`` M`/L"0/X```````"0`0```````@`05&EM97,@3F5W(%)O;6%N`/__!````"T! M```$````\`$!``<````A!0$`+```````!0```!0"P`$4`Q4```#[`D#^```` M````D`$!``````(`$%1I;65S($YE=R!2;VUA;@#__P0````M`0$`!````/`! M```'````(04!`'```````!````#[`A``"```````O`(``````0("(E-Y@#Z`,``````````````````````````````0`)```#FP````(`%0`` M````!0````D"``````0````"`0$`!0````$"____``0````N`1D`!0```#$" M`0````4````+`@`````%````#`(@`H`""P```"8&#P`,`$UA=&A4>7!E``!0 M``4````4`H`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!07-T96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`!`0`#``````".";`!Y@6J!W8/```X M!```@@P``/0"``!0@#Z`,````````````````````` M`````````0`)```#FP````(`%0``````!0````D"``````0````"`0$`!0`` M``$"____``0````N`1D`!0```#$"`0````4````+`@`````%````#`(@`H`" M"P```"8&#P`,`$UA=&A4>7!E``!0``4````4`H`!!``2````^P)`_@`````` M`)`!```````"``!0@$``#H`"`!7`A$"/BL``````````````````%0!+`'H`^@#```````````` M``````````````````$`"0```Y8````"`!(```````4````)`@`````$```` M`@$!``4````!`O___P`$````+@$9``4````Q`@$````%````"P(`````!0`` M``P"X`$@`@L````F!@\`#`!-871H5'EP90``$``%````%`+``00`$@```/L" M0/X```````"0`0```````@``4')A9VUA=&EC80`$!````"T!```'````(04! M`-T```````4````4`OH`=`$0````^P(`_P```````)`!`````@`"`!!3>6UB M;VP```0````M`0$`!````/`!```'````(04!`"T``````!````#[`A``"``` M````O`(``````0("(E-Y@#Z`,``````````````````````````````0`)```#FP````(` M%0``````!0````D"``````0````"`0$`!0````$"____``0````N`1D`!0`` M`#$"`0````4````+`@`````%````#`(@`H`""P```"8&#P`,`$UA=&A4>7!E M``!0``4````4`H`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!07-T96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`!`0`#``````!(!0,`G1/_``0# M```.`!```@`$`2``AR0@``````!G%P```"```````````'H!```Z``@`5P(1 M`CXK``````````````````!4`2P!Z`/H`P`````````````````````````` M```!``D```.6`````@`2```````%````"0(`````!`````(!`0`%`````0+_ M__\`!````"X!&0`%````,0(!````!0````L"``````4````,`N`!(`(+```` M)@8/``P`36%T:%1Y<&4``!``!0```!0"P`$$`!(```#[`D#^````````D`$` M``````(``%!R86=M871I8V$`!`0````M`0``!P```"$%`0#=```````%```` M%`+Z`'0!$````/L"`/\```````"0`0````(``@`04WEM8F]L```$````+0$! M``0```#P`0``!P```"$%`0`M```````0````^P(0``@``````+P"``````$" M`B)3>7-T96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`!`0`#````````````&V`#_```&V`# M_``!&V`#_```F@$``#H`"``T`A$")B,``````````````````$`!+`'H`^@# M``````````````````````````````$`"0```YL````"`!4```````4````) M`@`````$`````@$!``4````!`O___P`$````+@$9``4````Q`@$````%```` M"P(`````!0````P"X`$``@L````F!@\`#`!-871H5'EP90``$``%````%`+` M`00`$@```/L"0/X```````"0`0```````@``4')A9VUA=&EC80`$!````"T! M```'````(04!`-T```````4````4`OH`;@$5````^P(`_P```````)`!```` M```"`!!4:6UE7-T96T`!@0````M M`0``!````/`!`0`#``````".";`!Y@6J!W8/```X!```@@P``/0"``!0@#Z`,``````````````````````````````0`)```#FP`` M``(`%0``````!0````D"``````0````"`0$`!0````$"____``0````N`1D` M!0```#$"`0````4````+`@`````%````#`+@`0`""P```"8&#P`,`$UA=&A4 M>7!E```0``4````4`L`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!07!E```0``@```#Z`@``$``````````$````+0$```4````4 M`C``(``%````$P(P`&(!!0```!0"P`'V_Q4```#[`D#^````````D`$!```` M``(`$%1I;65S($YE=R!2;VUA;@`K``0````M`0$`!P```"$%`0!5```````0 M````^P(0``@``````+P"``````$"`B)3>7-T96T`!@0````M`0(`!````/`! M`0`#``````!?`@,!60(#`$```P%;``$`4@`#`)T-_P!B`@,!#P$"`$T``P$9 M``$`5@```%8#```(``,``04```(````)````17%U871I;VX```````````!@ M`````@$!`0`*`0@!`%!R86=M871I8V$``G_=`P\```L1`0*&+0``"@*&N@*" M>P,1```!$H-5```2@V0"@GT"@CL````````````````````````````````` M``````!0@$-A`04```4````-````3454049)3$5024-4`#L)``"%_?__J`(` M``@`.PE[`OXP`0`)```#1@$```,`%0``````!0````D"``````0````"`0$` M!0````$"____``0````N`1D`!0```#$"`0````4````+`@`````%````#`)` M`F`("P```"8&#P`,`$UA=&A4>7!E``!```@```#Z`@``$``````````$```` M+0$```4````4`C``PP0%````$P(P``4&!0```!0"P`$$`!(```#[`D#^```` M````D`$```````(``%!R86=M871I8V$`!`0````M`0$`!P```"$%`0#=```` M```%````%`+Z`'0!$````/L"`/\```````"0`0````(``@`04WEM8F]L```$ M````+0$"``0```#P`0$`!P```"$%`0`M```````%````%`+``9X"$````/L" M0/X```````"0`0````(``@`04WEM8F]L```$````+0$!``0```#P`0(`!P`` M`"$%`0"Z```````%````%`+``>L#%0```/L"0/X```````"0`0```````@`0 M5&EM97,@3F5W(%)O;6%N````!````"T!`@`$````\`$!``<````A!0$`>P`` M````!0```!0"P`'Y!@<````A!0$`?0``````!0```!0"P`'#!P<````A!0$` M.P``````!0```!0"P`&9!!4```#[`D#^````````D`$!``````(`$%1I;65S M($YE=R!2;VUA;@#""@0````M`0$`!````/`!`@`'````(04!`%4```````4` M```4`L`!]P4'````(04!`&0``````!````#[`A``"```````O`(``````0(" M(E-YP*6*P$`"0```S\!```#`!4```````4````)`@`````$`````@$! M``4````!`O___P`$````+@$9``4````Q`@$````%````"P(`````!0````P" M0`*@!PL````F!@\`#`!-871H5'EP90``0``(````^@(``!``````````!``` M`"T!```%````%`(P`*4$!0```!,",`#G!04````4`L`!!``2````^P)`_@`` M`````)`!```````"``!06UB;VP```0````M`0$` M!````/`!`@`'````(04!`+H```````4````4`L`!S0,5````^P)`_@`````` M`)`!```````"`!!4:6UE6UB;VP```0` M```M`0(`!````/`!`0`'````(04!`+H```````4````4`L`!-005````^P)` M_@```````)`!```````"`!!4:6UE,)!P```"$%`0!]```````0 M````^P(0``@``````+P"``````$"`B)3>7-T96T`!@0````M`0(`!````/`! M`0`#``````#__________________________________________P``M@(` M``@``P`!!0```@````D```!%<75A=&EO;@```````````&`````"`0$!``H! M"`$`4')A9VUA=&EC80`"?]T##P``"Q$!`H8M```*$H-P`H(L``````?P```/ M^```'_P``#_^``!_`````````````````````````````````````&X````! M!0``!0````T```!-151!1DE,15!)0U0`(@0``&+]__\(`@``"``B!)X"KBX! M``D```/H`````@`5```````%````"0(`````!`````(!`0`%`````0+___\` M!````"X!&0`%````,0(!````!0````L"``````4````,`F`"P`,+````)@8/ M``P`36%T:%1Y<&4``%``!0```!0"P`$$`!(```#[`D#^````````D`$````` M``(``%!R86=M871I8V$`!`0````M`0``!P```"$%`0#=```````%````%`+Z M`'0!$````/L"`/\```````"0`0````(``@`04WEM8F]L```$````+0$!``0` M``#P`0``!P```"$%`0`M```````%````%`+``58"%0```/L"0/X```````"0 M`0$``````@`05&EM97,@3F5W(%)O;6%N`/1:!````"T!```$````\`$!``<` M```A!0$`<```````!0```!0"P`%*`Q4```#[`D#^````````D`$```````(` M$%1I;65S($YE=R!2;VUA;@`(600````M`0$`!````/`!```'````(04!`"P` M`````!````#[`A``"```````O`(``````0("(E-Y?NW__\WS_]\__?__S M?GNWY[M___-^__?O_W__\P``5@(```@``P`!!0```@````D```!%<75A=&EO M;@```````````&`````"`0$!``H!"`$`4')A9VUA=&EC80`"?]T##P``"Q$! M`H@P```*$H-N```@;65M;W)Y.B!%<75A=&EO;B!%9&ET```````````````` M```````````````````````````!!0``!0````T```!-151!1DE,15!)0U0` M3@,``._]__^H`0``"`!.`Q$"IBT!``D```/$`````@`5```````%````"0(` M````!`````(!`0`%`````0+___\`!````"X!&0`%````,0(!````!0````L" M``````4````,`N`!``,+````)@8/``P`36%T:%1Y<&4``!``!0```!0"P`$$ M`!(```#[`D#^````````D`$```````(``%!R86=M871I8V$`!`0````M`0`` M!P```"$%`0#=```````%````%`+Z`&X!%0```/L"`/\```````"0`0`````` M`@`05&EM97,@3F5W(%)O;6%N`"*(!````"T!`0`$````\`$```<````A!0$` M,```````!0```!0"P`$``A4```#[`D#^````````D`$!``````(`$%1I;65S M($YE=R!2;VUA;@#N``0````M`0``!````/`!`0`'````(04!`&X``````!`` M``#[`A``"```````O`(``````0("(E-Y6UB;VP```0````M`0$`!````/`!```'````(04! M`"T``````!````#[`A``"```````O`(``````0("(E-Y7-T96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`!`0`#``````".";`!Y@6J!W8/ M```X!```@@P``/0"``!07!E```0``4````4`L`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!07-T96T`!@0````M M`0``!````/`!`0`#````````````&V`#_```&V`#_``!&V`#_```]@$```@` M`P`!!0```@````D```!%<75A=&EO;@```````````&`````"`0$!``H!"`$` M4')A9VUA=&EC80`"?]T##P``"Q$!`H8M`````````P&.!0(`^P`"`)L"`P`` M``,!?P4"`/P``````````````````````````````````````&X````!!0`` M!0````T```!-151!1DE,15!)0U0`5P(``._]__](`0``"`!7`A$"UB$!``D` M``.6`````@`2```````%````"0(`````!`````(!`0`%`````0+___\`!``` M`"X!&0`%````,0(!````!0````L"``````4````,`N`!(`(+````)@8/``P` M36%T:%1Y<&4``!``!0```!0"P`$$`!(```#[`D#^````````D`$```````(` M`%!R86=M871I8V$`!`0````M`0``!P```"$%`0#=```````%````%`+Z`'0! M$````/L"`/\```````"0`0````(``@`04WEM8F]L```$````+0$!``0```#P M`0``!P```"$%`0`M```````0````^P(0``@``````+P"``````$"`B)3>7-T M96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`!`0`#````````````&V`#_```&V`#_``!&V`# M_```%@(```@``P`!!0```@````D```!%<75A=&EO;@```````````&`````" M`0$!``H!"`$`4')A9VUA=&EC80`"?]T##P``"Q$!`H@P```````#P````^`` M``?P```/^```'_P``#_^``!_```````````````````````````````````` M`&X````!!0``!0````T```!-151!1DE,15!)0U0`-`(``._]__]H`0``"``T M`A$"YBX!``D```.;`````@`5```````%````"0(`````!`````(!`0`%```` M`0+___\`!````"X!&0`%````,0(!````!0````L"``````4````,`N`!``(+ M````)@8/``P`36%T:%1Y<&4``!``!0```!0"P`$$`!(```#[`D#^```````` MD`$```````(``%!R86=M871I8V$`!`0````M`0``!P```"$%`0#=```````% M````%`+Z`&X!%0```/L"`/\```````"0`0```````@`05&EM97,@3F5W(%)O M;6%N````!````"T!`0`$````\`$```<````A!0$`,```````$````/L"$``( M``````"\`@`````!`@(B4WES=&5M``8$````+0$```0```#P`0$``P`````` MC@FP`>8%J@=V#P``.`0``((,``#T`@``4')A9VUA=&EC80`````````````6 M`@``"``#``$%```"````"0```$5Q=6%T:6]N````````````8`````(!`0$` M"@$(`0!07-T96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`!`0`#``````!(!0,` MG1/_``0#```.`!```@`$`2``AR0@``````!G%P```"```````````!8"```( M``,``04```(````)````17%U871I;VX```````````!@`````@$!`0`*`0@! M`%!R86=M871I8V$``G_=`P\!``L!$H-.`!$``````\````/@```'\```#_@` M`!_\```__@``?P````````````````````````````````````!N`````04` M``4````-````3454049)3$5024-4`,$"``"I_?__:`$```@`P0)7`E8B`0`) M```#FP````(`%0``````!0````D"``````0````"`0$`!0````$"____``0` M```N`1D`!0```#$"`0````4````+`@`````%````#`(@`H`""P```"8&#P`, M`$UA=&A4>7!E``!0``4````4`H`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````" M``!08%J@=V#P`` M.`0``((,``#T`@``4')A9VUA=&EC80`````````````6`@``"``#``$%```" M````"0```$5Q=6%T:6]N````````````8`````(!`0$`"@$(`0!07-T96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`!`0`#``````!(!0,`G1/_``0#```.`!`` M`@`$`2``AR0@``````!G%P```"```````````/8!```(``,``04```(````) M````17%U871I;VX```````````!@`````@$!`0`*`0@!`%!R86=M871I8V$` M`G_=`P\```L1`0*&+0````````,!C@4"`/L``@";`@,````#`7\%`@#\```` M``````````````````````````````````!N`````04```4````-````3454 M049)3$5024-4`%<"``#O_?__2`$```@`5P(1`AXK`0`)```#E@````(`$@`` M````!0````D"``````0````"`0$`!0````$"____``0````N`1D`!0```#$" M`0````4````+`@`````%````#`+@`2`""P```"8&#P`,`$UA=&A4>7!E```0 M``4````4`L`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!07!E```0``4````4`L`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!0 M(P$`"0```YL````"`!4` M``````4````)`@`````$`````@$!``4````!`O___P`$````+@$9``4````Q M`@$````%````"P(`````!0````P"X`$``@L````F!@\`#`!-871H5'EP90`` M$``%````%`+``00`$@```/L"0/X```````"0`0```````@``4')A9VUA=&EC M80`$!````"T!```'````(04!`-T```````4````4`OH`;@$5````^P(`_P`` M`````)`!```````"`!!4:6UE7-T M96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`!`0`#``````".";`!Y@6J!W8/```X!```@@P` M`/0"``!07!E```0``4` M```4`L`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!07!E```0``4````4`L`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!07!E``!0``4````4`H`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```` M```"``!07-T M96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`!`0`#````````````&V`#_```&V`#_``!&V`# M_```%@(```@``P`!!0```@````D```!%<75A=&EO;@```````````&`````" M`0$!``H!"`$`4')A9VUA=&EC80`"?]T##P``"Q$!`H@P```````#P````^`` M``?P```/^```'_P``#_^``!_```````````````````````````````````` M`&X````!!0``!0````T```!-151!1DE,15!)0U0`-`(``._]__]H`0``"``T M`A$"MB(!``D```.;`````@`5```````%````"0(`````!`````(!`0`%```` M`0+___\`!````"X!&0`%````,0(!````!0````L"``````4````,`N`!``(+ M````)@8/``P`36%T:%1Y<&4``!``!0```!0"P`$$`!(```#[`D#^```````` MD`$```````(``%!R86=M871I8V$`!`0````M`0``!P```"$%`0#=```````% M````%`+Z`&X!%0```/L"`/\```````"0`0```````@`05&EM97,@3F5W(%)O M;6%N````!````"T!`0`$````\`$```<````A!0$`,```````$````/L"$``( M``````"\`@`````!`@(B4WES=&5M``8$````+0$```0```#P`0$``P`````` MC@FP`>8%J@=V#P``.`0``((,``#T`@``4')A9VUA=&EC80````````````"V M`@``"``#``$%```"````"0```$5Q=6%T:6]N````````````8`````(!`0$` M"@$(`0!06UB;VP```0````M`0$` M!````/`!```'````(04!`"T```````4````4`L`!3@(5````^P)`_@`````` M`)`!```````"`!!4:6UE`!DP%9`:`" MN0&3`=@!\P&0`D\">`'O`8`!``"V`@``"``#``$%```"````"0```$5Q=6%T M:6]N````````````8`````(!`0$`"@$(`0!0@#P$%```%````#0```$U%5$%&24Q%4$E# M5``B!```A?W__P@"```(`"($>P)V+0$`"0```^T````"`!4```````4````) M`@`````$`````@$!``4````!`O___P`$````+@$9``4````Q`@$````%```` M"P(`````!0````P"0`+``PL````F!@\`#`!-871H5'EP90``0``%````%`+` M`00`$@```/L"0/X```````"0`0```````@``4')A9VUA=&EC80`$!````"T! M```'````(04!`-T```````4````4`OH`;@$5````^P(`_P```````)`!```` M```"`!!4:6UE7-T96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`!`0`#``````!(!0,`G1/_ M``0#```.`!```@`$`2``AR0@``````!G%P```"```````````!8"```(``,` M`04```(````)````17%U871I;VX```````````!@`````@$!`0`*`0@!`%!R M86=M871I8V$``G_=`P\```L1`0*(,````````\````/@```'\```#_@``!_\ M```__@``?P````````````````````````````````````!N`````04```4` M```-````3454049)3$5024-4`#0"``#O_?__:`$```@`-`(1`E8A`0`)```# MFP````(`%0``````!0````D"``````0````"`0$`!0````$"____``0````N M`1D`!0```#$"`0````4````+`@`````%````#`+@`0`""P```"8&#P`,`$UA M=&A4>7!E```0``4````4`L`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!0 M7-T M96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`!`0`#``````!(!0,`G1/_``0#```.`!```@`$ M`2``AR0@``````!G%P```"```````````/8!```(``,``04```(````)```` M17%U871I;VX```````````!@`````@$!`0`*`0@!`%!R86=M871I8V$``G_= M`P\```L1`0*&+0````````,!C@4"`/L``@";`@,````#`7\%`@#\```````` M``````````````````````````````!N`````04```4````-````3454049) M3$5024-4`%<"``#O_?__2`$```@`5P(1`CXK`0`)```#E@````(`$@`````` M!0````D"``````0````"`0$`!0````$"____``0````N`1D`!0```#$"`0`` M``4````+`@`````%````#`+@`2`""P```"8&#P`,`$UA=&A4>7!E```0``4` M```4`L`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!07!E``!0``4````4`H`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!06UB;VP```0````M`0$`!````/`!```'````(04!`"T` M`````!````#[`A``"```````O`(``````0("(E-Y7-T96T`!@0````M`0``!````/`!`0`#``````".";`!Y@6J!W8/```X M!```@@P``/0"``!07!E M``!0``4````4`H`!!``2````^P)`_@```````)`!```````"``!08%J@=V#P``.`0``((,``#T M`@``4')A9VUA=&EC80`````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M`````````````````````````````````(`!``!9`@``'`8``!T&```L!@`` M+08``"X&```O!@``@P8``(0&``"3!@``E`8``)4&``"6!@``EP8``)@&``"G M!@``J`8``*D&``"J!@``]P8``/@&```'!P``"`<```D'```*!P``30<``$X' M``!=!P``7@<``%\'``!@!P``80<``&('``!Q!P``<@<``','``!T!P``V@<` M`-L'``#Q!P``\@<``/0'``#W!P``20T``$H-``!@#0``80T``&,-``#[]_/W MZN#S]_/WU\WS]_/WQ+KS]_/WL:?S]_/WGI3S]_/WBX'S]_/W\_=[]_/W\_<` M``L``!0````2````!A(``A0````8````_@```-Q,``,`$``*0``````````` M```$K)(`$@`"%````!@```#V````H$H``P`0``I```````````````3TCP`2 M``(4````&````/8```#$1P`#`!``"D``````````````!'R,`!(``A0````8 M````^````.A$``,`$``*0``````````````$)(D`$@`"%````!@```#X```` M#$(``P`0``I```````````````3,A0`2``(4````&````/X```"00``#`!`` M"D``````````````!/2#``<``@0````8!P``!````!@'```$````'``P8PT` M`&0-``#;#0``W`T``.$-``#C#0``_PT````.```6#@``%PX``!D.```:#@`` M(P\``"0/```Z#P``.P\``#T/``!`#P``10\``$@/``!.#P``4`\``&P/``!M M#P``;@\``(0/``"%#P``X@\``.,/``#Y#P``^@\``/P/``#]#P```A````,0 M``#]$```_A````T1```.$0``#Q$``!`1```E$0``)A$``#41```V$0``-Q$` M`#@1```\$0``/1$``$P1``!-$0``3A$``$\1``!V$0``=Q$``(81``"'$0`` MB!$``(H1``"@$0``HA$``+$1``#Y]?GU^?7Q]?'U^?7Q]?'U^?7Y]?GUZ_'U M\?7Q]?'U^?7Y]?'UXMCQ]?'US\7Q]?'UO++Q]?'UJ9_Q]?'U```````````` M$@`"%````!@```#^````;%,``P`0``I```````````````0LFP`2``(4```` M&````/X```#040`#`!``"D``````````````!!29`!(``A0````8````_@`` M`%10``,`$``*0``````````````$')<`$@`"%````!@```#V````N$X``P`0 M``I```````````````0$E0`+```4````&````/H'``($````&`<```0````8 M"P``%````!(````&`#VQ$0``LA$``+,1``"T$0``N!$``+D1``#($0``R1$` M`,H1``#,$0``XA$``.01``#S$0``]!$``/41``#V$0``#1(```X2```=$@`` M'A(``!\2```@$@``C1(``(X2``"=$@``GA(``)\2``"A$@``MQ(``+D2``#( M$@``R1(``,H2``#+$@``S1(``,X2``#=$@``WA(``-\2``#A$@``]Q(``/D2 M```($P``]^WIY>GEW-+IY>GER;_IY>GEMJSIY>GEHYGIY>GED(;IY>GE?7/I MY>GE`````````````````````!(``A0````8````]@```'!>``,`$``*0``` M```````````$E*D`$@`"%````!@```#^````U%P``P`0``I````````````` M``1\IP`2``(4````&````/8````X6P`#`!``"D``````````````!&2E`!(` M`A0````8````]@```)Q9``,`$``*0``````````````$3*,`$@`"%````!@` M``#^`````%@``P`0``I```````````````0TH0`2``(4````&````/X```"$ M5@`#`!``"D``````````````!#R?``<```0````8!P`"!````!@2``(4```` M&````/X````(50`#`!``"D``````````````!$2=*@@3```)$P``"A,```L3 M```-$P``#A,``!T3```>$P``'Q,``"$3```W$P``.1,``$@3``!)$P``2A,` M`$L3``!-$P``3A,``%T3``!>$P``7Q,``&$3``!W$P``>1,``(@3``")$P`` MBA,``(L3``",$P``C1,``)P3``"=$P``GA,``*`3``"V$P``N!,``,<3``#( M$P``R1,``,H3``#,$P``S1,``-P3``#W[>GEZ>77)O^GEZ>6VK.GE MZ>6CF>GEZ>60ANGEZ>5]<^GEZ>4`````````````````````$@`"%````!@` M``#V````5&D``P`0``I```````````````3$P``X!,``/83``#X$P``!Q0```@4```)%```"A0``'04 M``!U%```BQ0``(P4``#M%```[A0``/T4``#^%```_Q0````5```.%0``#Q4` M`!X5```?%0``(!4``"$5``!U%@``=A8``(L6``",%@``J!8``*D6``"_%@`` MP!8``)H9``";&0``L1D``+(9``#`&0``P1D``-<9``#8&0``Z!D``.D9``#_ M&0```!H``.<;``#H&P``_AL``/\;```!'````AP``!T<```>'```-!P``#4< M```Y'```.AP``%`<``!1'```R!P``,D<``#,'```]^WIY>GEW-+IY>GEZ>7I MY7IY;:LZ>7IY>GEZ>7IY>GEZ>7IY>GEZ>7IY>GEZ>6FY>GEZ>7IY>GE MIJ(`````````````!P``!@`#`!@+```4````$@````82``(4````&````/@` M``!$<``#`!``"D``````````````!+S``!(``A0````8````]@````AN``,` M$``*0``````````````$!+X`$@`"%````!@```#^````;&P``P`0``I````` M``````````3LNP`'```$````&`<``@0````8$@`"%````!@```#^````\&H` M`P`0``I```````````````3TN3[,'```S1P``,X<``#/'```T!P``-,<``#4 M'```U1P``.H<``#K'```[AP``.\<``#P'```\1P``/(<``#S'```]!P``/8< M``#W'```^!P```X=```/'0``$AT``!,=```4'0``%1T``!8=```7'0``&!T` M`!H=```;'0``'!T``#$=```S'0``-AT``#<=```X'0``.1T``#H=```['0`` M/1T``#\=``!`'0``01T``%4=``!7'0``6AT``%L=``!<'0``71T``%X=``!? M'0``81T``&,=``!D'0``91T``'D=``!['0``?AT``'\=``"`'0``@1T``((= M``"#'0``A1T``(<=``"('0``B1T``)T=``"?'0``HAT``*,=``"D'0``I1T` M`*8=``"G'0``J1T``*L=``"L'0``K1T``,(=``#$'0``QQT``,@=``#)'0`` MRAT``,L=``#,'0``SAT``/GU\>OQ]?'UY?'?]?'K\>7Q]?'UY?'K]?'?\>7Q M]?'UY?'?]?'K\>7Q]?'UY?'K]?'?\>7Q]?'UY?'?]?'K\>7Q]?'UY?'K]?'? M\>7Q]?'UY?'K]?'K\>4```L``!8``P`2````^@L``!0````2````!@L``!8` M`P`2````!@<```8``P`8!P``!````!@+```6``,`&`````8`6,X=``#0'0`` MT1T``-(=``#F'0``Z!T``.L=``#L'0``[1T``.X=``#O'0``\!T``/(=``#T M'0``]1T``/8=```*'@``#!X```\>```0'@``$1X``!(>```3'@``%!X``!8> M```8'@``,!X``#(>```U'@``-AX``#<>```X'@``.1X``#H>```\'@``/AX` M`%8>``!8'@``6QX``%P>``!='@``7AX``%\>``!@'@``8AX``&0>``#''P`` MR!\``-RJ.'W\?L``!(``A0````8````]@```+AU``,`$``*0``````````` M```$I,<`$@`"%````!@```#^````''0``P`0``I```````````````2,Q0`2 M``(4````&````/8```"`<@`#`!``"D``````````````!'3#``<``@0````8 M"P``%@`#`!(````&"P``%@`#`!(```#Z"P``%````!(````&!P``!````!@' M```&``,`&`!"6R```%P@``!=(```7B```%\@``!@(```8B```&0@``!E(``` M9B```'D@``![(```?B```'\@``"`(```@2```((@``"#(```A2```(<@``"( M(```B2```*D@``"J(```N2```+H@``"[(```O2```-,@``#5(```Y"```.4@ M``#F(```Z"```/X@````(0``#R$``!`A```1(0``$B$``#LA```](0``0"$` M`$$A``!"(0``0R$``$0A``!%(0``1R$``$DA``!;(0``72$``&`A``!A(0`` M8B$``&,A``!D(0``92$``&OQY?'U\?7E\>OU\?GQY?'U\?7A]=C.X?7A]<6[X?7A];*H MX?7E\?GU\>OQY?'UY?'Y]?'K\>7Q]?'UY?'K]0``$@`"%````!@```#V```` M;'H``P`0``I```````````````3,S0`2``(4````&````/X```#P>``#`!`` M"D``````````````!-3+`!(``A0````8````]@```%1W``,`$``*0``````` M```````$O,D`!P`"!````!@+```4````$@````8+```6``,`$@````8'```& M``,`&`<```0````8"P``%@`#`!(```#Z`$*'(0``B"$``(DA``"*(0``C"$` M`(XA``"/(0``D"$``+$A``"R(0``P2$``,(A``##(0``Q2$``-LA``#=(0`` M["$``.TA``#N(0``\"$```8B```((@``%R(``!@B```9(@``&R(``#$B```S M(@``0B(``$,B``!$(@``12(``%HB``!<(@``7R(``&`B``!A(@``8B(``&,B M``!D(@``9B(``&@B``!I(@``:B(``'HB``!\(@``?R(``(`B``"!(@``@B(` M`(,B``"$(@``AB(``(@B``":(@``FR(``)XB``#[]?OO^^O[Z^?KWM3GZ^?K MR\'GZ^?KN*[GZ^?KI9OGZ^_[]>O[E?OO^^O[Z^_[]>O[E?OO^^OO^P`````` M````````````"P``%@`#`!(````&$@`"%````!@```#V````O(```P`0``I` M``````````````0,U@`2``(4````&````/X````@?P`#`!``"D`````````` M````!/33`!(``A0````8````_@```*1]``,`$``*0``````````````$_-$` M$@`"%````!@```#V````"'P``P`0``I```````````````3DSP`'``($```` M&`<```0````8"P``%````!(````&"P``%@`#`!(```#Z!P``!@`#`!@`.)XB M``"?(@``H"(``*$B``"B(@``I2(``*8B``"G(@``O2(``+\B``#"(@``PR(` M`,0B``#%(@``QB(``,7QZ_7QZ_'E\?7Q]>7Q MZ_7QW_'E\?7Q]=GUU?75]>7UY?75]=7UY?7E\?75]=7UU?75]>7UY?75]=7U MY?7E]=7UU?75]=7UY?7E]=4```<``@0````8"P``%````!(```#Z"P``%@`# M`!(```#Z"P``%````!(````&"P``%@`#`!(````&!P``!@`#`!@'```$```` M&`L``!8``P`8````!@!4TB8``.@F``#I)@``2"<``$DG``!?)P``8"<``-\G M``#@)P``]B<``/*```=B@``'@T``*P-```>#@``20X```(8```B&0``)!D` M`'@9``!7&P``QQP``.D<```-'0``,!T``%0=``!X'0``G!T``,$=``#U]?7U M]>G?W]34U-34R;VQL;&EL;&QO;&QL;&QL9F-L;&!O6UM;6UM;6T`````$P`` M`6@E1`$%`Q`5`!3P``\4``9N!"\,2@V!#UT8'B````````````L```5H)2`! M!0,0%0`4\``/!0`!J@$```L```-H)2`!!0,0%0`4\``/!0`!J@$```L`!/]H M)307!0,0%0`4\``/!0`!J@$```L`!/]H)>46!0,0%0`4\``/!0`!J@$```L` M``%H)2`!!0,0%0`4\``/!0`!J@$```L```1H)2`!!0,0%0`4\``/!0`!J@$` M``H```%H)2`!$!4`%/``#P4``:H!```*```!:"50`04!$!4`#P4``:H!```` M"0```6@E4`$0%0`/!0`!J@$````+_0`!:"50`04!$!4`%/``#P4``:H!```* M_0`!:"50`04!$!4`#P4``:H!```JP1T``.4=```)'@``+QX``%4>``!Z'@`` M]QX``+0?``!5(```EB```#HA``!:(0``?R$``*`A``!9(@``>2(``)DB``"\ M(@``W"(``/HB``"I(P``\24```PM``"Y+@``/C$``$`Q``!/,0``*#(``(HR M``#M,@``(#,``%(S``!V,P``OS,``/$S``#"-```Q#0``-`T```9-0``0C4` M`.SL[.SLY>7>RM[L[.S>[.SL[.SEP[RUKJ>GH*>5BHJ*BHI_BHIK:P`````` M`````````````!,```%H)2`!!0,0%0`15`$3K/X4\``/#@`$J@%*#5T8'B`` M```````*```#:"4@`04#$!4`#P4``:H!````"@```6@E(`$%`Q`5``\%``&J M`0````H```)H)2`!!0,0%0`/!0`!J@$````&```#:"4@`04#$!4```8```%H M)2`!!0,0%0``!@``!V@E(`$%`Q`5```&```%:"4@`04#$!4```8`!/]H)2H1 M!0,0%P``!@`$_V@EQ`4%`Q`7```3```":"5$`04#$!4`%/``#Q0`!FX$+PQ* M#8$/71@>(```````````!@```6@E?@$%`Q`5```&```":"4@`04#$!4``!,` M``%H)40!!0,0%0`4\``/%``&;@0O#$H-@0]=&!X@`````````"="-0``'#8` M`.4V``"K-P``4S@``/PX``#F.0``)3H``,4Z``"@.P``73P``#H]``#//0`` MECX``-(^``!*/P``B3\``.8_```?0```?$```.S8[,3$[+#$[.SLQ.RPQ+"P ML+`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M````````````````````````````````````````$P```6@E(`$%`Q`5`!%4 M`1.L_A3P``\.``2J`4H-71@>(````````!,```)H)2`!!0,0%0`15`$3K/X4 M\``/#@`$J@%*#5T8'B`````````3```#:"4@`04#$!4`$:H!$ZS^%/``#PX` M!*H!2@U=&!X@````````$P```V@E(`$%`Q`5`!%4`1.L_A3P``\.``2J`4H- M71@>(```````$P0`!P```````!4`_____PX``$8````4```````)"`X`____ M_P<`````````!0#_``````#_``#>`````/P^```,`'Q`````````E`D``(T; M``!$*0``TS8``/P^```(`O__```!`#0```+__P```@`C``@"__\```,`2`(` M`O__```$`*D`"`+__P``!0```(`!``!C#0``L1$```@3``#<$P``S!P``,X= M``!;(```AR$``)XB``#2)@``5B\``#K:``!N`&\`<`!Q`'(`0"``0``P1T``$(U``!\0```>@![`'P`/P`2%@!4:6UE$@``'Q(``#82```W$@``1Q(``$D2``!,$@``7!(``%X2``!? M$@``=A(``'<2``"'$@``B1(``/02```+$P``;1,``'T3``!_$P``CA,``)X3 M``"@$P``]10```L5```H%0``/Q4``!H8```Q&```0!@``%<8``!H&```?Q@` M`&<:``!^&@``G1H``+0:``"Y&@``T!H``$<>``!7'@``61X``%H>``!Q'@`` M``"$'@``A1X``)P>``"='@``K1X``*\>```I'P``.1\``#L?```\ M'P``4Q\``%0?``!D'P``9A\``&2!3=6MH86YO *=@```````````&X` end From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 06:38:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA08577; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 06:37:04 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 06:37:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Subject: Fooddrops keep falling on my head------, Horace Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 09:36:53 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"gNC3N2.0.x52.FYUXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2039 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ---------- > From: Horace Heffner > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: A method of air dropping food > Date: Sunday, November 10, 1996 3:43 AM > > Sorry for this off topic post but I have to start somewhere: Horace, your kind heart is showing! Pro-personnel bomb! Wide-area saturation feeding! This sounds like a great idea! To keep this idea on-topic, in areas where the starving population has not yet stripped the edible-mobile-biomass (animals) from the landscape, this idea has OU possibilities. The food packets may attract "catchable" creatures to the area - thus providing more food (energy) than was dropped! Serious hat on: 1. Packets need to be bio-degradable and benign to environment. 2. Packets of grain - familiar to locals - might be rather large without being dangerous on impact (maybe a few oz.?) Good Idea! --- Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 08:46:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA24792; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 08:43:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 08:43:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611101644.IAA12839@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 08:42:49 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Dick Blue's analysis of Miley's claims Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"22EYY1.0.I36.ROWXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2040 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The idea proposed by Blue that Miley was off in his id of masses and mistook Ca for Ti is pretty far out. Any SIMS instrument running that poorly calibrated would be down for repairs or the operator would have to be. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 11:47:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA03601; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:45:48 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:45:48 -0800 (PST) Date: 10 Nov 96 14:44:23 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Gamma phase in Pd Message-ID: <961110194422_72240.1256_EHB173-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"jZZMA3.0.Bu.h3ZXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2041 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Bill Page wrote: Plus he claimed that the excess energy observed might be theoretically explained in terms of "quantum non-equilibrium" induced by the phase transitions in Palladium which occurs above the beta-phase (called by Fleischmann et al. the "gamma phase") between the beta-phase and the gamma phase. This discussion is somewhat over my head, but I would like to point out a few things about Fleischmann's hypothesis: Not everyone buys it. Many people at ICCF5 told me they think the evidence from IMRA's electromigration experiments has a more conventional explanation. People question other experimental evidence for the hypothesis. Fleischmann thinks that hyper-saturated palladium reaches a third plateau where it does not readily degas, but other people, particularly Storms, say they have not seen that happen. I myself don't know enough about the evidence to judge. Tests have been proposed to check Fleischmann's ideas but they have not been carried out, and nobody has replicated IMRA's electromigration tests as far as I know. The term "gamma phase" gets tossed around often. There are actually three different, unrelated "gamma phases" according to Storms. I am writing this up in detail, but my notes are the office. Off the top of my head, they are: 1. Fleischmann's gamma phase, meaning a new set of lattice positions occupied, in a metastable state. It should degas rapidly but it does not. 2. McKubre's highly excited lattice; the "flux" term in his model. Sometimes called the third phase. 3. The Storms' dimer model, in which pairs of deuterons occupy lattice positions normally filled with just one deuteron. . . . and there may be others. The idea, anyway, is that normal, highly loaded Pd does not produce any CF effect at all. It isn't a marginal, below the limits of detection; it is altogether missing because something about the Pd is wrong. CF requires some "special condition of matter." This idea is open to question. Maybe a billion tons of Pd loaded in the alpha phase, it would produce 100 watts of CF heat. It seems to me that Ni CF, and now growing evidence for Au CF -- which take place in moderate conditions apparently without high loading -- call into question the whole idea that CF requires abnormally high loading or some other rare condition of matter that is inherantly difficult to achieve. I propose (without a scrap of evidence, rigor, or any intention of defending the hypothesis) that CF might be common in nature but it occurs at such low levels it cannot be detected. I believe this is what Steve Jones had in mind with his mother earth soup hypothesis. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 17:40:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA12287; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 17:32:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 17:32:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611110134.RAA19028@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 17:32:04 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Gamma phase in Pd Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"NnxqL1.0.q_2.d8eXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2042 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Contrary to the observations of Rothwell we do indeed see the gamma phase Fleischmann speaks of and it is indeed stable at high loading. The issue here is whether the correct examination has been made to observe this phase. X-ray diffraction studies will reveal it. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 18:15:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA18509; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 18:09:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 18:09:26 -0800 (PST) Date: 10 Nov 96 21:08:12 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Re: Gamma phase in Pd Message-ID: <961111020811_72240.1256_EHB166-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"9WJB52.0.4X4.KheXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2043 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Russ George writes: Contrary to the observations of Rothwell we do indeed see the gamma phase . . . That should be: the observations of Storms. Not Rothwell. I have done no experiments and made no observations in this area. Storms discussed the gamma phase hypothesis. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 19:10:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA27966; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 19:01:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 19:01:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <01BBCFC8.26E56FC0@sparc1.nhelab.iae.or.jp> From: Kennel To: "'Vortex'" Subject: Kennel's ICCF-6 Report Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:01:57 +-900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"V-0DO3.0.qq6.0SfXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2044 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: CONFERENCE REPORT: ICCF-6 Author: Elliot Kennel, NHE Lab, Sapporo Japan; Kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp (Copyrighted information. Please ask permission before reprinting or = reposting.) I attended the 6th International Conference on Cold Fusion 12-18 = October 1996. My summary opinion is that we may have seen a turning = point in that the attention of the conference is being drawn towards the = general realization that nuclear physics may be surprisingly different = in the solid state than in gas or liquid systems. In addition, there = have been several interesting innovations which suggest the possibility = of improving the reproducibility of anomalous results.=20 1. Evidence suggesting the existence of an anomaly. There were several = papers which I felt provided strong evidence for the existence of a = nuclear anomaly. Among the strongest were: =09 a. Kasagi et al.'s study of accelerator irradiation of metal targets = with low energy deuterons. In this case, the detection of up to 18 MeV = protons is not at all expected, as this can not occur from normal DD = fusion through the normal P + T reaction pathway, which results in only = 3.02 MeV protons. Kasagi indicates that this may be due to three body = reactions, despite the fact that the cross section is six orders of = magnitude too small for this to occur. Interestingly, Dr. Douglas = Morrison, one of the most astute critics of cold fusion research, in the = question-and-answer session focused on the fact that the branching ratio = observed was near 50% for P + T and N + 3-He pathways (i.e., not very = anomalous), but did not comment on the three-body observations. I would = have been interested to learn Morrison's opinion on this. Perhaps it = will appear in his conference report, which is usually widely = distributed. At any rate, my personal view is that their is a very high = chance that Kasagi has shown that there is an unknown factor coupling = nuclear and chemical states within a solid crystal lattice. Although = there is no evidence that this is connected to radiationless New = Hydrogen Energy reactions of the type needed to explain excess heat, = this is a good place to look. =09 b. Roussetski (Lebedev Institute, Moscow), claims to have verified = Lipson's observation of reproducible charged particle and neutron = emission at anomalous energies. Plastic scintillation detectors, = Silicon Solid State Detectors and CR-39 detectors all obtained the same = results. The experiment involved a Ag-PdO-Pd-PdO-Ag heterostructure = cathode which outgasses under moderately high temperature (T <100 C). = Of particular interest is the observation that neutron amplification = occurs (200 neutrons out for one in) under certain conditions. This = also suggests group behavior (coupling) of large numbers of lattice = atoms combining nuclear and chemical states. The results are far beyond = experimental error with thousands of excess counts. A word of caution, = however, is that other experiments have shown phenomenal results but = other researchers have not been able to duplicate them. Thus we should = await confirmation before hailing this as an accomplished fact. There = is however, no a priori reason to assume that the data are wrong, = either.=20 c. I am very impressed by the claims by Miley et al., Mizuno et al., = Savvatimova et al., Celani et al. and others concerning the presence of = anomalous chemical species in isotopically enriched form on electrolysis = cathodes. Certainly, chemical contaminants are expected on the cathode = which acts as a magnet for all ionic crud in the system. However, = isotopically enriched crud is a different story. To a lesser extent, it = is impressive that the observers report very similar four-humped = elemental distributions, reminiscent of the two-humped fission fragment = distribution curves. This is not expected for random dirt. I would = like to review the raw data to determine the statistical significance of = the claimed isotope shift as determined by neutron activation analysis = (i.e., how many gammas were actually counted within the peaks of = interest). Although the researchers insist that their findings are well = outside of experimental error, it is disturbing that the largest shifts = were obtained for low-yield isotopes. Given that there are thousands of = isotopes which could be detected, I would like to see five or six = standard deviations in a neutron activation measurement before agreeing = that an unnatural isotope ratio has indeed been produced. Perhaps this = will not be long in coming, as Miley has promised to furnish me with the = raw data. It would be useful to use neutron activation for the other = researchers as well. My understanding is that this has already been = scheduled for the near future. =20 =09 d. Ed Storm's measurements of open circuit voltage as a function of = loading suggest that a previously unknown gamma phase in the Pd-D system = appears at loadings above 0.85, which is associated with anomalous = excess heat measurements. =20 2. Innovations. Electromigration appears to be a significantly = superior method to produce excess thermal energy, as Celani et al report = reproducible excess heat results with relatively large output (>100% in = many cases). The basic idea is to use a pulsed electric field to drive = deuterium toward the center of a wire once it has been loaded = electrochemically. It is very reasonable to expect high local loading = using this technique, and perhaps it is really responsible for enhancing = anomalous results. Certainly there will be several attempts to = replicate the Celani et al result within coming months. =20 Another Italian group (DeNinno et al) has produced a technique for = achieving high loading of deuterium while avoiding a phase transition. = This requires high pressure, high temperature deuterium. Once loaded = with this technique, subsequent loading electrolytically is much easier. = This method may significantly enhance the performance of existing = cathodes which have not loaded sufficiently well at low temperature = (i.e., in a flow calorimeter). In addition, loading occurs much more = rapidly after the pretreatment. =20 3. Ambiguous results. The data which many observers are infatuated = with (excess heat, low-level helium, tritium, neutrons etc.) are rather = difficult to base an opinion on. The reason is that, after all is said = and done, the reliability of these measurements is a strong function of = the ability of the experimenter. Without intimate familiarity with the = researchers and their methods, it is very difficult for an outside = observer to know whether or not they are real or botched. Moreover, it = seems that the more established and reliable laboratories have fewer = results than the amateurs. Nevertheless, within the aforementioned = unprovable data set, there are some reports which nevertheless evoked = some interest. Specifically, several reports (Miles and Johnson, Botta = et al., Arata and Zhang, Cignini et al.) have observed helium, which = appears to be strongly connected to the presence of excess heat. I was = reasonably impressed with the experimental work by Miles and Johnson, = but less impressed with their refusal to consider non-fusion nuclear = reactions. Likewise, I was not pleased that Cignini et al apparently = rejected a helium signal which was 600% larger than expected based on = their a priori assumption that a fusion reaction is the source of = helium, but retained <100% measurements on the grounds that this was = consistent with that pet theory. Also, they were not able to cite the = helium leakage rate of their chamber (obtained by valving off the = chamber and observing the rate of growth of the helium peak on a quad = mass spec).=20 Outside the Cold Fusion community, the CETI cell has provoked = considerable controversy, and everyone seems to have an opinion. My two = cents, based only on a casual acquaintance with the device, is that it = is hard to say whether it really produces net excess power or not. With = a flow calorimeter, it is important to make sure that the thermocouple = is measuring the average bulk temperature at the inlet and the outlet. = Thus you need to make sure that the fluid is well mixed. Yet, placing = the thermocouple near the heat source can achieve the opposite effect. = Moreover, the CETI system is far from being a well-defined system, as no = one (not even the inventors) can be sure where heat is produced in a = porous electrode with flowing electrolyte. McKubre et al attempted to = analyze the system analytically, and suggested that most of the loading = occurs in the beads nearest to the anode, at least initially. In short, = without a detailed understanding of the ionic, electronic and thermal = conductances, it is very hard to judge where heat is produced in the = system, how it might vary with time, and how it might influence a = thermocouple located near the cathode. Moreover, looking at the = problem more generally, CETI has invented a new diagnostic and tried to = use that to claim the existence of an anomaly. Few persons will accept = the reliability of a previously untried diagnostic. To date, there have = been no published results (that I am aware of, anyway) confirming excess = heat in a previously benchmarked, known good calorimeter system. On = the other hand, the CETI setup does obey the phenomenological = understanding on how to make excess heat: use of thin metal layers = should result in high loading of hydrogen fairly quickly. That should = produce anomalous effects. In summary, it is probable that the device = is thermally active in some way; whether or not it produces net excess = heat is not clear to me at this point. The issue should be resolved = soon, however, as CETI is making the correct step by having reliable = laboratories investigate the system. CETI should not be faulted too = heavily for not knowing the best way to convince the scientific = community of the existence of an anomaly, as they have not been in that = position before. =20 4. Negative Results. Probably the most troubling finding is that the = excess heat phonomenon is still very difficult to reproduce. The most = careful, best funded and most accurate measurements have tended to yield = the fewest positives. This is particularly true in the case of = conventional flow calorimeters, which are the most accurate and least = likely to produce a false positive. =20 Note that not all calorimeters are identical, and you can not simply = substitute one calorimeter for another without significantly changing = the experiment. Temperature gradient calorimeters (also referred to as = conduction calorimeters) are subject to false positives. This = calorimeter, works by maintaining a temperature gradient between the = heat source and the calorimeter exit. Then the system is empirically = calibrated by measuring the temperature drop as a function of input = power q =3D K delta T. The equation has the same form as the conduction = heat equation, although in this case K is a total thermal impedance = including forced convection and conduction. Yet it is possible to = produce a false reading in these devices if the heat source moves or if = the heat transfer medium becomes more thermally insultating. In that = case, it becomes hypothetically possible for an experiment to appear to = generate excess thermal energy whereas in fact none is generated. This = violates intuition but not laws of physics! For that reason, many of us = are interested in seeing the results duplicated in flow calorimeters = using water as a working fluid (q =3D dm/dt c delta T). However, flow = calorimeters tend to be much more isothermal than the temperature = gradient type calorimeters. This is certain to have an effect on = deuterium loading and temperture feedback which many researchers believe = are essential features of the observed anomalies. =20 Thus, it is an unfortunate fact that the most accurate and reliable = calorimeters are also the most difficult ones to achieve high loading = in. For the moment, the skeptics may correctly point out that the most = reputable organizations (e.g., NHE Lab, IMRA Japan, SRI, etc.), using = the most accurate and most reliable calorimeters, have achieved the = poorest results, whereas groups with less funding using less reliable = calorimeters have achieved better results. =20 It is also true that there is no reproducible excess heat experiment = (that I am aware of) using a water mass flow calorimeter with water as a = working fluid. We will have to endure that criticism until (unless?) a few groups = start turning in some positive results with flow calorimeters. Maybe = this will happen as we start to incorporate recent advances made by = other researchers. On the other hand, we should still be open to the = possibility that some phenomena causes the calibration constant in a = temperature gradient calorimeter to go haywire. In our group, we have = had cells which appear to produce excess heat in the temperature = gradient type calorimeter, but fail to produce an excess in a flow type = calorimeter, lending support to that claim. My personal opinion is that = excess heat is probably real, but that is simply an opinion until we = have the facts to back it up. =20 =09 5. Pathological Science. As numerous critics will no doubt point out, = there are several papers which were presented which contain botched = results, lack of control experiments, mistaking noise for signals, etc., = ad nauseum. I will not mention names in order to avoid embarrassing the = guilty, but I do concur that the critics are often correct in their = assessments. However, I do not believe that the critics are right all = the time. I should also say that I feel that this conference was much better than = in previous years, and that the research is overall of a much higher = quality than in previous years. Most of the newcomers who rushed = results into print previously have now grown wiser (or starved to = death). My standard recommendation to the field, for what it is worth, is that = it is better to measure the same property five different ways than to = measure five different properties with one method each. I also believe = that if you can't think of ten different control experiments, you're not = trying hard enough. Each measurement needs to stand on its own, and = researchers must simply face facts and come to terms with the opposition = that will be encountered in the general community. The experimental = proof must be very strong or it will not be accepted. =20 It is still possible to build a case that all cold fusion results are = due to pathological science, but I feel that this is unlikely. I would = like to see more data before regarding the issue as settled, but I tend = to believe that experiments by Claytor (tritium), Storms (reproducible = excess heat), Srinivasan (tritium), Miles (helium and excess heat) and = others are probably correct. I agree with the critics in that more = evidence is needed for verification of such phenomena, but neither have = the critics adequately disproved their findings, at least not to my = satisfaction. =20 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 21:54:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA29514; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 21:52:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 21:52:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 07:10:13 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <3286b539.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hal Fox Resent-Message-ID: <"XA1rl1.0.3D7.CyhXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2045 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:52:31 -0800 (PST), vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > I would like to make a comment, but have no email address for Hal. > Could someone on this list provide same? I promise to make only very > sparing use of it. Robin, Hal has no e-mail address yet, you can send him a fax message at <(801) 583-2963. 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 Sun Nov 10 21:55:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA29691; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 21:53:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 21:53:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961111010642.006e88b8@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 01:07:08 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Correas Reactor..a Reichian background? Cc: demeo@mind.net (James DeMeo), marett@terraport.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"RvW2i.0.qF7.DzhXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2046 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: For those of you on the Vortex-List who are interested in more info for replicating the Correas Reactor, or if you are just interested in a more revealing perspective on the history of it's development, there is some interesting and previously unpublished information available on Doug Marett's Web Site--this date. According to Doug Marett, M.Sc., an independent and professional researcher/inventor, who worked with Paulo Correa, Phd., on an earlier version of the Tube from the mid to the late 80's, they were trying to replicate the Reichian Vacuum Tube (VACOR), which was reported to be an O/U device... And does this mean that the ACTUAL history of this Vacuum Tube device really goes back to 1947, to a man named Dr. Wilhelm Reich? ...Apparently, Reich was a pioneer in *many* fields, and it IS conceivable...I've seen Doug's Tube, and a picture of Reich's Tube and a picture of the Correas's Tube. (In Infinite Energy Magazine). They all look identical. But there's lots more to this story, and that information is on Doug's Web Site. Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 22:29:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA05711; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:28:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:28:19 -0800 (PST) Date: 11 Nov 96 01:25:50 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: CETI Demo NOW in Washington DC Message-ID: <961111062549_76570.2270_FHU62-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"UH7Ut2.0.9P1.2UiXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2047 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Late Sunday night 11/10/96: I picked up a telephone message from Jim Reding, CEO of Clean Energy Technologies. CETI is at the American Nuclear Society meeting in Washington, DC and has much news. Here are some notes from the phone message. I will try to call early a.m. at their hotel so that I can get the latest poop. Will post whatever I find. For those who can make it: Exhibit is at Sheraton Washington 202-328-2000 2660 Woodley Rd and Connecticut Ave, Wash, DC Jim Reding, Dr. Patterson, Dennis Cravens, and Prof. George Miley are there. They have a demo set up at their booth. They have announced the launch of their "RIFEX" kits.' Reding said: "We've had a mixed reception, but overall it's a very good one." "I think we are goign to issue a press release tomorrow and we are probably going to have some media come tomorrow or Tuesday morning." "It's pretty exciting stuff. We announced George's paper out here and we are kind of presenting it. We have an interesting 'next generation' demonstration that has been running and will be running the entire length of the conference." Exhibit part of the show closes Tuesday night. Reding will be there through Wednesday for follow-up meetings. *** Other info I have from exhibit pack I got earlier: Theme is "The Global Benefits of Nuclear Technology" * 1000 to 1200 attendees expected; Meeting duration isfrom 11/10-15/96, but exhibits only from 10th to 12th. * All kinds of exhibitors there, yes, and DOE! Should be worth the price of admission! I hope the demo is good and I sure hope they have it out in the open all the time, as Reding's message indicates! Gene Mallove Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D. Editor-in-Chief and Publisher INFINITE ENERGY Magazine Cold Fusion Technology P.O. Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302-2816 Phone:603-228-4516 Fax: 603-224-5975 76570.2270@compuserve.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 22:31:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA05764; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:28:38 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:28:38 -0800 (PST) Date: 11 Nov 96 00:58:40 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Kennel's ICCF-6 Report Message-ID: <961111055840_72240.1256_EHB114-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"eOQl41.0.wP1.LUiXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2048 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex I thank Elliot Kennel for posting his ICCF-6 report here. I asked him to join the group and post it. Papers by people like Kasagi and Lipson are completely over my head, so I cannot comment on them. I am pleased we are getting a look at them here from someone else who attended the conference. I feel it is particularly important to bring Elliot into the discussion here because I have so roundly critisized the NHE. We need to hear from someone who represents their point of view. Naturally, I have some bones to pick . . . Elliot writes: Certainly, chemical contaminants are expected on the cathode which acts as a magnet for all ionic crud in the system. However, isotopically enriched crud is a different story. It is important to note that the anomalous elements and isotopes are found far below the surface layer of contamination, which is easily recognized and which contains no isotopic shifts. Moreover, it seems that the more established and reliable laboratories have fewer results than the amateurs. Nevertheless, within the aforementioned unprovable data set, there are some reports which nevertheless evoked some interest. Specifically, several reports (Miles and Johnson, Botta et al., Arata and Zhang, Cignini et al.) have observed helium . . . If I understand the syntax here, Elliot seems to be suggesting that Miles, Botta, Arata and Cignini are "amateurs." That's ridiculous! Laboratories like the China Lake (U.S. Navy) are established and reliable. Arata's laboratory, on the campus of Osaka National University, is in a building named after him. That's about as established as you can get! Furthermore, I cannot imagine why anyone would refer to any of this work as constituting an "unprovable data set." Why unprovable? It is proved by reproducing the work in other labs, just like any other experiment. Negative Results. Probably the most troubling finding is that the excess heat phonomenon is still very difficult to reproduce. I believe this is incorrect. The excess heat is readily reproduced when you follow the published instructions and recommendations from experts like Storms, Cravens, Fleischmann and Mizuno. You must follow them *to the letter*, in all particulars. These instructions are, of course "very difficult" in the sense that they require great skill. You have to practice and spend a lot of time working with the authors before you master these techniques. But that is not quite the same thing as being "difficult to reproduce" in the sense that even if you do it right, it doesn't work. Failed CF replications arise when people ignore the published instructions and try to do the experiments their own way. As I have often pointed out, things like fax machines and delux sushi are "difficult to reproduce" but widely reproduced in spite of the difficulties. The most careful, best funded and most accurate measurements have tended to yield the fewest positives. This is particularly true in the case of conventional flow calorimeters, which are the most accurate and least likely to produce a false positive. The most careful, best funded and most accurate measurments have been done by Pons and Flieshmann. They get more postive experiments than negative, at very high signal to noise ratios. The static calorimeters used by Miley and Pons are more precise and accurate than any flow calorimeter, and they are subject to fewer errors because they are simpler and have no moving parts. Flow calorimeters do have advantages of course: they are less dependent upon calibration. However, flow calorimeters tend to be much more isothermal than the temperature gradient type calorimeters. This is certain to have an effect on deuterium loading and temperture feedback which many researchers believe are essential features of the observed anomalies. This point is critical. It was emphasized by McKubre in his summary, by Fleischmann, and by me in my letter to the NHE and in my ICCF6 Summary. It should be understood that it *is* possible to design a flow calorimeter that is not so isothermal and that does allow the temperature feedback mechanism, but it will not work as well. It will lose more heat unaccounted for. For the moment, the skeptics may correctly point out that the most reputable organizations (e.g., NHE Lab, IMRA Japan, SRI, etc.) . . . These are not the most reputable organzations. Many people feel that they have done a very poor job, they have not paid attention to the literature, they are using the wrong kind of calorimeter. I think that China Lake and Los Almos, which have posted increasingly strong, positive CF results, are far more "reputable" than the NHE or SRI. Reputation rests on doing good work and making significant progress towards technologically useful applied science. That, after all, is what you being paid to do at the NHE and SRI. That is the officially stated goal of the NHE project according the documents published by MITI. Progress does not mean building more accurate or precise instruments, it means improving reproducibility and scaling up heat and transmutation effects. We will have to endure that criticism until (unless?) a few groups = start turning in some positive results with flow calorimeters. This is an impossible goal. Conventional flow calorimeter inhibit postive results. This is analogous to saying we must get fly cast iron airplanes before people will believe in flight. Pathological Science. As numerous critics will no doubt point out, there are several papers which were presented which contain botched results, lack of control experiments, mistakig noise for signals, etc., ad nauseum. I will not mention names in order to avoid embarrassing the guilty . . . Please *do* mention names, and provide specifics. Who is incompetent, and why? Which results are botched? I do not make the rules here; Bill Beaty does, but I believe these remarks violate the spirit of this discussion group. I do not want to make a big deal, but I do feel this is against the norms of academic behavior. Tough critisism and hard hitting analysis is welcome. I sure do want to know who is incompetent, and since I cannot judge many of the papers at ICCF6, I am anxious to see other people's evaluations. But I think that criticism should be directed towards specific papers, and it should be documented, and backed up with evidence. We don't care about embarrassing the guilty, but we should treat them fairly with due respect for the traditions of academic discourse. I must add that I agree with these comments. I felt that some of the papers might be botched, and some do seem to lack proper controls and so on, but I did not list them because I did not think they are important enough to warrent a carefully written exposition. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 23:13:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA12347; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 23:07:35 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 23:07:35 -0800 (PST) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 02:06:03 -0500 Message-ID: <961111020602_1881896467@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI Demo NOW in Washington DC Resent-Message-ID: <"oiF6b1.0.q03.q2jXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2050 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 11/11/96 6:29:26 AM, you (Mallove) wrote: <> How do we get one, how much does it cost, and what is the delivery schedule? Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 00:34:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA23425; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 00:32:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 00:32:28 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <01BBCFF6.6C0B3980@sparc1.nhelab.iae.or.jp> From: Kennel To: "'Vortex'" Subject: Elliot's reply to Jed Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 17:33:09 +-900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"rHeE02.0.wj5.RIkXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2051 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >>If I understand the syntax here, Elliot seems to be suggesting that = Miles, Botta, Arata and Cignini are "amateurs."<< =20 No, you don't understand at all. I mean that Miles, Botta, Arata and = Cignini presented the strongest favorable evidence in contrast to most = of the pack. I think, however, that it will be a long time before = Helium data can convince the world of the reality of cold fusion. My = point is that even if the work is very good, it is hard for an outsider = to be sure that it is not a false positive, because of the presence of = other experiments which are less careful. >>Please *do* mention names, and provide specifics.<< Nope. I will let = the researchers know my objections by private communication rather than = embarrass them in public. I think that's proper ethics. Besides, they = might convince me that I'm wrong, so why should I make a fool out of = myself?? But I can explain how many false positives are made if there = is real interest. For example, you can read the ICCF-5 paper by me, = Hagelstein and Smullin detailing all the ways we know on how to make = erroneous gamma measurements. =20 Best regards, Elliot =20 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 04:27:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA15601; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 04:25:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 04:25:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:30:31 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961111202836.24c7f8a0@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: Re: D20 heat Resent-Message-ID: <"ay9aA.0.bp3.9jnXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2052 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Got a question about radiation exposure: Scott Little posted the following (edited for brevity) at 14:16 1996.10.16 -0500: >At 08:16 10/16/96 -0600, Tom Claytor wrote: > >>I would be more concerned about how much tritium is in the D20.... >>....(evacuate the room at 100 microcurie/meter cubed) > >Hi Tom, welcome to Vortex. Is a case of beer still prescribed for acute T >exposure cases? > >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) > I have a source which, because my geiger counter is ruint, I can't actually say what the level is. How would you determine what radiation level is hazardous in the absence of a reliable (manufactured) radiation detection device ? (No ! I will not remain there until all the lab rats die !) ********************************************************** * http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 ******** ********************************************************** From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 04:56:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA17922; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 04:54:57 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 04:54:57 -0800 (PST) Date: 11 Nov 96 07:52:53 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: CETI Demo NOW in Washington DC Message-ID: <961111125252_76570.2270_FHU49-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"xCuOp.0.yN4.W8oXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2053 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hal, As soon as I get the details from Reding, I will post them here. (I left a message at his hotel). In private conversation at ICCF6, I think Reding was talking about $3,500/year rental fee. This would entitle the renter to all current info on the latest bead technology. Said renter could develop the cell into any kind of heating or power-generating technology and maintain whatever control of this embodiment -- however, any improvement on the beads themselves (made by the renter) would be owned by CETI. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 10 22:39:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA07029; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:37:25 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:37:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:17:09 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <3286c4f0.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Subject: The real situation? Resent-Message-ID: <"T2psG2.0.ij1.YciXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2049 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Re: ICCF-6 Report. Jed prefers Mahler, I have clearly heard specific parts from Wagner's Gotterdammerung while reading this report. I was very much impressed by Fleischmann's alienation and retreat, he seems to join such heros as Belisarius, Scipio and Churchill as a victim of ungratefulness. Who knows what has actually happened to him? The report has described in a (helas!) realistic manner the situation at the conference, with the core failure: negative results at the numerous Japanese electrochemical compact Pd cathode low temperature experiments. Bad for the field's status and bad for the aim of these experiments--univocal demonstration of the primitive genuine cold fusion, D + D process. Great harm and danger, for judgment according scientific, technological and financial criteria. The field seems to be in great trouble, as it always was..this is its modus vivendi. However, are the prospects really so dim? Was this ICCF really well representing the situation? Or is LENR-2 with so many challenging discoveries giving a better vision of a future (no! present!) scientific revolution? Was cold fusion really present at Toya? Has the sun melted some parts of the tip of the iceberg or is the whole broken? a) Taking in account the numerous Japanese patents, I suspect and dare to hope that only the SCIENTIFIC program is moving so slowly and it exists a non-publicized TECHNOLOGICAL program aiming to working devices and not so much to knowledge, and this program is developing anyway better than the visible one. Is this wishful thinking? Or the great Japanese companies are they the giants of technology who know that "Though we cannot live one hundred years, we should be concerned about one thousand years hence"? In other (ugly) words, does a Japanese cold fusion black market exist? Why have the organizers avoided the press? b) Actually what can an advanced cold fusion research gain by displaying the results at ICCFs? In the 15 minutes allocated? So many of the potentially very advanced systems (technologically) absent: no Mills, Piantelli, George, Griggs there, Arata, Dufour Karabut and Savvatimova speaking about new details but not about developments and scale up. Was actually the word "technology" mentioned at ICCF-6? c) Some of the results are very impressive e.g. if R. Takahashi is right (P-018 "Anomalous increase in excess heat in electrolysis of heavy water and light water for use of drilled cathode in charcoal) then we don't need hydride forming metals and what's even more, we don't need metals at all to get this energy! I want to mention that it is a great shame that ..as far I know, nobody has tried to reproduce the important Reifenschweiler experiment. This in connection with the failure to explain many other phenomene in the frame of the existing paradigm-- sonoluminescence, porous silicon, catalysis...any progress in these fields can be very inspiring for CF. As a conclusion, despite the bad news, I still believe that cold fusion has a great future. And as I wrote in my IE no 1 article: "technology first!" 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 Nov 11 08:01:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA17571; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 07:45:49 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 07:45:49 -0800 (PST) Date: 11 Nov 96 10:43:12 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: CETI DEMO/Commercial Details Message-ID: <961111154311_76570.2270_FHU57-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"xSvMO1.0.SI4.geqXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2055 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: November 11. 1996 Dear Colleagues: This is a very big day for cold fusion. I just spoke this morning (11/11/96) with CETI's CEO Jim Reding, who gave me more details about the demo cells they are selling at the American Nuclear Society Meeting --The Global benefits of nuclear Technology"-- at the Washington, DC Sheraton hotel. (I will post their formal press release later, when I have received it by fax.) CETI has sold 40 kits already at $3,750.00 each -- about one-third of those kits were sold at the Washington meeting. Licensing or leasing a Research Kit entitles one to the following: * a 1-year license * a test chamber * two research cells * 4 loadings of three different microsphere (MS) configurations * Ability to participate in the CETI Corporate Organization Research Program * Admittance to two CETI corporate conferences per year (exclusively for people who have leased cells) * A monthly newsletter of research progress -- edited by Prof. George Miley * Access to special new microsphere configurations * Mandatory on-site training in use of the cells at the University of Illinois * The next CETI Coporate Meeting is Dec. 10, 1996. The one after that will be June 1997. * A price list for the purchase of additional beads will be available in a few months. Note well, all this info and right-to-buy beads comes only with the lease of the $3,750.00 cell. The demo cell in Washington has microspehres with *ceramic substrates*, designed to achieve temperatures up to 500 C. However, the cell at the meeting is only running at 5 watts out with about 1.5 watts in, just to show proof of concept. This small level of heat is designed to let researchers draw conclusions about the correspondence of the transmutations to the excess heat. It is not optimized for power production. Possibly the biggest news -- other than that there are now 40 groups/people who will have commercially purchased cells -- is a new patent that the USPTO has notified CETI that it has allowed. The patent will be issued within the next few weeks. It is titled: "System in Electrolytic Cell and Method for Producing Heat and De-Activating Urnanium and Thorium by Electrolysis" This patent describes a method by which radionuclides are inserted into a special matrix designed for radioactive elements. According to Reding and inventor Dr. Patterson, with whom I also spoke, "conservatively" they have demonstrated the reduction by up to 50% of the radiation activity from uranium and thorium. The process takes only from 2 to 24 hours. Generally, the process occurs within only 4 hours. It is said that the de-activation can be as high as 90%, which would make for a pretty conclusive finding, I would assume. Anyone in the nuclear industry who can verify this result ought to know that we are "no longer in Kansas." In fact, the allowance of this patent by the USPTO should tell them that already. According to CEO Reding, "an organization has already purchased the *exclusive* world rights" to licence and sub-licence this patent. The organization has paid CETI $1 million dollars ($1,000,000) for this. The organization's identity, for now, is private. The exhibit at the American Nuclear Society Meeting is on today and tomorrow (11/11/96 and 11/12/96 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Jim Reding reports that reponse has been very polite. There is a lot of interest in this technology among those who are initially skeptical. I guess the sale of about 1/3 of the 40 kits at this meeting speaks for itslef. It seems, at last, that "cold fusion" has truly been commercialized with the sale of these units -- with every prospect for increasing sales. As soon as other former non-involved but ranking people observe these effects with these cells, the opposition to cold fusion will be dramatically set back, to say the least. This is exaclty what we at Infinite Energy magazine have been hoping for all along. Reding reports there is great interest in Prof. Miley's transmutation paper. He has been given a slot at the American Nuclear Society meeting in June to deliver his latest findings. There was no slot available at this meeting. The exhibit people ahve told me they expect from 1,000 to 1,200 attendees a the meeting. Gene Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D. Editor-in-Chief and Publisher INFINITE ENERGY Magazine Cold Fusion Technology P.O. Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302-2816 Phone:603-228-4516 Fax: 603-224-5975 76570.2270@compuserve.com [ A preliminary version of Dr. Miley's and Dr. Patterson's transmutation paper was published in Infinite Energy, Issue #9 -- printed in October 1996.] From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 08:19:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA20036; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 07:59:14 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 07:59:14 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611111554.HAA31312@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, 11 Nov 1996 07:54:12 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: 99 cent/gallon gas Resent-Message-ID: <"IKwu_.0.zu4.LpqXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2056 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 08:01 PM 11/9/96 -0800, you wrote: >Certainly one reason that alternative energy sources of >all types receive little notice these days is the low cost of >oil. Gas prices in LA have dropped below $1 gallon---check it out at > >http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry/gasprices/99cents.html > > >-- >Barry Merriman >Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program >Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math >email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry > > Interesting. We pay an absolute MINIMUM of $1.32/gal at the cheapest discounter for the lowest octane up here. How do you figure???? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 08:34:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA27433; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:26:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:26:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:26:11 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ICCF6 Review (Part 1) (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"-g6hF3.0.Ui6.iErXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2058 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 05:31:21 -0800 (PST) From: Edwin Strojny To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ICCF6 Review (Part 1) At 09:04 AM 11/8/96 EST, you wrote: >To: Vortex >> > >Ragland says that after the cell begins working, he can progressively cut the >purity of the heavy water until it is down to about 20%, and the heat >continues. That is the first time I have ever heard that claim! It's >extraordinary if true. It is one of several aspects of the report that make me >nervous. I must see independent testing of this device before I can accept it. > An explanation: There is deuterium present in the vicinity of the active site (below the surface) which takes a while for it to be displaced by hydrogen. Thus, you will activity until this deuterium is gone. Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 08:35:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA27340; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:25:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:25:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:25:52 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ICCF6 Review (Part 1) (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Dw3CH2.0.5h6.MErXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2057 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 05:20:22 -0800 (PST) From: Edwin Strojny To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ICCF6 Review (Part 1) At 09:04 AM 11/8/96 EST, you wrote: >To: Vortex > > There is a remarkable correlation of excess power with the source of the > palladium. The best reproducibility was obtained using Pd-B materials > supplied by the Naval Research Lab. Seven out of eight experiments that > used Pd-B cathodes produced excess power. A high success ratio was also > obtained using Johnson-Matthey materials. Seventeen out of twenty-seven > experiments that used this palladium source produced excess heat. In > contrast there were several palladium sources that never produced excess > power in any experiment. > Has anyone tabulated the thorough analysis of the palladium samples that worked and did not work? The above observation plus the observation of Storms that there are localized active sites may mean something when taken together. Is it that Johnson-Mathey palladium is not as pure as the "several palladium sources that never produced excess power..."? Is it a parts per million or billion impurity of a specificic element present in J-M palladium but not present in other palladium that produces the conditons for an active site? This J-M palladium observation was first noted by Fleischmann & Pons (Physics Letters A, 1776, (1993) p. 129). What are the sources of J-M palladium? What is different about their manufacturing process from the others? Does J-M have an additional source of palladium not accessible to other suppliers? As noted by Jed, this is a very crucial observation which can give us clues to learning the conditons for excess heat production. >From reports on excess heat with nickel as the cathode there are localized sites of activity here too. Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 08:45:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA01289; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:38:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:38:24 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611111638.IAA02614@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, 11 Nov 1996 08:37:39 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: CETI DEMO/Commercial Details Resent-Message-ID: <"xygzP3.0.tJ.-PrXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2060 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:43 AM 11/11/96 EST, you wrote: from Mallove > November 11. 1996 > > >Dear Colleagues: > >This is a very big day for cold fusion. I just spoke this morning (11/11/96) >with CETI's CEO Jim Reding, who gave me more details about the demo cells they >are selling at the American Nuclear Society Meeting --The Global benefits of >nuclear Technology"-- at the Washington, DC Sheraton hotel. (I will post their >formal press release later, when I have received it by fax.) > >CETI has sold 40 kits already at $3,750.00 each -- about one-third of those kits >were sold at the Washington meeting. > > >Possibly the biggest news -- other than that there are now 40 groups/people who >will have commercially purchased cells -- is a new patent that the USPTO has >notified CETI that it has allowed. The patent will be issued within the next few >weeks. It is titled: > >"System in Electrolytic Cell and Method for Producing Heat and De-Activating >Urnanium and Thorium by Electrolysis" > >This patent describes a method by which radionuclides are inserted into a >special matrix designed for radioactive elements. According to Reding and >inventor Dr. Patterson, with whom I also spoke, "conservatively" they have >demonstrated the reduction by up to 50% of the radiation activity from uranium >and thorium. The process takes only from 2 to 24 hours. Generally, the process >occurs within only 4 hours. It is said that the de-activation can be as high as >90%, which would make for a pretty conclusive finding, I would assume. Anyone in >the nuclear industry who can verify this result ought to know that we are "no >longer in Kansas." In fact, the allowance of this patent by the USPTO should >tell them that already. > >According to CEO Reding, "an organization has already purchased the *exclusive* >world rights" to licence and sub-licence this patent. The organization has paid >CETI $1 million dollars ($1,000,000) for this. The organization's identity, for >now, is private. > >It seems, at last, that "cold fusion" has truly been commercialized with the >sale of these units -- with every prospect for increasing sales. As soon as >other former non-involved but ranking people observe these effects with these >cells, the opposition to cold fusion will be dramatically set back, to say the >least. This is exaclty what we at Infinite Energy magazine have been hoping for >all along. > Ah, Gene, is it "cold fusion" or "transmutation", asks Michael, smirkingly >>Reding reports there is great interest in Prof. Miley's transmutation paper. He >has been given a slot at the American Nuclear Society meeting in June to deliver >his latest findings. There was no slot available at this meeting. > At this point, does it really take much leap in faith to suspect that what I and some others have been saying, such as Champion, that you can also get the same type of effects through a variety of electrical and chemical techniques, so long as there is plenty of umpf to the emf? The really big next story is going to be generated by someone who undertakes to replicate Russell's work. Remember, you heard this prediction here, and this is the fourth time I have cited it. Mallove, Jed, or Tinsley should drop into Russell's estate in Virginia and run a major story on Russell's experiment with the gas tube transmutation a la calibrated alignments of the e and b fields - circa 1930's, I guess. Your friendly catalyst, ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 08:46:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA00199; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:34:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:34:55 -0800 (PST) Date: 11 Nov 96 11:32:53 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: The real situation? Message-ID: <961111163252_72240.1256_EHB79-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"jap5n3.0.03.jMrXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2059 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Peter Gluck writes: I was very much impressed by Fleischmann's alienation and retreat . . . So was I! It shook me something awful. . . . he seems to join such heros as Belisarius, Scipio and Churchill as a victim of ungratefulness. Well . . . yes, but he is also a victim of his own unwillingness to communicate with people in language they can understand. Furthermore, many talented cold fusion scientists have been forced to rediscover things he learned years ago, like the fact that you should not braise wire leads on to cathodes. These scientists harbor resentment against Pons and Fleischmann. a) Taking in account the numerous Japanese patents, I suspect and dare to hope that only the SCIENTIFIC program is moving so slowly and it exists a non-publicized TECHNOLOGICAL program aiming to working devices and not so much to knowledge, and this program is developing anyway better than the visible one. I wish that were true, but I see no evidence for it. If there is a phantom program it is well hidden. From time to time I hear rumors that some Japanese company has put working CF motors into fork lift machines, but I think these stories are nonsense. Why have the organizers avoided the press? Because they have bought into an ancient academic ethic which despises practical, work-a-day accomplishments. Even today, many physicists think that is beneath their dignity to worry about problems in the real world, or politics, public relations or funding. This mandarin attitude goes back to the dawn civilization. One of history's greatest tragedies was that the ancient Greeks took little interest in practical science. They wasted their hard won knowledge and logical abilities on abstruse mathematics, philosophy and Aristotle's overrated natural science. As Arthur Clarke says, if they had only turned their attention to practical problems, by now we would have reached the first stars. As far as I am concerned the finest scientific accomplishments have come from people like Faraday who stuck close to the concerns of daily life. Bressani's comment about "no newspapers" drew applause from the audience, whereas I found it appalling. Horrible! Sickening! To me it is as if Bressani said: "We have proudly turned our back on society and ignored our responsibilities as citizens & professionals. We don't care how many people starve this week for lack of energy. We are only concerned with narrow academic politics. We will go on doing ineffective, useless experiments for as long as the grants hold out. Theory matters, people be damned." It is as if a group of doctors has found the cure for a dread disease, but they are too lazy or corrupt to tell anyone about it. I say that if mainstream academic scientists act this way, they will be rejected by society, their research grants will be withdrawn, and their institutions shut down. They will have no one to blame but themselves for this calamity. Politics and corruption are always part of any human institution, but in the past, scientists understood their value to society, and they understood that they had a responsibility to contribute to the general welfare. Now, they appear to have forgotten that completely. b) Actually what can an advanced cold fusion research gain by displaying the results at ICCFs? In the 15 minutes allocated? If every speaker used the time wisely to present new, factual, specific and helpful information, a great deal might be gained. People like Storms and Oriani, who are good at giving presentations, give you a fantastic amount of useful information in 15 minutes. If Pons and Fleischmann had stood up three years ago and told people not to braise on wire leads they could have saved countless wasted dollars and man hours. They try to keep this kind of hands-on information secret for the same reason CETI, E-Quest, Piantelli and many others do. It is part of their business strategy. For the reasons I outlined in my Wright paper (Infinite Energy #9) I think this strategy is suicidal. It is also grossly irresponsible, and even genocidal if these devices are all they are cracked up to be. In other words, if Piantelli really has what he claims, then by withholding it he deliberately murders 50,000 children every week, in order to gain a nebulous business advantage, in a strategy I consider amateur and unworkable. This behavior is closely analogous to Harrison's (see Infinite Energy #7), who murdered thousands of seamen and wasted millions of dollars because he refused to sell his marine chronometers. He is considered a hero, and I guess I agree he is in a sense, but he was also a cold-blooded calculating murderer. He was more concerned with his own ego and with recognition than he was with those legions of drowned men. He was no better than the ship owners, factory and mine owners of that savage era. History is complicated. Was actually the word "technology" mentioned at ICCF-6? Yes, twice. Oriani said that proton conductors are potentially valuable because they work at high temperatures with good Carnot efficiency. Someone else mentioned technology once. Both comments went over like lead balloons with most people at the conference. I want to mention that it is a great shame that ..as far I know, nobody has tried to reproduce the important Reifenschweiler experiment. Darn right! As a conclusion, despite the bad news, I still believe that cold fusion has a great future. It may have a great future, but that will depend on the actions of a few individual human beings. It will not succeed automatically. History is the product of free will; there are no inevitable outcomes. Unless someone takes action to turn this situation around, cold fusion will disappear without a trace when the present generation of leading cold fusion scientists die off in 20 years. They are mostly old men, in their 60s and 70s. And as I wrote in my IE no 1 article: "technology first!" Amen. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 09:56:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA17557; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:38:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:38:28 -0800 (PST) Date: 11 Nov 96 12:34:56 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: CETI Demo/Commercial Details - 2nd Trans. Message-ID: <961111173455_76570.2270_FHU84-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"kFR1x1.0.DI4.IIsXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2061 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: November 11, 1996 Dear Colleagues: This is a very big day for cold fusion. I just spoke this morning (11/11/96) with CETI's CEO Jim Reding, who gave me more details about the demo cells they are selling at the American Nuclear Society Meeting --The Global Benefits of Nuclear Technology"-- at the Washington, DC Sheraton hotel. (I will post their formal press release later, when I have received it by fax.) CETI has sold 40 kits already at $3,750.00 each -- about one-third of those kits were sold at the Washington meeting. Licensing or leasing a Research Kit entitles one to the following: * a 1-year license * a test chamber * two research cells * 4 loadings of three different microsphere (MS) configurations * Ability to participate in the CETI Corporate Organization Research Program * Admittance to two CETI corporate conferences per year (exclusively for people who have leased cells) * A monthly newsletter of research progress -- edited by Prof. George Miley * Access to special new microsphere configurations * Mandatory on-site training in use of the cells at the University of Illinois * The next CETI Corporate Meeting is Dec. 10, 1996. The one after that will be June 1997. * A price list for the purchase of additional beads will be available in a few months. Note well, all this info and right-to-buy beads comes only with the lease of the $3,750.00 cell. The demo cell in Washington has microspehres with *ceramic substrates*, designed to achieve temperatures up to 500 C. However, the cell at the meeting is only running at 5 watts out with about 1.5 watts in, just to show proof of concept. This small level of heat is designed to let researchers draw conclusions about the correspondence of the transmutations to the excess heat. It is not optimized for power production. Possibly the biggest news -- other than that there are now 40 groups/people who will have commercially purchased cells -- is a new patent that the USPTO has notified CETI that it has allowed. The patent will be issued within the next few weeks. It is titled: "System in Electrolytic Cell and Method for Producing Heat and De-Activating Uranium and Thorium by Electrolysis" This patent describes a method by which radionuclides are inserted into a special matrix designed for radioactive elements. According to Reding and inventor Dr. Patterson, with whom I also spoke, "conservatively" they have demonstrated the reduction by up to 50% of the radiation activity from uranium and thorium. The process takes only from 2 to 24 hours. Generally, the process occurs within only 4 hours. It is said that the de-activation can be as high as 90%, which would make for a pretty conclusive finding, I would assume. Anyone in the nuclear industry who can verify this result ought to know that we are "no longer in Kansas." In fact, the allowance of this patent by the USPTO should tell them that already. According to CEO Reding, "an organization has already purchased the *exclusive* world rights" to licence and sub-licence this patent. The organization has paid CETI $1 million dollars ($1,000,000) for this. The organization's identity, for now, is private. The exhibit at the American Nuclear Society Meeting is on today and tomorrow (11/11/96 and 11/12/96 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Jim Reding reports that response has been very polite. There is a lot of interest in this technology among those who are initially skeptical. I guess the sale of about 1/3 of the 40 kits at this meeting speaks for itself. It seems, at last, that "cold fusion" has truly been commercialized with the sale of these units -- with every prospect for increasing sales. As soon as other former non-involved but ranking people observe these effects with these cells, the opposition to cold fusion will be dramatically set back, to say the least. This is exactly what we at Infinite Energy magazine have been hoping for all along. Reding reports there is great interest in Prof. Miley's transmutation paper. He has been given a slot at the American Nuclear Society meeting in June to deliver his latest findings. There was no slot available at this meeting. The exhibit people have told me they expect from 1,000 to 1,200 attendees at the meeting. Gene Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D. Editor-in-Chief and Publisher INFINITE ENERGY Magazine Cold Fusion Technology P.O. Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302-2816 Phone:603-228-4516 Fax: 603-224-5975 76570.2270@compuserve.com [ A preliminary version of Dr. Miley's and Dr. Patterson's transmutation paper was published in Infinite Energy, Issue #9 -- printed in October 1996.] From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 10:27:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA20734; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:50:52 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:50:52 -0800 (PST) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:49:52 -0500 Message-ID: <961111124952_1614330355@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI DEMO/Commercial Details Resent-Message-ID: <"i5gpb2.0.o35.xTsXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2062 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 11/11/96 4:43:13 PM, Michael Mandeville wrote: << Mallove, Jed, or Tinsley should drop into Russell's estate in Virginia and run a major story on Russell's experiment with the gas tube transmutation a la calibrated alignments of the e and b fields - circa 1930's, I guess.>> If I recsall correctly, the claim was that some gas was transmuted into nitrogen. When I heard this, it occurred to me that since air is 70% nitrogen, perhaps finding the tube anomalously full of nitrogen simple inicated a leak. Were any measurements made to rule out this possibility? Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 11:55:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA08511; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:11:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:11:37 -0800 (PST) Date: 11 Nov 96 14:08:53 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: The real situation? Message-ID: <961111190852_100433.1541_BHG94-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"HXLEo.0.s42.dftXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2063 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I don't like people reposting huge chunks out of previous messages, but what Jed says is VITAL. I recall > As far as I am concerned the finest scientific accomplishments > have come from people like Faraday who stuck close to the concerns > of daily life. > > Bressani's comment about "no newspapers" drew applause from the > audience, whereas I found it appalling. Horrible! Sickening! To me > it is as if Bressani said: "We have proudly turned our back on > society and ignored our responsibilities as citizens & > professionals. We don't care how many people starve this week for > lack of energy. We are only concerned with narrow academic > politics. We will go on doing ineffective, useless experiments for > as long as the grants hold out. Theory matters, people be damned." > It is as if a group of doctors has found the cure for a dread > disease, but they are too lazy or corrupt to tell anyone about it. > I say that if mainstream academic scientists act this way, they > will be rejected by society, their research grants will be > withdrawn, and their institutions shut down. They will have no one > to blame but themselves for this calamity. Politics and corruption > are always part of any human institution, but in the past, > scientists understood their value to society, and they understood > that they had a responsibility to contribute to the general > welfare. Now, they appear to have forgotten that completely. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 11:58:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA10683; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:22:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:22:19 -0800 (PST) Date: 11 Nov 96 14:18:21 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: The real situation? Message-ID: <961111191820_100060.173_JHB102-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"45hHq3.0.pc2.fptXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2064 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> And as I wrote in my IE no 1 article: "technology first!" Amen. - Jed << Amen ^2 and when Maggie Thatcher tried to force the scientific establishment to be more application biased she was insulted by them. And so it goes on - arrogance and stupidity. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 12:17:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA13501; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:33:47 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:33:47 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:26:15 -0500 Message-ID: <961111142614_225201326@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: fznidarsic@gpu.com, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com, williams@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu, david@vesicle.ibg.uu.se, Fostrdae@bbms.iac.honeywell.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, 72240.1256@compuserve.com, ross@pacificnet.net, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, tkepple@third-wave.com, 101544.702@compuserve.com, fstenger@interlaced.net, RVargo1062@aol.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, tlpst15+@pitt.edu, zap@dnai.com, reed@zenergy.com, tkepple@twd.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: See and hear it all !!! Resent-Message-ID: <"nvN8a.0.rI3.L-tXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2066 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Subj: SEE AND HEAR FRANK J STENGERS BALL LIGHTNING MACHINE From: FZNIDARSIC@AOL.COM SEE THE FLASH!!! HEAR THE K-BOOM!!!! CAN BE SEEN ON ANY BROWSER THAT SUPPORTS GIF ANIMATION...WORKS ON NETSCAPE!!!!!!! AOL USER YOUR OUT OF LUCK CLICK HERE or pick http://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/movie.html From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 12:17:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA16352; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:45:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:45:59 -0800 (PST) Date: 11 Nov 96 14:42:59 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: ANS Exhibits are free Message-ID: <961111194258_76570.2270_FHU82-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Rwo5v3.0.M_3.p9uXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2067 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: More info on CETI demo at ANS: There is no admission charge or registration fee for the ANS *exhibits*. The Washington Sheraton Hotel is conveniently located at the Woodley Park-Zoo stop on the Metro line. The hotel number is 202-328-2000. The hotel's exact address is 2660 Woodley Rd. NW. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 12:17:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA12184; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:28:04 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:28:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:27:13 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: The real situation? Resent-Message-ID: <"k1pU81.0.6-2.1vtXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2065 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed writes: [snip] >I say that if mainstream academic >scientists act this way, they will be rejected by society, their research >grants will be withdrawn, and their institutions shut down. They will have no >one to blame but themselves for this calamity. Politics and corruption are >always part of any human institution, but in the past, scientists understood >their value to society, and they understood that they had a responsibility to >contribute to the general welfare. Now, they appear to have forgotten that >completely. > [snip] How true. I'm not much of a historian, but there are various examples of rebellion against elitist academicians, and they are not bloodless. The wholesale slaughter of academicians at Oxford (or was it Cambridge?) by local peasants is one example. The bloody affair lasted several days. Another example is the cultural revolution in China. In many cases, targeted academicans not lucky enough to be put to work in the fields were slaughtered along with the drug dealers and other undesirables. We in democratic countries pride ourselves on the bloodless revolutions that occur with every election. However, with the decay of morality and ethics, the loss of value for human life, the election of sound byte politicians, the continued decay of infrastructure and economies, and the rise of drugs and organized crime, it is not impossible that cultural revolution will raise its ugly head in the west. Science and the arts are the cream of civilization. If there is no milk there will be no cream. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 12:44:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA17874; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:52:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:52:56 -0800 (PST) Date: 11 Nov 96 14:38:40 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Clarke / de Santillana quotes Message-ID: <961111193840_72240.1256_EHB130-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"DTz2a3.0.6N4.MGuXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2068 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex In the previous message I should have written: As Arthur Clarke says, if they had only turned their attention to practical problems, by now we would have reached the nearest stars. (Nearest, not first. Alpha Centuri. And no, I cannot find which book he said that in, but he says it all the time in person.) My diatribe was prompted by rereading a book by Giorgio de Santillana, "The Origins of Scientific Thought, From Aniximander to Proclus, 600 B.C. to A.D. 500," (U. Chicago, 1961). Especially chapter 9, "Decline and Fall" which includes these chilling quotes describing the intellectual atmosphere around 200 B.C.: Dullness, conformity, and gloom spread like a pall of smog over the last centuries. Science became manuals and encyclopedias, literature became stale rhetoric on "classic" models, or tales of the wondrous. C. The failure of imagination explains, among other things, why men became so reactionary-minded, even when they thought they were entertaining the most lofty and liberal ideals. Something like that was to occur again in the American South. When Aristotle, the great master of ethics, said that slavery is a fact of nature, and that we shall need slaves so long as the shuttle will not run in the loom by itself, he had registered one of those great mental blocks which foretell the end of a cycle. And this leads us to what is obviously crucial, the lack of an applied science. . . . The decisive point lies in the use of mathematics. After the early efforts of the Pythagoreans to set up a mathematical physics, it is as if the enterprise were abandoned as unfruitful. The turning point lies within the career of Eudoxus . . . It is, as we said earlier, as if the lifting power of pure number had been finally released to rise into the realm of abstraction . . . The relation of number to reality has been transformed irretrievably, for even Archimedes is unable to reverse the trend. The higher qualitative virtues of number, so to speak, have been saved at the expense of actual application. . . . Aristotle's philosophy is in itself, as we have seen, a turning away from mathematics to other metaphysically more "relevant" forms of accuracy. This did not preclude measurement as such, witness Dicaiarchos's (Aristotle's own pupil's) enterprise in measuring the height of mountains, but demoted it, in a way, to philosophical irrelevance. The issue verged substantially on the existence of physical truths not susceptible of measurement, and hence, whenever other reasons so suggested, on the possibility of ignoring quantitative data. And that, folks, was the "End of Science" for 1800 years. Not the version that Horgan is trying to foist on us today, but the real McCoy. If the Horgans of our era succeed they may yet do as much damage as the ancient academics did. Aristotle said we need slaves to keep our civilization going; there is no alternative. Horgan says we must *be* slaves to the internal combustion engine because there is no alternative, progress is over, the limits of growth have been reached, our problems can never be fixed, space is not worth exploring, physical truths like 'string theory' not susceptible to measurement are the only true science, and bla, bla, bla. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 13:10:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA25303; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:33:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:33:19 -0800 (PST) Date: 11 Nov 96 15:27:56 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Text of the New CETI Brochure Message-ID: <961111202755_76570.2270_FHU81-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ugPJC.0.GB6.uquXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2070 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The following is the text of the Clean Energy Technologies Brochure: (Transcribed by Gene Mallove) Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETI) proudly announces the launch of the Patterson Power Cell(TM) Research Kit codenamed RIFEX(TM) (Reaction In a Film Excited Complex). For the first time, researchers in this emerging field will have the opportunity to examine and conduct research on CETI's Patterson Power Cell(TM) which has received several U.S. Patents and has been acclaimed as the first device to reliably demonstrate chemically assisted nuclear reactions. This device is designed to replicate the ground-breaking work conducted by George Miley at the University of Illinois and James A. Patterson of CETI Labs. From an identifiable "fingerprint" of reaction products, this system will enable scientists to witness and conduct research on nuclear reactions at low temperatures with a high degree of confidence. CETI believes this device will provide new direction in the area of nuclear physics, yielding new reaction pathways that will open the door to a technological revolution as never before imagined. RIFEX(TM) Basic Research Kit Equipment * Two patented Patterson Power Cells(TM) with Test Chamber * Four Thin-Film MICREL(TM) (Microsphere-Cell Reactor Electrode Loading) approx 1 cc each: (2) Pd Ni loadings, (1) Ni Loading, (1) Pd loading * Electrolyte - Li2SO4 (99.995% pure) * One Neutron Activation Analysis Research License * One Year Research License to Patented Technology * Preferred Licencing Renewal Terms Training * one-Day On-Site Training Seminar * Operational Protocol Provided by CETI * Technical Support from CETI and Other Research Affiliates * Access to Informational Network Research Affiliates Program * One Year Membership in CETI's Corporate Research Affiliates Program * One Year Subscription to Published Newsletter With Updates from Other Research Affiliates * Free Entrance and Participation in Two CETI Research Conferences * Replacement Parts Catalog with Special Discounts from CETI * Special Order Microsphere Configurations Available * Research Affiliate Program Members have the Opportunity to Purchase Bulk Quantities of Microsphere Electrodes Price $3,750 Or extend your research license and membership in the research affiliates program for a full three years for $7,500. Supply is Limited, Order Today for more information see our web site at http://www.cleanenergy.com/ceti or call (941) 957-3109 ENSAP(TM) (Exhaustive Nuclear Search and Analysis Program) * Performs Extensive Reaction Products Analysis * DOS/Windows Compatible (Pentium (TM) Recommended) Free Demo Included with Kit "Clean" cell and system are designed to reduce impurities providing the researcher with a high degree of confidence in nuclear reaction products. Patented Technology Patent: System for Electrolysis Claiming "Excess Heat" February 27, 1996 #5,494,559 Patent: System for Electrolysis of Liquid Electrolyte December 13, 1994 #5,372,688 Patent: Method for Electrolysis of Liquid Electrolyte June 7, 1994 #5,318,675 Patent: Metal Plated Microsphere Catalyst July 30, 1991 #5,036,031 Patent: Process for Producing Coated Microspheres July 24, 1990 #4,943,355 Over 20 additional patents pending on related technologies. "Based on seeing this device at work, I have confidence in promoting this technology within Bechtel." -Mr. Bruce C. Klein, PE, Bechtel "We are excited at the prospect of incorporating this technology into a proposed research program." -Dr. C. Quinton Bowles, University of Missouri "The Patterson Power Cell is a robust and forgiving cell design." Dr. Dennis Cravens Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. Patent Licensing and Development Company Phone: 941-957-3109 fax: 941-365-0487 PO Box 2016, Sarasota, Florida 34230 http://www.cleanenergy.com/ceti "Delivering the Future Today" From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 13:16:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA22593; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:17:36 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:17:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 15:10:45 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: Robert Stirniman cc: John Schnurer , vortex Subject: Gravity Society In-Reply-To: <199611111845.KAA00814@shell.skylink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"iTBgi3.0.tW5.UduXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2069 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: RS Asks: Why is the Gravity Society in Yellow Springs? A: It is not. Please see a little history. The GS is in Yellow Springs for simply historical reasons. Some time ago Giovanni Modanese said "It is too bad there is not a society to discuss such matters as gravity" .... So I said let us start one ..... So then he said good, let us do so ..... So then I said "I nominate 3 members, PK as the first, you as the second, and me as the third .... and since neither of you two are here, and I am on THIS side of the key board, I will join first to the Gravity Society".... and he wrote "I join to Society" .... and so it happened. And then I went through a lot of rig a ma role, some legal some not.... in any event, in Italy he word "society" is a legal thing and either is or can be the legal equivalent of what we call a corporation... and, in Italy, it can do monetary business, have debt, be liable ... and so on. But in THIS country a "society" can be a bunch of janes and joes who sit about, play darts, guzzle beer, put out a news letter, and call themselveves the "Official Society of Moderate Velocity Pointed Flying Objects", proclaim themselves the 'experts' and "Official Society" and "Authority" of same and so on. It is, in part, a matter of ethics. We wanted to make SURE, as sure as we could, that any release from the GS was accurate. I had yet to read ANY publication which was, in all respects, accurate. Some errors were minor, some were physics errors, some were 'human factors' errors. GS will never be perfect, but we will try. In USA [for me anyway] it is VERY easy for me to set up, register and so on, an Internet Domain. Which I did ..... it is gravity.org I know the administrators, sysops and so on ... personally. I am, personally a computer idiot as far as software goes ..... I can hold my own with any expert on semiconductor recombination time ... or worse .... but ask me to figure out how to make or change a batch file, forget it! There is nothing on the web www.gravity.org ...... nor is there any discussion list or moderator list, yet, because in that arena I am clue less. I will have full time student co op [cooperative employment, part of Antioch College's educational program] next term ... and then things should be smooth and professional... as far as net stuff goes. Does this help some? I will continue the thread some more when I have a little time. The main thing is the ethic. The Gravity Society is truly international. When Giovanni Modanese contrubutes, it is GS, Italy. When PK cotributes it is GS Russia, or Finland. When Argonnne Nat'l Labs contributes it is USA .... get the idea? Gravity Society From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 13:51:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA03672; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:14:48 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:14:48 -0800 (PST) Date: 11 Nov 96 16:11:05 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Text of the New CETI Brochure Message-ID: <961111211104_76570.2270_FHU46-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"qFAst2.0.Fv.4TvXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2071 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The following is the text of the Clean Energy Technologies Brochure: (Transcribed by Gene Mallove) Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETI) proudly announces the launch of the Patterson Power Cell(TM) Research Kit codenamed RIFEX(TM) (Reaction In a Film Excited Complex). For the first time, researchers in this emerging field will have the opportunity to examine and conduct research on CETI's Patterson Power Cell(TM) which has received several U.S. Patents and has been acclaimed as the first device to reliably demonstrate chemically assisted nuclear reactions. This device is designed to replicate the ground-breaking work conducted by George Miley at the University of Illinois and James A. Patterson of CETI Labs. From an identifiable "fingerprint" of reaction products, this system will enable scientists to witness and conduct research on nuclear reactions at low temperatures with a high degree of confidence. CETI believes this device will provide new direction in the area of nuclear physics, yielding new reaction pathways that will open the door to a technological revolution as never before imagined. RIFEX(TM) Basic Research Kit Equipment * Two patented Patterson Power Cells(TM) with Test Chamber * Four Thin-Film MICREL(TM) (Microsphere-Cell Reactor Electrode Loading) approx 1 cc each: (2) Pd Ni loadings, (1) Ni Loading, (1) Pd loading * Electrolyte - Li2SO4 (99.995% pure) * One Neutron Activation Analysis Research License * One Year Research License to Patented Technology * Preferred Licencing Renewal Terms Training * one-Day On-Site Training Seminar * Operational Protocol Provided by CETI * Technical Support from CETI and Other Research Affiliates * Access to Informational Network Research Affiliates Program * One Year Membership in CETI's Corporate Research Affiliates Program * One Year Subscription to Published Newsletter With Updates from Other Research Affiliates * Free Entrance and Participation in Two CETI Research Conferences * Replacement Parts Catalog with Special Discounts from CETI * Special Order Microsphere Configurations Available * Research Affiliate Program Members have the Opportunity to Purchase Bulk Quantities of Microsphere Electrodes Price $3,750 Or extend your research license and membership in the research affiliates program for a full three years for $7,500. Supply is Limited, Order Today for more information see our web site at http://www.cleanenergy.com/ceti or call (941) 957-3109 ENSAP(TM) (Exhaustive Nuclear Search and Analysis Program) * Performs Extensive Reaction Products Analysis * DOS/Windows Compatible (Pentium (TM) Recommended) Free Demo Included with Kit "Clean" cell and system are designed to reduce impurities providing the researcher with a high degree of confidence in nuclear reaction products. Patented Technology Patent: System for Electrolysis Claiming "Excess Heat" February 27, 1996 #5,494,559 Patent: System for Electrolysis of Liquid Electrolyte December 13, 1994 #5,372,688 Patent: Method for Electrolysis of Liquid Electrolyte June 7, 1994 #5,318,675 Patent: Metal Plated Microsphere Catalyst July 30, 1991 #5,036,031 Patent: Process for Producing Coated Microspheres July 24, 1990 #4,943,355 Over 20 additional patents pending on related technologies. "Based on seeing this device at work, I have confidence in promoting this technology within Bechtel." -Mr. Bruce C. Klein, PE, Bechtel "We are excited at the prospect of incorporating this technology into a proposed research program." -Dr. C. Quinton Bowles, University of Missouri "The Patterson Power Cell is a robust and forgiving cell design." Dr. Dennis Cravens Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. Patent Licensing and Development Company Phone: 941-957-3109 fax: 941-365-0487 PO Box 2016, Sarasota, Florida 34230 http://www.cleanenergy.com/ceti "Delivering the Future Today" From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 14:07:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA08232; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:33:12 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:33:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:32:09 -0800 Message-Id: <199611112132.NAA28616@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: Clarke / de Santillana quotes Resent-Message-ID: <"YcWB-.0.U02.MkvXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2072 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > The issue verged substantially on the existence of physical > truths not susceptible of measurement, and hence, whenever other reasons > so suggested, on the possibility of ignoring quantitative data. > >And that, folks, was the "End of Science" for 1800 years. Not the version that >Horgan is trying to foist on us today, but the real McCoy. If the Horgans of >our era succeed they may yet do as much damage as the ancient academics did. >Aristotle said we need slaves to keep our civilization going; there is no >alternative. Horgan says we must *be* slaves to the internal combustion engine >because there is no alternative, progress is over, the limits of growth have >been reached, our problems can never be fixed, space is not worth exploring, >physical truths like 'string theory' not susceptible to measurement are the >only true science, and bla, bla, bla. Jed; I wouldn't worry too much. It turns out that if you take a core through a real, three dimensional, time variant, honest to goodness standing wave in aether, sort of like coring an apple, what you get looks like a vibrating spring. And when one standing wave interacts with another, that too looks like two springs that are interacting. And now for the good part. The equations that describe the vibrations in springs, also describe the vibrations in "strings". But notice that "strings", do not describe "standing waves". So, while standing waves require a real medium and something real to be going on, and while these lead to interactions that can be modeled by string equations, the reverse cannot be said. And so I suggest that before long, physicists of our day will reject the purely mathematical notions, and bring them back down to reality as tools to analyse what is really going on. Tools that are describing real standing waves who's interactions work like interactions in strings would work. But standing waves will give rise to those interactions no matter what angle of approach is chosen. While for string interactions, you must close your eyes and pretend they know to always be in line with one another, and you must reject any attempt to even try to formulate any image of what those strings must look like. that is because, strings are nonsensical on their own. But physicists are amazed at how they are useful at describing the actual behaviors of matter. I would suggest that they take a step back, close their eyes, and wonder, "What structure would give rise to a linear string like vibration, but have full spherical symmetry so that real particles (better described as standing waves, and you can see the Nov Sci Am for a short blurb on oscillons which are very similar to what I am talking about) could approach from any angle and know what to do. If you were to do that, you would come to realize that your strings were just the interaction interferograms of two interacting standing waves. So, once this is understood, I think we will have another millenia of progress as we learn how to combine standing waves in usefull ways. For example, we will learn that groups of standing waves interacting can break down the Coulomb barrier and lead to bizzare reactions that transmute materials, and that those cold fusion whackos were right all along. But then I am just a whacko crackpot engineer, so what could I possibly design that could explain the nature of physics when I don't even have the math background to study the stuff? Well, I could design a standing wave in my head. Maybe Nuts, Ross Tessien (And because I am confident I am not, it is proven that I might be!) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 16:02:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA13374; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 15:47:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 15:47:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:47:24 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The real situation? In-Reply-To: <961111190852_100433.1541_BHG94-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"liSKt.0.pG3.eixXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2075 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 11 Nov 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > I don't like people reposting huge chunks out of previous messages, but what Jed > says is VITAL. I recall > > > As far as I am concerned the finest scientific accomplishments > > have come from people like Faraday who stuck close to the concerns > > of daily life. > > > > Bressani's comment about "no newspapers" drew applause from the > > audience, whereas I found it appalling. Horrible! Sickening! To me > > it is as if Bressani said: "We have proudly turned our back on > > society and ignored our responsibilities as citizens & > > professionals. We don't care how many people starve this week for > > lack of energy. We are only concerned with narrow academic > > politics. We will go on doing ineffective, useless experiments for > > as long as the grants hold out. Theory matters, people be damned." > > It is as if a group of doctors has found the cure for a dread > > disease, but they are too lazy or corrupt to tell anyone about it. > > I say that if mainstream academic scientists act this way, they > > will be rejected by society, their research grants will be > > withdrawn, and their institutions shut down. They will have no one > > to blame but themselves for this calamity. Politics and corruption > > are always part of any human institution, but in the past, > > scientists understood their value to society, and they understood > > that they had a responsibility to contribute to the general > > welfare. Now, they appear to have forgotten that completely. > At the School of Physics at University of Melbourne the more popular press we get the better. Every time we have something worth talking about we crow as loud as we can. We have clippings upon our bulletin boards. Our only worry is that the Journalists get the Physics right. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 16:59:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA24825; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 16:31:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 16:31:56 -0800 (PST) Date: 11 Nov 96 19:30:36 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: The real situation? Message-ID: <961112003035_100433.1541_BHG79-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"FksgX2.0.m36.xLyXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2076 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Martin, > At the School of Physics at University of Melbourne the more > popular press we get the better. Every time we have something > worth talking about we crow as loud as we can. We have clippings > upon our bulletin boards. Our only worry is that the Journalists > get the Physics right. I must apologise for sending a half-composed message to this board. Most unprofessional of me. What happened is that I was happily writing some drivel about the need for social responsibility in science (as well as a simple need to expand our knowledge) when the CF egg did rather hit the fan. The said drivel landed in my 'out' tray while I got on with more important work. Yes, I think that some universities are much better than others in emulating Faraday's desire to make science both useful and accessible to 'the people' (who pay them). And I raise a toast to Oz science. A country with a relatively small population has done far more than its 'size' would lead anyone to suppose was possible. Curiously enough, my mother's brother (now dead for some years) was a maths prof in (I'm almost sure it was) Melbourne U. His name was Lees, I wonder if anyone recalls him. The "maths gene" was obviously not a dominant one... Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 20:04:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA08018; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:37:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:37:42 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3287F0A9.2C67412E@math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:36:09 -0800 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: Correas Reactor..a Reichian background? References: <3.0.32.19961111010642.006e88b8@inforamp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"31W2q3.0.Az1.34_Xo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2077 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Quinney wrote: > > According to Doug Marett, M.Sc., an independent and professional > researcher/inventor, who worked with Paulo Correa, Phd., on an earlier > version of the Tube from the mid to the late 80's, they were trying to > replicate the Reichian Vacuum Tube (VACOR), which was reported to be an O/U > device... > > And does this mean that the ACTUAL history of this Vacuum Tube device > really goes back to 1947, to a man named Dr. Wilhelm Reich? ...Apparently, > Reich was a pioneer in *many* fields, and it IS conceivable... If the Correa device is an adaptation of one of W. Reich's inventions, that gives me great faith---that its bogus. :-) (No time for a Reich history lesson here, but he was a respected psychoanalyst (whatever that might be) in the early part of the century, who then went on to discover orgone energy as the universal driving entity behind just about everything.) If you search for Orgone on the Web, you can locate a number of Reich fan pages, so don't bug me for more info. My personal opinion was that Orgone was the material which upon decaying, produced N-rays :-). -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 20:28:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA09146; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:42:00 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:42:00 -0800 (PST) Date: 11 Nov 96 22:39:17 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Another Groupie Disease attack Message-ID: <961112033917_72240.1256_EHB183-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"BKrlm.0.lE2.78_Xo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2078 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Russ George writes: OK Jed since you seem to need a rudimentary science lesson. This tone is unacceptable here, and in my opinion it should be censured by the members of this discussion group. This is not s.p.f. Look at a periodic table and see if you can find any element that is claimed by some CF/SIMS researcher that lies in the farthest colum on the right. Those are the noble gases, there are not many of them so this exercise should even be within your grasp. . . I asked for specific information and references. That is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in serious scientific discourse, yet *this* is the response! At a conference or informal seminar this kind of surly non-answer would be ruled out of order. While I do not wish to play 20 questions to puzzle out what Russ is alleging, I gather he refers to the Mizuno paper in I.E. That paper shows elements and isotopes *detected by all instruments* in one table, just as the Miley paper does. Need a reference, how about Infinite Energy Magazine, that's the publication you finance isn't it. For the record, I do not finance Infinite Energy. I hereby resign from this guessing game. As Arthur says: Over And Out. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 20:38:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA18007; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:17:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:17:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:22:14 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex , John Schnurer Subject: Vector Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"H_2a-.0.CP4.Wf_Xo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2079 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I mean vector in the medical sense. Any medical types out there? I may have stumbeled on or found a vector or the vector for prostate cancer. Any medical types out there please pick up the thresd: Nearly every male has prostatic stones. Thet don't go away. There may be a wy to cause them to idssolve in a benign fashion. Thet do harbor bacterial, and maybe componds. The bacterials are antibiotic immune due to the physical porous nature of the stones. This same porous nature of the stones may trap and hold not-too-nice compounds. This causes the compounds'and-or not-too-nice organisms to be in intimate contact with sensitive tissue on a continuous nature. A possible vector. JHS From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 20:57:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA18909; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:20:54 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:20:54 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:59:52 -0500 Message-ID: <961111225951_1814947953@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: See and hear it all !!! Resent-Message-ID: <"j1eav2.0.Jd4.Xi_Xo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2080 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I'm a bad speller that's why I flunked the second grade. I graduated 4th is my class in high school and went on to complete 2 college degrees...and as many of you vortex readers have pointed out. I STILL CAN'T SPELL....and..now I'm 43...guess what....I NEVER WILL. sorry Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 20:58:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA19268; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:22:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:22:13 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3287FB46.42877E5C@math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:21:26 -0800 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: CETI Demo NOW in Washington DC References: <961111125252_76570.2270_FHU49-2@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"wJkVF2.0.-i4.qj_Xo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2081 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Eugene Mallove wrote: > > In private conversation at ICCF6, I think Reding was > talking about $3,500/year rental fee. Interesting---in conversations I had with Jim Reding at the Bockris meeting last month, he was suggesting a price in the $10,000--$20,000 range. I'm glad to see he came down into the realm of practicality. An amusing note that they announced the kit on Sunday, Nov 10, since that was my Birthday. If Jim Reding wants to give me a birthday present, he knows what I want... :-) -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 00:41:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA16448; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:19:12 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:19:12 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Gamma phase in Pd Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 06:58:29 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3287e9c2.16979546@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <961110194422_72240.1256_EHB173-1@CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <961110194422_72240.1256_EHB173-1@CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.326 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"X7xBR3.0.q04.uB3Yo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2082 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 10 Nov 96 14:44:23 EST, Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip] >3. The Storms' dimer model, in which pairs of deuterons occupy lattice > positions normally filled with just one deuteron. [snip] This is interesting. If one replaces the two deuterons with two opposite spin protons, one has a boson. Furthermore this "combined particle" would neatly fit the energy calculations that John Logajan performed based on the Miley results. Of course a deuteron itself would too, so perhaps this allows mixtures of both to partake in the reactions. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 00:56:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA22123; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:39:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:39:22 -0800 (PST) Date: 12 Nov 96 03:35:22 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Correas Reactor..a Reichian backgrou Message-ID: <961112083522_100433.1541_BHG36-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"gKhlk2.0.TP5.tU3Yo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2084 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, Someone commented recently that Reich was remarkable for having been persecuted, imprisoned and having his books burned - both in Nazi Germany and America. But perhaps that tells us more about Reich than about the two nations involved. On the other hand, I'd prefer to see the Correa machine stand or fall on its merits. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 03:42:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA22716; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 03:40:35 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 03:40:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 02:41:42 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Correas Reactor..a Reichian background? Resent-Message-ID: <"NLVtb.0.sY5.o86Yo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2085 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry Merriman wrote: > >(No time for a Reich history lesson here, but he was a >respected psychoanalyst (whatever that might be) in the >early part of the century, who then went on to discover >orgone energy as the universal driving entity behind just >about everything.) > >If you search for Orgone on the Web, you can locate a number of >Reich fan pages, so don't bug me for more info. >My personal opinion was that Orgone was the material which >upon decaying, produced N-rays :-). >-- >Barry Merriman Colin Quinney definitely has a good point here. If you check Doug Marett's web site at: as Colin suggests, you will see drawings that would pass for drawings of the Correas' tubes. Except for operating the tubes at a lower pressure, the Correas' o-u claims all seem to stem from a tube design based on Reich's work. It would be necessary to see Reich's actual drawings in the article "The Geiger Muller Effect of the Orgone", 1947, published in the "Oranur Experiment," or to see the actual tubes at the Wilhelm Reich museum before coming to that conclusion though. I do not recall any mention of Reich in the Correa patents, something that could possibly invalidate the patents, even though the operation in the (lower) PAGD specified pressure range may (or may not) be considered by an examiner a novel invention over Reich's work. Unless Marett is lying,the Correas certainly knew about Reich's tube, because Marett claims to have worked with the Paulo Correa on replicating it in the mid-1980's. If this is true the Correas can not use ignorance as an excuse for failing to mention Reich in the references to prior art. All this could, at the least, make defense of the Correas' patent very messy. It appears possible the art could even end up being public domain for all practical purposes. This is not meant to comment on Reich either positively or negatively, only on Marett's alligation of the Correas' lack of candor. Marett states: "Bravo to the Correas for solving the motor force mystery, and shame on them for not giving Reich credit where the credit was due." I just want to emphatically agree with Chris, though, that the PAGD device (and IMHO the improvements suggested by Marett) should stand or fall on their own merit, not on Reich's or the Correas' or Marett's reputation. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 05:43:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA16577; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:19:29 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 00:19:29 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Kennel's ICCF-6 Report Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 06:58:33 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3288fb3d.21454693@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <01BBCFC8.26E56FC0@sparc1.nhelab.iae.or.jp> In-Reply-To: <01BBCFC8.26E56FC0@sparc1.nhelab.iae.or.jp> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.326 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"aOVYT2.0.x24.GC3Yo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2083 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:01:57 +-900, Kennel wrote: > >CONFERENCE REPORT: ICCF-6 > >Author: Elliot Kennel, NHE Lab, Sapporo Japan; Kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp > >(Copyrighted information. Please ask permission before reprinting or = reposting.) I hope that a reply to this message on this forum doesn't constitute a copyright infringement? [snip] >1. Evidence suggesting the existence of an anomaly. There were several= papers which I felt provided strong evidence for the existence of a = nuclear anomaly. Among the strongest were: >=09 > a. Kasagi et al.'s study of accelerator irradiation of metal targets = with low energy deuterons. In this case, the detection of up to 18 MeV = protons is not at all expected, as this can not occur from normal DD = fusion through the normal P + T reaction pathway, which results in only = 3.02 MeV protons. =20 Perhaps a more likely source would be a medium heavy metal fission reaction, initially triggered by a deuterium fusion. >Kasagi indicates that this may be due to three body reactions, despite = the fact that the cross section is six orders of magnitude too small for = this to occur. Interestingly, Dr. Douglas Morrison, one of the most = astute critics of cold fusion research, in the question-and-answer = session focused on the fact that the branching ratio observed was near = 50% for P + T and N + 3-He pathways (i.e., not very anomalous), but did = not comment on the three-body observations. I would have been interested= to learn Morrison's opinion on this. Perhaps it will appear in his = conference report, which is usually widely distributed. At any rate, my = personal view is that their is a very high chance >that Kasagi has shown that there is an unknown factor coupling nuclear = and chemical states within a solid crystal lattice. Although there is no= evidence that this is connected to radiationless New Hydrogen Energy = reactions of the type needed to explain excess heat, this is a good place= to look. You might like to visit my web page (see sig.) for an indirect reason for such a coupling. Temperature dependence of these fusion reactions is also covered. >=09 > b. Roussetski (Lebedev Institute, Moscow), claims to have verified = Lipson's observation of reproducible charged particle and neutron = emission at anomalous energies. Plastic scintillation detectors, Silicon= Solid State Detectors and CR-39 detectors all obtained the same results.= The experiment involved a Ag-PdO-Pd-PdO-Ag heterostructure cathode = which outgasses under moderately high temperature (T <100 C). Of = particular interest is the observation that neutron amplification occurs = (200 neutrons out for one in) under certain conditions. =20 This need not surprise, if an environment exists wherein reactions can occur, that is just waiting for a "trigger". >This also suggests group behavior (coupling) of=20 >large numbers of lattice atoms combining nuclear and chemical states. = The Once again see my web site. > results are far beyond experimental error with thousands of excess = counts. A word of caution, however, is that other experiments have shown= phenomenal results but other researchers have not been able to duplicate= them. Thus we should await confirmation before hailing this as an = accomplished fact. There is however, no a >priori reason to assume that the data are wrong, either.=20 > > c. I am very impressed by the claims by Miley et al., Mizuno et al., = Savvatimova et al., Celani et al. and others concerning the presence of = anomalous chemical species in isotopically enriched form on electrolysis = cathodes. Certainly, chemical contaminants are expected on the cathode = which acts as a magnet for all ionic crud in the system. However, = isotopically enriched crud is a different story. To a lesser extent, it = is impressive that the observers report very similar four-humped = elemental distributions, reminiscent of the two-humped fission fragment = distribution curves. This is "four-humped"? I have seen references to "three-humped" distributions, but four is new to me. Is this a typo, or have I missed something? (I would expect 3; i.e. the two from fission, plus a third due to pure fusion resulting in a single nucleus. See my web page for momentum distribution). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 08:16:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA12412; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 07:50:41 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 07:50:41 -0800 (PST) Date: 12 Nov 96 10:46:42 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Bad spelers u-night! Message-ID: <961112154641_72240.1256_EHB160-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"z-tC62.0.p13.Dp9Yo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2086 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Frank Znidarsic writes: I'm a bad speller that's why I flunked the second grade . . . I STILL CAN'T SPELL....and..now I'm 43...guess what....I NEVER WILL. I'm not a bad speller, I am TERRIBLE speller -- in two languages yet! But Frank, please: This is why God gave us spell-check programs. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 08:57:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA20335; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 08:27:45 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 08:27:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:24:24 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: D20 heat In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19961111202836.24c7f8a0@po.pacific.net.sg> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Sd5zG1.0.Wz4.uLAYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2087 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: DETECTING RADIATION In the old days, prior to Gieger-Muller tube counters operating within the Townsend effect region, we used a thing called a spinthariscope. Bet that dates me! In any event it was a small tube, hollow, with magnifying lens at one end so as to bring a tiny screen of zinc sulphide, or the equivalent, to high and grainey magnification. The screen was often arranged so as to present raw zinc sulphide [which is very poisionous], or other phosphors [which you can obtain by CAREFULLY breaking a flourescent tube and scraping the white powder out ... 'cool white' is a good choice because it is, in and of itself, mercury metal or vapor excluded, fairly immune to moisture and non toxic] directly to the suspected source of radiation. The whole was used in the dark and at least 5 min. is allowed to elapse for dark adaption of the eye. A single alpha event can easily be seen, by a child anyway, as a brief bright spark or flash. Another method is to charge an electroscope and if there is enough ionizing radiation, the change is dissipated more quickly than if not. JHS On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Mpower wrote: > Got a question about radiation exposure: > > Scott Little posted the following (edited for brevity) at 14:16 1996.10.16 > -0500: > >At 08:16 10/16/96 -0600, Tom Claytor wrote: > > > >>I would be more concerned about how much tritium is in the D20.... > >>....(evacuate the room at 100 microcurie/meter cubed) > > > >Hi Tom, welcome to Vortex. Is a case of beer still prescribed for acute T > >exposure cases? > > > >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) > > > > I have a source which, because my geiger counter is ruint, I can't actually > say what the level is. How would you determine what radiation level is > hazardous in the absence of a reliable (manufactured) > radiation detection device ? > > (No ! I will not remain there until all the lab rats die !) > > ********************************************************** > * http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 ******** > ********************************************************** > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 09:19:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA25182; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 08:48:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 08:48:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:44:19 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex Subject: Gravity Society (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"d3Gab2.0.J96.2fAYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2088 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 15:10:45 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: Robert Stirniman Cc: John Schnurer , vortex Subject: Gravity Society RS Asks: Why is the Gravity Society in Yellow Springs? A: It is not. Please see a little history. The GS is in Yellow Springs for simply historical reasons. Some time ago Giovanni Modanese said "It is too bad there is not a society to discuss such matters as gravity" .... So I said let us start one ..... So then he said good, let us do so ..... So then I said "I nominate 3 members, PK as the first, you as the second, and me as the third .... and since neither of you two are here, and I am on THIS side of the key board, I will join first to the Gravity Society".... and he wrote "I join to Society" .... and so it happened. And then I went through a lot of rig a ma role, some legal some not.... in any event, in Italy he word "society" is a legal thing and either is or can be the legal equivalent of what we call a corporation... and, in Italy, it can do monetary business, have debt, be liable ... and so on. But in THIS country a "society" can be a bunch of janes and joes who sit about, play darts, guzzle beer, put out a news letter, and call themselveves the "Official Society of Moderate Velocity Pointed Flying Objects", proclaim themselves the 'experts' and "Official Society" and "Authority" of same and so on. It is, in part, a matter of ethics. We wanted to make SURE, as sure as we could, that any release from the GS was accurate. I had yet to read ANY publication which was, in all respects, accurate. Some errors were minor, some were physics errors, some were 'human factors' errors. GS will never be perfect, but we will try. In USA [for me anyway] it is VERY easy for me to set up, register and so on, an Internet Domain. Which I did ..... it is gravity.org I know the administrators, sysops and so on ... personally. I am, personally a computer idiot as far as software goes ..... I can hold my own with any expert on semiconductor recombination time ... or worse .... but ask me to figure out how to make or change a batch file, forget it! There is nothing on the web www.gravity.org ...... nor is there any discussion list or moderator list, yet, because in that arena I am clue less. I will have full time student co op [cooperative employment, part of Antioch College's educational program] next term ... and then things should be smooth and professional... as far as net stuff goes. Does this help some? I will continue the thread some more when I have a little time. The main thing is the ethic. The Gravity Society is truly international. When Giovanni Modanese contrubutes, it is GS, Italy. When PK cotributes it is GS Russia, or Finland. When Argonnne Nat'l Labs contributes it is USA .... get the idea? Gravity Society From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 12:05:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA05952; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:38:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:38:18 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611121937.LAA08281@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, 12 Nov 1996 11:37:01 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: A method of air dropping food Resent-Message-ID: <"CCiDW1.0.sS1.Y8DYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2089 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:43 AM 11/10/96 -0800, you wrote: >Sorry for this off topic post but I have to start somewhere: > >The idea is to adapt some existing military Meals Ready to Eat (MRE) >packaging techiniques and recipies to use in small packages similar in size >to ketchup, mayonaise, or hot sauce squeeeze packets. Such squeeze packets >are typically 1.5 inches by 3 inches and about .25 inches thick. > > >Regards, > >Horace Heffner > > > > What an incredably good idea. You are a one man virtual think tank. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 12:24:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA09454; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:53:34 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:53:34 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611121953.LAA10380@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, 12 Nov 1996 11:52:43 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Bad spelers u-night! Resent-Message-ID: <"m2pO91.0.aJ2.yMDYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2090 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:46 AM 11/12/96 EST, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >Frank Znidarsic writes: > > I'm a bad speller that's why I flunked the second grade . . . I STILL > CAN'T SPELL....and..now I'm 43...guess what....I NEVER WILL. > >I'm not a bad speller, I am TERRIBLE speller -- in two languages yet! But >Frank, please: This is why God gave us spell-check programs. > >- Jed > > I have an important sceintific anouncement to make on this subject. After a lifetime of study on this subject, I offer the following theorem to account for all known facts of mis-spelling. Namely: the ability to spell a notoriously inconsistent, illogical language, of which english certainly qualifies at the top of the heap, is inversely proportional to the logical ability of the speller. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 14:25:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA27505; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:19:14 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:19:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Subject: Re: Bad spelers u-night! Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 16:17:32 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Ln1wd2.0.Yj6.EdEYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2091 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ---------- > From: Michael Mandeville > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Bad spelers u-night! > Date: Monday, November 11, 1996 10:52 PM > Michel Mandeville wrote: (snip) Namely: the ability to spell a > notoriously inconsistent, illogical language, of which english certainly > qualifies at the top of the heap, is inversely proportional to the logical > ability of the speller. YEAAAAYS , OH YEAAAYS!!!! Frank Stenger, Bad speller EXTRA-ORD-A-NAIR! From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 14:26:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA00563; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:34:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:34:08 -0800 (PST) Date: 12 Nov 96 16:31:23 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Re: A method of air dropping food Message-ID: <961112213122_100433.1541_BHG92-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"0X00N.0.b8.3rEYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2092 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On MRE (meals ready to eat) it should be pointed out that these have been dubbed by the US military "Meals Rejected by Ethiopians". During the Gulf conflict, British troops traded their own rations for American camp beds and also supplied cans of boiling water to heat the much better microwave-able US rations - regrettably the US armoured vehicles lacked the microwave ovens required to heat them. Just an aside, you know, not an argument against the idea itself... Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 14:35:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA00733; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:34:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:34:42 -0800 (PST) Date: 12 Nov 96 16:31:25 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Bad spelers u-night! Message-ID: <961112213125_100433.1541_BHG92-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"wP83e.0.GB.hrEYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2093 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > I have an important sceintific anouncement to make on this > subject. After a lifetime of study on this subject, I offer the > following theorem to account for all known facts of mis-spelling. > Namely: the ability to spell a notoriously inconsistent, > illogical language, of which english certainly qualifies at the > top of the heap, is inversely proportional to the logical ability > of the speller. And I would suggest something different. Language skill (which generally but not always includes the knack of good spelling) often correlates with programming ability and logical thought in general. Mathematical ability is separate from (but does not necessarily exclude) language and logical skills. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 14:52:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA01548; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:38:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:38:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 16:32:56 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bad spelers u-night! In-Reply-To: <199611121953.LAA10380@big.aa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"DJMoR.0._N.UvEYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2094 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I spel rell bad alla timb. Jhon and I am dyslexic too! On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Michael Mandeville wrote: > At 10:46 AM 11/12/96 EST, you wrote: > >To: Vortex > > > >Frank Znidarsic writes: > > > > I'm a bad speller that's why I flunked the second grade . . . I STILL > > CAN'T SPELL....and..now I'm 43...guess what....I NEVER WILL. > > > >I'm not a bad speller, I am TERRIBLE speller -- in two languages yet! But > >Frank, please: This is why God gave us spell-check programs. > > > >- Jed > > > > > > I have an important sceintific anouncement to make on this subject. After a > lifetime of study on this subject, I offer the following theorem to account > for all known facts of mis-spelling. Namely: the ability to spell a > notoriously inconsistent, illogical language, of which english certainly > qualifies at the top of the heap, is inversely proportional to the logical > ability of the speller. > ____________________________________ > MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing > Michael Mandeville, publisher > mwm@aa.net > http://www.aa.net/~mwm > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 16:21:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA25547; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:32:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:32:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:27:47 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI Demo/Commercial Details - 2nd Trans. In-Reply-To: <961111173455_76570.2270_FHU84-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"GuBJP3.0.4F6.nZGYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2095 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 11 Nov 1996, Eugene Mallove wrote: > November 11, 1996 > > Dear Colleagues: > > This is a very big day for cold fusion. I just spoke this morning (11/11/96) > with CETI's CEO Jim Reding, who gave me more details about the demo cells they > are selling at the American Nuclear Society Meeting --The Global Benefits of > Nuclear Technology"-- at the Washington, DC Sheraton hotel. (I will post their > formal press release later, when I have received it by fax.) > > CETI has sold 40 kits already at $3,750.00 each -- about one-third of those kits > were sold at the Washington meeting. > Well, this is crossing the Rubicon. With 40 kits out there CETI has enabled the Scienfic Community to get back into CF. We'll have a very interesting time in a month or so when people start to get results. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 16:21:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA25621; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:32:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:32:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:18:47 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The real situation? In-Reply-To: <961111191820_100060.173_JHB102-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"dIQGV2.0.EG6.3aGYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2096 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 11 Nov 1996, Norman Horwood wrote: > > Amen ^2 and when Maggie Thatcher tried to force the scientific establishment > to be more application biased she was insulted by them. > The idea of some politicians that Scientists have mountains of good technology just waiting to be turned into money is crazy. It's BLOODY HARD to find a good, original idea that can be turned into money and even then it's really hard work. There are litterally thousands of technology companies all over the earth investing a lot of time, energy and money into this activity. The idea of Government funded basic research should be to provide the knowledge basis for these companies to work from. Both in terms of skilled employees for these companies and the scientific underpinning for applied scientific work. It is truely silly for Governments to think their own Scientists can do better than Hitachi, IBM, Xerox, AT&T, GALAXO etc. etc. The research budget of just one middle-sized US technology company, Digital Equipement, at 1 Billion dollars per year, is more 3 times the total amount of money handed out by the Australian Granting agency to all the University based Scientists in my country. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 16:31:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA26784; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:39:27 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:39:27 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3288F188.33590565@math.ucla.edu> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:52:08 -0800 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: Bad spelers u-night! References: <961112154641_72240.1256_EHB160-2@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"e5v_t2.0.JY6.cfGYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2097 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I'm not a bad speller, I am TERRIBLE speller -- in two languages yet! I am actually a very good speller---but I can't type. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 17:26:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA18954 for billb@eskimo.com; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:25:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:25:53 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: daved@nimbus.anu.edu.au Tue Nov 12 17:25:45 1996 Received: from nimbus.anu.edu.au (nimbus.anu.edu.au [150.203.126.21]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA18728 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:24:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (from daved@localhost) by nimbus.anu.edu.au (8.8.0/8.8.0) id LAA19582; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:46:23 +1100 (EST) Old-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:46:23 +1100 (EST) From: Dave DAVIES Message-Id: <199611130046.LAA19582@nimbus.anu.edu.au> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The real situation? Cc: daved@nimbus.anu.edu.au X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: > From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) > [snip] > > How true. I'm not much of a historian, but there are various examples of > rebellion against elitist academicians, and they are not bloodless. The > wholesale slaughter of academicians at Oxford (or was it Cambridge?) by > local peasants is one example. > > If you are referring to the circa 1600(1606?) incident the locals probably had a case. Oxford was protecting a murderer who killed a local girl and the locals shut down the university - everyone went to Cambridge abandoning Oxford. Have there been other similar incidents? It wouldn't surprise me. dave From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 22:00:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA21574; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 21:46:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 21:46:26 -0800 (PST) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 00:33:25 -0500 Message-ID: <961113003325_225928782@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Visit to CETI booth at ANS meeting Resent-Message-ID: <"1c3vw2.0.0H5.m2MYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2100 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Being only 2+ hours away, I drove to Washington today to visit the CETI booth and meet with Reding, Patterson and Cravens. The booth was modest, the most important fact was that it was there and offering the RIFEX kits for lease. To answer Hal's question, fax CETI at (941) 365-0487 for a copy of the order form, which has the aspect of an application. Diletantes need not apply, they want to know if you have EDX, SIMS, SEM, Auger(AES) instruments. The kits will be issued at an on-site training seminar at the University of Illinois, December 10, 1996. The purpose of the kits is to facilitate study of the extensive transmutation phenomena (reported by Miley and others) by many people in many places so as to erase all shadow of doubt about the existence of chemically assisted nuclear reactions. And, incidentally, to start an intellectual revolution. The RIFEX cell was there for looking at, neatly packaged with teflon parts. It didn't look like a paradigm bomb, but one can never tell. Cravens had a power cell running in one corner at a few watts output, nothing very impressive (this year, anyhow). But it did have the ceramic beads. Gene has posted the most important disclosures of the occasion. About 60 applications for the RIFEX kits had been received when I talked ot Reding. I noted to Patterson that others had reported radioactive remediation; he replied that the others had not furnished the patent office enough data to support an application or merit a patent. Methinks that CETI has been very busy during this year of public quiet; drifting quietly on the surface but paddling furiously underneath, like the proverbial duck. Reding indicated that he wanted to get the kits out earlier, but needed to get the intellectual property nailed down first. Handouts consisted of preprints of the Miley papers at ICCF-6, and LENR (from IE), the RIFEX brochure and application. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 22:17:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA24829; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 21:59:05 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 21:59:05 -0800 (PST) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 00:33:23 -0500 Message-ID: <961113003321_225928770@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correas Reactor..a Reichian background? Resent-Message-ID: <"UNc_G3.0.t36.bEMYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2101 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Having read Marett's material on orgone, and being passably familiar with the Correa invention, may I add the following comments. For orgone, one could say aether or some other word that makes one more comfortable. Reich apparently made some interesting observations and Marett is repeating some of the experiemnts. He has used a GM tube and noted that a low-power motor can be run from impulses developed by it; apparently the motor functions as an impulse counter. Marett built a tube similar in configuration to ones used by Reich and Correa and observed discharges, including the conical discahrge columns, similar to those seen in the Correa reactors. Marett says "However, it is not known whether circuits using this unique tube design would generate excess energy". The circuit Marett shows as his Fig 6 has a capacitor connected ***directly*** across the tube, makiing it a classic glow-discharge relaxation oscillator. Readers of my articles on the Correa invention in IE should be aware that a) it does not operate as a relaxation oscillator and b) a shunt capacitor or energy collection circuit is not necessary to obtain the energy bursts. Marett goes on to say that he began replicating the Correa's work the week after the application was laid open, and says he saw discharge forms similar to those seen in pictures in the Reich museum. I have seen them also in a discharge chamber built by Jeff Fink, but they do not produce excess energy. It is only after Marett saw the Correa application that he introduced the "low impedance" source. He blurs this; it is essential to have a driving source which is internally rugged and stable, ***and*** the correct current limiter, which my be only a few hundred ohms with the rather large electrode areas. Marett claims to have produced excess energy in the manner of the Correas, ***after*** reading their application. I could go on in more detail, but this is similar to the instances cited in Jed's essay on the Wrights. Flat wings are just fine.... In conversation with me, Correa has referred to the existence of Reich's work. It may be true that Marett brought Reich's work to Correa's attention. It may be true that there are similar configurations in structure. None of these are of the essence of the Correa's discovery, which is an ***operating mode*** which evokes the very powerful energy bursts. There is no evidence that Reich saw *these*, or Marett, before he saw the Correa patent applications. It does not follow that the Correa's work is derivative from Reich's, despite similarities in tube configurations; the quality of the extensive reference trail is quite different, going back to observations of anomalous phenomenon in arc discharges in the '30s. I think no shame is due the Correas for their exhaustively documented work. I think a shadow of shame is due to Marett, for implying that the Correa's work is derivative, and giving a mere dollop of credit for a clever energy collection circuit. In a famous court fight over the priority of the invention of the telepnone, Bell won over Gray because Gray's transmitter relied on a loose contact whose adjustment was exquisitely delicate, and Bell very clearly understood and taught the necessity of an "undulating" current; the case turned on that very word; the judge stated that to "To follow Gray was to fail, to follow Bell was to succeed." I don't doubt that there are connections between the underlying phenomena the Reich saw and the Correas see. I am unfamiliar with the corpus of Reich's work. If you dig deeply enough, you will find plenty of antecedants for our discoveries and come reluctantly to the realization that the ancients have stolen our inventions. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 22:42:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA01552; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:26:41 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:26:41 -0800 (PST) Date: 12 Nov 96 23:25:05 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: CETI Demo/Commercial Details - 2nd Trans Message-ID: <961113042504_72240.1256_EHB101-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"fTVrj1.0.7O.UeMYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2103 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Martin Sevior writes: Well, this is crossing the Rubicon. With 40 kits out there CETI has enabled the Scientific Community to get back into CF. We'll have a very interesting time in a month or so when people start to get results. Or when people *don't* get results, as the case may be. Assuming CETI can ship out all 40 soon. I expect the kits will work as advertised. The people at CETI are not the only ones who have staked their reputations on this. Dennis Cravens and George Miley were there at the conference supporting CETI. George is willing to host training sessions. This is a vote of confidence; they must have good reasons to think the kits are debugged. I hope so! Naturally I am a nervous about glitches and non working kits. Lord knows I have sweated through a lot of first-run product releases! It is always nerve wracking and things always go wrong, but with people like Miley on their team they'll be okay. Naturally I am delighted by this turn of events. I am delighted for CETI's sake too. They just raked in $150,000 in a couple of weeks with practically no advertising or promotion. I hope they will look at that pile of checks and undergo satori (enlightenment). "Money!" they'll say. "These people sent us a pile of money! It cost us only $20,000 to make these things and we get $150,000. Goodness! Just think: What if we make 40 more cells . . . or 80 . . . or 1000!?!" By golly, I hope they sell 1,000 kits this year and a million more next year. It would teach the other CF scientists a lesson they will *never* forget! It will teach the whole world a lesson. All this nonsense about strategic R&D alliances and taking over the world. That isn't business. That's a pipe dream. Business means selling things, gaining customer confidence, plowing the profits back into the product, advertising, and taking off like a rocket *on your own initiative*. CETI and so many others have been sitting around passively for years waiting for Motorola to ride up on a white horse and sweep them off their feet. They have been holding back a product that people will pay millions for -- even billions! It hurts me to see people throw away an opportunity to make a fortune. I was pleased and touched yesterday. Fred Jaeger from ENECO called me in the evening and said "this is a victory for you. They are finally doing what you have been pushing them to do all along." A year ago at Anaheim he supported me as I tried to push CETI to commit to conventional marketing approach, starting with broad exposure selling kits. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 22:46:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA01524; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:26:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:26:37 -0800 (PST) Date: 12 Nov 96 23:25:21 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Bad spelers u-night! Message-ID: <961113042520_72240.1256_EHB101-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"dNEDV1.0.gN.QeMYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2102 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Barry Merriman writes: I am actually a very good speller---but I can't type. Well now, seriously, that's a darn shame. You should learn! It is never too late to pick up a simple mechanical skill. Get one of these computer training programs. I learned to type when I was 12 and I never looked back. In another 5 or 10 years I hope these voice input programs mature so that typing skills no longer matter. It can't happen too soon for me. I would not mind seeing another of my rote skills become obsolete. But it may take even longer than 10 years, and it would be a shame to be hamstrung all that time by an inability to write quickly & smoothly, so you really should learn to type. That's what I tell my kids. (One listens, the other doesn't.) Once we get voice input everyone on earth will that great luxury once confined to the elite: a secretary who takes dictation. Some people say it would hurt our writing skills. One fellow said that word processing is too lax, we should make kids write with a pen all through high school because it "enforces discipline." I said why stop there? Make 'em write with a feather quill. I don't get it . . . people think that obsolete, annoying technology is good for your soul. Anyway, my mother and my grandfather had secretaries for most of their careers and their English was excellent. So did Winston Churchill, Roosevelt, and most other Big Wigs in history. Mechanical skills have nothing to do with learning to express yourself well in writing. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 12 23:39:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA18687; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 23:31:00 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 23:31:00 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611130729.XAA31477@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, 12 Nov 1996 23:29:23 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Bad spelers u-night! Resent-Message-ID: <"AFLSi3.0.oZ4.maNYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2104 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:31 PM 11/12/96 EST, you wrote: >And I would suggest something different. Language skill (which >generally but not always includes the knack of good spelling) often >correlates with programming ability and logical thought in general. >Mathematical ability is separate from (but does not necessarily exclude) >language and logical skills. > >Chris > > Sheesh, jus what we needed, somebody serious. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 13 01:14:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA14136; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:11:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:11:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:11:13 -0800 Message-Id: <199611130911.BAA14568@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Detecting radiation, Re: D20 heat To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"HeF2y2.0.oS3.L3PYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2105 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: November 12, 1996 Wednesday You wrote: > > DETECTING RADIATION > > In the old days, prior to Gieger-Muller tube counters operating >within the Townsend effect region, we used a thing called a spinthariscope. > Bet that dates me! > > In any event it was a small tube, hollow, with magnifying lens at >one end so as to bring a tiny screen of zinc sulphide, or the equivalent, >to high and grainey magnification. > The screen was often arranged so as to present raw zinc sulphide >[which is very poisionous], or other phosphors [which you can obtain by >CAREFULLY breaking a flourescent tube and scraping the white powder out >... 'cool white' is a good choice because it is, in and of itself, mercury >metal or vapor excluded, fairly immune to moisture and non toxic] >directly to the suspected source of radiation. The whole was used in the >dark and at least 5 min. is allowed to elapse for dark adaption of the eye. > A single alpha event can easily be seen, by a child anyway, as a >brief bright spark or flash. Yup. In the latter half of the forties, I sent for a cereal box premium (25 cents?) to get a ring mounted aluminum rocket capsule which was your spintariscope. I believe you pulled off the rear plastic rocket fin assembly to expose a magnifier which was focused on a flourescent mixture with a radiation source. And there, you could see (after your eyes got adjusted) the marvels of radiation. In those days, you got an uranium sample (Carnotite) in your Chemcraft set. Even a lunch box vibrator operated high voltage geiger-counter that ran off of a D-cell. I was hell bent on trying to get Uranium out somehow, but the chemicals ran out and school homework and the real world took the time away. One day, Boom! Now on to Fusion! And CF at that and no more Boom desires with "maturity". Somehow I miss those "At Your Risk" days of exposures. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 13 01:24:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA16166; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:22:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:22:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:21:22 -0800 Message-Id: <199611130921.BAA11271@dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Bad spelers u-night! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"aDFVE3.0.Ry3.zCPYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2106 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: > >And I would suggest something different. Language skill (which >generally but not always includes the knack of good spelling) often >correlates with programming ability and logical thought in general. >Mathematical ability is separate from (but does not necessarily >exclude)language and logical skills. > >Chris > Doesn't all this have to do with the right brain, the left brain, and no brain, and some mixture of them all? -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 13 01:37:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA18795; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:36:03 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:36:03 -0800 (PST) Date: 13 Nov 96 03:40:40 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: CETI Demo/Commercial Details - 2nd Trans Message-ID: <961113084039_100060.173_JHB100-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"i6r3y3.0.Yb4.1QPYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2108 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> Fred Jaeger from ENECO called me in the evening and said "this is a victory for you. They are finally doing what you have been pushing them to do all along." A year ago at Anaheim he supported me as I tried to push CETI to commit to conventional marketing approach, starting with broad exposure selling kits. - Jed << Hear hear ! But this delay might be a blessing in disguise in that the product is that much more mature and less likely to fail in other hands - a vital aspect for general acceptance of CF. Its fingers crossed time! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 13 01:37:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA18760; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:35:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:35:55 -0800 (PST) Date: 13 Nov 96 03:40:37 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: The real situation? Message-ID: <961113084036_100060.173_JHB100-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"EaAwv.0.0b4.vPPYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2107 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> It is truely silly for Governments to think their own Scientists can do better than Hitachi, IBM, Xerox, AT&T, GALAXO etc. etc. The research budget of just one middle-sized US technology company, Digital Equipement, at 1 Billion dollars per year, is more 3 times the total amount of money handed out by the Australian Granting agency to all the University based Scientists in my country. Martin Sevior << I'm not referring to government employed scientists, but to the general university science teams. I would like to see far more central funding of this source of research, but I also feel that their work should have a stronger bias towards practical applications. Pure research is essential, but to leave all the applied science to commercial enterprise is asking for duplication of effort and waste of resources, although the motivation of competition has to be recognised as well. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 13 01:48:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA21120; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:47:33 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:47:33 -0800 (PST) Date: 13 Nov 96 04:43:42 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Bad spelers u-night! Message-ID: <961113094341_100433.1541_BHG52-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ahKeL2.0.v95.qaPYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2109 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mike, > >And I would suggest something different. Language skill (which > >generally but not always includes the knack of good spelling) > often >correlates with programming ability and logical thought in > general. >Mathematical ability is separate from (but does not > necessarily exclude) >language and logical skills. > >Chris > > > > Sheesh, jus what we needed, somebody serious. Serious? Me? Nah, it was just one of my sour-grapes anti-mathematician things. I'm so bad about it that I've started to parody myself.... Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 13 02:18:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA10468; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 16:46:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 16:46:50 -0800 (PST) Date: 12 Nov 96 19:43:13 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: CETI Demo/Commercial Details - 2nd T Message-ID: <961113004312_100433.1541_BHG52-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"nOpCy1.0.NZ2.JfHYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2098 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > We'll have a very interesting time in a month or so when people > start to get results. A month! Hah! First CETI have to deliver. I bet they will be on a minimum 2 months' delivery, and then even they won't be able to ship the whole thing. They'll end up sending the gadgets out without some varieties of beads - or worse. Prototypes is what they are, and "prototypes take longer" - like mircales! Chris Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 13 02:48:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA05927; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 20:27:32 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 20:27:32 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Bad spelers u-night! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:26:53 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <3288F188.33590565@math.ucla.edu> from "Barry Merriman" at Nov 12, 96 01:52:08 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: <"UWfbg.0.WS1.ouKYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2099 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry Merriman writes: > Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I'm not a bad speller, I am TERRIBLE speller -- in two languages yet! > > I am actually a very good speller---but I can't type. I've cast a few bad spells myself, but to no avail. -- - 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 Nov 13 02:56:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA04145; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 02:54:00 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 02:54:00 -0800 (PST) From: alansch@zip.com.au (Alan Schneider) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bad spelers u-night! Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:45:27 GMT Message-ID: <328bc10a.12257063@mail.zip.com.au> References: <199611121953.LAA10380@big.aa.net> In-Reply-To: <199611121953.LAA10380@big.aa.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/16.299 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"PXQ-f3.0.h01.7ZQYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2110 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Michael Mandeville =20 assaulted us with: [snip] _>I have an important sceintific anouncement to make on this=20 _>subject. After a lifetime of study on this subject, I offer the=20 _>following theorem to account for all known facts of mis-spelling. =20 _>Namely: the ability to spell a notoriously inconsistent, illogical=20 _>language, of which english certainly qualifies at the top of the=20 _>heap, is inversely proportional to the logical ability of the _>speller. Hmmm. Two corollaries of this theorem are: 1) that a person who can spell well, even (especially) in=20 English, is likely to have a correspondingly deficient=20 logical facility, and 2) That a person who is exceptionally able with logic is, ipso facto, a poor speller, especially in English.=20 I'm not sure who is being insulted here . Just to add fuel to the flames , where does=20 grammar fit in? Most grammatical rules make even less sense than spelling. Again, especially in English. Cheers, all Alan =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams that Stuff is made of. - Michael Sinz =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 13 05:33:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA05944; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 05:31:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 05:31:21 -0800 (PST) Date: 13 Nov 96 08:27:58 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo" Subject: Fusion Infusion Message-ID: <961113132757_76016.2701_JHC89-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"_K8p62.0.oS1.dsSYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2111 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Vortices: The awesome announcements from Washington, DC are indeed monumental in the history of Cold Fusion; however, last night, an event emanating from the Left Coast causes the Right Coast news to pale. Rupert Murdoch's Fox Network production of "Alien Nation - The Enemy Within" (a made-for-TV movie) twice mentioned Cold Fusion. And, indeed, as reality often imitates art, the CF process was used to purify toxic substances in this program. So, purge any doubt from your mind. CF has made it. Terry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 13 05:47:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA08863; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 05:44:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 05:44:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:43:07 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Detecting radiation, Re: D20 heat In-Reply-To: <199611130911.BAA14568@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"0BOQi1.0.LA2.G3TYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2112 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Akira, so glad to hear from one of the 'do it your self' "Heath Kit" .... hardball nuts and bolts, belt and suspenders engineering crowd. One day the lawnmower would not start easily, I looked at the gizmo ..... a couple of youths were standing about ... I had NO TOOLS ... but did have native intelligence and the usual scrap, in this case an old rusty piece of coat hanger hiding in the grass. I bent it back and forh, until metal fatigue caused it to break, fromed it to fit with my hands, installed it into some odd place where a linkage was missing. One of the youths said "McGyver!". And I thought everyone thought that way. Now when you put me in a real lab .... with real tools .... and real books nearby in a real library .... THEN I have fun! JHS On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Akira Kawasaki wrote: > November 12, 1996 Wednesday > > You wrote: > > > > DETECTING RADIATION > > > > In the old days, prior to Gieger-Muller tube counters operating > >within the Townsend effect region, we used a thing called a > spinthariscope. > > Bet that dates me! > > > > In any event it was a small tube, hollow, with magnifying lens at > > >one end so as to bring a tiny screen of zinc sulphide, or the > equivalent, > >to high and grainey magnification. > > The screen was often arranged so as to present raw zinc sulphide > >[which is very poisionous], or other phosphors [which you can obtain > by > >CAREFULLY breaking a flourescent tube and scraping the white powder > out > >... 'cool white' is a good choice because it is, in and of itself, > mercury > >metal or vapor excluded, fairly immune to moisture and non toxic] > >directly to the suspected source of radiation. The whole was used in > the > >dark and at least 5 min. is allowed to elapse for dark adaption of the > eye. > > A single alpha event can easily be seen, by a child anyway, as a > >brief bright spark or flash. > > Yup. In the latter half of the forties, I sent for a cereal box premium > (25 cents?) to get a ring mounted aluminum rocket capsule which was > your spintariscope. I believe you pulled off the rear plastic rocket > fin assembly to expose a magnifier which was focused on a flourescent > mixture with a radiation source. And there, you could see (after your > eyes got adjusted) the marvels of radiation. > > In those days, you got an uranium sample (Carnotite) in your Chemcraft > set. Even a lunch box vibrator operated high voltage geiger-counter > that ran off of a D-cell. I was hell bent on trying to get Uranium out > somehow, but the chemicals ran out and school homework and the real > world took the time away. One day, Boom! Now on to Fusion! And CF at > that and no more Boom desires with "maturity". > > Somehow I miss those "At Your Risk" days of exposures. > > -AK- > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 13 05:51:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA09625; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 05:48:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 05:48:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:46:27 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bad spelers u-night! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"e542A3.0.JM2.O6TYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2113 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The Oriental idiograms rank up there too. So how well the two sets of cultures do? JHS On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > > > ---------- > > From: Michael Mandeville > > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Subject: Re: Bad spelers u-night! > > Date: Monday, November 11, 1996 10:52 PM > > > > Michel Mandeville wrote: > (snip) > Namely: the ability to spell a > > notoriously inconsistent, illogical language, of which english certainly > > qualifies at the top of the heap, is inversely proportional to the logical > > ability of the speller. > > YEAAAAYS , OH YEAAAYS!!!! > Frank Stenger, Bad speller EXTRA-ORD-A-NAIR! > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 13 07:18:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA27295; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:56:17 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:56:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:53:40 -0800 Message-Id: <199611131453.GAA02081@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Bad spelers u-night! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"N3G7w3.0.Jg6.D6UYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2114 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: November 13, 1996 wednesday You wrote: > The Oriental idiograms rank up there too. So how well the two >sets of cultures do? > > JHS The deadly thing is: In idio(t)grams, you never master in your lifetime, all the characters and their identifying strokes that can express your thoughts. And halfway into learning the characters, your mind becomes numb with memorizing that original thought, creativity, disappears or is greatly diminished. What a weeding out process. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 13 07:52:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA09251; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:45:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:45:59 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611131548.HAA04559@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:45:24 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Bad spelers u-night! Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"GS_7h1.0.PG2.qqUYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2115 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Thomas Jefferson once said "I have no respect for a man who can spell a word only one way." Those who equate intellectual abilities with spelling abilities are the perfect example of the chief failing of our current educational process where precision regurgitation is rewared and anything else deemed suspect. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 13 09:50:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA03606; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:27:38 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:27:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com>, Vortex-L Subject: Re: The real situation? Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:24:00 -0800 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: <"Ow2Ds2.0.Eu.7KWYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2116 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Martin As an ex-employee of the old GE Research Lab, my concern is that there is not enough funding in this country at any level of pure research. All the industrial labs are now totally applied, and most of the government labs as well. We are eating up our seed corn! Applied research is in only slightly better shape at this point. I work for what should be a foremost applied research company, but we have a company president who has publicly stated: "NO NEW TECHNOLOGY" he wants us to be nothing more then an assembly plant, it would seem. -Hank Scudder ---------- From: Norman Horwood To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: The real situation? Date: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 12:40AM >> It is truely silly for Governments to think their own Scientists can do better than Hitachi, IBM, Xerox, AT&T, GALAXO etc. etc. The research budget of just one middle-sized US technology company, Digital Equipement, at 1 Billion dollars per year, is more 3 times the total amount of money handed out by the Australian Granting agency to all the University based Scientists in my country. Martin Sevior << I'm not referring to government employed scientists, but to the general university science teams. I would like to see far more central funding of this source of research, but I also feel that their work should have a stronger bias towards practical applications. Pure research is essential, but to leave all the applied science to commercial enterprise is asking for duplication of effort and waste of resources, although the motivation of competition has to be recognised as well. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 13 13:52:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA29422; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:23:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:23:11 -0800 (PST) Date: 13 Nov 96 16:02:01 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Bad spelers u-night! Message-ID: <961113210200_100433.1541_BHG114-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ATUIm1.0.aB7.wmZYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2117 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Russ, > Those who equate intellectual abilities with spelling abilities > are the perfect example of the chief failing of our current > educational process where precision regurgitation is rewared and > anything else deemed suspect. Well, I rather agree - and that is from someone who usually finds speling eezy. But as Jed says, this is what God gave us spell-checkers for.... Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 13 15:36:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA20691; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:16:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:16:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961113223939.008d937c@freeway.net> X-Sender: estrojny@freeway.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 17:39:39 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Bad spelers u-night! Resent-Message-ID: <"whFe3.0.935.1RbYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2118 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Half patients! Soon, when SRT (Sound Recognition Technology) becomes prevalent, you can blame your computer for any mis-spellings. Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 11 15:27:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA04548; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 15:15:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 15:15:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611112258.OAA02581@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:54:25 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Another Groupie Disease attack Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"4UKj1.0.w61.OExXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2074 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: OK Jed since you seem to need a rudimentary science lesson. Look at a periodic table and see if you can find any element that is claimed by some CF/SIMS researcher that lies in the farthest colum on the right. Those are the noble gases, there are not many of them so this exercise should even be within your grasp. Found it yet. How about xenon. Need a reference, how about Infinite Energy Magazine, that's the publication you finance isn't it. Regarding Arata's work. So a comment that someones work has been tried many times (pers comm) without success is a criticism. Hmm, I thought it was an observation of fact worthy of interest here. What might Arata be doing that others cannot repeat. Now lets see.... does anyone know of a field where reproducibility is difficult. Or is the problem here that I forgot that Jed claims title to being the font of information and wisdom on Japanese research in this field. Oh me I did forget that I didn't state factual references and sources for all the information posted here. That is of course the standard practiced by Jed. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 13 22:25:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA01463 for billb@eskimo.com; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 22:25:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 22:25:48 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: daved@nimbus.anu.edu.au Wed Nov 13 22:25:45 1996 Received: from nimbus.anu.edu.au (nimbus.anu.edu.au [150.203.126.21]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA01412 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 22:25:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from daved@localhost) by nimbus.anu.edu.au (8.8.0/8.8.0) id RAA26393; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:25:30 +1100 (EST) Old-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:25:30 +1100 (EST) From: Dave DAVIES Message-Id: <199611140625.RAA26393@nimbus.anu.edu.au> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bad spelers u-night! Cc: daved@nimbus.anu.edu.au X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: > > In another 5 or 10 years I hope these voice input programs mature so that > typing skills no longer matter. It can't happen too soon for me. I would not > mind seeing another of my rote skills become obsolete. But it may take even > longer than 10 years,... .... I hope not so long. Automated Speech Recognition is my primary goal when I am not distracted by CF etc. I think we might need a major paradigm shift in the ASR field. Currently the techniques, mainly Hidden Markov Models, seem to be pushed to the limit and the resulting technology is way below user expectations. Sound familiar? > > Anyway, my mother and my grandfather had secretaries for most of their careers > and their English was excellent. So did Winston Churchill, Roosevelt, > and most other Big Wigs in history. Mechanical skills have nothing to do with > learning to express yourself well in writing. > > - Jed > > I could rave about 'digital servants for everybody' but this is vortex-l. It is relevant, though, that the AI and ASR fields have both been undermined to some extent in the market place by people jumping too quickly into commercial production. I burned my fingers, or pocket, in the 80s developing an Automated Reasoning system. By the time we were ready to head toward commercialisation the field had been thoroughly discredited by people who had over-sold their capabilities. Fund managers had been explicitly warned against supporting such projects. CF entrepeneurs need to look very carefully at what requirements need to be met in a practical, commercial environment that are largely irrelevant in the lab. Reliability would seem to be the key issue with CF. It may never be reliable enough to use as individual power units but only viable in plants that use multiple devices and can tolerate a certain failure rate in individual devices. To build expectations of CF directly powering vehicles or homes may be an error. F&P (or P&F for you USAmericans:) over-sold their initial results. If they had taken a more cautious approach things might(!) have been different today. I am still pleased to hear that CETI is selling kits. dave From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 13 22:55:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA05318; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 22:42:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 22:42:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <328ACBEB.918@rt66.com> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 23:39:04 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: wireless@rmii.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, CldFusion@aol.com, design73@aol.com, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, cc840@freenet.carleton.ca, miley@uiuc.edu, ceti@onramp.net, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, 72240.1256@compuserve.com, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, dacha@shentel.net, jechampion@aol.com, jlogajan@skypoint.com, bockris@chemvx.tamu.edu, hheffner@anc.ak.net, mca@world.std.com, dennis@wazoo.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, 10043.1541@compuserve.com, ine@padrak.com, 100276.261@compuserve.com, little@eden.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro Subject: Spark health hazards Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"piSf91.0.0J1.4zhYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2119 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Toby Grotz, I was on the East Coast, Oct. 29 to Nov. 10, and my email got lost. Can you resend your messages to me? How'd you get invited to Japan? That's neat! I'd forgotten you'd be getting that fancy mass spectograph. Sam Faile called me for an hour yesterday, having heard about my interest in exploding wires from Hal Fox. He uses 106 MF at 3,400 volts-- gets Army surplus 33 MF 4500 volt capacitors for $ 30 plus $ 4.25 s&h from: Fair Radio Sales, Lima, Ohio 419-223-2196 Sam P. Faile 4002 Sharon Park Lane Apt. 13 Cincinatti, OH 45241 513-563-4953 His 90 mAmp power supply takes 1-2 hours to charge up the 106 MF capacitor bank. He's moved from 1 foot to 5 foot distance from the spark, because the brighter fireballs, made him deaf for hours in his left ear, and often he's noticed nausea 15 minutes later and an anomalous tonic uplifted feeling, indicating mild radiation effects-- he does 4-5 sparks weekly. Now he's got earshields. He got a 17 cm diameter fireball in air from # 44 copper wire, .005" diameter, 2 " long. He's doing sparks also on heavy duty Reynolds wrap aluminum foil, 2" long by 6 mm wide, coated with a sputtered layer of 1000 A tellerium. In the past he got a huge brilliant spark from aluminum foil, 2 " long by 12 mm wide, with talcum powder on it-- that spark made him feel nauseous 15 minutes later and also the tonic effect. His research partner is Nick Reiter: 541 W. Stone Street Gibsonberg, OH 43431 419-637-2659 Nick has used a geiger counter to monitor radiation from sparks. His system makes sparks at a rate of 1/sec with 2-3 cm fireballs in air. They sparked a 1 mil Ni wire with 200 A palladium layer sputtered on it, and used EDS analysis to locate some interesting peaks. Tungsten or nickel electrodes give 2-4 X more radiation than background. Sam said Papp, who did electric discharges in noble gases, found neutron radiation, and died a few years ago of intestinal cancer. Sam heard about Papp from Don Kelly, who was editor of Space Energy Journal, 813-442-3923. Sam also told me about a spark experiment by Charles Morton, in March 4, 1996 Electric Spacecraft Journal, on aluminum dust mixed with talcum powder, Pinauld "Clubman" brand, and experiments on heating aluminum powder in a microwave oven: P.O. Box 281 Death Valley, CA 92328. Sam will mail me the reports by him and Nick, and wants me to put their stuff on the Internet. I'd greatly appreciate anyone who reads this sending me information about spark experiments and current and past practitioners. There are radiation safety issues that need to be publicly and widely discussed. I am recently studying a variety of spark reports from circa 1920 that unwittingly produced nuclear transmutations with dozens of published spectral lines. Rich Murray Room For All HCR 70 Box 515 Pecos, NM 87552 505-757-6145 rmforall@rt66.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 00:44:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA04248; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:42:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:42:37 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <328ADB6D.31D2DE92@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:42:21 -0800 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: Dick Blue's analysis of Miley's claims References: <199611101644.IAA12839@mom.hooked.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"z9Keq1.0.H21.yjjYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2120 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Russ George wrote: > > The idea proposed by Blue that Miley was off in his id of masses and > mistook Ca for Ti is pretty far out. Any SIMS instrument running that > poorly calibrated would be down for repairs or the operator would > have to be. I'm not sure that is Blue's claim. DB's primary claims would see to be correct: 1) In Mileys huge table of SIMS data, #3, the column which contains the observed aboundances in reacted beads would see to be completely in error for Silicon. the data there are: Element # of atoms implied abundances natural abund. Si28 3.02E17 4.67E-01 92% Si29 2.04E16 3.55E-01 5% Si30 1.02E16 1.78E-01 3% Now, one sees an obvious error: the abundances above do not follow if one works it out straight from the data. Using the data given, one gets 93%, 6% and 3%, very close to natural. In fact, it almost looks like whoever made the table accidentally used Si28 at 3.02E*16* instead of the given 3.02E*17* (this gives 49%, 33$ and 16%). But this is not likely to have been the intention, since the *unused* microsphere had 8e16 atoms of Si28 in it, so 3e16 would have meant a substantial loss of total Si from the spheres. 2) DB's other major claim is that Miley missadentified Cr50 as Ti50. Again in the big table 3, Ti50 (abundance naturally of 5%) shows up with 4.34E14 atoms and an observed abundance of 82% in the used beads, a **massive** deviaiton from natural. In fact, this is the largest deviation observed! Yet, for some reason, (a) the most common natural Ti isotope, Ti48 (74%) is left out of the table completely, even though all the less common isotopes (Ti46/47/49/50 with abundances 8%/7%/6%/5%) are not only included, but all present in the used beads (and absent totally in fresh beads). Also, bear in mind the anode was made of Ti, some some would highly suspect some natural Ti to make its way to the cathode in a 300 hour run. (b) Cr is present in both the fresh spheres and reacted spheres in sizable amounts, and in particular the least common Cr isotope, Cr54(2%) is detected both before and after. Yet there is no entry in the table for the much more common Cr isotope Cr50 (4%). The reacted beads have the CR isotopes somewhat out of natural abundance (observed % - natural % = -0.5--3%). (c) the least common Ti isotope, Ti50 (5%) is present at 10x the level of all the other Ti isotopes, quite anomalous. On the other hand, Cr 50 is absent from the table completely. If one computes based on the abundance of Cr 50 and the observed amount of the most common istope Cr 52 (84%, 1.07E17 atoms in used beads) the expected amount of CR 50, it comes out to be 5.4E15 atoms. There are observed instead 4.3E15 Ti 50 atoms, a reasonable match. If one takes these atoms and calls them Cr 50, all the sudden the Cr looks very natural--the abundances fall into place. (83.9%,10.7%,2.0% for Cr52,53,54, and Cr 50 at 3.4%, vs natural of 84%,10%,2%,4%). (d) Even if Ti50 is not really Cr50, it appears that the Cr abundances are off simply because Cr50 is not included in the table at all. If one puts in the expected amount of Cr 50 based on the listed amounts of other Cr istopes, the CR looks natural. (3) Blue also takes issue with the mass spec graphs, figs 3a, 3b, since they show elements not listed in the table 3, like Ca. But I think there it probably has to do with data from different experiments. However, I would like to point out an anomaly in fig 3a,b: in fig 3a, the mass spec of a fresh bead, the spectrum is sparse as expected, and one clearly sees what must be the Nickel as 3 isolated peaks at 58, 60 and 62. However, the ratios of peak heights for natural nickel are 19:7:1 for those isotopes. Clearly, in the figure the ratios are about 2:1.7:1---way off from natural nickel. In fact, his natural, unused Nickel is more anomalous than any isotopes listed for his used beads! So, what is one to make of that? All in all, I think there are clearly (1) a big error in the table, which when corrected makes the large Si signal look like natural Si, probably a glass contaminant. (2) A lot of funny stuff going on with the reporting of Ti and Cr data, two of the most anomalous listing in the table. This definietly requires some straightening out before one can say what is going on with these elements. (3) deviations from natural abundance in the "before" low res sims figures that need some explaining. Bottom line: I think you can see why scientists normally demand peer review for published work. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 01:00:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA07083; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:58:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:58:07 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <328ADF0E.2D857063@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:57:50 -0800 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: CETI Demo/Commercial Details - 2nd Trans References: <961113042504_72240.1256_EHB101-2@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"thcLG1.0.Wk1.UyjYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2121 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > I was pleased and touched yesterday. Fred Jaeger from ENECO called me in the > evening and said "this is a victory for you. They are finally doing what you > have been pushing them to do all along." It may be a victory for you, but must be viewed as a moral (and morale) loss for CETI. I think they have resorted to selling low priced kits only because their previous plans to (a) attract a big corporate investor, and then later, (b) to sell high priced kits in the 10--20k range, fell on deaf ears. Of course, its a reasonable state of affairs in the real world. No one would fork out the large sums CETI desired for such a scientifically unproven technology. Even $3750 is pushing it, but at least its in the realm of possibility. I still wish they would just sell beads. I'd pay $200/cc for working beads. That they don't do so says to me that they cannot produce even moderately large quantites of working beads---after all, all 40 of their kits will contain only 1600 cc's of beads, and I bet most of those kits remain vapor ware for some months (since the first few kits supposedly started trickling out several months ago). Still, bottom line is I think its great they are selling affordable kits. Its close enough to doing the right thing. However, I am not sure If we can get one here at UCLA or UCSD, in part because of the legal barriers they set up by retaining ownership of all future bead improvements. I would have to run that through UCLA's legal office.... -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 01:18:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA10319; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 01:16:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 01:16:42 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <328AE369.69D8BD19@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 01:16:25 -0800 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: CETI Demo/Commercial Details - 2nd Trans References: <961113042504_72240.1256_EHB101-2@CompuServe.COM> <328ADF0E.2D857063@math.ucla.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7NGYq2.0.8X2.vDkYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2122 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry Merriman wrote: > > That they don't do so says to me that they > cannot produce even moderately large quantites of working > beads---after all, all 40 of their kits will contain > only 1600 cc's of beads oops---that 4x40 = 160 ccs of beads, not even a tea cupful! (what ever happend to the 40 cc's of beads that let off 1Kw of power at the Powergen demo...:-) -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 05:38:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA14951; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 05:33:30 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 05:33:30 -0800 (PST) Date: 14 Nov 96 08:31:15 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Dick Blue's analysis of Miley's clai Message-ID: <961114133114_100433.1541_BHG66-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"M3TWh1.0.Tf3.f-nYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2123 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, Yes, I think some of Blue's comments are mildly interesting. But they do seem conspicuously to ignore quite a few things on the bottom line, do they not? Like the silver. Like the failure of the dummy sulphonated beads to attract any of the "contaminants". Like the depth into the film of the "contaminants". Like the excess energy. You know, stuff like that. Just these details. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 05:38:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA15109; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 05:34:10 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 05:34:10 -0800 (PST) Date: 14 Nov 96 08:31:13 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: CETI Demo/Commercial Details - 2nd T Message-ID: <961114133112_100433.1541_BHG66-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"XYrzL.0.fh3.C_nYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2124 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, > It may be a victory for you, but must be viewed as a moral (and > morale) loss for CETI. I think they have resorted to selling low > priced kits only because their previous plans to (a) attract a big > corporate investor, and then later, (b) to sell high priced kits > in the 10--20k range, fell on deaf ears. > > Of course, its a reasonable state of affairs in the real world. And hurrah for the real world. You cannot sell into a market which does not exist. Until the market exists, then no setting of price is impossible, since the value of something is what others are prepared to pay you for it. This might all be in some theoretical sense sad, but the lessons of history as spelled out in Jed's essay on the Wrights have been and still are being generally ignored. Anyway, with 60 cells now reported sold, that is a cool quarter-million dollars - not chickenfeed. As for the bead quantities, I get the impression that the quantity per sale is 4*12 ml, though I may be wrong. The announcement said: "4 loadings of three different microsphere (MS) configurations" Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 07:52:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA17923; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 07:39:48 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 07:39:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:36:12 +0100 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: Uranium deactivation Resent-Message-ID: <"mYLcM1.0.yN4.3rpYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2126 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gene Mallove wrote : >"System in Electrolytic Cell and Method for Producing Heat and De-Activating >Uranium and Thorium by Electrolysis" > >This patent describes a method by which radionuclides are inserted into a >special matrix designed for radioactive elements. According to Reding and >inventor Dr. Patterson, with whom I also spoke, "conservatively" they have >demonstrated the reduction by up to 50% of the radiation activity from uranium >and thorium. The process takes only from 2 to 24 hours. Generally, the process >occurs within only 4 hours. It is said that the de-activation can be as high as >90%, which would make for a pretty conclusive finding, I would assume. I am surprised not to see any comment on that from vortexians, because I fail to understand how such a deactivation of uranium or thorium can be possible at all. Anyone has an answer ? Jean DeLagarde From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 08:26:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA26623; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 08:09:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 08:09:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 11:04:23 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"xO3Xc.0.tV6.fGqYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2127 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: See the Work of Wm. A Barker. USPTO 1990 [don't have the nunber off hand] WELL docuneted. We reproduced it. This was a couple of years ago. The two 'disbelief brothers' Earl Disbelief and Frank Disbelief, have dominated tis particular work since 1990, patwnt granted 1990. First work done, I think, about 1987. JHS On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Jean_de_Lagarde wrote: > Gene Mallove wrote : > > >"System in Electrolytic Cell and Method for Producing Heat and De-Activating > >Uranium and Thorium by Electrolysis" > > > >This patent describes a method by which radionuclides are inserted into a > >special matrix designed for radioactive elements. According to Reding and > >inventor Dr. Patterson, with whom I also spoke, "conservatively" they have > >demonstrated the reduction by up to 50% of the radiation activity from uranium > >and thorium. The process takes only from 2 to 24 hours. Generally, the process > >occurs within only 4 hours. It is said that the de-activation can be as high as > >90%, which would make for a pretty conclusive finding, I would assume. > > I am surprised not to see any comment on that from vortexians, because I > fail to understand how such a deactivation of uranium or thorium can be > possible at all. Anyone has an answer ? > > Jean DeLagarde > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 08:51:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA02153; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 08:38:12 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 08:38:12 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 07:36:50 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Resent-Message-ID: <"BM-Xj.0.TX.khqYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2128 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Gene Mallove wrote : > >>"System in Electrolytic Cell and Method for Producing Heat and De-Activating >>Uranium and Thorium by Electrolysis" >> >>This patent describes a method by which radionuclides are inserted into a >>special matrix designed for radioactive elements. According to Reding and >>inventor Dr. Patterson, with whom I also spoke, "conservatively" they have >>demonstrated the reduction by up to 50% of the radiation activity from >>uranium >>and thorium. The process takes only from 2 to 24 hours. Generally, the process >>occurs within only 4 hours. It is said that the de-activation can be as >>high as >>90%, which would make for a pretty conclusive finding, I would assume. > >I am surprised not to see any comment on that from vortexians, because I >fail to understand how such a deactivation of uranium or thorium can be >possible at all. Anyone has an answer ? > > Jean DeLagarde Maybe we are already conditioned to this, so are not very excited. This is just more of the same in the transmutation arena. It is just another variation of: nuceli + stimulation + right environment -> quark soup folllowed by: quark soup + stimulation -> mostly stable nuclei with isotope shifts. I have suggested the possibility that in a single instantaneous waveform collapse that multiple combined (but conserving) transmuting reaction sequences are possible when a high energy particle stimulates a Bose condensate (quark soup) and that such combined transmutations must therefore occur in such cases without generating the intermediate products including e- e+ or neutrinos. Why the final products that jell from the soup are almost entirely stable nuclei is unexplained. However, since such a product would represent some kind of minimum energy state it just doesn't seem so surprizing. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 09:19:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA07719; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:04:29 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:04:29 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611141705.JAA07318@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:02:34 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"TfvKq2.0.Qu1.M4rYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2129 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: What is the method of measuring the radiation signature in the CETI claim for Uranium and Thorium decay rates. I hope it's not alphas. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 09:51:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA14151; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:34:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:34:20 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <328B4F9C.353C51DE@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 08:58:04 -0800 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: Dick Blue's analysis of Miley's clai References: <961114133114_100433.1541_BHG66-2@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"nEdji1.0.0T3.PWrYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2131 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: > > Barry, > > Yes, I think some of Blue's comments are mildly interesting. But they do seem > conspicuously to ignore quite a few things on the bottom line, do they not? > > Like the silver. Could be another contaminant. Minor deviations in natural abundance could result from some electrochemical sorting process over the 300 hour run time. > Like the failure of the dummy sulphonated beads to > attract any of the "contaminants". Well, Miley doesn't actually show any data for these experiments, so that is a bit of a leap of faith. Beyond that, the sulfonated polymer beads are chemically quite different from metal coated beads, being much less conductive and catalytic, and having very different affinities for electrons. > Like the depth into the film of the > "contaminants". I suggest one may see a surface recycling effect, in which the outer layers come off and redeposit, a phenomena known as surface recycling at plasma-material boundaries. A little bit of this would go a long way in a surface that is only 500 atomic layers thick. It could bury impurities 10--100's of atmoic layers deep. >Like the excess energy. Very poorly measured in the Miley experiment, huge error bar, small signal, unlike the trademark CETI cells. > > You know, stuff like that. Just these details. > > Chris And as you can see, one can raise all sorts of red flags about these details. Personally, I can't draw any conclusions now, only that another round of experiments focused at these weak points is in order. I could imagine Miley's work being vindicated, but I could also imagine it all unraveling. We shall see. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 10:47:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA24106; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:17:03 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:17:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611141515.HAA16863@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 07:12:05 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Dick Blue's analysis of Miley's claims Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"Dul-03.0.Wu5.S8sYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2132 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Touche From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 11:26:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA05310; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 11:08:49 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 11:08:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Richard Thomas Murray , Vortex-L Subject: RE: Spark health hazards Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:52:00 -0800 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: <"_cdq3.0.mI1.qusYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2134 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rich Landauer Inc. 2 Science Road Glenwood IL, 60425-1586 Attn: Stephanie Schultz 800-323-8830 Makes a series of radiation badges to measure your dosage. We use them here at Rocketdyne. I wear one whenever I'm near X-ray equipment.(I work with industrial tomography). The individual dose from a spark explosion would have a maximum energy of the Kilovoltage you are running, unless you are actually generating transmutations,:>} when all bets are off. The X-ray power in an X-ray tube is usually about 1% of the electric power in the range of 50 to 400 KV. You probably, conservatively, could use this as an estimate of your radiation in a spark discharge. The Phillips 420Kv, 10ma(4200W) tube puts out 7.33 Rads/sec at one meter. You can get a feeling for your exposure by using the inverse square law for distance, and linear in time and current for your estimate There is some dependence on the voltage, but this gives you a starting place. -Hank Scudder ---------- From: Richard Thomas Murray stuff on the Internet. I'd greatly appreciate anyone who reads this sending me information about spark experiments and current and past practitioners. There are radiation safety issues that need to be publicly and widely discussed. I am recently studying a variety of spark reports from circa 1920 that unwittingly produced nuclear transmutations with dozens of published spectral lines. Rich Murray Room For All HCR 70 Box 515 Pecos, NM 87552 505-757-6145 rmforall@rt66.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 13:04:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA22432; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 12:35:35 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 12:35:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:09:18 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199611141909.OAA02148@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: (jlagarde@cyberaccess.fr) Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Resent-Message-ID: <"6F9Tz.0.OU5.IAuYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2135 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jean DeLagarde said: > I am surprised not to see any comment on that from vortexians, > because I fail to understand how such a deactivation of uranium or > thorium can be possible at all. Anyone has an answer ? If you look at the decay chains for uranium and thorium, a lot of the activity comes from daughter products, with the final result being lead. If you can change these intermediates into another stable species then you get the claimed results. You also get pretty spectacular results if you just get the gases out. A lot of the radioactivity comes from Radon. For this reason you would need a very well done experiment to verify the claimed result. You need to find out if the Radon is migrating elsewhere. 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 Nov 14 13:31:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA29626; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:09:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:09:13 -0800 (PST) Date: 14 Nov 96 14:15:58 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Dick Blue's analysis of Miley's clai Message-ID: <961114191557_100433.1541_BHG49-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"g7wuO3.0.mE7.rfuYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2136 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, I too think more work is needed on the Miley experiment. And specifically I would like to see the Ni quantitative analysis I kept banging on about before. But all this about cathode surfaces recycling and silver appearing where there was no silver, *at the nickel/bead boundary* forsooth, reminds me more every day of the notorious kipper 'joke'. It's no good saying, "Oh, the Ag must have been a contaminant." "What is green, hangs on the wall and whistles?" "I dunno, what *is* green, hangs on the wall and whistles?" "A kipper." "But - a kipper isn't green!" "You can paint a kipper green." "And the wall?" "You can hang it on the wall." "But a kipper does *not* whistle!" "Well, you can't expect me to have all the answers." All this "I suggest" and "perhaps" and the rest of it just isn't the way I think science should be done. It's "explaining away" rather than "explaining". Like, you can't just say that you think the surface of a bead will dissolve off and replate itself with a dose of silver before getting all its nickel back - sheesh, this thing IS a cathode. I repeat that I would like to see more work done. But simply to raise wildly farfetched and unsubstantiated ideas is not the way to do that. Good, solid gathering of evidence, erecting a hypothesis, and then devising tests for that hypthesis beats the hell out of mere arm-waving. I think Blue may have raised some useful points - for once. A pity he did not discuss his concerns with Miley instead of saying on the 'net that Miley is "dishonest" and "should be ashamed of himself". As one who has always felt highly uncomfortable with the transmutation hypothesis, I tend toward sympathy with arguments against it. But they seem most unsatisfactory, and also highly selective. To be honest, I think you are being a bit selective too. I mentioned the energy, I agree that Miley is pretty casual about that - but he specifically says that this specific run was with a bead-type designed to look for transmutation rather than one expected to produce heat. We must be critical, but such criticism must be of a high standard of rigour. And such criticism must address the universe of results, and include the (well documented) energy problem and the work of Mizuno, Ohmori and the rest of them. Miley's paper does not come out of the blue, even *I* was able to predict pretty much exactly what he would find and report - three months before he announced them. In an article I wrote in April I did that - but I'll admit that when it was finally published, just after Miley went public, I was rather relieved! Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 13:47:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA06002; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:36:43 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:36:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Mitchell Swartz Cc: Vortex-L Subject: RE: Spark health hazards Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:24:00 -0800 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: <"2ubKj3.0.eT1.e3vYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2137 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell The current is 10ma, the voltage is 420Kv. Bremstarllung is a continuous energy spectrum, with a maximum energy cutoff in Kev at the tube voltage, in this case 420 Kv, since the Phillips tube has a DC power supply. I believe the 1% is total emission. The dosage received is measured in rads, approximated here by Roentgens/sec * number of seconds. The absorbtion of the body is complicated, and at high energies the body absorbs a smaller fraction of photons, but they have a higher energy. The measurement quoted by Phillips is the result of an ionization chamber placed 200mm from the focal spot of the tube. I converted the 11000 R/min at 200mm to 7.33 R/sec at 1m. My purpose was to give people some idea of the maximum radiation they might expect from a spark discharge. Based on these numbers, it is probably quite conservative. And yes, one does not want to stand in front of an X-ray tube that is operating continuously. The "acceptable" dose for people is about 2 rad/year. At 7R/s that doesn't take very long. At about a 500 rad dose, about 50% of people are said to die. For a spark experiment at say 400Kv, 1ma, 1ms duration, the most radiation you would expect would be about 7.33R/s * 1ma/10ma*0.001s = .733 mrad It probably is much lower since few electrons would reach 400Kev energy before colliding with something. -Hank Scudder ---------- From: Mitchell Swartz To: Scudder,Henry J Subject: RE: Spark health hazards Date: Thursday, November 14, 1996 12:14PM At 10:52 AM 11/14/96 -0800, you wrote: >Rich > Landauer Inc. > 2 Science Road > Glenwood IL, 60425-1586 > Attn: Stephanie Schultz > 800-323-8830 >Makes a series of radiation badges to measure your dosage. >We use them here at Rocketdyne. I wear one whenever I'm near >X-ray equipment.(I work with industrial tomography). The individual >dose from a spark explosion would have a maximum energy of the >Kilovoltage you are running, unless you are actually generating >transmutations,:>} The units of dose are rads (or Grays=100 rads) and they are the energy deposited. There is no peak energy. > when all bets are off. The X-ray power in an >X-ray tube is usually about 1% of the electric power in the range >of 50 to 400 KV. You probably, conservatively, could use this as >an estimate of your radiation in a spark discharge. The Phillips >420Kv, 10ma(4200W) tube puts out 7.33 Rads/sec at one meter. So, therefore, in your experience, is the 1% in the cone-angle of useful radiation (e.g. at 1 meter), or in the entire tube's radiation output. Also, you mention 50-400 kV, but that is obviously a voltage, and not power. What are the range of the current? BTW you are speaking of some very serious dose rates here. Best wishes, Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 13:50:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA06601; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:38:34 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:38:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: John Schnurer Cc: Vortex-L Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 12:42:00 -0800 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: <"YG7v23.0.yc1.P5vYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2138 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John When did you put it onto Vortex-L? Could you publish the numbers again? -Hank Scudder ---------- From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Date: Thursday, November 14, 1996 8:04AM See the Work of Wm. A Barker. USPTO 1990 [don't have the nunber off hand] WELL docuneted. We reproduced it. This was a couple of years ago. The two 'disbelief brothers' Earl Disbelief and Frank Disbelief, have dominated tis particular work since 1990, patwnt granted 1990. First work done, I think, about 1987. JHS From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 14:48:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA17304; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:34:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:34:18 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <328B941E.102F11D5@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:50:22 -0800 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: Dick Blue's analysis of Miley's clai References: <961114191557_100433.1541_BHG49-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"IYJub1.0.HE4.evvYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2139 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: > > > All this "I suggest" and "perhaps" and the rest of it just isn't the way > I think science should be done. It's "explaining away" rather than > "explaining". > > I repeat that I would like to see more work done. But simply to raise > wildly farfetched and unsubstantiated ideas is not the way to do that. > Good, solid gathering of evidence, erecting a hypothesis, and then > devising tests for that hypthesis beats the hell out of mere arm-waving. Chris: as we say here in LA, "chill out, dude". I'm certainly not trying to be judge, jury and executioner on Miley's work. We're simply having a discussion here, not a peer review. I'm not at all trying to explain away his results---I'm trying to find counter hypothesis other than transmutation. Last time I checked, that was the way science was done. Before one can gather evidence, erect edifices, etc, one must have an idea. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 14:48:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA17539; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:35:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:35:09 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <328B8ADB.3B54AFBF@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:10:51 -0800 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: Uranium deactivation References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"GF1q53.0.xH4.OwvYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2140 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > Why the final products that jell from the > soup are almost entirely stable nuclei is unexplained. > However, since such a product would represent some kind of > minimum energy state it just doesn't seem so surprizing. Well, by that reasoning you'd expect all the water on earth to be in the oceans. There are local minima (lakes and puddles) and slowly decaying states (polar icecaps) that defy this. I would say the one thing that makes me most suspicious of the Miley results is the apparent absence of unstable nuclei, in spite of the fact that supposedly over !! 100 !! new stable nuclei were created. That seems too miraculous? How can this reaction tell the difference between a stable nuclei and one with a 1/2 life of millions of years? For example, why are Silver 107 and Silver 109 created in large amounts, yet Silver 108 is skipped over, just because it has a 100 year half life? Similarly with iron---we get Fe54,56,57,58, yet right from the middle of this series, Fe55 with its 3 year 1/2 life is skipped. If Miley's results do turn out to be real, this fact alone---that a nuclear reaction outcome can sense the long term stability (i.e. on a timescale roughly 22 orders of magnitude longer) of the products---would require some truly revolutionary theory. This is probably harder than overcoming the coulomb barrier. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 15:59:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA29073; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 15:37:17 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 15:37:17 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <328B8EAE.7D55368C@math.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:27:10 -0800 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: New CF Miracle: stable nuclei paradox References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"gccCY.0.B67.aqwYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2141 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I want to reiterate that the profusion of stable "transmuted elements" seen by Miley, Ohmori, Mizono, etc is a new paradox for cold fusion. The first two paradoxes/miracles are (1) overcoming the coulomb barrier at room temp (2) releasing nuclear energy soley as heat, without ionizing radiation However, the Miley et al paradox of creating over a hundred new nuclei without creating *any* unstable nuclei is a distinct paradox that goes along with the new CF paradigm in which widespread nuclear reactions occur (as opposed to simply hydrogen fusions). How the reaction process could *avoid ever forming* an unstable nuclei is quite amazing. We know none persist on a long time scale (days), since they don't show in the SIMS spectra, and we know none are formed transiently, since they don;t give off any radiative decay during the expereiment. So, one has to imagine that either the process has some "precognition" which lets it avoid even forming unstable nuclei, or it somehow only forms unstable nuclei transiently, and also suppresses their decay/decay products while they are in existence. In any case, we now need to add to the list (3) forming nearly every conceivable stable nuclei, but never forming an unstable nuclei (except in the case of Tritium). Of the miracles, I actually think (3) might be most miraculous. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 16:14:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA29209; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 15:37:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 15:37:59 -0800 (PST) Date: 14 Nov 96 17:58:07 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Message-ID: <961114225806_100433.1541_BHG7-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"2GdqU2.0.D87.GrwYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2142 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robert, > If you look at the decay chains for uranium and thorium, a lot of > the activity comes from daughter products, with the final result > being lead. If you can change these intermediates into another > stable species then you get the claimed results. Certainly that chops down the radioactivity, but not the half-life of the U or Pu. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 16:58:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA06452; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:19:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:19:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 18:08:01 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: Vortex-L Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"AEUZ11.0.ia1.tRxYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2143 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear VO, AND: Congrats to the CF folks. Hang in there, I am having my patent atty retrieve the original patent numbers. On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Scudder,Henry J wrote: > John > When did you put it onto Vortex-L? Could you publish the > numbers again? > -Hank Scudder > ---------- > From: John Schnurer > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation > Date: Thursday, November 14, 1996 8:04AM > > > > See the Work of Wm. A Barker. USPTO 1990 [don't have the nunber > off hand] WELL docuneted. We reproduced it. This was a couple of > years ago. The two 'disbelief brothers' Earl Disbelief and Frank > Disbelief, have dominated tis particular work since 1990, patwnt > granted > 1990. First work done, I think, about 1987. > > JHS > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 17:07:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA13061; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:52:44 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:52:44 -0800 (PST) Date: 14 Nov 96 19:13:20 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Dick Blue's analysis of Miley's clai Message-ID: <961115001319_100433.1541_BHG101-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"nRwmA2.0.-B3.5xxYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2145 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, > Chris: as we say here in LA, "chill out, dude". I'm certainly not > trying to be judge, jury and executioner on Miley's work. Sorry. It seems to be one of those days when (as we say in England(!)) I can't open my mouth without a toad jumping out of it. I didn't mean it to come out like that, I'm very tired. But I *like* the kipper joke. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 17:32:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA15316; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:03:10 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:03:10 -0800 (PST) Date: 14 Nov 96 19:13:24 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Message-ID: <961115001324_100433.1541_BHG101-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Efwto2.0.Al3.85yYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2146 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, > If Miley's results do turn out to be real, this fact alone---that > a nuclear reaction outcome can sense the long term stability (i.e. > on a timescale roughly 22 orders of magnitude longer) of the > products---would require some truly revolutionary theory. This is > probably harder than overcoming the coulomb barrier. Well, this is indeed the weirdest thing in a bunch of weird things. Of course it can't be the reaction which knows in advance whether a product nucleus will be stable. However, there may just be - in a sense there obviously *is* - a difference between a stable and an unstable nucleus, and the nucleus 'knows' whether or not it is unstable. Sort of. The burning question then becomes - do we really know exactly why 108Ag is not stable while its henchmen 109 and 107 are? Could we be wrong? Anyway, if these results do hold up - and I am mildly confident that they will - then nuclear physics as we know it is just a subset of 'real' nuclear physics, "slow, cold atomic physics." And the fundamental problem with any theoretical understanding is that it can only operate within its own sphere, and it is that theory itself which defines the tests which can be done on it. Electrostatics can never predict magnetic effects, mechanics cannot predict electricity, and chemistry cannot predict nuclear effects. Magnetic effects can ruin a nice experiment in electrostatics, electricity can do the same in mechanics, and fast-decaying nuclei could make a chemist tear his hair out - if they didn't make it *fall* out. Imagine trying to plot chemical reaction rates against temperature, and then finding that you had been working with light-sensitive chemicals. Theory can only operate within its own domain. These results, if real, are operating on a level outside the *assumptions* of nuclear physics, and we won't get very far trying to apply the rules of that science. I was going over those Podkletnov claims again. People say, "Oh, such and such would have to happen because of conservation of energy." Clarke wrote a nice story about that. But if spatial anisotropy was produced by that experiment, then C of E would not apply (locally) - because it *assumes* spatial isotropy. At least, I think it does. Tough. At least it makes us one with all those great scientists of the past who had to fight problems just as bizarre and confusing in their day. Where are you now when we need you, "Just plain Mr Faraday"? I seem to recall it was Piet Hein who said, Problems worthy of attack Show their worth by fighting back. If we can work out what exactly *are* the assumptions of nuclear physics, then we might just see the answer - "through a glass, darkly." The only hint of hope I get is this idea that large numbers of nuclei really do go into some kind of 'super nucleus', some kind of condensate, some kind of mutual gross wave function, then the condensate evaporates into this stew of new nuclei. Nuclear physics deals with *nuclei*, and that may be its undoing here. The trouble with having whacky ideas is that you get to like them. After all, "nucleus" means "nut". Think about it...... Chris (drivelling badly today) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 17:35:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA15460; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:03:44 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:03:44 -0800 (PST) Date: 14 Nov 96 17:59:34 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Miley's calorimetry much better than he Message-ID: <961114225933_72240.1256_EHB152-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"OjlDp1.0.Tn3.e5yYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2147 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Barry described Miley's excess energy as "very poorly measured in the Miley experiment, huge error bar, small signal, unlike the trademark CETI cells." I disagree. I know that Miley describes it in those terms during his lectures, in a self depreciating fashion. But I have spoken with him at length about the calorimetry, and I think the error bars are much smaller than he says. He did careful calibrations and testing, and picked sensible flow rates and so on. In his lectures he keeps talking about "a 1 deg C Delta T plus / minus 1 degree" but I think this is an exaggeration. Furthermore, as the paper points out, the largest Delta T he observed was more like 4 deg C, and it persisted for a long time. I have never heard of a thermistor or thermometer so bad it cannot measure at least 0.2 deg C with confidence. (Except for the ones designed to measure very large temperature ranges.) Ordinary lab thermocouples and thermistors are good to +/- 0.05 deg C unless there is a loose wire in which case they are good for nothing, but you find that out when you calibrate. The problem with a flow calorimeter is that inaccuracies add up from the three parameters: inlet temperature, outlet temperature, and flow. Even if your thermocouples can measure to the nearest 0.1 deg C with confidence, you have to use two thermocouples, so the cumulative error will be +/- 0.2 deg C. When you throw in flow rate errors and mixing errors it gets a lot worse. Still, "1 degree plus minus 1 degree" is a gross exaggeration. That is George's way of saying "I did not wring out the calorimetry and I don't want to stand up here and defend it." It is similar to Biberian's throw away line regarding the 152% excess in the CEREM boil off experiments. He said "you can ignore the 2" (the last digit). When pressed he laughed and said "okay, you can ignore the 50 if you like, it is still a giant excess." He was kidding, but the next thing I knew someone who took him seriously said to me "gee, that means the results are only 3 Sigma." Barry adds: And as you can see, one can raise all sorts of red flags about these details. Personally, I can't draw any conclusions now, only that another round of experiments focused at these weak points is in order. I doubt it. I think most of these points can be fixed by asking a few questions on the phone or by e-mail. Okay, they *might* call for another round of experiments, but more likely they can be fixed by a few changes to the paper. Some misunderstandings need to be cleared up. I cannot comment on the technical details of the hypotheses about SIMS and whatnot, but I will make some peripheral observations and recommendations: 1. Always start by asking the author. I faxed Barry's summary of Blue's comments to George Miley. Barry should've done that in the first place, except he probably knows that George is in Washington and he probably didn't feel like waiting. (I would never have faxed Blues original version with all that stuff about "being ashamed." That is emphatically NOT how you get a researcher to cooperate! Potshots from a distance ain't science.) 2. Blue suggests that two elements may have been mixed up by the SIMS machine (or operator). As Russ George said, this seems unlikely; most of these machines work better than that. If there is a mistake at all it seems likely to me that someone keyed in the data wrong and the paper needs revising. I note that Blue did not explain how such a thing could happen in the first place, and why similar extraordinary mistakes keep getting made at Hokkaido U., Texas A&M, and elsewhere. 3. I must point out that Miley et al. have been doing this for more than a year, and they have consulted along the way with a number of people like Peter Hagelstein. Peter told me that originally, many months ago, the SIMS work had a number of potential pitfalls, which he and George discussed in an . . . uh . . . animated fashion (you might call it). George went back and plugged the holes, Peter now grudgingly admits. The paper may not have passed peer review yet, but the work itself has been reviewed by peers more than once, and greatly improved. That is why it took a year and a half. 4. As Chris pointed out, there are other elements and lots of other evidence for transmutations, like the x-rays seen at Tufts. You have to look at the totality of the evidence and not just nitpick. And -- as I said -- when you pick a nit always remember to put it in an envelope and send it back to the author for comment. If it is no mistake, or a minor mistake, or a misunderstanding on your part, you avoid embarrassing yourself by overstating it. And if it really is a glaring error (or a sloppy mistake), you have put the author to the test and you know a lot more about him than some guy taking potshots on Internet ever will find out. Either way, you come out ahead. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 18:03:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA26056; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:52:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:52:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611150009.QAA27729@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:05:57 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: New CF Miracle: stable nuclei paradox Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"xwtj6.0.0N6.joyYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2148 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ok Barry you've set a standard. So explain how the unstable isotopes produced in more conventional reactions have the precognition to be unstable. And why do they seem to want to seek stability by eventually decaying into stable states. Not only do they know what they want to be today but they know what they want to become tomorrow. It seems using the precognition rationale the double miracle of conventional reactions is much more unlikely. Perhaps whatever impetus there is to drive toward stability is simply found at an optimum state in the case of these new solid state moderated fusion reactions. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 20:12:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA13963; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 19:46:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 19:46:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:32:21 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: New CF Miracle: stable nuclei paradox In-Reply-To: <199611150009.QAA27729@mom.hooked.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"VVwz5.0.2Q3.jU-Yo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2151 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Russ George wrote: > Ok Barry you've set a standard. So explain how the unstable isotopes > produced in more conventional reactions have the precognition to be > unstable. And why do they seem to want to seek stability by > eventually decaying into stable states. Not only do they know what > they want to be today but they know what they want to become > tomorrow. It seems using the precognition rationale the double > miracle of conventional reactions is much more unlikely. > This is theory is very well worked out. At the nuclear level two extra forces of nature come into operation in addition the familiar electromagnetic force which is responsible for all chemical reactions plus almost everything else we use on a day to day basis. These are the "strong" nuclear force (acutally the bit the left over from binding quarks inside protons and neutrons) and the "weak" nuclear force. These are two seperate interactions that operate on much different time scales and are sensitive to different things. The strong force is responsible for forming combinations of protons and neutrons and binding them together. It typically operates on times scales of the order of 10**-20 seconds. It cannot transform neutrons into protons or vice versa. Nuclear reactions such as fission and fusion on earth are caused by the strong interaction. Its effect is to transform one configuration of protons and neutrons into the most energetically favourable configuration (ie the one with the lowest energy). As I said it generally does this on a time scale of 10**-20 seconds BUT the configuration it chooses must keep the total number of neutrons and protons the same. The weak interaction changes neutrons to protons. Now for any given total number of neutrons of protons there is one particular combination of say N neutrons and Z protons that is in the lowest energy state. Once the the strong interaction has selected a given nucleus from the total of neutrons and protons, the weak interaction transforms neutron to protons (or vice versa) until the most stable configuation is reached and no more transformations are energetically possible. The weak interaction operates on time-scales of seconds to mega-years. What happens is that the strong interaction forms nuclei then the weak interaction transforms them. The strong interaction "knows" nothing about the weak interaction and in any case can only form the most stable configuration of the neutrons and protons present. In nuclear reactions that very often produces nuclei that are unstable to the weak interaction. If CF is real and the result of lattice transformations, then Chris Tinsley or Horace Heffners ideas of forming "mega-nuclei" dropping off pieces into stable isotopes are similar to my own mental images of what might be happening. I have absolutely no idea how to make a proper theory of this though. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 20:27:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA11531; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 19:38:00 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 19:38:00 -0800 (PST) Date: 14 Nov 96 22:35:36 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: New CF Miracle: stable nuclei paradox Message-ID: <961115033535_72240.1256_EHB164-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"1CXGW1.0.3q2.NM-Yo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2150 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Barry writes: How the reaction process could *avoid ever forming* an unstable nuclei is quite amazing. Oops. I don't think so. CF reactions produce unstable tritium all the time at Los Alamos. Some of Miley's used bead packs are radioactive; they fogged the autoradiograph weeks after the run. Kevin Wolf's Pd CF produced many unstable nuclei. That experiment has not been replicated as far as I know but I gather the evidence was definitive. Sorry to keep saying this, but you must look at the big picture. Look at all the evidence! There is no way you can set a rule that CF *never* produces unstable nuclei. Okay, it usually produces more stable ones than conventional theory might predict. But so what? Conventional theory does not even predict nuclear reactions in metal lattices in the first place. So, one has to imagine that either the process has some "precognition" which lets it avoid even forming unstable nuclei, or it somehow only forms unstable nuclei transiently, and also suppresses their decay/decay products while they are in existence. Probably the latter, because CF cells can apparently transmute already- unstable nuclei into inert dirt. That's the point of the new CETI remediation patent. I don't know the details, but I have heard from several people besides CETI who have done similar experiments, and I expect the process is real. Barry: is "precognition" a joke, an analogy, or have you joined a New Age Sect? I agree with Russ. This is merely a reflection of what you learned first, or the direction from which you approach the problem. If people had discovered CF in 1900 you might be wondering why nuclear decay is so slow outside the lattice. As Russ says: So explain how the unstable isotopes produced in more conventional reactions have the precognition to be unstable. And why do they seem to want to seek stability by eventually decaying into stable states . . . Perhaps whatever impetus there is to drive toward stability is simply found at an optimum state in . . . solid state moderated fusion reactions. Yup. As I said before, my guess is that CF accelerates normal decay. That's how it remediates. I think one of the first priorities of the people who monkey with remediation should be to confirm this hypothesis, by finding all of the expected decay products. I guess they may have started doing this already . . . dunno. One more note about George Miley's calorimetry. I wrote that his alleged giant error bars are George's way of saying: "I did not wring out the calorimetry and I don't want to stand up here and defend it." He told me that. I don't recall his exact words, but he said something along those lines. He does not want to get into a debate about his calorimetry, but privately he expresses confidence in it. He said he got a whole of slew of messages via Internet from s.p.f. contributors who say the heat is transferred to the cell from the circulation pump. They wanted him to do many tests and to build strange calorimeters to prove "magic crystal" theories and the like. He told me he does not buy those theories but he does not have time to argue with them either, so he bows out of the calorimetry wars. I said I think that is a sensible approach. I have found it is very difficult to convince skeptics that calorimetry works. I do not know why people think it is so unreliable, but they do. I recall the time I measured a 16 deg C Delta T with 3 thermocouples, 2 thermistors and a thermometer -- and I couldn't get the skeptics to believe it! - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 22:23:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA07905; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:38:14 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:38:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:29:32 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "John Schnurer" at Nov 14, 96 06:08:01 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: <"HvYnQ1.0.Nx1.P60Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2152 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Schnurer wrote: > I am having my patent atty retrieve the original patent numbers. > Scudder,Henry J wrote: > > Could you publish the numbers again? > > See the Work of Wm. A Barker. USPTO 1990 [don't have the nunber > > off hand] WELL docuneted. We reproduced it. Look for Barker's patent number 5,076,971. -- - 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 Nov 14 23:11:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA22001; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:39:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:39:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <328C1D81.2C84@rt66.com> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 23:39:05 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: conte@teseo.it, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: Uranium deactivation] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------FA1213B45E6" Resent-Message-ID: <"yF8e6.0.hN5.m01Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2153 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. --------------FA1213B45E6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Elio, I am so happy you find my information on spark and exploding wire experiments so helpful. I will e-mail you anything I find as soon as possible. This comment by Horace Heffner is a succinct outline of the basic paradigm that I see emerging. As you may gather from his posts this year on Vortex-L, Heffner is a very competent experimentalist and source of bold ideas, not afraid to get it wrong at times. Can you send me by e-mail or mail reports on your theory and your experiments? I will study them and tell others. The field of low energy nuclear reactions is about to become legitimate to scientists and funding agencies, now that Clean Energy Technology Incorporated is selling over 60 kits for their Patterson Power Cell for $ 3750 each. There will be a lot of funding available. I am hoping to get funding for studying evidence for nuclear transformations in past decades. For instance, it takes a day to find about a hundred references since 1910 in "Chemical Abstracts" to explosions, electrical, wire, film. Many studies before 1930 published hundreds of unidentified spectral lines, which modern tables reveal to be dozens of elements produced by transmutation reactions. But none of these studies did any mass spectrograph or chemical analysis, so far as I have found. After 1930, no spectral data is published. Never have I found any energy balance studies. So far, in every study of high voltage sparks or exploding wires that publishes spectral lines, that I have surveyed, shows many lines indicative of elements produced by nuclear transmutation. Any spark will on about any element will probably produce transmutations, I conclude. My daughter is fluent in Italian, in case your material is not yet in English. Rich Murray --------------FA1213B45E6 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Received: from mail.eskimo.com (smartlst@mail.eskimo.com [204.122.16.4]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA04661 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:41:20 -0700 (MST) Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA02153; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 08:38:12 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 08:38:12 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 07:36:50 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Resent-Message-ID: <"BM-Xj.0.TX.khqYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2128 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com >Gene Mallove wrote : > >>"System in Electrolytic Cell and Method for Producing Heat and De-Activating >>Uranium and Thorium by Electrolysis" >> >>This patent describes a method by which radionuclides are inserted into a >>special matrix designed for radioactive elements. According to Reding and >>inventor Dr. Patterson, with whom I also spoke, "conservatively" they have >>demonstrated the reduction by up to 50% of the radiation activity from >>uranium >>and thorium. The process takes only from 2 to 24 hours. Generally, the process >>occurs within only 4 hours. It is said that the de-activation can be as >>high as >>90%, which would make for a pretty conclusive finding, I would assume. > >I am surprised not to see any comment on that from vortexians, because I >fail to understand how such a deactivation of uranium or thorium can be >possible at all. Anyone has an answer ? > > Jean DeLagarde Maybe we are already conditioned to this, so are not very excited. This is just more of the same in the transmutation arena. It is just another variation of: nuceli + stimulation + right environment -> quark soup folllowed by: quark soup + stimulation -> mostly stable nuclei with isotope shifts. I have suggested the possibility that in a single instantaneous waveform collapse that multiple combined (but conserving) transmuting reaction sequences are possible when a high energy particle stimulates a Bose condensate (quark soup) and that such combined transmutations must therefore occur in such cases without generating the intermediate products including e- e+ or neutrinos. Why the final products that jell from the soup are almost entirely stable nuclei is unexplained. However, since such a product would represent some kind of minimum energy state it just doesn't seem so surprizing. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 --------------FA1213B45E6-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 23:22:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA24159; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:46:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:46:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:08:11 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: New CF Miracle: stable nuclei paradox In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"jp0jX3.0.Kv5.U71Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2154 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I earlier wrote: > > What happens is that the strong interaction forms nuclei then the weak > interaction transforms them. The strong interaction "knows" nothing about > the weak interaction and in any case can only form the most stable > configuration > of the neutrons and protons present. In nuclear reactions that very often > produces nuclei that are unstable to the weak interaction. > > If CF is real and the result of lattice transformations, then Chris Tinsley > or Horace Heffners ideas of forming "mega-nuclei" dropping off pieces into > stable isotopes are similar to my own mental images of what might be > happening. I have absolutely no idea how to make a proper theory of this > though. > I just realized a nice corrollary to this idea. If the strong nuclear force has access to a large number of protons and neutrons, then it can pick the right combinations of neutrons and protons that give the lowest energy states for given total nucleon number. This will automatically give stable nuclei. In the case of the Claytor et al. tritium production experiments, presumably the excess of neutrons plus the very close energy difference between tritium and 3He gives configurations where the emission of tritium is energically favourable. Now I really should stop. I'm way out of depth and imagining wildly. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 23:43:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA03241; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 23:28:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 23:28:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <328C28D9.6ADE@rt66.com> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 00:24:57 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: wireless@rmii.com, ine@padrak.com, cc840@freenet.carleton.ca, conte@teseo.it, vortex-l@eskimo.com, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, david@ibg.uu.se, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, jechampion@aol.com, bockris@chemvx.tamu.edu, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, CldFusion@aol.com, design73@aol.com, mica@world.std.com, 100276.261@compuserve.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, g-miley@uiuc.edu Subject: Neutrons from sparks? Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"3LR-81.0.Wo.oj1Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2155 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Return-Path: conte@teseo.it Received: from giasone.teseo.it (giasone.teseo.it [195.32.112.1]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA20630 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 04:48:04 -0700 (MST) Received: from ro.teseo.it by giasone.teseo.it; (5.65/1.1.8.2/03Oct95-0808PM) id AA01072; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:47:07 -0100 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:47:07 -0100 Message-Id: <9611141147.AA01072@giasone.teseo.it> X-Sender: conte@teseo.it (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: rmforall@rt66.com From: conte@teseo.it (Elio Conte) Subject: Another request!!!!!! X-Mailer: Dear Rich Murray, in my previous e-mail I have forgotten to say briefly about experiments on sparks and transmutations. We are preparing a program to start as soon as possible with experiments on this field,but we have not any experimental detail on this regard.Please,if you have technical notes explaining how these experiments(leading to transmutations) are currently performed,please send me this material as soon as possible. It should be of great interest to have detailed experimental informations on the manner to conduct these experiments.We could start immediately. The Biquaternion Quantum Mechanics enters in this phenomenology. So,please,help us.Yours Sincerely.Elio Conte --- Prof Elio Conte Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 02:29:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA07411; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 18:49:44 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 18:49:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 18:57:40 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199611142357.SAA03359@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <961114225806_100433.1541_BHG7-1@CompuServe.COM> (message from Chris Tinsley on 14 Nov 96 17:58:07 EST) Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Resent-Message-ID: <"xrw5R3.0.fp1.3fzYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2149 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley said: > Certainly that chops down the radioactivity, but not the > half-life of the U or Pu. If CETI is claiming to change the half-life of U or Th (not Pu) I want to see them prove it. If they are claiming a short (order of years) reduction in activity, that is provable in reasonable time. But I saw the claim as reducing the TOTAL radioactivity of a U or Th sample, and over 90% of that comes from the daughter chains. In fact, as I remember it, the first step in most of the chains is a low energy alpha, which is almost impossible to detect. All the high energy particles come from the daughters or the occasional "spontaneous" fisson. 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 Nov 15 02:46:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA12484; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:26:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:26:02 -0800 (PST) Date: 14 Nov 96 12:15:01 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Message-ID: <961114171501_100433.1541_BHG105-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"AinNK.0.-23.UOrYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2130 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jean writes, > I am surprised not to see any comment on that from vortexians, > because I fail to understand how such a deactivation of uranium or > thorium can be possible at all. Anyone has an answer ? I suppose we are punch-drunk, and anyway there are no really good details available to make comments possible. Let's be straight on this. Despite the many (and, to me, incomprehensible) theories put forward, there is really no consensus among the heretics as to how any nuclear transmutations can be occurring *at all*. The confusing evidence so far suggests that 'cold' (non-plasma temp) systems can undergo nuclear reactions in a way impossible by any known mechanism. Interestingly, it also suggests that these 'cold' processes have an almost total 'preference' for stable nuclides. Any unstable ones formed seem rapidly to be converted to stable ones, so this claim (which seems to be but one of several related related claims to convert radioactive materials to their daughter products by electrochemical processes) at least can be thought of as fitting the broad picture???? Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 03:01:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA29283; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:44:44 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:44:44 -0800 (PST) Date: 14 Nov 96 11:58:26 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Uranium deactivation Message-ID: <961114165825_72240.1256_EHB129-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"LKH7B1.0.S97.QXsYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2133 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Jean DeLagarde writes: I am surprised not to see any comment on that from vortexians, because I fail to understand how such a deactivation of uranium or thorium can be possible at all. Don't be surprised. We are a blase bunch of people. (That's blas-accent-e [], from the Middle Dutch blasen, 'to blow up, swell.') As the Red Queen said, "why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Seriously, CETI has been talking informally about these remediation results for months. Rumor has it that other groups have seen similar effects. However, nothing has been published until now. There is no point in discussing undocumented rumors. We have to wait until we get the patent. The only well-documented example of a similar phenomenon is the Reifenschweiler experiment. Chris points out that momentarily slowing down tritium decay is not the same thing as "deactivating" (remediating; turning it off completely). Maybe so, but I assume the CF cells deactivate radioactivity by speeding up the decay many orders of magnitude, and converting everything to its final, stable decay product. So I think the two phenomena are related. Reifenschweiler slows down decay; Patterson fast forwards it. Anyone has an answer ? It's black magic! Alchemy that works! - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 03:20:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA24371; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 03:18:38 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 03:18:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:18:14 -0100 Message-Id: <9611151118.AA05287@giasone.teseo.it> X-Sender: conte@teseo.it Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: conte@teseo.it (Elio Conte) Subject: Neutrons from sparks?and Uranium Deactivation X-Mailer: Resent-Message-ID: <"gxO-T2.0.jy5.D65Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2156 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: =20 > > >> >>Dear Rich Murray, >in >>the past months we have had the occasion to discuss a new >>generalization of the quantum mechanics that I have introduced >>and published by various papers on the scientific journal called >>Physics Essays and by a book edited by the Pitagora Editrice >>Bologna,Italy.This new theory is called Biquaternion Quantum >>Mechanics.It has an important and basic link with the cold fusion >>and with all the emerging new phenomenologies in this sector. >>This is the point:when we generalize Schrodinger's equation in >>Biquaternion Quantum Mechanics we found that,in addition to the=3D20 >>traditional interactions deriving from a potential,in Nature exist >>another kind of interactions due to the mutual overlap >>of the wavefunctions of the interacting particles.We have detrmined >>also the analitical behaviour of this new kind of interaction.You=3D20 >>understand the importance of this result!If confirmed,we could have= finally >>a theoretical basis to explain CF and the new phenomenologies.Now, >>one of the consenquences of the Biquaternion Quantum Mechanics >>is that,existing this new kind of interaction,new bound states,formed >>at distances under 1fm (thus,CF),are possible.The first case we have= studied >>concerns the cold fusion of a proton and an electron to give a neutron. >>This was the first original conception on the neutron as it was formulated >>by Rutherford,but it was rejected owing to the difficulties encountered >>respect to the usual quantum mechanics(mass,spin,lifetime,...).The >>biquaternion quantum mechanics fully resolves all the problems of the >>usual quantum mechanics and thus this new bound state becomes=3D20 >>fully possible.I repeat:this is of basic importance to explain all the >>new emerging phenomenologies.The problerm is that,in addition to >>the theoretical elaboration,we need experimental confirmations.Now, >>in our laboratories we have started to perform experiments and the=3D20 >>first obtained results,now under publication,confirm the biquaternion >>quantuym mechanics and they have been discussed also on vortex-l. >>We have obtained the cold fusion of a proton and an electron in a >>neutron and also we have observed an anomalous production of heat. >>We are continuously researching new confirmations to this regard: >>now,in your recent e-mail,you speak abou spark experiments >>and of neutrons that were measured from Sam(?) or Papp(?).As >>you may intend,it should be on greatest interest for us and for >>all,to know how these neutrons were determined:could you give >>us a brief technical synthesis of the experiments that were performed >>and leading to the observation and measurement of neutrons?Have=3D20 >>you some material to this regard?Could you send me it by fax >>(080 5239840) or by E-mail(as attached file) . >>Please,your informations could be of extraordinary importance,could >>you answer me as soon as possible?. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ Concerning Uranium deactivation, Jean DeLagarde asks if anyone has an answer. Of course,I observe: there is still someone that retains that so new phenomenologies as those emerged in these years from the initial CF results to these last observed transmutations,may be explained=20 by the usual scheme of quantum mechanics?Are we waiting some SUPERNATURAL stimulus to finally understand that any tentative to explain such so new phenomenologies of the physics require a generalization of the usual quantum mechanics?The Biquaternion Quantum Mechanics is a generalization of the usual theory.When this new theory explains that the cold fusion of p and e in n is possible, it performs that also the inverse reaction (peacked at a well known energy) .... + n ---- p + e +..... is possible.In other terms,a stimulate decay of the neutron is possible in nuclei and thus should be in relation with the observed transmutations and "deactivation" of the nuclei. Also p+e --- n +..... ,obviously,come together. Yours Sincerely.Elio Conte =20 >> >> >> >> --- Prof Elio Conte Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 03:50:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA28704; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 03:49:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 03:49:13 -0800 (PST) Date: 15 Nov 96 06:45:48 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Message-ID: <961115114547_100433.1541_BHG122-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"YmZfe3.0.Q07.uY5Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2157 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robert, > If CETI is claiming to change the half-life of U or Th (not Pu) > I want to see them prove it. If they are claiming a short (order > of years) reduction in activity, that is provable in reasonable > time. But I saw the claim as reducing the TOTAL radioactivity of a > U or Th sample, and over 90% of that comes from the daughter > chains. In fact, as I remember it, the first step in most of the > chains is a low energy alpha, which is almost impossible to > detect. All the high energy particles come from the daughters or > the occasional "spontaneous" fisson. Of course. But the previous claims were to reduce thorium chloride to its eventual stable daughter products in very short order, reducing the billions-year half-life to a few minutes, and that the claim had been verified by various universities. I presumed (perhaps wrongly) that this claim was similar. Of course any such claim is preposterous, and would require careful checking. All I'm saying is that in essence it seems to me to be the same kind of claim as the basic Miley one, leading a lot of people to think that what would be needed would be the building of some cold super-atom which then collapses into a bunch of stable nuclei. If this whole business is true, then what I am saying is that the rules of nuclear physics simply do not apply to any of it - we have seen that argued with great vigour. Therefore this is not nuclear physics, which is the physics of individual nuclei. Therefore it must be the physics of something else - and some kind of condensation of a group of nuclei into something bigger seems to me to be one way forward. Like I say, "nucleus" means "nut". Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 03:51:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA07099; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:21:52 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:21:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 18:14:46 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: Richard Thomas Murray , Vortex-L Subject: RE: Spark health hazards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"n23qA3.0.mk1.NUxYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2144 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ADDENDUM: Be careful. Exploding wores are used at present to do research in short or 'hard' X rays. Make sure you also have ventilation, you DO NOT want to inhale anything unknown ... AT ALL ... especially if radioactive. The 'poor boy' X ray shield can allow you to see the explosion by reflection. Be careful of short wave UV too. On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Scudder,Henry J wrote: > Rich > Landauer Inc. > 2 Science Road > Glenwood IL, 60425-1586 > Attn: Stephanie Schultz > 800-323-8830 > Makes a series of radiation badges to measure your dosage. > We use them here at Rocketdyne. I wear one whenever I'm near > X-ray equipment.(I work with industrial tomography). The individual > dose from a spark explosion would have a maximum energy of the > Kilovoltage you are running, unless you are actually generating > transmutations,:>} when all bets are off. The X-ray power in an > X-ray tube is usually about 1% of the electric power in the range > of 50 to 400 KV. You probably, conservatively, could use this as > an estimate of your radiation in a spark discharge. The Phillips > 420Kv, 10ma(4200W) tube puts out 7.33 Rads/sec at one meter. > You can get a feeling for your exposure by using the inverse square > law for distance, and linear in time and current for your estimate > There is some dependence on the voltage, but this gives you a > starting place. > -Hank Scudder > ---------- > From: Richard Thomas Murray > stuff on the Internet. > > I'd greatly appreciate anyone who reads this sending me information > about spark experiments and current and past practitioners. There are > radiation safety issues that need to be publicly and widely discussed. > I am recently studying a variety of spark reports from circa 1920 that > unwittingly produced nuclear transmutations with dozens of published > spectral lines. > > Rich Murray > Room For All > HCR 70 Box 515 > Pecos, NM 87552 > 505-757-6145 > rmforall@rt66.com > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 04:28:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA04707; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 04:26:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 04:26:01 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611151225.EAA07809@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, 15 Nov 1996 04:25:21 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Resent-Message-ID: <"OdFKT1.0.T91.P56Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2159 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:36 PM 11/14/96 +0100, you wrote: >Gene Mallove wrote : > >>"System in Electrolytic Cell and Method for Producing Heat and De-Activating >>Uranium and Thorium by Electrolysis" >> >>This patent describes a method by which radionuclides are inserted into a >>special matrix designed for radioactive elements. According to Reding and >>inventor Dr. Patterson, with whom I also spoke, "conservatively" they have >>demonstrated the reduction by up to 50% of the radiation activity from uranium >>and thorium. The process takes only from 2 to 24 hours. Generally, the process >>occurs within only 4 hours. It is said that the de-activation can be as high as >>90%, which would make for a pretty conclusive finding, I would assume. > >I am surprised not to see any comment on that from vortexians, because I >fail to understand how such a deactivation of uranium or thorium can be >possible at all. Anyone has an answer ? > > Jean DeLagarde > > > You have fallen into an errorful way of thinking, led into it no doubt by a generation of textbooks which all cite the wrong "facts". Ask these two questions: (1) What is an unstable nucleus? NO NUMBERS ALLOWED IN THIS ANSWER (2) What governs its rate of release of energy? Upon reflection you will I think discover that there are no answers to these questions. Quantum theories have absolutely nothing to do with it. The quantum numbers describe results of experimental activity, NOT NECESSARY CAUSATION in this instance. There is NO THEORY AT ALL WHICH LIMITS, DESCRIBES, OR PERMITS THE RELEASE OF ENERGY FROM UNSTABLE ISOTOPES, except for the big bang billiards theory, meaning that if you hit something hard enough, you can smash anything into bits. So what. So-called high energy physics in utterly meaningless in this instance. All there is is a "half-life" statistical relationship which has been confused with a causal model. Therefore, the issue that it can be speeded up on the one hand and slowed down on the other hand is of very little conceptual importance. Such an issue should not limit your beginning to deal with the phenomenon. That there is a phenomenon is well established in experimental circles at this point. So pay attention to the phenomenon, not anything else. There is nothing to believe or nothing to dis-believe. Investigate. Those who do are going to invent an entirely new em chemical physics. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 04:28:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA04585; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 04:25:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 04:25:02 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611151224.EAA07761@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, 15 Nov 1996 04:24:21 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Resent-Message-ID: <"LSZgB2.0.W71.T46Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2158 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:15 PM 11/14/96 EST, you wrote: >Jean writes, > > > I am surprised not to see any comment on that from vortexians, > > because I fail to understand how such a deactivation of uranium or > > thorium can be possible at all. Anyone has an answer ? > >I suppose we are punch-drunk, and anyway there are no really good >details available to make comments possible. Let's be straight on this. >Despite the many (and, to me, incomprehensible) theories put forward, >there is really no consensus among the heretics as to how any nuclear >transmutations can be occurring *at all*. > >The confusing evidence so far suggests that 'cold' (non-plasma temp) >systems can undergo nuclear reactions in a way impossible by any known >mechanism. Interestingly, it also suggests that these 'cold' processes >have an almost total 'preference' for stable nuclides. Any unstable >ones formed seem rapidly to be converted to stable ones, so this claim >(which seems to be but one of several related related claims to convert >radioactive materials to their daughter products by electrochemical >processes) at least can be thought of as fitting the broad picture???? > >Chris > > Horace: quarks be damned. geometry, think geometry geometry of spacetime dynamical possibilities AS STRUCTURED by the host matrix, ie materials present. gamma is a near orbit electron desperately seeking a real home in an incomplete protron/neutron geomtry but trapped into an oscillation between incompatible locii, causing considerable chatter in the nucleus as well. beta is an ejected electron which couldn't find a home and was able to chatter itself free. alpha is a ejected proton/neutron fragment which results from the nucleus reforming itself into a proper dynamical geometry, induced naturally by the incessent chattering set up by the gamma/beta electron. none of this can be understood from the point of view of the atom itself. it is the entire lattice geometry, the overlapping shells and interferences of the complexly densely populated spaces of especially the heavier elements, which set up oscillations which prevent stable formulations into the proper atom as we think we know it, hence, radioactivity is abnormal condition of matter seeking balanced electromagnetic structure. add the right dynamics and the stuff reformulates. presto bingo. you want the final secret? tap dance on plasma. tap dance hard, electrically AND magnetically. ah one and ah two. you heard it here, attributions gladly accepted when you claim your nobel. free dinners, too, out of your royalty checks. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 04:28:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA04764; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 04:26:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 04:26:21 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611151226.EAA07823@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, 15 Nov 1996 04:25:39 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Resent-Message-ID: <"rpVaB2.0.KA1.h56Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2160 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:09 PM 11/14/96 -0500, you wrote: > > Jean DeLagarde said: > > > I am surprised not to see any comment on that from vortexians, > > because I fail to understand how such a deactivation of uranium or > > thorium can be possible at all. Anyone has an answer ? > > If you look at the decay chains for uranium and thorium, a lot of >the activity comes from daughter products, with the final result being >lead. If you can change these intermediates into another stable >species then you get the claimed results. > > You also get pretty spectacular results if you just get the gases >out. A lot of the radioactivity comes from Radon. For this reason >you would need a very well done experiment to verify the claimed >result. You need to find out if the Radon is migrating elsewhere. > > > Robert I. Eachus > >with Standard_Disclaimer; >use Standard_Disclaimer; >function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... > > it is real easy to control. you could do all in a sealed container. you don't even have to seal it very good. radon is real big and heavy and can't escape to save its soul. or you can do double checks like, I baked radium laced dirt to check that out, I mean baked for hours in a kiln up to 1400 F, and got NO DIFFERENCE IN THE READINGS BEFORE AND AFTER. This allowed me to be pretty certain that when I supplied thirty minutes of broadband tesla 100+ kv, the difference in readings was not because of radon going somewhere. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 04:28:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA04796; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 04:26:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 04:26:26 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611151226.EAA07825@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, 15 Nov 1996 04:25:42 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: New CF Miracle: stable nuclei paradox Resent-Message-ID: <"VB9qs1.0.sA1.n56Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2161 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:27 PM 11/14/96 -0800, you wrote: >I want to reiterate that the profusion of stable "transmuted >elements" seen by Miley, Ohmori, Mizono, etc is a new >paradox for cold fusion. The first two paradoxes/miracles are > > >(1) overcoming the coulomb barrier at room temp > this room temp is an illusion. at the micro level there can be intense activity which is mostly not broadcast as transmitted energy. what little which is broadcast is the "cold fusion" heat effect. >(2) releasing nuclear energy soley as heat, without ionizing > radiation > why is the absence of "ionizing radiation" a problem for professional physicists? I do not understand why this is an obstacle. It is very easy for a savage in the jungle like me to comprehend. There is no energy at all, save SOMETHING moves. All we are talking about here is extremely short wave length oscillations of chattering electrons and proton/neutron pairs which have not found a stable geometry of the balance of vectors and/or the ejecta of electrons and proton/neutron pairs which break or migrate free through the matrix lattice. IF a condition is created where the atomic geometry can suddenly reform itself locally to allow a balance of vectors, so-called stable atoms, suddenly the shortwave length oscillations and the ejecta cease to exist. the key is that all of the stuff must mechanically be able to move and flex and stretch into new shapes, and naturally it needs stimulation to induce it to do so. now what about this transmutation of elements which are not radioactive? quite apparantly, the coulomb barrier is also an illusion. it does not exist as some of thought. put the electrodynamical equations and inferences on the shelf for the next twenty years. experiment. talk to Roberto Monti if you can find him. let's put it this way, alpha sized chunks of the nucleus can be induced to flex and move and you can get them to play musical chairs...ah, but they are the musical chairs...the form they end up taking depends on where the music takes them. em is the music. em can be carried into the situation in quite a diverse number of ways. plasmas and rayguns. >However, the Miley et al paradox of creating over a hundred >new nuclei without creating *any* unstable nuclei is a distinct >paradox that goes along with the new CF paradigm in which >widespread nuclear reactions occur (as opposed to simply >hydrogen fusions). How the reaction process could *avoid >ever forming* an unstable nuclei is quite amazing. We know >none persist on a long time scale (days), since they don't show >in the SIMS spectra, and we know none are formed transiently, >since they don;t give off any radiative decay during the expereiment. >So, one has to imagine that either the process has some >"precognition" which lets it avoid even forming unstable nuclei, >or it somehow only forms unstable nuclei >transiently, and also suppresses their decay/decay products while they >are in existence. In any case, we now need to add to the list > >(3) forming nearly every conceivable stable nuclei, but > never forming an unstable nuclei (except in the case of Tritium). > > >Of the miracles, I actually think (3) might be most miraculous. > > it is really neat, huh? century 21 is going to look back at century 20 as one very big long bad dream, stuffed full of all the wrong questions and even worse answers, having made very little progress beyond what was already implicit by the knowledge of 1920. most of the scientific fields have major paradigm shifts in the works. physicists are not alone in confronting a new landscape in which suddenly what was ASSumed to be true, ain't. the total relativity of space/time/matter/energy, really real relativity as opposed to fancy theoretical mathematics, is just beginning to be perceived... > > >-- >Barry Merriman >Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program >Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math >email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 04:28:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA04836; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 04:26:33 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 04:26:33 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611151226.EAA07828@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, 15 Nov 1996 04:25:46 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Resent-Message-ID: <"n4rwX.0.OB1.u56Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2162 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:13 PM 11/14/96 EST, you wrote: >Barry, > > >The burning question then becomes - do we really know exactly why 108Ag >is not stable while its henchmen 109 and 107 are? Could we be wrong? > It is not wrong. The answer lies in the geometry of alpha subsets which compose the atoms. With any given group or number of alphas, there is a specific set of stable geometries of form into which they can nest, ie, bind themselves together to form an atom. If they are caused by a transmutating stimulation to be fluid enough to recompose themselves, no way will they compose themselves into anything except the most compact forms. You have to become a geometrist, study Buckminister Fuller, think seriously about Walter Russell's work, and talk to Roberto Monti to understand the specifics of this. >Anyway, if these results do hold up - and I am mildly confident that >they will - then nuclear physics as we know it is just a subset of >'real' nuclear physics, "slow, cold atomic physics." bingo, you see the light. And the >fundamental problem with any theoretical understanding is that it can >only operate within its own sphere, and it is that theory itself which >defines the tests which can be done on it. Electrostatics can never >predict magnetic effects, mechanics cannot predict electricity, and >chemistry cannot predict nuclear effects. Magnetic effects can ruin a >nice experiment in electrostatics, electricity can do the same in >mechanics, and fast-decaying nuclei could make a chemist tear his hair >out - if they didn't make it *fall* out. > you are very dangerous, you have seen behind the entire facade. century 21 is being created in the cracks BETWIXT the various industrial occupations and in the gaps BETWEEN what people think they know. welcome to the ancient and honorable society of crackpots, the oldest hobby on the planet. >Imagine trying to plot chemical reaction rates against temperature, and >then finding that you had been working with light-sensitive chemicals. > >Theory can only operate within its own domain. These results, if real, >are operating on a level outside the *assumptions* of nuclear physics, >and we won't get very far trying to apply the rules of that science. > bingo. bingo. bingo. that's how you win. >I was going over those Podkletnov claims again. People say, "Oh, such >and such would have to happen because of conservation of energy." >Clarke wrote a nice story about that. But if spatial anisotropy was >produced by that experiment, then C of E would not apply (locally) - >because it *assumes* spatial isotropy. At least, I think it does. > >Tough. At least it makes us one with all those great scientists of the >past who had to fight problems just as bizarre and confusing in their >day. Where are you now when we need you, "Just plain Mr Faraday"? > >I seem to recall it was Piet Hein who said, > >Problems worthy of attack >Show their worth by fighting back. > >If we can work out what exactly *are* the assumptions of nuclear >physics, then we might just see the answer - "through a glass, darkly." >The only hint of hope I get is this idea that large numbers of nuclei >really do go into some kind of 'super nucleus', some kind of condensate, >some kind of mutual gross wave function, then the condensate evaporates >into this stew of new nuclei. Nuclear physics deals with *nuclei*, and >that may be its undoing here. > yeah, you are barking up the right tree here. the atom just ain't what it has been cracked up to be. I got my big insight on this when a TV repairman showed me a plastic tray about a foot by two feet with a wooden band around the edge, forming a lip. Into it he would throw these small little circular magnet waffers. Each time a magnet was thrown in, all the magnets would jostle and rearrange themselves, the geometry of arrangement progessively changing. add enough so that changing the position of one magnet would cause a repositioning of all magnets. you could then jostle the tray and the magnets would jiggle a little but stay mostly in the same geometry of arrangement. add another magnet, and all of a sudden, all of the magnets would zip all around and radically rearrange their geometry of alignment. then jostle the tray just a tiny little bit and watch the helter skelter of the magnets zipping around to find a new stable alignment. He said, this is how the universe dances. No mathematics, a priori, can define what these magnets will do. Or at least, no mathematics which a human brain can use can define this dance. Much easier to play with the dance and see how they dosie-doe. More variations of how to play with making them dance than can ever be accounted for theory, which is probably out of date by the time it is published. He also told me this: ALL ENERGY is simply these motions. No motion = No energy. The magnets are exactly like how electrons behave in the atomic matrix. Change the position of one, they all have to dance. CHANGE THE POSITION OF ONE, THEY ALL HAVE TO DANCE. ABSOLUTE, TOTAL RELATIVITY OF ALL MATTER. ONE TINY CHANGE IN RELATIVE POSITION CASCADES A CHANGE THROUGHOUT ALL OF SPACE TIME. I thought, holy shit, that's it! We partly "see" that in our understanding of light. Astronomers are seeing the oscillating dancing shift of electrons through their valance levels, even some odd 15 billion astounding years ago. Take this to the next level. See the so-called nucleus as a tray of alphas (helium) magnets...and take it from there, maestro. Obviosly they have two ends, one which is pulling them together, such as we think of the binding force, and the other which is the repelling force, such as the magnets in the tray. If these forces are usually in balance, if we suppose that equal and opposite is at work here, but composing a zone of highly differentiated space which supports itself, ie, maintains the structure we know as atom, ie, attracts just enough binding ends together to form enough repulsive ends to repulse other units altogether, then it should be possible to unbalance them by having them dance to the right tune and thus flex them into completely new shapes. My thought is that each alpha node in the nucleus must move in response to a change in the motion of a decently close electron. In this metaphor, what repulses other alphas attacts electrons. Must it not be then be the protons which are on the outside and the neutrons which are on the inside? Just how much binding force is in there anyway? Maybe the inner neutral zone, ie, two or more neutrons, is held together by the binding energy of a shared internal orbital electron or two, which would mean that the repelling positive charges on the outside really are paper tigers, in fact, becomes one of the main allies in causing the whole assembly to rearrange itself. It is just a matter of nudging the electrons to jostle the alphas, to stretch the neutron orbitals... Is that not a mind blowing hoot? >The trouble with having whacky ideas is that you get to like them. >After all, "nucleus" means "nut". Think about it...... > >Chris >(drivelling badly today) > > you aint the only one ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 04:29:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA04861; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 04:26:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 04:26:39 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611151226.EAA07839@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, 15 Nov 1996 04:25:52 +0800 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Transmutations - Radioactivity - Important Query, Read this Resent-Message-ID: <"42bTP.0.pB1.z56Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2163 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: THE VORTEX: As some of you know I have been a transmutation nut for several years and even last fall hinted strongly that cold fusion would be shown to be primarily transmutations of the catalytic metals. You may know that I did my own experiments to verify that Barker and Keller and Champion had real effects in neutralizing radioactivity, ie causing some sort of unexplained and unexplainable accelerated transmutation. I have no theories about this, only the certain knowledge that it can be done with simple electromagnetic and thermochemical techniques, ie, alchemy-like procedures. It can be done, cheaply and crudely, at least to observe results. Now that Miley has published his paper, my guess is that many of you are beginning to think that it truly is possible. As a result of various interactions and associations as a result of that work, it has come to pass that I am being put in a position to help catalyze a major institutional involvement in dealing with nuclear wastes. Certain political figures and wealthy individuals are prepared to mobilize a great deal of money and a serious governmental effort to undertake to engineer a solution to the radioactive waste problem. They are prepared to undertake the effort even if it means facing down the U.S. Government and the combined force of every arm-chair physicist in the world telling them that they are quacks. This announcement is made to find anyone within reach of Vortex who has experimented in this subject, has found positive findings, and/or may have useful approaches. My intent is to attempt to arrange finance for several lab scale experiments which could in principal be scaled up into batch processes for dispatching of radioactive solutions. My intent is that we will explore the thermochemical approach used by Keller and various electromagnetic approaches, including Walter Russell's. Since radioactive wastes are a very complex brew, I personally doubt that only one approach will prove optimum. I have very carefully taken note and studied every communication on the vortex connected with this subject during the last two years and especially I have printed out some of the more recent data which has come out of the last two conferences. I am preparing a brief on what I see as the emerging field. I am neither a chemist or physicist. Neither are the people who will make the decisons. Please communicate accordingly. I am meeting on Friday the 22nd of November with certain financiers who are very interested in undertaking a serious two year development effort. I am doing this not on my own intiative. This has fallen into my lap. I am being asked to do this. The universe wants this to happen. Therefore, any new reference to provable results which has not appeared on Vortex to date is most welcome. Also welcome are serious indications and expressions of interest from people who are interested in assisting a broad effort. If you have credentials, please make use of them in your communication. I will print out the emails and make use of them in my briefing. Make them short. These people are open-minded, but they will want to know what kind of professional support there may be in the offing. I am especially interested in people with laboratory facilities and people who have ideas. Beyond what I have just communicated, I can't really say more at this time. I have no idea what will result from my personal efforts in this instance. I am not the resource decision-maker. I am only in a position to catalyze a decision-making which may bring resources into this field. In this instance, I will be wearing my new hat as Chairman of Environmental Tune-Up, Inc. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 04:51:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA12460; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 04:49:49 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 04:49:49 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611151249.EAA10273@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, 15 Nov 1996 04:49:07 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: New CF Miracle: stable nuclei paradox Resent-Message-ID: <"3l_Xs.0.Z23.hR6Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2164 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:08 PM 11/15/96 +1100, you wrote: >>I earlier wrote: >> >> What happens is that the strong interaction forms nuclei then the weak >> interaction transforms them. The strong interaction "knows" nothing about >> the weak interaction and in any case can only form the most stable >> configuration >> of the neutrons and protons present. In nuclear reactions that very often >> produces nuclei that are unstable to the weak interaction. >> >> If CF is real and the result of lattice transformations, then Chris Tinsley >> or Horace Heffners ideas of forming "mega-nuclei" dropping off pieces into >> stable isotopes are similar to my own mental images of what might be >> happening. I have absolutely no idea how to make a proper theory of this >> though. >> > > >I just realized a nice corrollary to this idea. If the strong nuclear >force has access to a large number of protons and neutrons, then it can >pick the right combinations of neutrons and protons that give the lowest >energy states for given total nucleon number. This will automatically give >stable nuclei. > >In the case of the Claytor et al. tritium production experiments, presumably >the excess of neutrons plus the very close energy difference between tritium >and 3He gives configurations where the emission of tritium is >energically favourable. > >Now I really should stop. I'm way out of depth and imagining wildly. > >Martin Sevior > > No, please continue. Please thrash around madly on some of the stuff I threw at Tinsley ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 06:02:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA23732; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 05:50:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 05:50:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:57:39 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <328c68c6.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Resent-Message-ID: <"4yklN3.0.ko5.FK7Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2165 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:44:44 -0800 (PST), vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > Jean DeLagarde writes: > > I am surprised not to see any comment on that from vortexians, because I > fail to understand how such a deactivation of uranium or thorium can be > possible at all. I think this is the same process as that described in the LENR-2 paper "Low energy nuclear reactions in an electrolytic cell" by Robert Bass, Rod Neal, Stan Gleeson and Hal Fox, that is essentially a fission process. CETI seems to have a better strategy and a better process than the Cincinnati group. According to this paper, tungsten can be fissioned in daughter elements of equal masses (two rubidium) or inequal masses (cadmium and iron), thorium splits in mercury and neon. A lot of excess neutrons, 11-15 per reaction are formed, and this proves that the 'new' nuclear processes imply a neutron extraction step. As I suggested, the entities which are performing this paradigm-breaking and barrier- destroying job are, very probably strongly interacting with the energetic vacuum. The explanation of the three CF miracles will be, I dare to predict, very complex. You have to develop a holistic vision or, as Jed wrote "you must look at the great picture". Out-of-context, simplistic explanations are good for nothing. I am conviced that vacuum is a participant and brings a high dosis of complexity. On my turn, I have two questions: a) In which extent THEORY can predict the stability of given nucleus having A protons and Z-A neutrons..the most up-to- date model? Please consult the best specialists from the field. b) If somebody knows the specification of the new ceramic based microspheres, especially the diameters of them; a smaller diameter improves the catalytic activity? 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 Fri Nov 15 08:08:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA17834; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 07:47:47 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 07:47:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:24:50 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199611151524.KAA04833@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <961115001324_100433.1541_BHG101-2@CompuServe.COM> (message from Chris Tinsley on 14 Nov 96 19:13:24 EST) Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Resent-Message-ID: <"Qy-WK3.0.aM4.V29Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2166 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: > ...If we can work out what exactly *are* the assumptions of nuclear > physics, then we might just see the answer - "through a glass, darkly." > The only hint of hope I get is this idea that large numbers of nuclei > really do go into some kind of 'super nucleus', some kind of condensate, > some kind of mutual gross wave function, then the condensate evaporates > into this stew of new nuclei. Nuclear physics deals with *nuclei*, and > that may be its undoing here. I've been thinking along these lines for a long time. Assume you have a BEC of deuterons, and it permeates the electrode. ANY reaction which involves the exchange of p+n between two nuclei, and which can procede without a photon being emitted should occur. Any exothermic reaction which results in an excited nucleus which can lose energy (by interacting with the condensate as a whole, by a cascade of low energy X-rays, or some other process) should go to completion. And much more important, any X + d ---> Z + n reactions which result in low energy neutron emissions should occur, and the neutrons will be trapped in the electrode and probably be quickly captured by some nucleus. Nuclear stew. Notice that the thing which makes this so attractive is that it addresses the cosmological problems which point towards cold fusion: 1) Higher than expected core energy production in the Earth and Jupiter. 2) Lower than expected neutrino production in the sun. 3) Discrepancies in nuclear abundances. In particular, the five/eight problem. (How do elements with atomic weight above four get created, since there are no even quasi-stable nuclei with weights of five or eight? A BEC in a star would have two effects: deuterons would survive a lot longer, and He4 + d --> Li6 can occur at low energy. > The trouble with having whacky ideas is that you get to like them. > After all, "nucleus" means "nut". Think about it...... No, the problem is that no matter how wacky you think an idea is, quantum mechanics is going to come along and demonstrate just how pedestrian your imagination is. Case in point, the article in Scientific American on how to see an object in the dark. (Basically, you set up an interferometer, and detect a blockage in one of the arms by looking for photons in the troughs of the interference bands. Now, reduce the probability that a photon goes through the (potentially) blocked arm of the interferometer arbitrarily close to zero. You can determine whether or not an object is present by illuminating it with less than one photon on average. Yes, that means that often you detect an object by hitting it with no photons. ;-) 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 Nov 15 08:24:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA27003 for billb@eskimo.com; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 08:24:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 08:24:36 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: marett@terraport.net Fri Nov 15 08:24:26 1996 Received: from caracas.terraport.net (root@[205.189.144.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA26938 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 08:24:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.terraport.net ([198.96.16.142]) by caracas.terraport.net (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA20316 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:14:20 -0500 Old-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:14:20 -0500 Message-Id: <199611151614.LAA20316@caracas.terraport.net> X-Sender: marett@mail.terraport.net (Unverified) 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: marett@terraport.net (Douglas M. Marett) Subject: Correa reactor X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Nov. 14th, 1996 I would like to address the comments of Mike Carrell below, which refer to an article on my web site called "The Orgone Motor Mystery Solved". My web site is at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2514 . I saw the PAGD effect first in 1992-1993 and recognized it as the same phenomenon as that seen in Reich's VACOR tube video from 1950, which is regularily shown at the Wilhelm Reich museum. In April, 1994, when Correas PCT applications were first laid open, and I began replicating his experiments, it became clear that what he was calling PAGD was identical to the pulse phenomenon seen in the Reich video. And I must stress identical - any observer performing Correas experiment and then examining the Reich's film would clearly see this. I am not attempting to claim that I saw the PAGD before Reich or Correa; its obvious that I saw it last. However, what I am merely pointing out is that the phenomenon are identical. I do not need to speculate whether Paulo and Alex got the idea from Reich - I was there, I helped with some of the initial experiments, and most importantly, Paulo told me that this was the case. I am not attempting to belittle the Correas work - I think that it may very well be an excellent piece of scientific work. The point of my article was really to spell out that the Correas discovered these things while attempting to replicate Reich's experiments, and although they have certainly gone well beyond Reich, Reich deserves a written mention, at least somewhere. Paulo and I had several conversations in the past about people deriving inventions from the work of Reich and not giving him credit, and how bad that was. That is why this situation is so ironic. I invite anyone interested to look at the similarities between the article by Wilhelm Reich, entitled "The Orgone Charged Vacuum Tubes(1948)" in The Oranur Experiment, available from the Wilhelm Reich Museum, P.O. Box 687, Rangeley, Maine, 04970, and the Correa patents. To list a few similarities, please see below: 1) In the Correas U.S. Patent # 5,502,354, Fig.3 and 4 are virtually identical to Fig. 7 from the above mentioned Reich article. 2) Also from U.S. patent #5,502,354, the Correas use curved electrodes in Fig. 5B This is identical to the electrode construction of tubes on display at the museum. 3) Reich felt that log2 numbers were very important, such as for pendulum lengths, etc., and incorporated this into his tube design, using plates which were 4 x 16 cm in size (64 cm2 and in one case 4 x32cm, or 128 cm2). A 64cm2 tube is shown in figure 7 of the Reich article.The Correas have taken these exact plate dimensions and reproduced them in their experiments- see table 2, U.S. patent 5,502,354. 4) The Processing of vacua protocol on page 9 of U.S. patent #5,502,354 is very similar to the protocol used by Reich, P.251 in "The Orgone Charged Vacuum Tubes". 5) The claims of U.S. Patent #5,502,354 read on the prior art as found in Reich's article. The only difference is that the Correas have added a scientific explanation in the claims. The end result is the same, since both Reich's tubes and those of Correas sustain PAGD emissions. However, patent law does not oblige the inventor to disclose references which could be of this nature. It is up to the examiner or a complainant to raise the issue, and once raised, if legitimate, can be grounds for re-examination of the patent. Thus from a legal standpoint, it is entirely in the Correa's interest to keep quite about Reich, hoping that this reference would not surface. >Marett built a tube similar in configuration to ones used by Reich and Correa >and observed discharges, including the conical discahrge columns, similar to >those seen in the Correa reactors. Marett says "However, it is not known >whether circuits using this unique tube design would generate excess >energy". >The circuit Marett shows as his Fig 6 has a capacitor connected >***directly*** across the tube, makiing it a classic glow-discharge >relaxation oscillator. Readers of my articles on the Correa invention in IE >should be aware that a) it does not operate as a relaxation oscillator and b) >a shunt capacitor or energy collection circuit is not necessary to obtain the >energy bursts. In my experiments with replicating Reich's VACOR work, I found that it was possible to see the so called "PAGD" type pulses without the use of any deliberate addition of a parallel capacitor to the tube. However, with most of my experiments, I did not have rechargable battery packs and thus had to used H.V. supplies which always have some form of regulating capacitor in parallel. However, if this capacitance is low enough and the impedance of the supply is low enough, a glow discharge tube will not oscillate as you describe. In several experiments (videotaped) I deliberately used parallel capacitors of high value to produce pulsations in glow discharge tubes, and the running of motors as control experiments. This was done with arc discharges, vacuum arc discharges and glow discharges. However, in the higher vacuum range, it becomes increasingly more difficult to produce glow discharges by these means, ie in the 1E-1 to 1E-2 range. If relaxation oscillations occur in this region, they become very weak and indiscenable from the glow. Correa's PAGD phenomenon allegedly can operate without a parallel capacitance. However, if and when this occurs, the pulses are very rapid and of low joule energy per pulse. In my experiments with small or no parallel capacitors in Correa's device, the efficiency is very poor and of little consequence. If you examine Correa's patent application # 5,449,989, fig. 8, you will see that he has in fact C3,C4 and C5 in parallel with the tube. Also, in figure 11, the motor run circuit has C3,C4 and C5 in parallel with the tube. In fact, this circuit is very similar to the one of mine which you have mentioned, except my tube is in series. In either case, transient current flow only passes through the motor when capacitors C3-C5 discharge through the tube. This is somewhat similar to Correa's Fig.9. He uses very large capacitors, C3 and C5, which must charge before and pulse can occur. The high joule energy of C3 and C5 pass through the tube, and the output is rectified.This discharges C3 and C5, and the next pulse will not occur until these capacitors have recharged and the voltage across the tube again reaches the threshold voltage. This can be demonstrated easily by having voltage meters in the circuit, which I regularly did. The utility of this is that very high joule energy is allowed to pass across the tube, and the recovered energy is logarithmically related to the amount of this current flow. Thus you can't explain my experiments, about which you know very little, as a relaxation oscillator, without applying the same arguement to Correa's. In reality, the key element is the tube, its vacuum level, gas filling, and architecture, which determine whether the pulses will be self-extinguishing. Also, in my experiment, I used a tube of unusual architecture and gas filling, which I feel was creating its own self-extinguishing pulses. This tube design was considerably different from Correa's. I really put this in the article only to show that it is possible to arrive at these kinds of experimental arrangements by replicating the work of Reich. >Marett goes on to say that he began replicating the Correa's work the week >after the application was laid open, and says he saw discharge forms similar >to those seen in pictures in the Reich museum. I have seen them also in a >discharge chamber built by Jeff Fink, but they do not produce excess energy. >It is only after Marett saw the Correa application that he introduced the >"low impedance" source. He blurs this; it is essential to have a driving >source which is internally rugged and stable, ***and*** the correct current >limiter, which my be only a few hundred ohms with the rather large >electrode >areas. Marett claims to have produced excess energy in the manner of the >Correas, ***after*** reading their application. The above paragraph is somewhat incoherent, but I will attempt to address it below. Reich would have had to have a relatively low impedance power supply, otherwise he would not have seen PAGD pulses, especially at the high vacuums he was operating at. Reich either was unaware of the importance of this, or just didn't mention it. Now that I have performed the Correa experiments, I can tell you that it is not that important to have a low impedance supply, since the capacitors C3 andC5 will charge just the same. However, the pulse rate will depend on the current supply, and thus if you want fast pulsing, you need a high current, low impedance supply. Otherwise, it will pulse maybe once a minute. However, that pulse could still produce free energy. What is important is how many joules are stored on C3 and C5 prior to firing. Secondly, I never claimed to have produced free energy before the Correa's experiment was performed. You are merely repeating what I said. >In conversation with me, Correa has referred to the existence of Reich's >work. It may be true that Marett brought Reich's work to Correa's attention. >It may be true that there are similar configurations in structure. None of >these are of the essence of the Correa's discovery, which is an ***operating >mode*** which evokes the very powerful energy bursts. There is no >evidence >that Reich saw *these*, or Marett, before he saw the Correa patent >applications. I never brought Reich's work to the existance of Correa. Correa and I were both interested in the work on Reich when we first met, and continued to be so during our entire relationship of 14 years. The Correa's have most certainly gone far beyond the work of Reich, and have developed a unique device based on what appears to have been a monumental research effort. Reich never claimed to have discovered free energy in PAGD type pulses, and neither have I. I think that there is shame on the Correas only because Reich was a major inspiration to there work, and yet has received no written mention. The Correa's have been quite complimentary to other inpirations, such as the work of Aspden. Obviously, the work of several individuals helped the Correa's along the way, most of whom have been referenced in their patents. These include even minor influences, such as Tanberg and Pappas. However, Reich is conspicuously absent. This was a deliberate omission on the part of the Correas, considering their history of replicating Reich's work, and thus the reason for my comments. Doug Marett M.Sc. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 09:38:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA07319; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 09:02:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 09:02:40 -0800 (PST) Date: 15 Nov 96 10:03:54 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: New CF Miracle: stable nuclei paradox Message-ID: <961115150354_76570.2270_FHU67-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"xzv3L1.0.Bo1.h8AZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2167 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mike Mandeville is right on! Yes, we will now have to take a very close look at various proposals -- from Linus Pauling to Brightsen to Monti -- for nuclear cluster models. The implication of clustering and magic numebers is that there are mysterious arrangements within the nucleus that could allow break-up in preferred ways heretofore unimagined by most. It may be that the low-energy modes are the norm and radioactive end-products are the exceptions, brought about by too harsh slamming os nuclei with neutrons or high-energy charged particles -- as in accelerators and hot fusion. The general idea is that certain cluster patterns would have more inherent stability and intra-cluster binding energy than inter-cluster binding energy. Why not? Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 10:28:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA17570; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 09:52:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 09:52:31 -0800 (PST) Date: 15 Nov 96 12:34:03 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Message-ID: <961115173403_100433.1541_BHG94-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"KaiyP1.0.MI4.LtAZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2168 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robert, > > The trouble with having whacky ideas is that you get to like > them. > After all, "nucleus" means "nut". Think about it...... > > No, the problem is that no matter how wacky you think an idea > is, quantum mechanics is going to come along and demonstrate just > how pedestrian your imagination is. My problem with all this is that I can see everyone coming gallumphing in with their theories. Then they will grab the bits of evidence that they like, and they will push the rest to one side. The theory will work fine within its chosen 'universe of evidence', and everyone will be happy. And then the other, less well-fitting evidence will be relegated to the fringe. Few will take Jed's advice to look at the totality of the evidence. OK, some of that 'evidence' will be erroneous, but its 'error' will be decided by how well it fits the theory, not how well it stands on its quality. And, NO, I don't necessarily believe that *all* the energy balance will fit the nuclear balance sheet. This has been happening throughout the history of CF, among the renegade theorists. It will happen now as the conventional ones move in. Look at the history of semiconductor theory: once it had explained the Si and Ge monocrystalline stuff it was used to trash the MOS and Ovshinsky work. I doubt whether anyone can do anything to help. Those who are never taught the history of their subject are required to relive the same errors made by each preceding generation. Those who ignore, reject or misunderstand formal logic will once again make the logic errors which are the hallmark of C20th fizzix - the building of intricate and complex theoretical contructs on so-so evidence, the ignoring of any contrary evidence, the belief in the physical reality of 'entities' beyond their 'necessity' just because the postulated entities fit the facts observed *within their universe of discourse*. Physics has reached the point where it is so departed from its roots as a pragmatic experimental science that *any* experiments not designed to test theories within their own 'universe of discourse' are described as 'crackpot' - you should see the regulars of the Compuserve Science Forum rage against 'crackpots'. Et etera, et cetera. End rant. Usual stuff, everyone here has heard me doing it before, I'm not even sure I care any more. CF will make one quantum leap in physics, I should not be greedy. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 18:45:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA26331; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 18:37:57 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 18:37:57 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <328D1211.5E652F78@math.ucla.edu> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:00:01 -0800 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: Miley's calorimetry much better than he References: <961114225933_72240.1256_EHB152-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"gxYTk2.0.DR6.3aIZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2171 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > 1. Always start by asking the author. I faxed Barry's summary of Blue's > comments to George Miley. Barry should've done that in the first place, except > he probably knows that George is in Washington and he probably didn't feel > like waiting. Yes, that is one reason. The other is I wanted to get other peoples comments on my comments, and also finish up some other comments I have, and submit them to Miley in one coherent batch. For example, in the comments you sent to Miley, there is my question about the Ni abundances in fig 3a, which don'n seem natural. But, that was entirely my error! The plot is on a log scale :-0! Thus the Nickel isotopes shown seem to in their natural abundances. However, this raises two other points: (1) mass spec data is usually shown on a linear scale, not a log scale, so that is a little tricky on the eye. (2) given that it is a log scale, we expect to see the peaks for the rarer forms of Ni (61 @ 1%, 64 @ 1%), yet there are no peaks for these isotopes. It appears 1% just happens to fall below the vertical threshold of the graph for Ni, unfortunately, which is not a very good detection range for a SIMS. (or, in other words, they don;t make good use of their vertical axis space on the graph). In any case, I fully plan to raise these various points with Miley shortly. I suspect he is overwhelmed right now though. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 18:47:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA21487; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 18:23:33 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 18:23:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611160226.SAA21423@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 18:22:33 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: CETI Demo/Commercial Details - 2nd T Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"D6E8X.0.aF5.TMIZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2170 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Is there something missing from the CETI kit info. I don't see any claims about excess heat. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 19:38:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA11136; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 19:29:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 19:29:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 18:29:56 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Vortex becoming a black hole? Resent-Message-ID: <"TDs3F2.0.tj2.DKJZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2172 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A My posts do not seem to be getting through. I do not know if I am missing some of the posts of others. Here are some messages I have not seen come back to me: 6:44 PM 11/14/96 At 1:10 PM 11/14/96, Barry Merriman wrote: >Horace Heffner wrote: >> > >> Why the final products that jell from the >> soup are almost entirely stable nuclei is unexplained. >> However, since such a product would represent some kind of >> minimum energy state it just doesn't seem so surprizing. > >Well, by that reasoning you'd expect all the water on earth >to be in the oceans. There are local minima (lakes and puddles) >and slowly decaying states (polar icecaps) that defy this. Agreed, Miley's findings are a mystery if true. However just seems to me that any possible expanation must involve the quantum mechanical realm, which is enigmatic enough on its own. I think your analogy breaks down from that very aspect. You describe local minima derived from a *process*, while, if the transmutation products result from an large-scale and instantaneous waveform collapse, the stable final results observed may be the only possible outcomes. Also, there may not be many possible outcomes in order that energy-mass, momentum, spin, etc. are all conserved instantaneously with no intermediate products. This is all arm waving, true. > >I would say the one thing that makes me most suspicious of >the Miley results is the apparent absence of unstable nuclei, >in spite of the fact that supposedly over !! 100 !! new stable >nuclei were created. That seems too miraculous? How can >this reaction tell the difference between a stable nuclei >and one with a 1/2 life of millions of years? For example, >why are Silver 107 and Silver 109 created in large amounts, >yet Silver 108 is skipped over, just because it has a 100 year >half life? Similarly with iron---we get Fe54,56,57,58, yet >right from the middle of this series, Fe55 with its 3 year 1/2 >life is skipped. > >If Miley's results do turn out to be real, this fact alone---that >a nuclear reaction outcome can sense the long term stability >(i.e. on a timescale roughly 22 orders of magnitude longer) >of the products---would require some truly revolutionary >theory. This is probably harder than overcoming the coulomb >barrier. > > >-- >Barry Merriman Yes, and Dick Blue has been raising some pretty good questions. It could be all a fluke, partially a fluke or no fluke at all. Still, QM and conservation may provide some answers to the stability problem. The quark soup explanation *does* provide an answer to that old big problem of why huge individual particle energies are not observed - the answer being it is "netted out" over many exchange nuclear reactions that occur all at an instant. I hope Miley's article explains the calibration methods used, or that a good explanation follows. I still think in-situ NMR, the entire experiment (excluding wires and power supply) between the poles, electrode metals dissolved at conclusion, is a good way to observe or prove the isotope shifts. The wonderful thing is, with all the kits being sold, many different kinds of experimental answers should not be long coming, maybe a year at most. Hopefully they will mostly agree with each other. 8:27 PM 11/14/96 At 2:32 PM 11/15/96, Martin Sevior wrote: [snip] > >If CF is real and the result of lattice transformations, then Chris Tinsley >or Horace Heffners ideas of forming "mega-nuclei" dropping off pieces into >stable isotopes are similar to my own mental images of what might be >happening. I have absolutely no idea how to make a proper theory of this >though. > >Martin Sevior If there is any validity to the notion of waveform collapse, (or the concepts of waveforms, leptons, quarks, the four forces, or any other present concepts,) and such collapse is an event taking place in zero time, then there can be no mechanism. How can there be a proper theory if there is no mechanism? Such a theory would only be a tautology at best. What is is what is. The theory could only be a description of what is, what preceeds and what follows the event that is. The event itself could have no desciption. Maybe there are some meaningful questions about what preceeds and folows such a collapse, like what is the waveform of a quark? If a nucleus has a waveform, and the nucleus is made of quarks and glue, then do the constituant quarks or glue have a waveform? Even a simple question like this requires a giant leap over the technology (silicon nitride grating) used by David Pritchard to demonstrate atomic and even molecular interference patterns. There is no readily apparent material from which to make a diffraction grating for nuclei. The only possibility for a grating appears to be another nucleus, and how to observe the pattern, and what pattern? As to the creation of unstable nuclei - maybe there is a paradigm in which they actually *are* created in the numbers predictable by present theory. However, maybe the quark soup acts like a quantum computer, only showing to our reality the solutions which are stable enough to appear in our reality, the other solutions existing in a timeless dimension from our perspective, living out there lives elsewhere "decaying," only the final products having reality probabilities above zero. My arms are tired. 7:55 PM 11/14/96 My posts from the last couple days have not come back to me, yet I saw one quoted by Barry Merriman. Anyone else seeing problems? I did get one back with problems. The header follows: X-POP3-Rcpt: hheffner@anc Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:24:51 -0800 (PST) From: Mail Delivery Subsystem Subject: Returned mail: Service unavailable To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) The original message was received at Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:24:26 -0800 (PST) from root@anc.ak.net [204.17.241.19] ----- The following addresses have delivery notifications ----- "|flist vortex-l" (unrecoverable error) (expanded from: ) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- flist: Couldn't exec "../.bin/procmail" 554 "|flist vortex-l"... Service unavailable Reporting-MTA: dns; mail.eskimo.com Received-From-MTA: dns; anc.ak.net Arrival-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:24:26 -0800 (PST) Final-Recipient: rfc822; vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com X-Actual-Recipient: rfc822; |flist vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com Action: failed Status: 5.5.0 Last-Attempt-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:24:51 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: message/rfc822 Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 20:40:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA27820; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 20:36:00 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 20:36:00 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 04:35:49 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <328f37bf.18686693@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <961115001324_100433.1541_BHG101-2@CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <961115001324_100433.1541_BHG101-2@CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.326 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"TEEJe.0.Uo6.kIKZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2174 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 14 Nov 96 19:13:24 EST, Chris Tinsley wrote: [snip] >If we can work out what exactly *are* the assumptions of nuclear >physics, then we might just see the answer - "through a glass, darkly."=20 >The only hint of hope I get is this idea that large numbers of nuclei >really do go into some kind of 'super nucleus', some kind of condensate, >some kind of mutual gross wave function, then the condensate evaporates >into this stew of new nuclei. Nuclear physics deals with *nuclei*, and >that may be its undoing here. Well put. > >The trouble with having whacky ideas is that you get to like them. >After all, "nucleus" means "nut". Think about it...... ROFL. > >Chris >(drivelling badly today) > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 20:41:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA27783; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 20:35:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 20:35:55 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Uranium deactivation Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 04:35:45 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <328d3347.17542002@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <961114225806_100433.1541_BHG7-1@CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <961114225806_100433.1541_BHG7-1@CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.326 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"kyk-23.0.0o6.fIKZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2173 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 14 Nov 96 17:58:07 EST, Chris Tinsley wrote: [snip] >Certainly that chops down the radioactivity, but not the half-life of = the U or >Pu. > >Chris > > In <961111173455_76570.2270_FHU84-2@CompuServe.COM> , Eugene said: "reduction by up to 50% of the radiation activity from uranium and thorium".=20 As pointed out by a.o. Robert Eachus, this isn't necessarily the same as reducing the half-life of U or Th (how did Pu get in there?). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 20:42:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA27854; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 20:36:05 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 20:36:05 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: New CF Miracle: stable nuclei paradox Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 04:35:52 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32903973.19122744@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.326 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"35LnY.0.7p6.pIKZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2175 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:32:21 +1100 (EST), Martin Sevior wrote: [snip] >If CF is real and the result of lattice transformations, then Chris = Tinsley >or Horace Heffners ideas of forming "mega-nuclei" dropping off pieces = into=20 >stable isotopes are similar to my own mental images of what might be=20 >happening. I have absolutely no idea how to make a proper theory of this= =20 >though. You might get some ideas from visiting my web page. > >Martin Sevior > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 20:45:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA27890; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 20:36:10 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 20:36:10 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: New CF Miracle: stable nuclei paradox Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 04:35:55 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32913ac2.19457634@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <961115033535_72240.1256_EHB164-1@CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <961115033535_72240.1256_EHB164-1@CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.326 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"gBDZ_3.0.gp6.uIKZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2176 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 14 Nov 96 22:35:36 EST, Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip] >Yup. As I said before, my guess is that CF accelerates normal decay. = That's >how it remediates.=20 [snip] The problem with this is that in the case of U or Th, which in theory consists of ALL unstable nuclei, if CF did indeed accelerate normal decay, then one might well expect to have produced a bomb. I.e. ALL the nuclei should have been decay accelerated, resulting in considerable energy release. If this doesn't happen, then the remaining U or Th should still be radioactive. I am more inclined towards the notions of Robert Eachus. Perhaps only some of the more highly radioactive daughter products were stabilised, resulting in an overall reduction in radioactivity. This means however that in the long run, the radioactivity level would rise again, as new daughter products form from the remaining U or Th mass. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 21:25:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA10130; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 21:18:04 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 21:18:04 -0800 (PST) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 00:17:16 -0500 Message-ID: <961116001714_350247866@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI Demo/Commercial Details - 2nd T Resent-Message-ID: <"UIwk93.0.CU2.AwKZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2177 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 96-11-15 21:45:11 EST, Russ George writes: << Is there something missing from the CETI kit info. I don't see any claims about excess heat. >> In my conversation with Patterson and Reding at the ANS show, I got the impression that the purpose of the kits is to enable others to experiment with and verify the transmutation findings of Miley. The emphasis in the construction is on chemical cleanliness and absence of contaminants. They are not "optimized for production of heat", nor are there places for insertion of temperature probes close by the beads -- these whould just offer another pathway for contamination. Optimization for the production of heat is being pursued with the industrial partners, whoever they are. I rather doubt CETI feels any need to continue to prove or claim excess heat. A small cell with a few watts excess heat was running in a corner, but it was not the focus of the display; if someone was interested, they could be shown the input power and temperature differential as in other demonstrations. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 22:46:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA18440; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 12:33:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 12:33:37 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 15:31:06 -0500 Message-ID: <961115153047_227041174@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Subject: Predicted it 10 years ago. Resent-Message-ID: <"xbjsp3.0.0W4.QEDZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2169 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have said for at least 10 years that unexpected gravitational and nuclear reactions will take place in systems containing condensed charges. I have went farther out on the limb that anyelse, to date, in my claim that the fundimental relationship between the forces change in these systems. Hal Fox finally published my paper on the subject in the last addition of Fusion Facts. Attached is a link to a preprint of that paper. Posted June 95. Preprint PICK ME Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 15 22:50:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA00901; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 22:34:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 22:34:55 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: New CF Miracle: stable nuclei paradox Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 06:33:28 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <328d5716.26710596@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.326 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"8cRgn.0.xD.B2MZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2178 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:08:11 +1100 (EST), Martin Sevior wrote: [snip] >I just realized a nice corrollary to this idea. If the strong nuclear=20 >force has access to a large number of protons and neutrons, then it can >pick the right combinations of neutrons and protons that give the lowest >energy states for given total nucleon number. This will automatically = give >stable nuclei. Congratulations. Now you've got it! > >In the case of the Claytor et al. tritium production experiments, = presumably >the excess of neutrons plus the very close energy difference between = tritium >and 3He gives configurations where the emission of tritium is=20 >energically favourable. Or possibly Claytor et. al. are also producing He3 in the usual ratio to T, but only detecting the T because it's radioactive. > >Now I really should stop. I'm way out of depth and imagining wildly. > >Martin Sevior > > > I suspect that whether or not one gets stable daughter products is a direct consequence of the average size of the BE condensate formed. When the condensate is small (only a few nuclei), the number of protons and neutrons available is strictly limited. This makes production of stable nuclei very difficult. An example of this is the "normal" nuclear reactions we all know and love :>. As the size of the condensate increases, so do the possibilities, making stable daughter products far more likely. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 16 01:37:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA14463; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 01:32:54 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 01:32:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961116093447.0071f204@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, 16 Nov 1996 01:34:47 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: More: Uranium Deactivation Resent-Message-ID: <"RUY7O.0.vX3.6fOZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2180 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ONE KELLER REPORT ON URANIUM RADIOACTIVE LEVEL CHANGES Following below is a 1994 report on the Jack Keller process for making a change to the radioactive level on a Uranium sample, adding to the validity of the other reports on the previously-supposed immutable nature of radioactive decay rates. [snip] >I fail to understand how such a deactivation of uranium or thorium can be >possible at all. Anyone has an answer ? >- Jean DeLagarde Those who confirm transmutations do not appear to know exactly why they occur. ---------------- >Rumor has it that other groups have seen similar effects. However, >nothing has been published until now. There is no point in discussing >undocumented rumors. [snip] >- Jed This report might be one of those you heard rumor of. ---------------- >Please,if you have technical >notes explaining how these experiments (leading to transmutations) >are currently performed, please send ... [snip] >- Elio Conte The methods used here are currently proprietary. ---------------- >ancient and honorable society of crackpots, the oldest hobby on the planet. >[major snip] >Michael Mandeville, publisher >mwm@aa.net >http://www.aa.net/~mwm Yes, it is an old process: The pioneers get the jeers, And in fifty years Whorey science the glory. As an example, a scientist years ago published a report on lifeforms found in Mars meteorites, and was totally ignored except the chiding. The head of The Planetary Society last week defended the treatment given to that pioneer by whining that progress must be made in small steps, and that no one exists in a vacuum. Translation: Only the gradual progress made in *institutions* can be allowed any validity. Anything they cannot take credit for is considered a threat. Also from Mike Mandeville: >You may know that I did >my own experiments to verify that Barker and Keller and Champion had real >effects in neutralizing radioactivity, ie causing some sort of unexplained >and unexplainable accelerated transmutation. [etc, etc] >Therefore, any new reference to provable results which has not appeared on >Vortex to date is most welcome. Also welcome are serious indications and >expressions of interest from people who are interested in assisting a broad >effort. In response to the call, A KELLER REPORT: [Note: I do not have permission to publish one of the names. So "[Other]" replaces that name in this report. Mandeville knows who that individual is, and is already familiar with this report, thus all inquiries should go to him.] Report Date: August 4, 1994 Test Date: 7-30-94 Keller/Doggett/[Other]--Uranium Nitrate [Uranyl Nitrate] Prepared By: [Other] Summary On July 30, 1994, Robert G. Doggett Ph.D, [Other], Jack Keller, and Bill Keller monitored a test of the Keller Catalytic Process. A radioactive sample of Uranyl Nitrate was treated by the Keller Catalytic Process in an effort to neutralize the radioactivity. A scintillator-type radiation counter was used. [Picker Lab Monitor Model #642081 and Scintillator Probe Model #641022]. [Other] and Doggett determined that the sample indicated 30,000 CPM one inch from the probe in air and 15,500 CPM thru an aluminum plate one inch thick. (Note that most Alpha and some Beta radiation are stopped by a one inch thick aluminum plate, therefore allowing Beta and Gamma thru to the counter). The test was done from 2:30 PM thru 10:00 PM. Two samples were set up and each required two ignitions (the 1st ignition to prepare and find out what level of the Keller Catalytic Processes is needed). After the 1st ignitions, Jack Keller was then able to adjust the ingredients of the flux formula to bring it into a more homogenous state for the 2nd ignitions. Sample 1: Contents were adjusted with nine (9) grams of Uranium Nitrate (UO2(NO3)2 ( 6H2O) and standard flux as used on N.O.R.M. reduction. Sample 2: Contents were adjusted with nine (9) grams of Uranium Nitrate (UO2(NO3)2 ( 6H2O) and revised flux mix (PbO2, WICK, and KNO3). Background counts were monitored throughout the time period. In the early part, the background was a constant 1150 CPM and at the end of the day, had decreased to 850 CPM. (Note: Count goes down as the Sun sets). Results SAMPLE 1 1st Ignition After Flux Formula Modification 1" 2100 CPM (Gamma) 3:11 PM 950-1000 CPM 9:06 PM 1/16" 11,000 CPM (Alpha) 3:11 PM 1600 CPM 9:06 PM 1400 CPM 9:17 PM 1350 CPM 10:00 PM Sample 2 1st Ignition After Flux Formula Modification 1" 2250 CPM 4:45 PM 1150 CPM 6:53 PM 1/16" 6000 CPM 4:45 PM 1900 CPM 6:53 PM Conclusion Uranium Nitrate (UO2(NO3)2 ( 6H2O) can be neutralized. Sample 1: 1" reading dropped to 1000 CPM, a difference of 1100 CPM. This is mostly Beta and Gamma radiation. 1/16" reading dropped to 1350 CPM, a difference of 9650 CPM. This is mostly alpha radiation. Sample 2: Same although not as dramatic with the 1/16" distance readings. Note that a control of two coleman lantern mantels pressed around the probe reads 11,000 CPM. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 16 01:37:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA13931; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 01:30:03 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 01:30:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <328D9538.FBF@rt66.com> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 02:24:54 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: wireless@rmii.com, cc840@freenet.carleton.ca, ceti@onramp.net, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, david@ibg.uu.se, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, mwm@aa.net, dacha@shentel.net, jechampion@aol.com, bockris@chemvx.tamu.edu, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, CldFusion@aol.com, design73@aol.com, filimonov@chem.bsu.minsky.by, mica@world.std.com, dennis@wazoo.com, mizuno@athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp, puthoff@aol.com, conte@teseo.it, ine@padrak.com, 100276.261@compuserve.com, little@eden.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, g-miley@uiuc.edu, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, mike_mckubre@qm.sri.com, kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su, art@imaginet.fr, jdunn@ctc.org, bhorst@loc100.tandem.com, xgld@aol.com, reeber@aro.ncren.net, fznidarsic@aol.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jdecker@keelynet.com, daj@lsd.tandem.com, reeber@aro.ncren.net, 74750.1231@compuserve.com, ggmurray@uriacc.uri.edu, dnovak@uriacc.uri.com, "lrea@5561"@uriacc.uri.edu, key@rt66.com, jmyeo@juno.com, dcyeo@juno.com, sethnet@efn.org, dnovak@uriacc.uri.edu, 72507.3443@compuserve.com, core@rt66.com, rollo@artvark.com, scienceletters@aaas.org, brnbx@nets.com, sarfatti@well.com, smurray@hsph.harvard.edu, cmurray@uh.edu, lucille@telis.org, zumm@flash.net, ross@pacificnet.net, russia@aa.net, revtec@postoffice.ptd.net, jlogajan@skypoint.com, danyork@iadfw.net, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, puthoff@aol.com, conte@teseo.it Subject: Nuclear waste transmutation: Catalyze scientific revolution Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------778941E35DF5" Resent-Message-ID: <"k_9Je2.0.ZP3.PcOZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2179 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. --------------778941E35DF5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Mandeville: I encourage everyone to supply cogent, brief suggestions for the Friday, Nov.22 meeting of financiers interested in a broad two-year research program on nuclear waste transmutation. This is a crucial goal for humanity. Not only nuclear, but most wastes of industrial society may be economically and safely transmutted, producing power and harmless and useful elements, cleaning up dangerously polluted areas, including the Ocean and Atmosphere, and developing new technologies that not only produce zero pollution, but make available unlimited, effectively free, safe energy. We can now envision a World transportation system of automatic, family-scale aircraft, practically failure-proof, able to hover and land vertically, and travel at over 300 mph at over 20,000 feet, almost invisible to the ground, so that major highway and rail systems no longer need be built in developing nations. Imagine a world without hundreds of thousands of traffic deaths annually, without millions of deaths from urban air pollution, without the roar of 8-lane traffic rivers cutting cities into cramped, isolated enclaves. Imagine people able to homestead anywhere, with self-contained energy, water, and waste systems, not damaging whatever natural space is shared. A flying home would be the next step up from the present motor home. Flying homes could fly away in a minute from earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, fires, waves, and wars. Can you imagine the increase in safety and security for the citizen? Ambulances would have amazing speed, range, and comfort. Like recent decades of light aircraft, these flyers would be designed to cooperate on electronic highways and to be built to last for a half-century. To transform society, there will have to be a affordable "Model T" design for all the citizens of Earth. Automatic flying delivery systems can move not only people, but products, water, food, materials, and wastes, from anywhere to anywhere, drivers not needed. Try to imagine what an incredible expansion and freeing of the World Economy this would mean. Populations need not swarm in dense urban jungles. Try to imagine a world in which every citizen feels free to travel and live and do business, education, and recreation anywhere on Earth by individual free choice. This is political transmutation. Can you now start to see how great the implications of efficient nuclear transmutation research actually must be? By imagining the total transmutation of World Society, we see the synergy of all major problems solved simulataneously, allowing the practical, realistic fullfilment of fundamental individual desires for security, accomplishment, education, exploration, family life, socializing, religion, recreation, leisure, creativity, peace, safety, beauty, and meaningful participation in a sane, extremely diverse democratic World Order. Wouldn't the widespread, universal alleviation of major deprivations for the citizen lead to less desperation, physical and mental illness, violence, criminality, war, and food and drug abuse? Unlimited free energy means unlimited free water. The home can extract water from the Air. Waste water can be recycled safely within the home, institution, or factory. Sea water can be mined and purified and flown anywhere. Icebergs can be moved, and, if need be, if there is too much polar melting, we can imagine technologies for reforming the polar ice caps. Any place on Earth, on Sea, or even in the Air, can be a garden spot. With the emerging exponential revolution in biology, yeasts can be genetically engineered to cheaply produce any food protein or element, and so basic human sustinence can be provided for free to every citizen as a universal human right. No more hunger, no more starvation! What else could possibly be a sane social policy in a world in which fanatics can mobilize efficient nuclear reactions and genetic technology to inflict limitless damage. There must be no Have-Nots: every citizen must have equal access to security and opportunity. Limitless, free, pollution-free energy means immediate access to Earth orbit, Moon, space cities, the asteroid belt, the entire Solar System, for science, industry, recreation, inhabitation. We can imagine completely safe vehicles, even family size, that use air or water as reaction mass to attain and leave orbit at a modest acceleration of 1 or 2 g. No doubt rather revolutionary technologies will evolve unpredictably. Current visions of space exploration would be swamped by a reality in which free enterprise outfits set up profit-making hotels, schools, hospitals, scientific stations, factories, villages, and cities in Space. I just imagined a choral concert in free fall, 10,000 voices singing together in a spherical transparent hall in orbit near Earth. How would Handel handle that? Can you imagine the freeing of humanity's consciousness from parochial affiliations into a rich appreciation of the limitless divesity of freely evolving cooperative Life? I work for $ 6 or 7 an hour, taking care of ill people in their homes, yet I sit at my $ 1,800 IBM ThinkPad 701C laptop computer, an instument of power and possiblity barely imaginable when I took "Introduction to Automatic Computation" at M.I.T in 1960. I participate in the Internet for a dollar a day for almost all this year, contributing to the co-creation of technical wonders and overarching visions that almost inevitably will result in far greater enrichment and transmutation of humanity than did the vacuum tube and gasoline engine and uranium radioactivity of 1896. What will my daughters, and grand-daughters communicate with, to how many, and from what locations? What songs of liberated life and limitless creativity will be theirs to sing freely, soaring above the ancient battlegrounds of past ignorance and limitation! This vision, my friends, is itself my only credential of worth. I recommend that immense amounts be very widely distributed in reasonable doses to autonomous individuals and small groups, who will exercise their own initiative in developing a chaotic variety of innovative techniques and theories. Require all recipients to communicate freely, openly, and quickly on the Internet. No organization and no team of managers, however gifted or experienced, could possible be more effective and efficient in generating innovations than the natural seemingly chaotic creativity that freely emerges through the Internet. The financial sponsors should set up a patent system that gives all participants a workably fair share of patent rights. In other words, simply water and fertilize the weeds that are already fluorishing. This is the fastest and most efficient and practical way in the next year to administer multiple paradigm shocks to the frozen patterns of establishment science-technology. Don't set up any government agencies: set up a variety of profit-making businesses, as many as possible. I am vigorously researching the unwitting occurence of efficient nuclear transmutation reactions in a variety of experiments from 1910 on, especially high-voltage electric spark and exploding wire studies. I'm alerting the Internet to the extraordinary possibilites of simple, low-cost experiments that are diamond-mines of multiple reactions. There is evidence of radiation health hazards from these experiments. The possibility of sudden large-scale release of energy has to be explored. A tiny tail tip may belong to a very large dragon. $ 60,000 a year would supply a decent salary, including computer, Internet, zerox, travel, apparatus, and conference costs. I would be delighted to have 0.1 to 1.0 % of any patents resulting from my playful labors. I just bought a 5 KV transformer,a 2 MF 6 KV capacitor, and four 23 KV diodes, all for $ 25, at the famous Black Hole in Los Alamos, to spark krypton filled flashlight bulbs. My research buddy will soon be operating a much more powerful system: Toby Grotz Wireless Engineering 760 Prairie Craig, CO 81625 970-824-6834 fax 7864 wireless@rmii.com Let's get this avalance rolling, boys! Richard T. Murray, M.A. Room For All HCR 70 Box 515 Pecos, NM 87552 505-757-6145 rmforall@rt66.com --------------778941E35DF5 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Received: from mail.eskimo.com (smartlst@mail.eskimo.com [204.122.16.4]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA20729 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 05:27:54 -0700 (MST) Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA04861; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 04:26:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 04:26:39 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611151226.EAA07839@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, 15 Nov 1996 04:25:52 +0800 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Transmutations - Radioactivity - Important Query, Read this Resent-Message-ID: <"42bTP.0.pB1.z56Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2163 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com THE VORTEX: As some of you know I have been a transmutation nut for several years and even last fall hinted strongly that cold fusion would be shown to be primarily transmutations of the catalytic metals. You may know that I did my own experiments to verify that Barker and Keller and Champion had real effects in neutralizing radioactivity, ie causing some sort of unexplained and unexplainable accelerated transmutation. I have no theories about this, only the certain knowledge that it can be done with simple electromagnetic and thermochemical techniques, ie, alchemy-like procedures. It can be done, cheaply and crudely, at least to observe results. Now that Miley has published his paper, my guess is that many of you are beginning to think that it truly is possible. As a result of various interactions and associations as a result of that work, it has come to pass that I am being put in a position to help catalyze a major institutional involvement in dealing with nuclear wastes. Certain political figures and wealthy individuals are prepared to mobilize a great deal of money and a serious governmental effort to undertake to engineer a solution to the radioactive waste problem. They are prepared to undertake the effort even if it means facing down the U.S. Government and the combined force of every arm-chair physicist in the world telling them that they are quacks. This announcement is made to find anyone within reach of Vortex who has experimented in this subject, has found positive findings, and/or may have useful approaches. My intent is to attempt to arrange finance for several lab scale experiments which could in principal be scaled up into batch processes for dispatching of radioactive solutions. My intent is that we will explore the thermochemical approach used by Keller and various electromagnetic approaches, including Walter Russell's. Since radioactive wastes are a very complex brew, I personally doubt that only one approach will prove optimum. I have very carefully taken note and studied every communication on the vortex connected with this subject during the last two years and especially I have printed out some of the more recent data which has come out of the last two conferences. I am preparing a brief on what I see as the emerging field. I am neither a chemist or physicist. Neither are the people who will make the decisons. Please communicate accordingly. I am meeting on Friday the 22nd of November with certain financiers who are very interested in undertaking a serious two year development effort. I am doing this not on my own intiative. This has fallen into my lap. I am being asked to do this. The universe wants this to happen. Therefore, any new reference to provable results which has not appeared on Vortex to date is most welcome. Also welcome are serious indications and expressions of interest from people who are interested in assisting a broad effort. If you have credentials, please make use of them in your communication. I will print out the emails and make use of them in my briefing. Make them short. These people are open-minded, but they will want to know what kind of professional support there may be in the offing. I am especially interested in people with laboratory facilities and people who have ideas. Beyond what I have just communicated, I can't really say more at this time. I have no idea what will result from my personal efforts in this instance. I am not the resource decision-maker. I am only in a position to catalyze a decision-making which may bring resources into this field. In this instance, I will be wearing my new hat as Chairman of Environmental Tune-Up, Inc. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm --------------778941E35DF5-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 16 09:05:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA25869; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 09:03:14 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 09:03:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961116121347.007249a8@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 12:14:10 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Vortex becoming a black hole? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"xjGTa.0.7K6.HFVZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2181 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:29 PM 11/15/96 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: > >My posts do not seem to be getting through. I do not know if I am missing >some of the posts of others. Yes, and it must be annoying, but just imagine how you would feel if it was your first posting. Several days ago I invited Doug Meritt to join our list. He tells me he's now experiencing problems. These seem similar to Horace's. Doug E-mail posted a response to Vortex regarding the scientific criticism about his Web Site (discussion on the history of the Correa's device), but somehow it's not coming through, nor is he receiving any more vortex postings. I am reluctant to post it, since I do not wish to become an intermediary. It seems important to do so anyway. next post. Colin Quinney From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 16 09:13:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA27813; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 09:11:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 09:11:31 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961116122208.007249a8@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 12:22:32 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Correas Reactor..a Reichian background? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"vK6r5.0.Ro6.1NVZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2182 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Here is the letter that Doug Meritt sent to me that he had unsuccessfully posted to Vortex ... C.Q. X-From_: marett@terraport.net Sat Nov 16 10:10 EST 1996 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 10:02:48 -0500 X-Sender: marett@mail.terraport.net (Unverified) To: quinney@inforamp.net From: marett@terraport.net (Douglas M. Marett) Subject: Correa Reactor Content-Length: 10707 Nov. 14th, 1996 I would like to address the comments of Mike Carrell below, which refer to an article on my web site called "The Orgone Motor Mystery Solved". My web site is at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2514 . I saw the PAGD effect first in 1992-1993 and recognized it as the same phenomenon as that seen in Reich's VACOR tube video from 1950, which is regularily shown at the Wilhelm Reich museum. In April, 1994, when Correas PCT applications were first laid open, and I began replicating his experiments, it became clear that what he was calling PAGD was identical to the pulse phenomenon seen in the Reich video. And I must stress identical - any observer performing Correas experiment and then examining the Reich's film would clearly see this. I am not attempting to claim that I saw the PAGD before Reich or Correa; its obvious that I saw it last. However, what I am merely pointing out is that the phenomenon are identical. I do not need to speculate whether Paulo and Alex got the idea from Reich - I was there, I helped with some of the initial experiments, and most importantly, Paulo told me that this was the case. I am not attempting to belittle the Correas work - I think that it may very well be an excellent piece of scientific work. The point of my article was really to spell out that the Correas discovered these things while attempting to replicate Reich's experiments, and although they have certainly gone well beyond Reich, Reich deserves a written mention, at least somewhere. Paulo and I had several conversations in the past about people deriving inventions from the work of Reich and not giving him credit, and how bad that was. That is why this situation is so ironic. I invite anyone interested to look at the similarities between the article by Wilhelm Reich, entitled "The Orgone Charged Vacuum Tubes(1948)" in The Oranur Experiment, available from the Wilhelm Reich Museum, P.O. Box 687, Rangeley, Maine, 04970, and the Correa patents. To list a few similarities, please see below: 1) In the Correas U.S. Patent # 5,502,354, Fig.3 and 4 are virtually identical to Fig. 7 from the above mentioned Reich article. 2) Also from U.S. patent #5,502,354, the Correas use curved electrodes in Fig. 5B This is identical to the electrode construction of tubes on display at the museum. 3) Reich felt that log2 numbers were very important, such as for pendulum lengths, etc., and incorporated this into his tube design, using plates which were 4 x 16 cm in size (64 cm2 and in one case 4 x32cm, or 128 cm2). A 64cm2 tube is shown in figure 7 of the Reich article.The Correas have taken these exact plate dimensions and reproduced them in their experiments- see table 2, U.S. patent 5,502,354. 4) The Processing of vacua protocol on page 9 of U.S. patent #5,502,354 is very similar to the protocol used by Reich, P.251 in "The Orgone Charged Vacuum Tubes". 5) The claims of U.S. Patent #5,502,354 read on the prior art as found in Reich's article. The only difference is that the Correas have added a scientific explanation in the claims. The end result is the same, since both Reich's tubes and those of Correas sustain PAGD emissions. However, patent law does not oblige the inventor to disclose references which could be of this nature. It is up to the examiner or a complainant to raise the issue, and once raised, if legitimate, can be grounds for re-examination of the patent. Thus from a legal standpoint, it is entirely in the Correa's interest to keep quite about Reich, hoping that this reference would not surface. >Marett built a tube similar in configuration to ones used by Reich and Correa >and observed discharges, including the conical discahrge columns, similar to >those seen in the Correa reactors. Marett says "However, it is not known >whether circuits using this unique tube design would generate excess >energy". >The circuit Marett shows as his Fig 6 has a capacitor connected >***directly*** across the tube, makiing it a classic glow-discharge >relaxation oscillator. Readers of my articles on the Correa invention in IE >should be aware that a) it does not operate as a relaxation oscillator and b) >a shunt capacitor or energy collection circuit is not necessary to obtain the >energy bursts. In my experiments with replicating Reich's VACOR work, I found that it was possible to see the so called "PAGD" type pulses without the use of any deliberate addition of a parallel capacitor to the tube. However, with most of my experiments, I did not have rechargable battery packs and thus had to used H.V. supplies which always have some form of regulating capacitor in parallel. However, if this capacitance is low enough and the impedance of the supply is low enough, a glow discharge tube will not oscillate as you describe. In several experiments (videotaped) I deliberately used parallel capacitors of high value to produce pulsations in glow discharge tubes, and the running of motors as control experiments. This was done with arc discharges, vacuum arc discharges and glow discharges. However, in the higher vacuum range, it becomes increasingly more difficult to produce glow discharges by these means, ie in the 1E-1 to 1E-2 range. If relaxation oscillations occur in this region, they become very weak and indiscenable from the glow. Correa's PAGD phenomenon allegedly can operate without a parallel capacitance. However, if and when this occurs, the pulses are very rapid and of low joule energy per pulse. In my experiments with small or no parallel capacitors in Correa's device, the efficiency is very poor and of little consequence. If you examine Correa's patent application # 5,449,989, fig. 8, you will see that he has in fact C3,C4 and C5 in parallel with the tube. Also, in figure 11, the motor run circuit has C3,C4 and C5 in parallel with the tube. In fact, this circuit is very similar to the one of mine which you have mentioned, except my tube is in series. In either case, transient current flow only passes through the motor when capacitors C3-C5 discharge through the tube. This is somewhat similar to Correa's Fig.9. He uses very large capacitors, C3 and C5, which must charge before and pulse can occur. The high joule energy of C3 and C5 pass through the tube, and the output is rectified.This discharges C3 and C5, and the next pulse will not occur until these capacitors have recharged and the voltage across the tube again reaches the threshold voltage. This can be demonstrated easily by having voltage meters in the circuit, which I regularly did. The utility of this is that very high joule energy is allowed to pass across the tube, and the recovered energy is logarithmically related to the amount of this current flow. Thus you can't explain my experiments, about which you know very little, as a relaxation oscillator, without applying the same arguement to Correa's. In reality, the key element is the tube, its vacuum level, gas filling, and architecture, which determine whether the pulses will be self-extinguishing. Also, in my experiment, I used a tube of unusual architecture and gas filling, which I feel was creating its own self-extinguishing pulses. This tube design was considerably different from Correa's. I really put this in the article only to show that it is possible to arrive at these kinds of experimental arrangements by replicating the work of Reich. >Marett goes on to say that he began replicating the Correa's work the week >after the application was laid open, and says he saw discharge forms similar >to those seen in pictures in the Reich museum. I have seen them also in a >discharge chamber built by Jeff Fink, but they do not produce excess energy. >It is only after Marett saw the Correa application that he introduced the >"low impedance" source. He blurs this; it is essential to have a driving >source which is internally rugged and stable, ***and*** the correct current >limiter, which my be only a few hundred ohms with the rather large >electrode >areas. Marett claims to have produced excess energy in the manner of the >Correas, ***after*** reading their application. The above paragraph is somewhat incoherent, but I will attempt to address it below. Reich would have had to have a relatively low impedance power supply, otherwise he would not have seen PAGD pulses, especially at the high vacuums he was operating at. Reich either was unaware of the importance of this, or just didn't mention it. Now that I have performed the Correa experiments, I can tell you that it is not that important to have a low impedance supply, since the capacitors C3 andC5 will charge just the same. However, the pulse rate will depend on the current supply, and thus if you want fast pulsing, you need a high current, low impedance supply. Otherwise, it will pulse maybe once a minute. However, that pulse could still produce free energy. What is important is how many joules are stored on C3 and C5 prior to firing. Secondly, I never claimed to have produced free energy before the Correa's experiment was performed. You are merely repeating what I said. >In conversation with me, Correa has referred to the existence of Reich's >work. It may be true that Marett brought Reich's work to Correa's attention. >It may be true that there are similar configurations in structure. None of >these are of the essence of the Correa's discovery, which is an ***operating >mode*** which evokes the very powerful energy bursts. There is no >evidence >that Reich saw *these*, or Marett, before he saw the Correa patent >applications. I never brought Reich's work to the existance of Correa. Correa and I were both interested in the work on Reich when we first met, and continued to be so during our entire relationship of 14 years. The Correa's have most certainly gone far beyond the work of Reich, and have developed a unique device based on what appears to have been a monumental research effort. Reich never claimed to have discovered free energy in PAGD type pulses, and neither have I. I think that there is shame on the Correas only because Reich was a major inspiration to there work, and yet has received no written mention. The Correa's have been quite complimentary to other inpirations, such as the work of Aspden. Obviously, the work of several individuals helped the Correa's along the way, most of whom have been referenced in their patents. These include even minor influences, such as Tanberg and Pappas. However, Reich is conspicuously absent. This was a deliberate omission on the part of the Correas, considering their history of replicating Reich's work, and thus the reason for my comments. Doug Marett M.Sc. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 16 10:04:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA09625; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 09:50:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 09:50:58 -0800 (PST) Date: 16 Nov 96 12:49:32 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Correas Reactor..a Reichian backgrou Message-ID: <961116174932_100433.1541_BHG105-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Bj_St2.0.IM2.0yVZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2183 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Colin, I have already received the Marett comments on Correa, and so has Jed Rothwell. But they came direct from him and not by way of Vortex. I know Vortex does hiccup, but this one seems to me more likely to be a different problem Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 16 11:08:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA27635; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 11:05:45 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 11:05:45 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961116141622.006b0b40@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 14:16:45 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Correas Reactor..a Reichian backgrou Cc: marett@terraport.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"a61qk1.0.dl6.72XZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2184 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:49 PM 11/16/96 EST, you wrote: >Colin, > >I have already received the Marett comments on Correa, and so has Jed Rothwell. >But they came direct from him and not by way of Vortex. > >I know Vortex does hiccup, but this one seems to me more likely to be a >different problem > >Chris > Yes, and I believe he ALSO sent it directly to Mike Carrell. So until he's up on Vortex, can you also please copy to him directly at marett@terraport.net, (My area of inexperteze is just an amateur's interest in gravity modification so I'm not qualified to judge) ..... Thanks... C.Q. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 16 12:15:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA15856; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 12:13:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 12:13:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 11:14:11 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Vortex becoming a black hole? Resent-Message-ID: <"yFWOu3.0.gt3.I1YZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2185 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >Several days ago I invited Doug Meritt to join our list. He tells me he's >now experiencing problems. These seem similar to Horace's. Doug E-mail >posted a response to Vortex regarding the scientific criticism about his >Web Site (discussion on the history of the Correa's device), but somehow >it's not coming through, nor is he receiving any more vortex postings. I am >reluctant to post it, since I do not wish to become an intermediary. It >seems important to do so anyway. next post. > >Colin Quinney In talking with Frank Stenger he mentioned that he has been DE-LISTED because his E-mail system has "generated an excessive amount of bounced mails.". There may be a snafu in some router somewhwere (not related to vortex) that is causing bounced email. It is possible not to even get the DE-LISTING message because it bounced also. If you think you have been DE-LISTED just re-subscibe. Here are the vortex-L subscription instructions: To subscribe, send a *blank* message to: vortex-L-request@eskimo.com Put the single word "subscribe" in the subject line of the header. No quotes around "subscribe," of course. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 16 19:48:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA16640; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 19:45:04 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 19:45:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <328E9660.4EE8@aeneas.net> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 22:36:48 -0600 From: Mark Mansfield X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: mmans@aeneas.net Subject: Re: NOT WHETHER BUT HOW YOU SPIN References: <01IB1NVKSJLE8YBVBR@delphi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"AEZC2.0.w34.-eeZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2186 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com wrote: [snip] > > The above is from a paper I am publishing in the near future > "External Magnetic Effects on Current Loops in Stationary > Magnetic Fields". It is based on 25 years of study and > experimentation on this subject. Anyone wanting further > information on the publication or more accurate coil > configuration for the above experiment E-mail > joeflynn@delphi.com Hi Joe, I would like further information on the the above. Any help would be appriciated! Mark email to: mmans@aeneas.net From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 16 22:54:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA21866; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 22:52:15 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 22:52:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <328EC44E.2585@rt66.com> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 23:52:46 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rgeorge@hooked.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Black hole of Los Alamos References: <199611162111.NAA19082@mom.hooked.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"YaeIm3.0.aL5.UOhZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2187 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The legendary Ed Goethus has a warehouse of surplus scientific gear: The Black Hole Los Alamos Sales Company 4015 Arkansas Avenue Los Alamos, NM 505-662-5053 Rich Murray From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 17 06:26:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA07526; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 06:24:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 06:24:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <328F1FC7.1D8B@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 06:23:03 -0800 From: Akira Kawasaki X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: New CF Miracle: stable nuclei paradox References: <961115150354_76570.2270_FHU67-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Vtqwg.0.Rr1.Q0oZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2188 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: November 17, 1996 Eugene Mallove wrote: > > Mike Mandeville is right on! > Yes, we will now have to take a very close look at various proposals -- > from Linus Pauling to Brightsen to Monti -- for nuclear cluster models. The > implication of clustering and magic numebers is that there are mysterious > arrangements within the nucleus that could allow break-up in preferred ways > heretofore unimagined by most. It may be that the low-energy modes are the > norm and radioactive end-products are the exceptions, brought about by too > harsh slamming os nuclei with neutrons or high-energy charged particles -- > as in accelerators and hot fusion. The general idea is that certain cluster > patterns would have more inherent stability and intra-cluster binding > energy than inter-cluster binding energy. Why not? I was introduced to Dr. R.A. Brightsen by Eugene Mallove around late sumer of 1995 as I started a detailed amateur study of the elements. Dr. Brightsen had conceived, written, and applied for patents on the "The Nucleon Cluster Model and The Periodic Table of Beta-Stable Nuclides". He was covered in the Infinite Energy article of July-August, 1995. He made a presentation at the first LENR, meeting AT(in) Texas A&M June 19, 1995. His presentation was titled: "Application of the Nucleon Cluster Model to Experimental Results". If I may quote a relevant partial paragraph: "--- These include methods for converting radioactive wastes to short lived or stable isotopes, methods for converting Pu-239 to U-235 and/or non fissionable heavy nucleides; and, methods for inproving the performance of silicon-based semiconductors". Dr. Brightsen's latest revised concept paper I obtained was dated Sept. 15, 1995. Perhaps there are additional revisions since then. Very possibly, his concept has strong relevence to the latest hubbab on the "stable nuclei paradox". I am sure Dr. Brightsen can relate his concept to the latest transmutation findings of stable nuclei formations. Perhaps another article from him in Infinite Energy reviewing the state of Cold Fusion today might be in order. Most certainly, I would expect a paper from him at the 3rd LENR conference. Perhaps he has been consulted already without reference attribution or proper credit --- yet. The complete concept paper can be obtained from R.A. Brightsen, Clustron Sciences Corporation, 1917 Upper Lake Drive, Reston, VA 22091. Since he is not federally funded and is of very private means, he requests $10.00 per copy to cover reproduction and mailing (as of Sept., 1995). The paper runs some approx. 40 pages. Dr. Brightsen's studies in this matter of nucleides started since the late forties following a paper in the Physical Review of Maria Mayer's paper proposing a structured nucleus. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 17 15:51:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA27907; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 15:49:25 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 15:49:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <328FB2B8.6801@rt66.com> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 16:50:00 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hjscudde@pacbell.net CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Black hole of Los Alamos References: <199611162111.NAA19082@mom.hooked.net> <328EC44E.2585@rt66.com> <328F7D45.7AFF@pacbell.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"k0EmN.0.zp6.4IwZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2189 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: No catalog, so far as I know. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 17 15:54:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA28629 for billb@eskimo.com; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 15:54:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 15:54:03 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: UA4B029@EPRI.EPRI.COM Sun Nov 17 15:54:02 1996 Received: from relay3.UU.NET (relay3.UU.NET [192.48.96.8]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA28605 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 15:54:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from atai.epri.com by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: atai.epri.com [144.58.2.61]) id QQbqhb21158; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 18:53:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from epri.epri.com by atai.epri.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA10551; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 15:55:22 -0800 Received: from EPRI.EPRI.COM by EPRINET.EPRI.COM (Soft*Switch Central V4L40P1A) id 032452150096322FEPRI; 17 Nov 1996 15:52:15 PST Message-Id: Old-Date: 17 Nov 1996 15:52:15 PST From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: Weekend address...for Mark Hugo To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 11/17/96 15:52:23 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: Weekend address...for Mark Hugo Because of some changes in how I am receiving the Vortex, I cannot access incoming mail, until I am at "work". Thus, if there is something of great importance, please feel free to send to: CLDFUSION@AOL.COM - Thanks! MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 17 16:24:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA04623; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 16:17:51 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 16:17:51 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Patterson Cell mapping Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 00:16:32 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <328fecfc.21109506@mail.netspace.net.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.330 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"0xWe81.0.881.iiwZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2190 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: It occurred to me that if a working Patterson Cell produced heat at sporadic spots on the beads, these should be visible in the infra-red. It should therefore be possible to map them relatively accurately, simply by taking infra-red photos of a working cell from close by. Then later, individual spots thus mapped could be checked by SIMS for transmutations, and compared to spots that remained cool. This method might also provide insight into precise criteria involved in the energy production, and lead to even better beads. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 17 16:29:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA06482; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 16:25:45 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 16:25:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <328FBB29.369@rt66.com> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 17:26:01 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Glueck CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Multidimensional causality References: <328ac6bd.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"EdEj53.0.Ab1.8qwZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2191 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Peter, I called Carol Sunday, today. Thanks for your encouragement. It's time to expand the concept of time. I know the "future" affects the "present", because since 1982 I've noticed many times a year that I have accurate precognitive dreams about rather prosaic daily events in my life. A useful metaprinciple in physics is that: "What is not prohibited, is mandatory." So in general, the final state must guide the succession of intermediate states that lead to the final state, as in the case of a radioactive decay chain. Of course, this only directly reverses centuries of scientific thought and practice built firmly on the assumption that time or casuality only flows in one direction and in one stream of history from one space-time point to the next adjacent space-time point. But certain views exist, both ancient and modern, that state that "reality" is radically multidimensional. See, if you dare, "Time, Space, and Knowledge" by Tarthang Tulku, 1977, Rinpoche of Nyingma Institute in Berkeley, California, or "The Nature of Personal Reality" by Jane Roberts, 1974. Are any theorists starting to talk openly about multidimensional causality? Rich Murray From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 17 16:37:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA08209; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 16:33:51 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 16:33:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <01BBD533.AEEC7100@sparc1.nhelab.iae.or.jp> From: Kennel To: "'Vortex'" Subject: Elliot on Jed on Hagelstein on Miley Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 09:34:16 +-900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"GI0Cy2.0.602.jxwZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2192 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed, >> I must point out that Miley et al. have been doing this for more than = a year, and they have consulted along the way with a number of people like = Peter Hagelstein. Peter told me that originally, many months ago, the SIMS = work had a number of potential pitfalls, which he and George discussed in an . . = . uh . . . animated fashion (you might call it). George went back and = plugged the holes, Peter now grudgingly admits. The paper may not have passed = peer review yet, but the work itself has been reviewed by peers more than = once, and greatly improved. That is why it took a year and a half.<< Unfortunately, Peter is not a member of this forum, but my impression is = that Peter (like me) is impressed with SIMS results, but will not accept = them as PROOF of the existence of an anomaly without confirmation by = NAA, which is much more reliable and quantitative. It is possible to = occasionally make mistakes with both SIMS and NAA. SIMS especially is a = strong function of the pedigree of the quality of the instrumentation. = The newer machines are quite sensitive, but some of the older ones are = not able to distinguish between different isomers. Peter has proposed = several confirming experiments which have not been carried out yet. = Hagelstein's theories will permit a few transmutations to occur via = electron capture, alpha decay or neutron exchange, but nothing like the = wholesale transmutations which George is claiming, by the way. Best regards, Elliot From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 17 19:22:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA12612; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 19:17:14 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 19:17:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <328FE35E.7221@rt66.com> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 20:17:34 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fznidarsic@aol.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, mwm@aa.net, ceti@onramp.net, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro Subject: Psychic Sondra Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Lf-a82.0.y43.uKzZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2193 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Frank, I've been carefully following your Yusmar reports. It's a very worthwhile effort, and even if it serves to confirm that it's not over-unity, that's worth proving carefully. CETI seems to have found a winning strategy, selling dozens of transmutation kits, guaranteed to work, with every buyer meeting on December 10 for a day of training, with conferences and newsletters being set up to create a cooperative community of researchers. Maybe you and your associates could buy a kit and get into a great game with a lot of other interesting players. I've imagined taking a roughly 2,000 X 2,000 pixel CD array, the kind used by amateur astronomers, and plating it with Pd, Ti, Ni, or Au, and usings an ion gun to focus beams of all kinds of ions on it, pixel by pixel, seeking to load enough of the ions, such as Ne, into the metal film to set off an "efficient nuclear reactions" event in an area of 1-100 microns square, which would trigger the underlying pixels, giving an immediate response of number and direction of radiative and particle emissions, and a measure of heat released, which would appear right on the video monitor. Add magnetic and electric fields to curve the charge particle trajectories for finding e/m ratios. Afterwards, study the reaction spot with electron microscope and SIMS, etc., to see if there is local melting with transmutted elements. Why, 100,000 spots could be made and studied on a single wafer! Very quick searches of huge parameter spaces could be made: metal foil, impacting beam intensity and energy, specific isotopes in the beam, and on and on. Sondra and I have just bid on a very pleasant house in Santa Fe. It has a 6 X 12 Hefty wood shed that I can do spark experiments in. I'll be using a 2800 V transformer with a 2 MF 6 KV capacitor to put sparks into a krypton filled flashlight bulb, about 1-2 cm**3 volume, in an upside down small bottle filled with silicone transformer oil, so I won't lose any gases if the bulb shatters. If, after a long series of sparks, the contents look promising, I'll find ways to get it analyzed. Toby Grotz in Craig, Colorado has set up a good optical spectrometer, and will soon have a $ 3700 quadrupole mass spectrometer. So we'll be able to go fishing in style, able to prove any isotopic anomalies if they are there. There is plenty of spectral line evidence from spark studies in the 1916-1926 period for element anomalies in a variety of studies on C, Si, Ca, and Kr, to name a few. Psychic Sondra? Well, let's say, she's extremely intuitive-- that's an innocuous term. Intuition can be developed, and is a natural byproduct of expanded states of consciousness. These expanded states actually coexist, smoothly and invisibly, for the most part, with the ordinary, socially acceptable state. It's interesting that TV is now actively dramatizing these possibilities. Are you curious? Rich Murray From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 17 19:53:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA21043; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 19:50:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 19:50:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 14:49:46 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: CETI's motives. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"3nFTP2.0.f85.ppzZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2194 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To save typing I'm just recopying my post to spf about CETI's motives. Sorry for the typical Bob Sullivan diatribe. Martin Sevior Bob Sullivan wrote: > > In article <56bkb6$jdc@stratus.skypoint.net>, > jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) wrote: > ->Karim Alim (kalim@us.net) wrote: > ->: bsulliva@sky.net (Bob Sullivan) wrote: > ->: >(CETI et al.) are groveling on the street corner, trying to sell the devices > ->: >bead-by-bead. > -> > ->: "Groveling on the street corner?" Delightfully colorful description, > ->: but hardly accurate > -> > ->Hey Karim, these are "trolls", well known tactics on the usenet to incite > ->and inflame -- they are of no scientific value and should not be read > ->that way. It's an ego thing ... best ignored. > -> > ->There are valuable insights to be offered both pro and con, but you won't > ->find such value in postings such as the one you just responded to. > -> > > Hi John! > > You've always been one of my favorite trollees. I hope you understand that we > trollers would be at a loss without you trollees. Of course, it's a mutually > beneficial symbiotic relationship -- you trollees need the the trollers, too. > > I'm (almost) surprised you didn't give up on the bumblers at ENECO/CETI after the > PowerGen travesty (or even before) -- you seem to be rational in most other > respects. > > I can imagine the TBs made a run on (medicinal) lithium after PowerGen. I hope > they've gone together on a group purchase to get through this one -- unless, of > course, the TBs really do get their jollies from these manic-depressive cycles. > Sadly, this cycle may be a short one, since Dick Blue has been so rude as to > observe that, unlike the earlier fiascos, ENECO/CETI cold fusion transmutation > self-destructed *before* making it to the launch pad. > > BTW, help me out. Beyond 'There's a sucker born every minute.' and 'There's no > fool like an old fool.', what are some, if any, of the valuable 'pro' insights? I feel like putting a bit in here. About 10 months ago I talked with the CETI lot about getting involved with what they were doing. I didn't but that's another story. At that time they told me over the phone about Miley's results (which were substantially what he has claimed in his paper). At that time Denis Cravens expressed concern that the results might be from contamination. I said I hoped they wouldn't make P&f's mistake of making claims without allowing anyone to follow-up by with-holding key details. They responded by saying that they would make kits available soon after they released results. It appears they have made good that promise. So my little bit on the pro side is that Miley's results have been in the works for at least 10 months and that everyone was keenly aware of the immensity of the claims and the most dangerous false positives. It appears the main purpose of the release of the kits is to backup Miley's transmutation claim. Since up to 60 kits will be distributed, CETI will either have a spectacular future or die an ignoble death in a few months. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 17 19:56:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA21866; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 19:53:44 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 19:53:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611180353.TAA21827@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: 101256@wxvax9.esa.lanl.gov X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 21:51:35 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Thomas N. Claytor" Subject: Re: Patterson Cell mapping Resent-Message-ID: <"6V8ta1.0.XL5.6tzZo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2195 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:16 AM 11/18/96 GMT, you wrote: >It occurred to me that if a working Patterson Cell produced heat at >sporadic spots on the beads, these should be visible in the infra-red..... Only one problem with this and that is the glass in the cell does not transmit ir. There is a solution and that is to make the cell wall out of the plastic that is used in the ir motion detectors, however I have not been able to find anyone with precision tubes of the material. Of course, even with this one could only see the few hundred beads on the outside and then identifying them would be a problem when the cell was dismantled. Still, it might be interesting (since Miley has said beads have melted into his plastic if the flow is stopped) if one could find a supplier. Thomas N. Claytor Los Alamos National Laboratory ESA-MT, MS C914 Los Alamos NM, 87545 505-667-6216 voice 505-665-7176 fax From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 17 20:57:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA05072; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 20:54:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 20:54:39 -0800 (PST) From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 23:54:04 -0500 Message-ID: <961117235333_1384950746@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Patterson Cell mapping Resent-Message-ID: <"oToEW.0.9F1.Em-Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2196 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 11/18/96 12:22:48 AM, Robin said: <> Nice idea, Robin. I hope someone takes you up on this. If we get a kit we might. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 17 21:51:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA15620; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 21:49:33 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 21:49:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 21:49:22 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Old DOD funding message, interesting? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Resent-Message-ID: <"vxzxa.0.-p3.iZ_Zo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2197 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: =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 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mary Hilts Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: R&D$ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 13:10:13 -0800 Organization: Foresight Science & Technology Lines: 55 Science & Technology Newsgroups, We (Foresight Science & Technology) are under contract with the DoD to=20 assist them in finding candidates for their SBIR "Fast Track" program.=20 Through this program funds are available for research and technology=20 areas that fall within the DoD=92s mission. This task is awkward in this=20 particular forum (newsgroups) in that it is not research exchange, yet it= =20 is not advertisement either. What I believe it could be categorized as is= =20 information exchange; "The DoD has R&D money available, your readers may=20 be eligible, we are informing them of the availability of this funding".=20 If you have any questions, please e-mail me, I appreciate your=20 communication. Otherwise, please continue reading the following. Mary Hilts Foresight Science & Technology *********************************************************************** Defense Department offering up to 4X match on private sector investments=20 in small technology companies. *********************************************************************** DoD=92s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program will fund $450 million in early-stage R&D projects at small technology companies in 1996, in technology areas that fall within the broad DoD mission. Effective immediately, DoD will give its highest priority in making SBIR awards to small companies that are able to attract independent third-party investors -- such as venture capital firms, large companies, or "angel" investors.=20 If selected for award, these small companies will receive uninterrupted DoD funding of up to $850,000 over a two-and-a-half year period. In practice, this means that an investor that offers to help fund an early-stage technology project at a small company can obtain a match of between $1 and $4 in DoD SBIR funds for every $1 the investor puts in. This new policy -- the SBIR "Fast Track" -- was approved for implementation by Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition & Technology) Dr. Paul Kaminski in June, 1995. Its purpose is to significantly increase DoD=92s success in converting SBIR research into affordable, high-performance products which serve military and commercial customers.=20 For more information: * see the page entitled "DoD SBIR Fast Track" on the World Wide Web at=20 http://www.seeport.com/SBIR/fasttrk.htm * contact our DoD Fast Track listserver by e-mailing list@seeport.com=20 with the message=20 "join DoD" on the first line of your e-mail. * call David Speser at (407) 791-0720 or e-mail david@foresnt.com -- =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 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 18 00:35:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA11240; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 00:33:51 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 00:33:51 -0800 (PST) Date: 18 Nov 96 03:32:33 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Multidimensional causality Message-ID: <961118083233_100433.1541_BHG50-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"AtEHx3.0.Ul2.kz1ao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2198 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Of course, this only directly reverses centuries of scientific > thought and practice built firmly on the assumption that time or > casuality only flows in one direction and in one stream of history > from one space-time point to the next adjacent space-time point. Maybe that is the science view, but many ordinary people would agree with Lewis Carroll that "it is a poor sort of memory which works only backwards." Why worry? My sister had "a poltergeist" in her house recently. She laughed it off as unimportant. Only enthusiasts on either side get into a lather about precognition, poltergeists and the like. While some vehemently oppose such ideas, and others get excited about them, the sane majority get on with their lives and don't make a big deal out it. Sure, all this stuf is 'a legitimate area for enquiry', but how can it be studied without getting involved in a silly fight about it all? At least the cold fusion wars have a return value. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 18 01:29:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA18891; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 01:28:51 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 01:28:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <01BBD57E.70B31240@sparc1.nhelab.iae.or.jp> From: Kennel To: "'Vortex'" Subject: NAA + SIMS mistakes Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:29:29 +-900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"AXMlU3.0.5d4.In2ao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2199 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Are the published experimental data on the CETI beads good enough to = justify the claim for an anomaly? I've spent some time with the = published literature to try to answer that question (even though = supposedly we don't read the literature here in Japan). Anyway, there are a few points which need to be made concerning the = accuracy of such measurements. =20 Concerning the origin of a mass of miscellaneous crud on a cathode: = this is not evidence of an anomaly in and of itself, since = electrochemical systems ALWAYS transfer positive valence atoms to the = cathode (that is one way for purifying chemical waste, by the way). = Moreover, lithium hydroxide is one of the most caustic materials around = (it would probably be great for flushing your car's radiator, except it = would probably eat the radiator). So if there is a great deal of = foreign material on the cathode, this is not particularly surprising. I = don't see why we should think of a nuclear anomaly based on this = information alone.=20 Dick Blue made some good observations on the internal self-consisency = of the data (although I thought that the ad hominum attacks on the = honesty of the authors was way out of line. Clearly THEY at least = believe that they have discovered an anomaly). It is possible that some = of the isotope identifications could be mistaken. Note that TWO types of = SIMS data are cited in the CLENR paper: a low res method (2000 mass = resolution) was used for most of the data, plus a high res method = (40,000 mass resolution) was used to check for elements requiring higher = resolution to identify (e.g., Cu-63 and Ag-107). The low-res method is = probably not able to resolve the difference between isomers (i.e., = nuclei with the same mass number, but different numbers of protons and = neutrons). Thus the mistake of Cr-50 for Ti-50 (94.9460 vs 94.9448 or = .0012)could easily be made. The stated resolution of high res = corrsponds to .0016 (i.e., 95/40,000)and low res .05. So even in high = res mode, this is a serious problem, and in low res, there is no chance. Note also that in SIMS molecular ions (oxides, carbides, nitrides and = what not) can lead to false readings. That is, observed mass number X = may really correspond to an atom with mass number X-12 if it is a strong = carbide former (for example). This makes positive identification of any = single isotope difficult, especially with small abundances. =20 The best quantitative analysis for isotopes is probably neutron = activation. In this case, there is a different problem. If the gamma = peak overlaps with some other isotope in the system, it is hard to tell = which radionuclide is responsible for the line. Thus usually several = lines must be used to sort out which radionuclides are really present. = NAA can not be used for all isotopes, however, as not all isotopes can = be activated by neutrons. NAA also may carry some statistical error and = systematic error due to nonlinear cross sections, imperfectly = thermalized flux and so on. Isotope shifts of a few percent should = probably be ignored. At any rate, NAA can be very quantitative, = although care is needed to avoid error. =20 So, while both NAA and SIMS are subject to errors (of totally different = origin), it would be very unlikely for both SIMS and NAA to give a false = reading for the same isotope. I would be convinced by a SINGLE ISOTOPE if I saw NAA data showing a = N_i/N_tot (isotopic concentration divided by the integrated sum of all = naturally occuring isotopes for one element), such that the experimental = value deviates from the predicted value by greater than 15% with at = least 5 sigmas confidence and supported by a similar SIMS measurement. = By the way, note my definition of isotope shift is normalized, whereas = Miley's isn't (in other words, if the literature value of the abundance = is 4% and the measured is 12%, Miley calls that an 8% shift, where as to = my thinking it is a 300% shift). In any case, 15% is not an exceedingly = large requirement, and in fact has been measured with SIMS-only data. =20 Perhaps such measurements have already been done. I hope so. So far, I = haven't seen it for a single isotope, however. Best regards, Elliot =20 =09 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 18 04:27:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA07922; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 04:26:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 04:26:28 -0800 (PST) Date: 18 Nov 96 07:23:25 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Bussard paper Message-ID: <961118122324_100433.1541_BHG121-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"xO93v3.0.ix1.qN5ao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2200 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I received this note about Dr Bussard from Tom Ligon, who is kindly sending me a copy of the paper in question. Does anyone have any knowledge of the paper and wish to comment? Chris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "He wrote a paper for Fusion Technology in 1989 that demonstrated that, with conventional knowledge about quantum mechanics, metal lattices, and vibration of hydrogen nuclei therein, that fusion would be expected in palladium, platinum, and nickel electrodes, and the result would be a mish-mash of stuff in the middle of the periodic table. There was a longer, unpublished version of the paper which very specifically worked out the reactions. "Basically, in a metal lattice, the nuclei are in a sea of highly mobile electrons, which shield the nuclei from Coulomb repulsion until they are right on top of each other. Thus, exciting protons or deuterons to high energy levels in the lattice makes it relatively easy to cause a degree of fusion. "Doc is not a CF enthsiast, and was unimpressed with his own conclusions, but I personally find them fascinating. I also think it is high time the Infinite Energy crowd (I see you name prominently in the last edition) read the thing, as he was evidently dead-on correct." From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 18 05:02:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA11241; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 04:59:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 04:59:01 -0800 (PST) Date: 18 Nov 96 07:58:14 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Elliot on Jed on Hagelstein on Miley Message-ID: <961118125813_72240.1256_EHB107-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Z8tnZ.0.Zl2.Ls5ao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2201 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Elliot writes: . . . my impression is that Peter (like me) is impressed with SIMS results, but will not accept them as PROOF of the existence of an anomaly without confirmation by NAA, which is much more reliable and quantitative. I do not understand this comment. Miley confirmed the SIMS results with NAA. That was one of the reasons Peter said he has increased confidence in the results. He did not fully endorse them, but he said that many of his previous doubts have been resolved. Peter has proposed several confirming experiments which have not been carried out yet. What are they? - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 18 05:19:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA13923; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 05:19:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 05:19:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 04:20:25 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: NAA + SIMS mistakes Resent-Message-ID: <"hHs7l3.0.PP3.A96ao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2202 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: For anyone wishing to read about SIMS an interresting place to start and branch out from is: which is a website maintained by the US National Institute for Standards and Technology. At one time there was a study published there which was done by sending identical samples to multiple sites around the US. The results showed a wide variation and for some labs the known values were well outside their error bars. SIMS is not simple! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 18 05:39:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA16786; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 05:38:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 05:38:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611181335.AA03265@gateway1.srs.gov> Alternate-Recipient: prohibited Disclose-Recipients: prohibited Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:27:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Kirk L Shanahan Subject: Re: Spark health hazards To: Vortex-L Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:29:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal A1-Type: MAIL Hop-Count: 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"7fEtW1.0.A64.SR6ao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2203 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Just a concern... If you are sparking in air, you should be making ozone. Might that be causing some of your symptoms as well?? Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}} From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 18 06:11:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA24013 for billb@eskimo.com; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 06:11:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 06:11:19 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: itim.org.soroscj.ro!peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro Mon Nov 18 06:11:17 1996 Received: from cluj.soroscj.ro (root@cluj.soroscj.ro [193.226.99.21]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA23963 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 06:11:11 -0800 (PST) From: itim.org.soroscj.ro!peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro Received: from itim.UUCP (uucp@localhost) by cluj.soroscj.ro (8.8.3/8.7.3) with UUCP id RAA19108 for vortex-l@eskimo.com; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:17:23 +1130 Old-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:17:23 +1130 Message-Id: <199611180547.RAA19108@cluj.soroscj.ro> X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Bussard paper is one early theory article entitled: "Virtual state internal nuclear fusion in metal lattices" It predicts that fusion (d-d) is maximum at some subsaturation level of deuterium; however its prediction value depends on the assumptions. It would be fine if dr. Bussard could up-date his theory using the plethora of data accumulated since 1989. Peter Gluck From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 18 12:20:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA22353; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 11:58:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 11:58:21 -0800 (PST) From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9611181353.ZM3225@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 13:53:51 -0600 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Beads? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"2G1Mz3.0.5T5.L_Bao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2204 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Beads. This item of CF seems to be a given. Why? Structual stability, surface area, composition... these reasons I understand. The issue eating me is if CF is happening on an atomic level, why are macro structures being employed? Bead production appears to be adding up to be a major problem in the proliferation of CF. If the goal is to increase surface area to increase activity sites, why isn't a porus sintered metal structure employed? A homogenous alloy latice of powders/grains of the required metals could be easily and quickly manufactured. Many are readily available. Proportions of materials, types of materials, geometric concentrations, structural porosity, and shapes could be easily changed to optimize a reaction. I remember a while back reading about more effective beads having syrene?/polymer cores? What was the significance? Was a difinitive reason ever found out? Why a polymer? I also remember reading about someone looking to explore sputtering as an option. Was this primarily for increasing surface area / active sites? My background is applied engineering, not physics, or chemistry. I apologize up front if this has been discussed already. The dynamics of the structures are unclear to me and I can't seem to shake my curiosity. John Steck johnste@ecg.csg.mot.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 18 15:19:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA12769; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 13:28:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 13:28:09 -0800 (PST) Date: 18 Nov 96 16:21:17 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Beads? Message-ID: <961118212116_100433.1541_BHG89-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"gy2CK3.0.Q73.dJDao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2205 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Steck says: > If the goal is to increase surface area to increase activity > sites, why isn't a porus sintered metal structure employed? It seems that thin homogenous films are ideal. The small, spherical shape gives very good structural strength - Miley's thin films usually just peeled off (they were flat). > I remember a while back reading about more effective beads having > syrene?/polymer cores? What was the significance? Was a > difinitive reason ever found out? Why a polymer? It seems that it is the interface which is critical. Multi-layers of different metals are (they say) the best heat producers. It may be that the polymer material is a better proton-donor. Apparently glass/nickel gives very little heat, and ceramic/nickel is not much better. But much has been said about plated fibres (for example). We can work out the better mechanical structures which are less likely to disintegrate, but we don't know much about the role of the metal/metal or metal/something interfaces. Don't forget that these CETI beads are just one of the presently promising systems. In addition to interface and physical form, there is also the question of proton/deuteron movement within the metal. It looks as though the effect can be much improved if those are joggled about in various ways. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 18 16:26:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA25456; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 15:25:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 15:25:09 -0800 (PST) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:19:38 -0500 Message-ID: <961118181935_604376801@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Correas, Reich, and Marett Resent-Message-ID: <"gD6aK2.0.aD6.P0Fao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2206 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Doug Marett has posted some information about his relationships with the Correas, and the work of Wilhem Reich. I have forwarded this to Correa and have at hand an 11 page open letter in reply, which I received by fax this morning. It contains details of the Correa's relationships with Marett and the evolution of the PAGD discoveries of the Correas. I will summarize the letter, with specific quotes as appropriate. The Correas met David and Douglas Marett in 1980, when they were 16, and have remained on good terms with David, but ceased being on speaking terms with Douglas in 1992. The Correas had helped Prof. E. Mann of York University to organize a conference of Reich's work in 1979, and had written essays on Reich's work, and built an Orgone accumulator. Mann requested that the Correas befriend the Maretts and help them with their interest in Reich's work, which at that time had been derived from popular magazines and not Reich's actual texts. Correa's interest in Reich began in his youth in Portugal. In 1979 they (Paulo and Alexandra) read Reich's communications about the "Orgone Motor", whch was referenced in their paper "Excess Energy (XS NRG (tm)) Conversion System Utilizing Autogenous Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (PAGD) published in the Proceedings of the Third Symposium on New Energy, and delivered at the same symposium. "In the paper we wrote 'Reich claimed to have discovered a spontaneous pulsatory activity in cold cathode diode sealed at high vacuum, and to have achieved oscillatory frequencies that reached >30Kc' ". NOTE: this a a refutation of Marett's charge that the Correas have not given credit to Reich's work. By early 1980, the Correas were building Vacor tubes and searching for the phenomena Reich described. By 1987 they succeeded in exceeding the pulsation rates Reich reported, attaining 120 Kcps in high vacuum tubes, corresponding to a regime which "...has nothing whatsoever to do with the PAGD regime...the discharge has neither the same waveform, nor does it utilize autoelectronic field emission, or employ abnormal glow discharge. The PAGD regime is a plasma regime that operates at low gas pressures, whereas the high-speed pulsations observed by Reich, and also by us, require a very high vacuum indeed." "Reich clearly stated that to 'start and operate' the 'Orgone motor' a 'factor Y' (which he never divulged) was required...All of the witnesses to Reich's 'Orgone motor'....reported that Reich did not drive his motor with Vacor tubes...it was driven from an accumulator". Marett's homepage shows a low power motor counter being driven by a "Vacor-type" tube. The Correas, on the other hand, achieve o/u energy without a motor, "Factor Y", and the "measurements with motors in our electromechanical patents show only entropic behavior". "The PAGD discovery is not Reich's work." Reich purposefully avoided production of X-rays, but the Correas in 1987 became interested in X-ray production for purposes of cleaning electrode assemblies used in their chemistry work. They "discovered that so-called Aurora tubes, with large area electrodes gave very good results indeed....In the process Alexandra and I ended up learning how to sustain indefinite X-ray production and achieve very clean vacua without ordinary electron bombardment...***It was during the course of this experimentation with X-ray production that we first dicovered the emission discontinuities characteristic of the PAGD regime***". Thus the discovery of the PAGD regime was not an outgrowth of duplication of Reich's work, but was in the course of another line of work altogether. The Correas went on to sudy all aspects of the PAGD regime and adopted three designs; coaxial (similar to a GM tube), planar (similar to the Vacor, but also analogus to many others), and a third with a point anode and large aluminum cathode. The Correa patents are not on the tube electrode configuration, nor on the metals used (which include aluminum in a list of many others), but "on the cold-cathode utilization of such devices for purposes of sustaining an autogenous pulsation in the abnormal glow discharge region by utilizing autoelectronic emissions." It is thus clear that a) the Correas helped the Maretts understand the work of Reich, b) have publicly referred to Reich's work, c) duplicated part of Reich's work and obtained performance greater than Reich's in certain areas, d) made independant discoveries in the course of work not related to Reich's, e) identified and characterized a plasma discharge regime which yields substantial o/u energy, and obtained several patents thereon. The similarities to Reich's devices cited by Marett are coincidences of structure, not of function, and are superficial. Marett has acknowledged: "I am not attempting to belittle the Correas work - I think that it may very well be an excellent piece of scientific work." In all scientific work, particularly in the matters of priority and inspiration, it is necessary to see from the viepoint of the actual inventor, for others may not see the actual sequence of events, and can draw wrong conclusions. IMHO there is room here for everyone to be right. And it seems that the work of Reich will be found to contain many interesting discoveries when seen from a present perepective. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 18 17:33:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA10963; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 16:40:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 16:40:55 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 19:37:51 -0500 Message-ID: <961118193744_351367582@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: See and hear it all !!! Resent-Message-ID: <"iV0I33.0.8h2.L8Gao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2208 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hugo is hurten... --------------------- Forwarded message: From: HGGM05@go3.nspco.com (Hugo, Mark D) To: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com (FZNIDARSIC@aol.com) Date: 96-11-18 16:36:54 EST FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Hugo, Mark D Subject: Re: See and hear it all !!! Date: Monday, Nov. 18, 1996 3:30 PM CST Frank: I seem to have been bounced off the Vortex. Could you have Bill B. send me an Email at MHUGO@EPRINET.EPRI.COM? Then I could reply to him. Post a note on the Vortex indicating I'm off too? (My return address attempts to post to the Vortex are returning saying "you have to be a member". Thanks! MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 18 18:51:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA03859; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:33:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:33:55 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32911C23.1F1A7590@math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:32:03 -0800 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: CETI's motives. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"hZ3C53.0.3y.DoHao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2212 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Martin Sevior wrote: > > Since up to 60 kits will be distributed, CETI will either have a > spectacular future or die an ignoble death in a few months. > Actually, I predict that the kits they are selling will result in a sort of morass of confusion over transmutation vs contamination, and that they will be inadequate to answer the questions they pose. Neither spectacular acceptance nor rejection will result, and things will be much as they are now, unchanged by 60 poorly executed transmutation experiments. When (if) their 100:1 gain excess heat kits ever come out, then I predict the scenario you predict. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 18 19:11:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA05511; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:41:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:41:07 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32911291.28CC1042@math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:51:13 -0800 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: CETI sells cells---but for what purpose? References: <199611180353.TAA21827@mail.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"t6kt_2.0._L1.nuHao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2213 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The only big problem I have with CETI's new offering is that they are selling cells designed to demonstrate *transmutation*, rather than heat production. If you think scientists cannot be convinced by calorimetry, then I've got news for you: they will be even less convinced by parts-per-billion radiationless transmutations. Really: if CETI put out a cell that did the unremarkable (by their standards) 1 watt in, 30 watts out heat, the scientific community (and technological community) would be convinced in a matter of months. Anyone could slap together a calorimeter that would show heat production beyond chemical means in a few days. Presumably, the reason they haven't done this is that they can't. Instead: their transmutation kit has a marginal heat production (note their kit literature makes no claims of excess heat, but rather just replicate Miley;s experiment), which is the only observable signal. Beyond that, users will have to deal with all the subtleties of low level contamination, isotopic analysis, trace level analysis, etc. Who will be convinced by that...and of what? I really can't see who would buy these kits CETI is selling: they are of no value to the technologists---nano-level "transmutation" and low level heat production have no near term technological value, nor are they even that convincing that the effect is real and/or scalable. They are of little interest to scientists as well---a scientist doesn't want a black box experiment, they want one where they have full control over all ingredients, conditions, and diagnostics. I expect that the CETI kit will at best generate a lot of conflicting evidence in the transmutation vs. contamination argument...I don't expect it to convince scientists as it is presently configured, but maybe it will lead to enough future interest to really get to the bottom of things. Personally, I view the CETI kit as paying $3750 for 4 cc's of their beads, which might be useful in a modest heat production experiment. All their value added "transmutation" science stuff is of no interest to me. I don't even view repeating Miley's experiment as that interesting---it will be impossible to settle the issue by simplying repeating that experiment. Suitable control experiments is what is lacking, and this kit does little to help one do those custom experiments. But, I don't want to sound negative---its great that CETI is putting out a kit, and it probably will further understanding in the long run. It just seems to miss the mark in terms of what both scientists and technologists really need to get their hands on. I will say one thing, though---they got the price ~ right. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 18 22:38:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA24716; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 22:31:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 22:31:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:19:02 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI's motives. In-Reply-To: <32911C23.1F1A7590@math.ucla.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"NESlZ3.0.626.tGLao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2215 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Barry Merriman wrote: > Martin Sevior wrote: > > > > > Since up to 60 kits will be distributed, CETI will either have a > > spectacular future or die an ignoble death in a few months. > > > > Actually, I predict that the kits they are selling will > result in a sort of morass of confusion over transmutation > vs contamination, and that they will be inadequate to answer the > questions they pose. Neither spectacular acceptance > nor rejection will result, and things will be much as they are now, > unchanged by 60 poorly executed transmutation experiments. > > When (if) their 100:1 gain excess heat kits ever come out, then > I predict the scenario you predict. > My reading of what Gene circulated is that purchase of a kit also 1. Gets you into hands-on training sessions where you can make a cell "work". 2. Enables purchases of beads at discount prices. So if you can get a kit, you may also been shown how to produce heat. I agree that widespread verification of 100:1 heat gain would be more impressive than difficult measurements of the contents of a cathode that will naturally attract every positive ion. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 18 23:11:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA07663; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 23:08:03 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 23:08:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <01BBD633.E21ABD60@sparc1.nhelab.iae.or.jp> From: Kennel To: "'Vortex'" Subject: Re: CETI sells cells Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 16:08:14 +-900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"HgyPE.0.dt1.EpLao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2216 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry raises a lot of interesting points. Clearly all levels of = experimenters will be using them, and thus it can be anticipated that = they will generate a great deal of conflicting data regardless whether = anomalies are present or not. To me it seems clear enough that CETI believes in their product, and = that they believe the experiment will provide iron-clad proof of the = existence of an anomaly. I am sure that in Japan we would be VERY = interested in such a kit if you could convince us that it really, really = proved the existence of an anomaly, especially one that threatens to = fundamentally change our view of nuclear interactions. For the moment, = however, there is enough data on the table to pique the interest of many = persons here, but no real proof. The published data that I'm aware of = assert the presence of an anomaly, but do not provide the raw data that = led to that conclusion. Plus, as Barry and others correctly point out, = there are a lot of reasons to suspect that mistakes could have been = made. >>I really can't see who would buy these kits CETI is selling: they = are of no value to the technologists<< But if the kit really does what = the sellers think it does, then it has plenty of value. But does it = really show an anomaly? That is a tough question. I hope that they have = done their homework properly... Best regards,=20 Elliot Kennel=20 =09 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 19 00:35:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA26293; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 00:20:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 00:20:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: CETI sells cells---but for what purpose? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 02:19:13 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <32911291.28CC1042@math.ucla.edu> from "Barry Merriman" at Nov 18, 96 05:51:13 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: <"mcE8q3.0.jQ6.ssMao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2217 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Barry Merriman writes: > *transmutation*, rather than heat production. If you think > scientists cannot be convinced by calorimetry, then I've > got news for you: they will be even less convinced by > parts-per-billion radiationless transmutations. 40% isn't exactly parts per billion. But even so, if you are saying that isotopic evaluation is unconvincing, one wonders if it can really be called a useful tool of science in any regard. > Anyone could slap together a calorimeter that would show heat > production beyond chemical means in a few days. Presumably, the > reason they haven't done this is that they can't. Yeah, I wonder if they can yet tune the beads for one result or the other, assuming they really work at all. -- - 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 Nov 19 03:09:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA25687; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 15:25:48 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 15:25:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 10:21:11 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Patterson Cell mapping In-Reply-To: <199611180353.TAA21827@mail.eskimo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"IE2yN.0.KG6.u0Fao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2207 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Dr. Claytor, welcome to vortex-l. We've heard obliquely of your involment with the Patterson Power-Cell. Are you at liberty to discuss your with that device? Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 19 04:49:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA20071; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:27:15 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:27:15 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32910CC4.398A68D@math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:26:28 -0800 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: Bussard paper References: <961118122324_100433.1541_BHG121-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"l6i59.0.Vv4.gpGao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2211 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: > > I received this note about Dr Bussard ... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > "He wrote a paper for > Fusion Technology in 1989 that demonstrated that, with conventional > knowledge about quantum mechanics, metal lattices, and vibration of > hydrogen nuclei therein, that fusion would be expected in palladium, > platinum, and nickel electrodes Is that Robert Bussard? What is the reference for the paper? In any case, I doubt straigforward conventional theory allows anything of the sort...(at significant rates) --- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 19 04:50:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA25032; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 20:02:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 20:02:02 -0800 (PST) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 20:13:28 -0500 Message-ID: <961118201327_1916610217@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Beads? Resent-Message-ID: <"gov8N3.0.z66.14Jao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2214 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 96-11-18 15:11:33 EST, John Steck wrote: << Beads. This item of CF seems to be a given. Why? >> I don't have all the answers, others can perhaps answer better. But Patterson told me beads were of the essence, not to make the effect work, but to make a viable cell in an engineering sense. It's a matter of maintaining structural integrity when the metal films are stressed by the hydrogen loading and the changes which occur in the nuclear reactions. The maximum size is 1 mm or less. It is important that the films form a mechanical bond to the core, which helps hold them in place. Glass, which has been tried by some, is difficult to bond to. It is possible that others will find a way to engineer other shapes into viable cells. Patterson is an expert on making plastic beads, so he used them. Ceramics also work. Thin films are necessary to reduce the loading time, and to obtain the surface finish that will enable the dense loading (without leakage from cracks) necessary for the reaction to occur. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 19 06:44:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA12599; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 16:47:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 16:47:22 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961118234739.008d8ba0@freeway.net> X-Sender: estrojny@freeway.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:47:39 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Beads? Resent-Message-ID: <"FH_TF1.0.k43.JEGao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2209 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:53 PM 11/18/96 -0600, you wrote: >If the goal is to increase surface area to increase >activity sites, why isn't a porus sintered metal structure >employed? A homogenous alloy latice of powders/grains of >the required metals could be easily and quickly >manufactured. Many are readily available. Proportions of >materials, types of materials, geometric concentrations, >structural porosity, and shapes could be easily changed to >optimize a reaction. I have been looking for such materials made of palladium, nickel or titanium. The palladium or nickel sponges sold by chemical supply are large (usually in the several mm range). Strem Chemical sells titanium needles; they don't say how large these needle are. When they arrive this week, I will know. The powders that are sold I believe are too fine and would restrict electrolyte flow. >I remember a while back reading about more effective beads >having syrene?/polymer cores? What was the significance? > Was a difinitive reason ever found out? Why a polymer? > Patterson, a former Dow Chemical employee, used polystyrene beads because that is the material with which he has great familiarity. The beads used are probably Dowex 50W (TM) type ion exchange resin in the acid form. These are sulfonated polystyrene beads that come in several crosslinked configurations, the crosslinking agent being divinylbenzene. The switch to ceramic beads is a great step forward. Polystyrene has temperature limitations (not much over 100 deg C) and can compress and crack when put under pressure. What is the optimum size bead? Research is required. > >John Steck >johnste@ecg.csg.mot.com > Ed Strojny (another former Dow Chemical employee) No, I have never met Patterson nor have I heard of him while employed at Dow. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 19 06:50:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA16508; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:40:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:40:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:40:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611191440.GAA16461@mail.eskimo.com> 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: CF and chaos thoery Resent-Message-ID: <"aHl3u3.0.n14.iRSao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2218 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In all the communications passing thru Vortex-l I have never seen chaos theory mentioned in any discussion of CF phenomena. This seems odd to me. Would some of the resident theoreticians please comment. Jeff Fink From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 19 07:14:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA23242; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:05:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:05:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:05:13 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Correas, Reich, and Marett Resent-Message-ID: <"aBvZw.0.0h5.moSao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2219 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > >Thus the discovery of the PAGD regime was not an outgrowth of duplication of >Reich's work, but was in the course of another line of work altogether. > >The Correas went on to sudy all aspects of the PAGD regime and adopted three >designs; coaxial (similar to a GM tube), planar (similar to the Vacor, but >also analogus to many others), and a third with a point anode and large >aluminum cathode. The Correa patents are not on the tube electrode >configuration, nor on the metals used (which include aluminum in a list of >many others), but "on the cold-cathode utilization of such devices for >purposes of sustaining an autogenous pulsation in the abnormal glow discharge >region by utilizing autoelectronic emissions." > >It is thus clear that a) the Correas helped the Maretts understand the work >of Reich, b) have publicly referred to Reich's work, c) duplicated part of >Reich's work and obtained performance greater than Reich's in certain areas, >d) made independant discoveries in the course of work not related to Reich's, >e) identified and characterized a plasma discharge regime which yields >substantial o/u energy, and obtained several patents thereon. The >similarities to Reich's devices cited by Marett are coincidences of >structure, not of function, and are superficial. > [snip] >Mike Carrell The issue that was raised was not patentability, but candor. The coincidences of structure are dramatic, thus it would appear there may have been a duty to disclose, especially if lessor "coincidences" were disclosed. I'm no lawyer so I'll simply quote from the rules and law and leave it at that. Here are the quotes: # 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patentability. (a) A patent by its very nature is affected with a public interest. The public interest is best served, and the most effective patent examination occurs when, at the time an application is being examined, the Office is aware of and evaluates the teachings of all information material to patentability. Each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section. The duty to disclose information exists with respect to each pending claim until the claim is cancelled or withdrawn from consideration, or the application becomes abandoned. Information material to the patentability of a claim that is cancelled or withdrawn from consideration need not be submitted if the information is not material to the patentability of any claim remaining under consideration in the application. There is no duty to submit information which is not material to the patentability of any existing claim. The duty to disclose all information known to be material to patentability is deemed to be satisfied if all information known to be material to patentability of any claim issued in a patent was cited by the Office or submitted to the Office in the manner prescribed by ww 1.97(b)-(d) and 1.98. However, no patent will be granted on an application in connection with which fraud on the Office was practiced or attempted or the duty of disclosure was violated through bad faith or intentional misconduct. The Office encourages applicants to carefully examine: (1) prior art cited in search reports of a foreign patent office in a counterpart application, and (2) the closest information over which individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application believe any pending claim patentably defines, to make sure that any material information contained therein is disclosed to the Office. (b) Under this section, information is material to patentability when it is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application, and (1) It establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or (2) It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the applicant takes in: (i) Opposing an argument of unpatentability relied on by the Office, or (ii) Asserting an argument of patentability. A prima facie case of unpatentability is established when the information compels a conclusion that a claim is unpatentable under the preponderance of evidence, burden-of-proof standard, giving each term in the claim its broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, and before any consideration is given to evidence which may be submitted in an attempt to establish a contrary conclusion of patentability. (c) Individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application within the meaning of this section are: (1) Each inventor named in the application; (2) Each attorney or agent who prepares or prosecutes the application; and (3) Every other person who is substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is associated with the inventor, with the assignee or with anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application. (d) Individuals other than the attorney, agent or inventor may comply with this section by disclosing information to the attorney, agent, or inventor. [42 FR 5593, Jan. 28, 1977; paras. (d) & (e) - (i), 47 FR 21751, May 19, 1982, effective July 1, 1982; para. (c), 48 FR 2710, Jan. 20, 1983, effective Feb. 27, 1983; paras. (b) and (j), 49 FR 554, Jan. 4, 1984, effective Apr. 1, 1984; paras. (d) and (h), 50 FR 5171, Feb. 6, 1985, effective Mar. 8, 1985; para. (e), 53 FR 47808, Nov. 28, 1988, effective Jan. 1, 1989; 57 FR 2021, Jan. 17, 1992, effective Mar. 16, 1992] LAWS NOT IN TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE 18 U.S.C. 1001 Statements or entries generally. Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 35 U.S.C. 301 Citation of prior art. Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent, the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent. At the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential. (Added Dec. 12, 1980, Public Law 96-517, sec. 1, 94 Stat. 3015.) 35 U.S.C. 302 Request for reexamination. Any person at any time may file a request for reexamination by the Office of any claim of a patent on the basis of any prior art cited under the provisions of section 301 of this title. The request must be in writing and must be accompanied by payment of a reexamination fee established by the Commissioner of Patents pursuant to the provisions of section 41 of this title. The request must set forth the pertinency and manner of applying cited prior art to every claim for which reexamination is requested. Unless the requesting person is the owner of the patent, the Commissioner promptly will send a copy of the request to the owner of record of the patent. (Added Dec. 12, 1980, Public Law 96-517, sec. 1, 94 Stat. 3015.) Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 19 09:58:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA08143; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 09:46:53 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 09:46:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611191746.JAA08107@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: 101256@wxvax9.esa.lanl.gov X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 11:44:20 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Thomas N. Claytor" Subject: Re: Patterson Cell mapping Resent-Message-ID: <"LarE-3.0.8_1.BAVao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2221 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > welcome to vortex-l. We've heard obliquely of your involvement >with the Patterson Power-Cell. Are you at liberty to discuss........................ Not quite yet, but we are actively investigating the claimed effects. We have three sets of beads, one set made in house from the CETI substrate, one set from CETI and the Scott Little glass beads. We have the standard flow calorimeter with all plastic, teflon and glass parts other than the Pt anode and cathode and beads. We have completed two bead runs looking for a delta T and one long run (300 hr) with CETI beads to look for products. So far, as usual, there is no gamma activity detected in the post run beads. We are in process in terms of sorting out all the material on the beads by XRF (since it's inexpensive and reliable) and will probably do NAA on the material if it warrants further study. Miley has done some 20+ experiments; we want to do at least 3 on each bead set before we decide what is going on. Given the fact that it takes 2 weeks for the experiment and calibration runs eat up at least a week and we only have one system, we should not be finished until early next year. One caution concerning the material Miley finds below the nickel surface. In our cells about a quarter of the beads lose half of their nickel, so this material is available for re deposition on other beads. I think Miley knows this and has accounted for it. Thomas N. Claytor Claytor_t_n@lanl.gov Los Alamos National Laboratory ESA-MT, MS C914 Los Alamos NM, 87545 505-667-6216 voice 505-665-7176 fax From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 19 14:11:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA22397; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 13:52:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 13:52:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <329207D6.1872@interlaced.net> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 14:17:42 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Beads? References: <9611181353.ZM3225@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"KeBv11.0.oT5.TmYao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2222 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Steck wrote: > > Beads. This item of CF seems to be a given. Why? > > John Steck > johnste@ecg.csg.mot.com I share John's wonder at the fixation on Patterson's beads. Now, don't jump all over me for my ignorance about many aspects of the history of CF - I am nowhere near the student of this subject as are many of you vortexers. It just seems to me that if I tried to come up with a complex electrochemical-electrical conductance-fluid flow pile of difficulty, I could not do better than a multi-layer-component-metallic coating on plastic beads packed into a thick bed through which I was then going to pass a current and look for anomalous effects. No two beds of beads will have like conduction paths through the beds, right? I could imagine random "tendrills" of conductivity through the beds - no two bed the same - etc. If it must be beads, why not use ONE (or very few) beads. I know this brings up the problem of miniaturization, but is this a killer problem with todays technology? Have we given up on the first claims of P&F using solid palladium rods? Why not work with Paladium wire of reasonable size. Check purity effects, heat treatment, grain size, surface condition, etc. Plate the wire if you want! It seems that often vortexians are too hung up on the fact that a patent was issued on a device - and that a complex "quest" must be completed to the letter of a patent to achieve success. Often, this may be the case. But why bother? Why not look for the most simple form of the effect? (This also better fits my brain.). All this is really just the expression of the frustration of an "outside" observer looking in! I know that some things are just plain complex - and that's it! I just hate to see the simplicity of the original P&F idea go by the board! Frustrated on the outside looking in: ------------ Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 19 16:30:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA01216; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 16:23:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 16:23:09 -0800 (PST) Date: 19 Nov 96 11:57:11 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Bussard paper Message-ID: <961119165710_100433.1541_BHG177-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"7aiiY1.0.vI.ezaao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2223 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, > Is that Robert Bussard? Yes. > What is the reference for the paper? Dunno. "Fusion Technology", 1989 is all I have. I'll post more when I have the paper. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 19 16:44:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA05373; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 16:38:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 16:38:06 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32924469.7A5F06AF@math.ucla.edu> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 15:36:09 -0800 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: CETI sells cells---but for what purpose? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"odG4S1.0.nJ1.eBbao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2224 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Logajan wrote: > > > Barry Merriman writes: > > *transmutation*, rather than heat production. If you think > > scientists cannot be convinced by calorimetry, then I've > > got news for you: they will be even less convinced by > > parts-per-billion radiationless transmutations. > > 40% isn't exactly parts per billion. Its 40% IF you believe its transmutation of Ni---if you believe its contamination, its parts per billion, since the contaminants (~ 10^16 atoms) are concentrated from the entire system ( ~ 10^25 atoms ). -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 19 17:44:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA20530; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:32:07 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:32:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611191809.KAA10134@helix.ucsd.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Bart Simon" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 10:11:17 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: CETI's motives. Reply-to: bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"1_D4_.0.b05.G-bao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2226 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Greetings, I am fascinated by the CETI "kit" strategy, and it seems to me that at this point even more useful then having access to the beads will be having access to a workshop where presumably researchers will be trained in the use of the device. I imagine everyone on this list would love to be a fly on the wall, if not a participant, when that event takes place. I wonder if anyone can tell me though - are there historical precendents for this strategy of disseminating knowledge via a kit? Is this a common practice? I mean this seems a patently different strategy then simply circulating the beads since you are circulating both the beads and the means for their evaluation (this is what I understand Barry to be objecting to). Does anybody know of any other examples of technologies that made it into the mainstream via the "kit" strategy? In case other people are interested in this question you might want to have a look at H.M. Collins, "The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks" in Science Studies Vol. 4, 1974, p. 37-185. Also, H.M. Collins "Changing Order" (U. of Chicago Press), 1992, chap. 3. Collins looks at the innovation of TEA laser and the inability of various groups in England to get the device to work based on documentation alone. In the end, the difference between groups that got the laser to work and groups that didn't was that successful groups had been "trained" by previously successful TEA laser builders. What is present in the social contact of the training which is not present in the documentation is something Michael Polanyi called 'tacit knowledge'; which is loosely- practical knowledge based on experience which can not be completely codified in language. The question of the morality of "selling" in this case aside, this move to workshops instead of just conferences seems like the right way to go for CF. 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 Tue Nov 19 18:36:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA05048; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 18:29:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 18:29:23 -0800 (PST) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 21:28:55 -0500 Message-ID: <961119212854_1716294939@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: Visit to CETI booth at ANS meeting Resent-Message-ID: <"mfItr.0.oE1.2qcao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2227 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a reply in part to a comment Mark had about Reich, which I am forwarding to Vortex at his request, stated below: << Subj: Re: Visit to CETI booth at ANS meeting Date: 96-11-19 14:12:23 EST From: HGGM05@go3.nspco.com (Hugo, Mark D) To: RMCarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell@aol.com) Looks as though there is, alas, as you have pointed out---this odd situation where someone who did some ligetimate experimental work has been crucified because of other things they were involved in. - I do have to admit, however, that it is amazing how many people can get so trapped into "wack-co" theories, on matters that would be better presented just as observation! - I'm struck by the recent (within the last 5 to 7 years) discovery of the ability of elementary bacteria to communicate AQUIRED IN THE FIRST GENERATION, BUY SELF MODIFICATION antibiotic resistance to other bacteria via pieces of DNA known as plasmids. Here is a case where SOME people (thank God) were clearly stepping OUTSIDE the bounds of "established" theory, and entirely looking at experimental evidence. If you have any background in biology/molecular biology at all, let me assure you that 20 years ago---when I had my first molecular biology course, if you had opined to a standard biological researher of the time, "I think elementary bacteria can alter their own biochemistry to become antiboitic resistant, and if successful, incorporate that information into their DNA (in a first generation actual bacteria) AND share that DNA information with other bacteria." He would have had the paradigm police come and take you away, lock you up, and throw away the key. - Again, the key point here is that some people started SEEING EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that clearly didn't fit the paradigm. And instead of questioning the experimental results (as Arnold would say, "BIG MISTAKE", i.e. if they did question the results) they questioned the paradigm. - Say, could you post this to Vortex for me? Right now I can't because of some Email address problems. MDH >> --------------------- Forwarded message: From: HGGM05@go3.nspco.com (Hugo, Mark D) To: RMCarrell@aol.com (RMCarrell@aol.com) Date: 96-11-19 14:12:23 EST Looks as though there is, alas, as you have pointed out---this odd situation where someone who did some ligetimate experimental work has been crucified because of other things they were involved in. - I do have to admit, however, that it is amazing how many people can get so trapped into "wack-co" theories, on matters that would be better presented just as observation! - I'm struck by the recent (within the last 5 to 7 years) discovery of the ability of elementary bacteria to communicate AQUIRED IN THE FIRST GENERATION, BUY SELF MODIFICATION antibiotic resistance to other bacteria via pieces of DNA known as plasmids. Here is a case where SOME people (thank God) were clearly stepping OUTSIDE the bounds of "established" theory, and entirely looking at experimental evidence. If you have any background in biology/molecular biology at all, let me assure you that 20 years ago---when I had my first molecular biology course, if you had opined to a standard biological researher of the time, "I think elementary bacteria can alter their own biochemistry to become antiboitic resistant, and if successful, incorporate that information into their DNA (in a first generation actual bacteria) AND share that DNA information with other bacteria." He would have had the paradigm police come and take you away, lock you up, and throw away the key. - Again, the key point here is that some people started SEEING EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that clearly didn't fit the paradigm. And instead of questioning the experimental results (as Arnold would say, "BIG MISTAKE", i.e. if they did question the results) they questioned the paradigm. - Say, could you post this to Vortex for me? Right now I can't because of some Email address problems. MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 19 18:48:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA06617; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 18:35:12 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 18:35:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 18:34:47 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI's motives. In-Reply-To: <199611191809.KAA10134@helix.ucsd.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"faMJk2.0.Ad1.Tvcao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2228 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Bart Simon wrote: > Does anybody know of any other examples of technologies that > made it into the mainstream via the "kit" strategy? The entire "personal computer" revolution was created by the Altair kit and the competitors is spawned. If it had been left up to the electronics corporations, things would have been different. WAY different. The early days of radio were heavily influenced by kit-built and plans-built recievers. But for the home hobbyists, early transmitting stations would have had few listeners. I suspect the same is true of early television (but I haven't encountered much info about the field) .....................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 Nov 19 20:15:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA09256; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 19:48:36 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 19:48:36 -0800 (PST) From: JoeGuokas@aol.com Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 22:00:16 -0500 Message-ID: <961119220015_1649190310@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: JoeGuokas@aol.com Subject: Re: Bussard paper Resent-Message-ID: <"n0sGy.0.RG2._zdao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2230 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This may be the 1989 Bussard paper you were looking for: Bussard, Robert W.,"Virtual-State Internal Nuclear Fusion in Metal Lattices," Fusion Technology, pages 231-236, vol. 16 (Sept. 1989). --Joe Guokas From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 19 20:35:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA12727; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:03:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:03:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961119231402.00687824@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 23:14:29 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: AquaFuel. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"mjR4I.0.h63.TCeao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2231 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:51:13 -0800 Barry Merriman Wrote: >Really: if CETI put out a cell that did the unremarkable >(by their standards) 1 watt in, 30 watts out heat, the >scientific community (and technological community) would be >convinced in a matter of months. "Anyone could slap together" >a calorimeter that would show heat >production beyond chemical means in a few days. Presumably, the >reason they haven't done this is that they can't. Hey, wouldn't it be nice to just forget about the beads: I was speaking with Eugene Mallove of Infinite Energy magazine a few days ago. (Is there anyone on this list who does "not" subscribe to Infinite Energy magazine? 1-603-228-4516... It's literally *packed* with information about what's going on in this field) He seemed quite interested in some additional information that had come his way regarding William Richardson's patented 'AquaFuel' invention.... which was written up in the last issue (#9), with the complete patent. The article about this OverUnity device was 'so' simple anyone could build it, just from the information presented. It was an ordinary carbon electric-arc in normal water. The environmentally friendly and car-engine friendly 'gas' given off by this process was collected, filtered, and compressed. It could be used in your automobile directly with only a very small modification to your engine,...NO pollutants. It was totally amazing. After being analyzed, it was also said to contain more than enough BTU energy to fuel an internal combustion engine to drive a generator to make the electricity to create the Arc, with lots left over. I am unfamiliar with electro-nuclear-chemistry theories that attempt to explain this anomaly. That were hinted at in the article, but I was hoping to read at least 'some' discussion about AquaFuel here on Vortex. I believe that in issue #10, there will be more facts and figures and more information, from the results of additional testing (of a replication?) that is now taking place. If truly O/U, AquaFuel is more exciting than cold fusion could ever be, because it levels the playing field; it opens the field up to the experimenter, the amateur, and even the tinkerer...and it may give the average person just a bit more independence from the Multinationals (and the State). Beads don't do that.---Carbon after all, is VERY cheap. Lets hope it simply works, .... and that it also be something "anyone could slap together". Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Gene... Looking forward to issue #10. Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 19 21:14:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA20720; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:48:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:48:46 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Pd-B Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 04:46:51 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32978ced.2439574@mail.netspace.net.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.330 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"_3RnG3.0.b35.fseao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2234 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Does anyone know of hand, what the crystal structure of this material (Pd-B) is? Thanks Robin From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 19 21:43:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA28630; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 21:27:54 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 21:27:54 -0800 (PST) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: isotopes et alii From: Hoyt Stearns Reply-To: hoyt@isus.wierius.com Sender: hoyt@isus.wierius.com Originator: hoyt@isus.wierius.com Transport-Options: /delivery Content-Type: text Date: Tue, 19 Nov 96 22:11:00 GMT Message-ID: <9611192212.aa25548@wierius.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"rE3jU1.0.G_6.ERfao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2235 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greetings, I have a few comments on various vortex threads. About isotope ratios in electrolytic cells, why would you expect natural ratios if there were migration of contaminants? Don't lighter isotopes migrate faster? Natural ratios indicate to me something unusual. My main spiel is about the physical theory that the organization I represent promotes, namely Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System. The reason many are having so much trouble explaining these "anomalous" phenomena is because, I respectively suggest, the theory that is being used to guide the reasoning is genuinely wrong in many ways, Larson has explained for years the mechanism of matter to energy conversion, the nature of isotopes and isotope changes, and the real structure of atoms. The Reciprocal System also suggests phenomena such as sonoluminescense and "sonofusion". In this theory there is a rather sudden change in behavior around 1 unit of length, namely 45.6 nm. You'll notice other unusual phenomena around that size, including the size of space dust. I want to point out that the Reciprocal System "theory of everything" is capable of showing how to compute from basic premises many quantities that are only determined empirically now, because current theory just doesn't know how to do so-- things like element melting and boiling points, neutron and other particle lifetimes, pulsar frequencies, Planck's constant, well, anything at all can be computed, as any good theory of everything must be able to do :-) (usually simply, at that, See Dr. Ronald W. Satz' "The Unmysterious Universe"). I'd say that's pretty good evidence that this theory is right. Best Regards, -- Hoyt A. Stearns jr., President, International Society of Unified Science| 4131 E. Cannon Dr. Phoenix AZ 85028 Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal | hoyt@isus.wierius.com fax 996 9088 System- a unified physical theory | voice *82 602 996-1717 http://infox.eunet.cz/interpres/sr/ | ********************************************************************** If the facts do not conform to your theory, they must be disposed of. ********************************************************************** Just as the introduction of the irrational numbers ... is a convenient myth [which] simplifies the laws of arithmetic ... so physical objects are postulated entities which round out and simplify our account of the flux of existence... The conceptional scheme of physical objects is [likewise] a convenient myth, simpler than the literal truth and yet containing that literal truth as a scattered part. --Quine, Willard Van Orman In J. Koenderink Solid Shape, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1990. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Churchill's Commentary on Man: Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 20 01:13:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA01174; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:10:49 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:10:49 -0800 (PST) Date: 20 Nov 96 04:08:58 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: CETI's motives. Message-ID: <961120090858_100060.173_JHB71-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"_2oci3.0.EI.Niiao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2237 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bart, >> What is present in the social contact of the training which is not present in the documentation is something Michael Polanyi called 'tacit knowledge'; which is loosely- practical knowledge based on experience which can not be completely codified in language. << A very interesting point! However it can drive a coach and horses through the patent system, unless you accept that 'tacit knowledge' is the same as being 'versed in the art'. It can be argued that these two concepts are not identical, and therefore most patents could be invalidated on the grounds that even an expert 'versed in the art' can never guarantee to replicate the claims of a patent without training by the inventor. I'm sure that many vortexians have experienced the frustration of failure to confirm the validity of a patent even when following a patent to the letter. In simplistic terms this is usually attributed to vital components being purposely omitted from the patent spec. in order to delay copying or to confuse the competition. Your suggestion seems to indicate an inevitability in some cases that relying solely on the written word is doomed to failure from the start. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 20 01:13:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA01147; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:10:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:10:42 -0800 (PST) Date: 20 Nov 96 04:08:56 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Beads? Message-ID: <961120090855_100060.173_JHB71-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"rp60n3.0.rH.Hiiao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2236 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, >> If it must be beads, why not use ONE (or very few) beads. I know this brings up the problem of miniaturization, but is this a killer problem with todays technology? Have we given up on the first claims of P&F using solid palladium rods? Why not work with Paladium wire of reasonable size. Check purity effects, heat treatment, grain size, surface condition, etc. Plate the wire if you want! << Absolutely, I, and others, have been suggesting similar configurations for ages. It seems obvious to a mere Engineer that you will get irregular pathways for the current thru an amorphous mass of spheres with variable conductivity at their points of contact. I am amazed that no one seems to have tried a pancake configuration with say 2 or 3 layers only of beads. If nothing else it should give a higher bead utilisation factor cf a long narrow tube with electrodes at each end. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 20 01:44:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA07790; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:43:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:43:08 -0800 (PST) Date: 20 Nov 96 04:40:16 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: CETI sells cells---but for what purp Message-ID: <961120094015_100433.1541_BHG156-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"gNrRa2.0.Zv1.hAjao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2238 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry, > Its 40% IF you believe its transmutation of Ni---if you believe > its contamination, its parts per billion, since the contaminants > (~ 10^16 atoms) are concentrated from the entire system ( ~ 10^25 > atoms ). And if my proposal were followed, to assay chemically the total nickel in the cell, then the question would be settled. I trust *someone* from the 60 purchasers will do this relatively simple test. Chris From vortex-l-request@ESKIMO.COM Wed Nov 20 01:51:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA09256; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 19:48:36 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 19:48:36 -0800 (PST) From: JoeGuokas@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 22:00:16 -0500 Message-ID: <961119220015_1649190310@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM cc: JoeGuokas@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Bussard paper Resent-Message-ID: <"n0sGy.0.RG2._zdao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM Reply-To: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2230 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@ESKIMO.COM Status: RO X-Status: This may be the 1989 Bussard paper you were looking for: Bussard, Robert W.,"Virtual-State Internal Nuclear Fusion in Metal Lattices," Fusion Technology, pages 231-236, vol. 16 (Sept. 1989). --Joe Guokas From vortex-l-request@ESKIMO.COM Wed Nov 20 03:25:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA13832; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:10:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:10:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <01BBD6D3.41F2DF20@sparc1.nhelab.iae.or.jp> From: Kennel To: "'Vortex'" Subject: Bart Simon's question Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:09:09 +-900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"H5Dew2.0.vN3.aIeao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM Reply-To: vortex-l@ESKIMO.COM X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2232 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@ESKIMO.COM Status: RO X-Status: Dear Bart: Yes, there are probably several precedents for hardware coming out in = defiance of conventional theory to win acceptance for a new theory. One = of the best, to borrow Jed's frequent use of aviation metaphors, is the = jet engine. Our best scientists, including the great Von Karmann, had = "proven" that jet engines could not attain necessary temperatures to = sustain reasonable thrust to weight. Meanwhile, Hans Von Ohain (who I = had the chance to meet in the context of nuclear propulsion, by the way) = had developed the idea of air cooling the turbine blades. Well, to make = a long story short, the Messerschmidt was flying and shooting down our = planes while we were still saying they could never exist. But so what? If the CETI cell works, it's a great idea. If not, it's = going to be a severe blow (politically) to those of us interested in = studying metal deuterides in a serious scientific way. Best regards, Elliot Kennel Sapporo=20 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 20 03:59:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA16827; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:19:54 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:19:54 -0800 (PST) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:14:51 -0500 Message-ID: <961119201449_1284668028@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Thoughts on CETI Strategy Resent-Message-ID: <"j_ywX2.0.o64.cobao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2225 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: There have been some speculations about the effectiveness of the CETI strategy. I think it's right on target. Look ahead: 1. Sell the transmutation cells, have Miley instruct the users. Possibly half will fail, but 30 confirmations will be serious business -- how many do you want and how far do the skpetics want to move the goalposts? 2. The argument of Huizenga & company fails; the nuclear products are there for all to see who are competant to look. Now its time to rewrite the books, close down the hot fusion projects and divert the money to something useful. A congressional hearing or two would make an interesting diversion. 3. Now serious resources can be focussed on a serious engineering problem, building power units. CETI has reserved this arena for its industrial partners. It was one thing when we thought the fuel was water, but now the "fuel" is carefully prepared beads. What kind of an infrastructure will be needed? And how can the third world, who desperately need this technology, afford or support it? 4. And the sly, deadly bottom line: What is the balance between the energy cost to prepare and maintain a CF reactor and its lifetime energy yield? The dirty little secret of the nuclear power industry is that the balance is negative for conventional nuclear plants and an outrageous black hole for the hot fusion projects. I ask these questions not to be negative, but with bright optimism that it is now time to ask them -- repeatedly -- so we don't lose sight of the long term goals. These are real world commercial questions. Regards to all, Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 20 05:01:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA12727; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:03:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:03:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961119231402.00687824@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 23:14:29 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: AquaFuel. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"mjR4I.0.h63.TCeao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2231 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:51:13 -0800 Barry Merriman Wrote: >Really: if CETI put out a cell that did the unremarkable >(by their standards) 1 watt in, 30 watts out heat, the >scientific community (and technological community) would be >convinced in a matter of months. "Anyone could slap together" >a calorimeter that would show heat >production beyond chemical means in a few days. Presumably, the >reason they haven't done this is that they can't. Hey, wouldn't it be nice to just forget about the beads: I was speaking with Eugene Mallove of Infinite Energy magazine a few days ago. (Is there anyone on this list who does "not" subscribe to Infinite Energy magazine? 1-603-228-4516... It's literally *packed* with information about what's going on in this field) He seemed quite interested in some additional information that had come his way regarding William Richardson's patented 'AquaFuel' invention.... which was written up in the last issue (#9), with the complete patent. The article about this OverUnity device was 'so' simple anyone could build it, just from the information presented. It was an ordinary carbon electric-arc in normal water. The environmentally friendly and car-engine friendly 'gas' given off by this process was collected, filtered, and compressed. It could be used in your automobile directly with only a very small modification to your engine,...NO pollutants. It was totally amazing. After being analyzed, it was also said to contain more than enough BTU energy to fuel an internal combustion engine to drive a generator to make the electricity to create the Arc, with lots left over. I am unfamiliar with electro-nuclear-chemistry theories that attempt to explain this anomaly. That were hinted at in the article, but I was hoping to read at least 'some' discussion about AquaFuel here on Vortex. I believe that in issue #10, there will be more facts and figures and more information, from the results of additional testing (of a replication?) that is now taking place. If truly O/U, AquaFuel is more exciting than cold fusion could ever be, because it levels the playing field; it opens the field up to the experimenter, the amateur, and even the tinkerer...and it may give the average person just a bit more independence from the Multinationals (and the State). Beads don't do that.---Carbon after all, is VERY cheap. Lets hope it simply works, .... and that it also be something "anyone could slap together". Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Gene... Looking forward to issue #10. Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 20 05:03:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA13984; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:11:38 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:11:38 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Beads? Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 04:07:12 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32923f9f.656299@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <961118201327_1916610217@emout01.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <961118201327_1916610217@emout01.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.330 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"70ehb.0.KQ3.3Jeao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2233 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 20:13:28 -0500, RMCarrell@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 96-11-18 15:11:33 EST, John Steck wrote: > ><< Beads. This item of CF seems to be a given. Why? >> > >I don't have all the answers, others can perhaps answer better. But = Patterson >told me beads were of the essence, not to make the effect work, but to = make a >viable cell in an engineering sense. It's a matter of maintaining = structural >integrity when the metal films are stressed by the hydrogen loading and = the >changes which occur in the nuclear reactions. The maximum size is 1 mm = or >less. It is important that the films form a mechanical bond to the core, >which helps hold them in place. Glass, which has been tried by some, is >difficult to bond to.=20 Scott, you may remember that I made this point months ago, when I suggested heating the metal clad glass beads, in order to fuse the metal to the glass. (Heating in this instance means near the melting point of the glass - which I presume is lower than that of the metal). You may destroy a few beads, but what have you really got to lose? > >It is possible that others will find a way to engineer other shapes into >viable cells. Patterson is an expert on making plastic beads, so he used >them. Ceramics also work. Thin films are necessary to reduce the loading >time, and to obtain the surface finish that will enable the dense = loading >(without leakage from cracks) necessary for the reaction to occur.=20 > >Mike Carrell > > I suspect that plastic beads may have the added advantage of not allowing much hydrogen passage through the body of the bead, or more accurately, supply a compensating stream of H in the other direction, supplied by the plastic itself. This could be important, because if a reaction site is much smaller than an individual bead, and correlates to a point of high loading in the film, then if the bead is porous to H, that local high loading can be reduced by leakage into the body of the bead (followed by migration through the bead to another less highly loaded area elsewhere on the surface, where it might even be able to escape altogether). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 20 05:26:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA12637; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 18:56:47 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 18:56:47 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <3292733B.388F659A@math.ucla.edu> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 18:55:55 -0800 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: bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI's motives. References: <199611191809.KAA10134@helix.ucsd.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Q5c6k.0.K53.gDdao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2229 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Bart Simon wrote: > > I am fascinated by the CETI "kit" strategy, and it seems to me that > at this point even more useful then having access to the beads will > be having access to a [training workshop]... you are circulating > both the beads and the means for their evaluation (this is what I > understand Barry to be objecting to). > Not quite---I do object to defining the means of evaluation, but I don't object to the kit+worshop strategy, which is different. It is clear from my own effort at replication that in order to have efficient "success", one must have direct assistance from CETI. This means at a minimum one should have their beads, and it is also quite desirable to have a training session with a real demo, as well as detailed written instructions and a "customer assistance" line for interactive help as problems arise. What I object to is their attempt to rigidly define the experimental configuration, and trying to define what experimenters look for and how they look for it (providing pre-made high purity electrolyte, free NAA analysis, making a design focused on transmutation rather than calorimetry, etc). It is especially sad that they focused on transmutation, but even if they had an excess heat kit it would be bad if it had no easy way to swap instruments, set up comparable controls, etc. Obviously, one can simply tear apart the kit and start from scratch, and ignore their attempts to define the *complete* experiment. I am saying that is what most scientists would do, and therefore it is somewhat annoying that they are forcing users to pay for a bunch of value added stuff they don't want/would rather do themselves. I would gladly pay, say, $400/cc for beads that had a money back/free exchange guarantee that they would produce *at least* 3x excess heat and 3W out, along with a $50 training video. If that were an option, I'd buy 2--3 cc and save $3000 + the cost of a trip to the training seminar, and invest that money in my own experimental equipment (like I already have done, ahem...) > Does anybody know of any other examples of technologies that > made it into the mainstream via the "kit" strategy? > Yes, sort of. The High Temperature superconductors discovered in 1987. Certainly it was easy to accept because material samples became available so soon. I rember you could buy little demo kits within a year of the discovery, and we were able to do the meisner levitation experiment ourselves in a graduate physics class on condensed matter within a year of the discovery, using a material sample the professor had purchased. There the kit approach was not the driving force in the acceptance, but there was a natural market for the kits demoing this very bizarre physics effect. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 20 05:29:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA17190; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 05:26:10 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 05:26:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 08:24:17 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Pd-B In-Reply-To: <32978ced.2439574@mail.netspace.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"JikJq.0.WC4.lRmao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2239 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Are we talking about Palladium Boride? J On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > Does anyone know of hand, what the crystal structure of this material > (Pd-B) is? > > Thanks > > Robin > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 20 07:39:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA11506; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:14:05 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:14:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611201513.HAA11455@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: 101256@wxvax9.esa.lanl.gov X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:08:43 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Thomas N. Claytor" Subject: Re: Beads? Resent-Message-ID: <"2ZVn71.0.ep2.p0oao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2241 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > I am amazed that no one seems to have tried a pancake >configuration with say 2 or 3 layers only of beads. If nothing else it should >give a higher bead utilisation factor cf a long narrow tube with electrodes at >each end. While walking through Miley's lab there were several cells in various stages of dismantlement, or construction. One of these was a very large diameter thin cell, obviously to use just a few or one layer of beads. I had the impression that they had tried this configuration but without any improvement over the usual, more stubby arrangement. Thomas N. Claytor Claytor_t_n@lanl.gov Los Alamos National Laboratory ESA-MT, MS C914 Los Alamos NM, 87545 505-667-6216 voice 505-665-7176 fax From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 20 07:52:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA10112; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:07:57 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:07:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611201507.HAA10068@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: 101256@wxvax9.esa.lanl.gov X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:01:43 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Thomas N. Claytor" Subject: Re: Pd-B Resent-Message-ID: <"z3nKz.0.wT2.uwnao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2240 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: According to McKubre's group, dilute alloys of Boron in Palladium occupy the same octahedral sites as the hydrogen or deuterium. Their original argument was that the Boron occupies these sites and so less loading is required to obtain a "fully loaded" Pd-D lattice. I don't think this is a currently held view, but as far as anyone knows (I doubt any work has been done to confirm this), the Boron is interstitial rather than substitutional and randomly distributed. At 04:46 AM 11/20/96 GMT, you wrote: >Does anyone know of hand, what the crystal structure of this material >(Pd-B) is? > >Thanks > >Robin > > > Thomas N. Claytor Claytor_t_n@lanl.gov Los Alamos National Laboratory ESA-MT, MS C914 Los Alamos NM, 87545 505-667-6216 voice 505-665-7176 fax From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 20 07:55:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA14956; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:30:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:30:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 14:51:12 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <32905bc8.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: CETI demo in the Press? Resent-Message-ID: <"EqPky3.0.Xf3.HFoao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2242 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Friends, Your means of information are anyway better than mine; I have tried to find some echo in the press of the Nov 11-12 demonstration and (almost) large scale commercialization of the devices. No success yet, and I found some nasty messages on s.p.f coming from Arnie Frisch and his ilk. Who can tell more? Thank you in advance, Peter P.S. It is possible some of my messages are lost too, I wrote about my opinion that Miley's desactivation process has to be fission, exactly like the Cincinnati Group's one, but got no comment, neither positive nor negative. -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 20 10:16:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA04548; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:20:00 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:20:00 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:49:06 -0500 Message-ID: <961120114904_738833166@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com, GeorgeHM@aol.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro Subject: Yusmar Resent-Message-ID: <"bsbD63.0.z61.xspao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2243 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The next phase of Yusmar testing is scheduled to begin soon. We have now obtained high pressure hydrogen cylinders. In the next sequence of tests we plan to add powdered metal and gassious hydrogen to the Yusmar. That's correct, we are loading hydrogen into metal using the extreme pressure of cavitation. We are also constructing our own cavitator that is similar yet different from Yury's. Tests of this second device will begin in the next few months. Peter...when would I be a good time to travel to Russia? Peter..How can we obtain a complete Yusmar system with pump that has been pretested in Russia? Test results PICK_ME Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 20 12:36:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA25535; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:44:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:44:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:12:32 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199611201712.MAA16441@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <3.0.32.19961119231402.00687824@inforamp.net> (message from Quinney on Tue, 19 Nov 1996 23:14:29 -0500) Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Resent-Message-ID: <"HBRRC3.0.mE6.u-rao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2244 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: From: Quinney > It was an ordinary carbon electric-arc in normal water. The environmentally > friendly and car-engine friendly 'gas' given off by this process was > collected, filtered, and compressed. > It could be used in your automobile directly with only a very small > modification to your engine,...NO pollutants. > It was totally amazing. There are two possibilities here. 1) William Richardson has discovered a simple BUT OVERLOOKED property of common materials. 2) This is the same water gas, made almost the same way, that we used to cook with when I was much younger. (I remember when the local gas company came around in the fifties changing burners nozzles for "natural" gas instead of water gas.) Water gas is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. It can be made by passing steam over burning coal or using an arc in water. Why did PG&E switch to natural gas? Carbon monoxide is very nasty stuff, and the state basically forced the conversion. > After being analyzed, it was also said to contain more than enough BTU > energy to fuel an internal combustion engine to drive a generator to make > the electricity to create the Arc, with lots left over. > I am unfamiliar with electro-nuclear-chemistry theories that attempt to > explain this anomaly. That were hinted at in the article, but I was hoping > to read at least 'some' discussion about AquaFuel here on Vortex. My guess is that they didn't count the BTUs from the carbon electrodes. Actually if these are normal "carbon" arc lamp electrodes, they have metals added to reduce the (electrical) resistance and to adjust the color temperature of the arc. Figuring out a real energy balance would be quite tricky. 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 Wed Nov 20 18:42:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA16604; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 17:42:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 17:42:28 -0800 (PST) Date: 20 Nov 96 18:25:08 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Beads? Message-ID: <961120232508_100060.173_JHB70-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"HRYse1.0.L34.tDxao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2245 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> While walking through Miley's lab there were several cells in various stages of dismantlement, or construction. One of these was a very large diameter thin cell, obviously to use just a few or one layer of beads. I had the impression that they had tried this configuration but without any improvement over the usual, more stubby arrangement. Thomas N. Claytor << Interesting! I would like to see the current and voltage tabulations compared with the same weight of beads in tubular config. Thanks for the info. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 20 20:15:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA02768; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:35:03 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:35:03 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Yusmar Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 01:23:39 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3297a426.8104761@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <961120114904_738833166@emout08.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <961120114904_738833166@emout08.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.330 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"F1vfn1.0.8h.qsyao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2247 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:49:06 -0500, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: >The next phase of Yusmar testing is scheduled to begin soon. We have = now >obtained high pressure hydrogen cylinders. In the next sequence of = tests we >plan to add powdered metal and gassious hydrogen to the Yusmar. That's >correct, we are loading hydrogen into metal using the extreme pressure = of >cavitation. Right up Russ George's alley :). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 01:26:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA01327; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 01:10:47 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 01:10:47 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <01BBD7B6.E7A6AB20@sparc1.nhelab.iae.or.jp> From: Kennel To: "'Vortex'" Subject: Pd-B Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 14:18:43 +-900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"jRNIg3.0.eK.Go1bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2250 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin, Ed Storms has studied several palladium samples with varied amounts of = boron additives. The results are not conclusive as to whether boron = helps or hinders, or whether an optimum concentration exists. Some = theorists had suggested that boron might be a major source of anomalous = effects, but that is by no means clear. It is possible to say, judging = from Storms' data, that the properties of Pd show greater variation when = boron is present. Thus there is room to argue that some amount might be = "good" under certain conditions, but an optimized protocol does not now = exist. No simple relationship can be inferred for excess heat and boron = concentration as far as I know. Best regards, Elliot Kennel =20 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 02:03:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA06797; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 01:37:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 01:37:46 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32940A18.41C67EA6@math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 23:51:52 -0800 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: Yusmar References: <961120114904_738833166@emout08.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"MHdL62.0.2g1.MB2bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2251 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > > The next phase of Yusmar testing is scheduled to begin soon. > We have now > obtained high pressure hydrogen cylinders. > In the next sequence of tests we > plan to add powdered metal and gassious hydrogen to the > Yusmar. That's correct, we are loading hydrogen into metal > using the extreme pressure of cavitation. > > We are also constructing our own cavitator that is similar > yet different from Yury's. Tests of this second device will > begin in the next few months. > By all means try whatever you want...but I fear you are already becoming distracted down the winding road to nowhere. The simple point is that the Yusmar is supposed to be over unity without all these extra bells and whistles. There are a million things one could try, but the whole point of using the Yusmar is that someone else supposedly already figured it out. If any of the above succeeeded, it would constitute an entirely different O/U invention. I though the point here was to verify the Potapov device, not undertake a fundamentally new research campaign. Beyond that, if you want to do energy production via cavitation induced loading of H into metals, why not just go visit Russ George; thats his claim to fame and he supposedly has had it working for a long time. Reinventing the wheel and all that... Sorry to be negative, but my personal motivation is to see someone get to the heart of the *existing claims*, by going to the source and working backwards. Endless tinkering with the Yusmar is not going to shed any light on this, it is now apparent. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 03:09:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA16523; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 02:35:29 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 02:35:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 23:18:42 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Off topic but weird: Methane Hydrate Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"7QG_M2.0.124.m13bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2252 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Did anyone catch the article in the last Sci News on Methane Hydrate deposits on the ocean floor? Flammable ice cubes. This was also mentioned in earlier articles on Black-Smoker chemosynthetic life. This article, along with something I read in the Corliss "Science Frontiers" book of anomalies, made me see an interesting possible connection. The lake Nyos disaster, where eruptions of C02 gas asphixiated people in the Cameroons, perhaps has an analog in the Atlantic ocean. In lake Nyos, volcanic C02 slowly filters up into the lake water from below, until the lower portion of the water is supersaturated. If something disturbs this water and causes an upwelling, the water will effervesce. The reduced density of the bubble-filled water initiates a vertical self-perpetuating plume of deep-lake water, somewhat like the "draft" effect which makes fireplaces burn well, and which makes firestorms possible. The column of vertical flow pumps water up from below, and the evolution of gas bubbles powers the pumping action. This effect continues until the high-CO2 water from below is exhausted. A deep pool of CO2 spreads across the countryside. >From what I gather from the Corliss and the Sci News articles, a similar thing might possibly happen in the Atlantic, but with methane, not C02. Methane slowly diffuses upwards from deep sources. If the water temperature is low, the methane causes the formation of water/methane ice, Methane Hydrate, which has a melting temperature higher than 0C. Great volumes of this substance build up in the sea floor. Methane hydrate makes for an unstable situation, since it is at the bottom of a body of water, and if it melts it can release 10 to 50 times its volume in gas. Suppose that after enough time has passed, just the slight bubbling from the material is enough to start a vertical density current. If this current strips the mud off the Methane Hydrate deposit and fans it with slightly warmer water, it will trigger melting and gas release, and start a self-perpetuating plume of upward moving bubble-filled water. An underwater hurricane is created, with a shape somewhat like a firestorm: flow along the surface directed radially inwards, with a large vertical density current at the center. The rapid flow and turbulence would keep exposing more "fuel" until the deposit of Methane Hydrate was depleted, and the end result would be an enormous volume of bubble-filled water making its way upwards. When fluids of one density move through another with different density, the moving fluid usually takes the shape of a ring vortex. So, the rising plume of bubbles would take the shape of a huge underwater mushroom cloud. What observable phenomena might this create? For one, it might be the cause of the unexplained "barsial guns," the loud booming sounds sometimes heard on the east coast, coming from out at sea. These sounds were dismissed as being sonic booms from the Concorde, but followups showed that the reports didn't mesh with the timing of Concorde flights. Also, reports of "water guns" go quite a ways back in history. The speed of sound is vastly slowed in bubble-filled water, so the resonant volume and the turbulence occurring when the giagantic foam ring-vortex connects with the surface could easily create deep booming sounds. Another possibility. What happens if a ship has the bad luck to be at the site where the methane bubble-cloud meets the surface? The methane plume is basically a low-density foam. A ship probably wouldn't float in it. During the eruption, the bouyant force of the ocean would be reduced, and this as well as the turbulence might be enough to sink a ship. After the eruption, the volume of methane gas might extend high enough to stall aircraft engines. And any ship or plane crews encountering the high-methane zone might be subject to anoxia. So... if methane eruptions in the Atlantic correspond to CO2 eruptions in the "killer lakes" in the Cameroons, then the Lake Nyos disaster corresponds to mysterious disappearences of ships and planes off the Atlantic coast. Methane Hydrate fuels the Bermuda Triangle! Seriously now, if such a phenomenon is taking place, Navy hydrophone arrays must hear the smaller of these eruptions all the time. My experience with such things is limited to the book "Hunt for Red October," where the US submarine's AI software was frequently discarding signals as "volcanic origin." If the Navy is after enemy subs, then even something as fantastic as ship-swallowing gas eruptions might commonly be ignored. Perhaps evidence of methane eruptions might also have been captured by satellite photographs. Circular white blotches, hundreds of feet across, sitting out in the ocean for no good reason. Last tidbit: Corliss mentioned Methane Hydrate as an explanation for large, shallow craters which showed up in side-scan sonar plots of the ocean floor in the UK's North Sea. These depressions were far too large and too deeply submerged to be whale feeding marks. The North Sea has quite large petroleum deposits, I believe. If methane eruptions exist, they probably follow a fractal buildup/release pattern similar to that of earthquakes. If so, there should be "microtremors" and "megaquakes", small craters and large craters, and every size in between, in self-similar size distribution. A side-scan image would look like the Moon's surface. Perhaps only the mega-plumes are of any danger to shipping. Small plumes would disperse before reaching the surface. To test all this speculation, all we need do is take a trip out to a likely unstable Methane Hydrate deposit and disrupt the bottom a bit. Dumping a few thousand pounds of rocks might trigger interesting effects. Wait around a few hours and see if your craft suddenly founders in a huge eruption of bubbles. Extinguish cigarettes first, though! .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 04:36:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA06042; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 04:17:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 04:17:16 -0800 (PST) Date: 21 Nov 96 07:12:37 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Yusmar Message-ID: <961121121236_100433.1541_BHG133-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"jzVkr1.0.IU1.0X4bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2253 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Barry writes: > Sorry to be negative, but my personal motivation is to see > someone get to the heart of the *existing claims*, by going to the > source and working backwards. Endless tinkering with the Yusmar is > not going to shed any light on this, it is now apparent. Yes. I have photos of a metre-cube water tank with a Y-1 fitted to it. That was in a factory in Kishinev. I expected that this was something I would be able to check for o-u, but it was not to be. It would evidently recirculate water in the tank, and be an excellent test-bed. Potapov must have results from that gadget. Frank should have them. CETI shows data. Miley shows data. So do Griggs and the Correas. Meyer and Potapov do not. Neither (I think) do any of the 'o-u motor' people. On a rather different subject, I see there are differing opinions about the CETI cell-sell. Some I've seen suggest that calorimetry is the bunk, yet they are willing to trust that no contamination was possible. Others see the calorimetry as the crux of the matter. Yet others want to run the beads in a different way before doing an exact replication - thereby risking the "flat wings" problem in a machine which may be counter-intuitive. In fact, I rather welcome this multi-angle approach. I only hope that plenty of the purchasers will go public with their findings. While not overwhelmingly a fan of CETI, I have to say that anyone who puts his product into that ultimate testbed - the market - at a price which is at least within the bounds of imagination has my vote. It maybe is crap, it is maybe not crap, but either way we get answers - I think. One suggestion I have is that those who wish to see heat should drop back to a very low current density soon after loading. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 05:45:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA23648; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 05:38:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 05:38:11 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32939951.493F66A8@math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 15:50:41 -0800 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 CETI Strategy References: <961119201449_1284668028@emout17.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ekKp02.0.Jn5.0j5bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2254 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: RMCarrell@aol.com wrote: > > There have been some speculations about the effectiveness of the CETI > strategy. I think it's right on target. Look ahead: > > 1. Sell the transmutation cells, have Miley instruct the users. Possibly half > will fail, but 30 confirmations will be serious business -- how many do you > want and how far do the skpetics want to move the goalposts? I fully expect that the Miley results are reasonably repeatable, especially if they are subtle contamination. I don't need 30 more people to do the same experiment Miley did---I need interesting variations off that experiment now. You confuse moving goalposts with the normal process of scientific investigation: given the first "answers", its time for the next round of questions. > > 2. The argument of Huizenga & company fails; the nuclear products are there > for all to see who are competant to look. Now its time to rewrite the books, > close down the hot fusion projects and divert the money to something useful. > A congressional hearing or two would make an interesting diversion. Yes, its always a good idea to have congress set our science policy. :-) > > 3. Now serious resources can be focussed on a serious engineering problem, > building power units. CETI has reserved this arena for its industrial > partners. It was one thing when we thought the fuel was water, but now the > "fuel" is carefully prepared beads. What kind of an infrastructure will be > needed? This seems to be serious indeed, since CETI themselves seem incapable of producing even a few hundred cc of beads as good as the ones they had made a year earlier. > > 4. And the sly, deadly bottom line: What is the balance between the energy > cost to prepare and maintain a CF reactor and its lifetime energy yield? The > dirty little secret of the nuclear power industry is that the balance is > negative for conventional nuclear plants You had better tell this to France---they are above 85% nuclear now. Amazing that the french are so misguided. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 05:45:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA24050; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 05:39:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 05:39:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0b36.32.19961121074328.006d71d8@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0b36 (32) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 07:43:35 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Pd-B Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"mAtJK.0.it5.Pk5bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2255 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:46 AM 11/20/96 GMT, Robin wrote: >Does anyone know of hand, what the crystal structure of this material >(Pd-B) is? > >Thanks > >Robin > > > Alloys up to 7 atomic weight % appear to be single phase alloys. >From about 13-16% two phase alloys. They anneal by 700C, and were reported by A. Sievertz, K. Bruning., Z. physik. Chem, 168, 1934, p412. Xray analysis has suggested hexagonal structure, but the papers are older, cf. J.H.Buddery, A. Welch, Nature, 167, 1951, p362. They may not have separated out all of the components observed at other atomic weight distributional phases, including those relevant here. Surface coatings, interstitial defects, etc., and the possible role of Boron in the dislocations , should also be considered. Hope that helps. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 05:57:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA27219; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 05:55:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 05:55:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:54:53 -0500 (EST) From: wl0170@cnsvax.albany.edu Subject: Is there any show in town? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Resent-Message-ID: <"6Ys3K1.0.Df6.3z5bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2256 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortexians, Greetings to everybody. Thank you for the exciting ideas on the net. I share the same vision that a scientific and energy revolution is in the making, and have been 'over the edge' for a while in my thinking, if not in action yet. Can anybody give me some sugestion as to where and whom I can visit to see a working model of free energy/cold fusion device? I live in Albany, NY. So Northeast region is the best. I don't have much technical wiz to contribute now, but I may have some ideas to share. Somebody in the net said:"To hell with patent". I like that spirit, if not the practicality of. Guys, we are revolutionaries, let's work together as a team, let's think BIG. For the glory of humanity and All That Is. Best Regards. Xiaobo Kan From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 08:22:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA28888; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:03:48 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:03:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961121111548.00732fd4@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:16:18 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"rl8rG1.0.E37.Pr7bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2258 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >X-From_: hheffner@anc.ak.net Thu Nov 21 03:18 EST 1996 >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 23:19:38 -0800 >To: quinney@inforamp.net >From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) >Subject: Re: AquaFuel. >Content-Length: 4125 > >I posted the following, but it doesn't seem to be getting through. I just >posted it again, but here is a copy in case it doesn't make it. > I am forwarding it to Vortex. ...(deja vu )...and my mail has not been getting though for 18 hours....CQ. >At 11:14 PM 11/19/96, Quinney wrote about Aquafuel: >[snip] >>It was totally amazing. >>After being analyzed, it was also said to contain more than enough BTU >>energy to fuel an internal combustion engine to drive a generator to make >>the electricity to create the Arc, with lots left over. >>I am unfamiliar with electro-nuclear-chemistry theories that attempt to >>explain this anomaly. That were hinted at in the article, but I was hoping >>to read at least 'some' discussion about AquaFuel here on Vortex. >> >[snip >> >>Colin Quinney. > >I am curious about AquaFuel also. However, I got the impression from the IE >article that the process may or may not be o-u once you consider the >chemical energy that would be released by simply "burning" the carbon. In >other words, you start with electricity, carbon, air and water and produce >fully oxidized products. The total energy balance was not analysed in the >article. The comparison was between the electrical energy input and the >output energy. As to the silence about AquaFuel - that could either mean >no interest, or very much private interest. Let's take a quick look at it. > >Here are some numbers from the Energy Technology Handbook, Consodine, >McGraw-Hill (1977), p. 9-38 that may be of interest: > >Reaction Output per pound of fuel >------------------- ------------------------ >2C + O2 -> 2 CO 4,000 BTU >C + O2 -> CO2 14,100 BTU >2CO + O2 -> 2CO2 4,345 BTU > >It was noted in the IE article that one pound of carbon plus one kilowatt >of electricity produces 80 ft^3 f gas, or 134,000 BTU's. Since 1 BTU = >1,055 J = 1055 watt seconds, 1 BTU = 0.293 watt hrs., or 1 W-hr = 3.412 BTU >or 1 KWH = 3,412 BTU. > >Now, the total input (excluding the water, assumed to be in ground state) >is therefore 14,100 BTU (carbon) plus 3,412 BTU (1 KWH), or 17,512 BTU. >Unless I have a big mistake here, like confusing some strange BTU type, >misreading the article, or making or calculation error, etc., which is very >possible, that is a COP of over 7 (i.e. 134,000/17,512 = 7.652). It could >be even better if you consider the heat released by the arc. > >Something that I think is attractive about AquaFuel is the prospect of >producing the carbon directly from the atmosphere. This could be done >using nuclear energy or renewables like wind. CO2 could be removed from >the atmosphere and the carbon separated from the CO2 electrochemically. >Such a process might be especially efficient here in Alaska where, further >North, it is often -40 deg. F and the wind blows continuously. The carbon >is much easier to store and transport than hydrogen. Further, maybe the >process will work with coal directly, or if not, then processed coal. If >pollutants from coal could be reduced to anywhwere near the level shown for >burning AgauFuel made from pure carbon this would represent a major step >forward for coal, environmentally speaking, even though CO2 would still >ultimately be produced. > >One thing that bothers me about the composition of AquaFuel is that it >seems like it would be unstable. Here is the composition noted in IE: > >Compound Percent >--------------- ------- >Hydrogen 46.483 >Carbon dioxide 9.329 >Ethylene 0.049 >Acetylene 0.616 >Oxygen 1.164 >Nitrogen 3.818 >Methane 0.181 >Carbon Monoxide 38.370 > ======= >Total 100.015 > >It just seems that the CO will eventually combine with the oxygen and/or >itself to form CO2. There are also various hydorcarbons that could form >spontaneously with a net release of energy. I just do not see how this gas >could be stored for long periods, especially under pressure. It seems like >the stuff ought to even be able to polymerize. Maybe some of the chemists >here could explain this and confirm or correct my COP calculation? > > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 08:43:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA06748; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:37:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:37:26 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611211637.IAA10547@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:37:16 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"m9oqw3.0.Mf1.5L8bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2260 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I did some back of the envelope calcs, Horace, and found the Aquafuel hypothesis unconvincing. Compare the volume of gas formed with volume of typical fuel required for the engine. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 09:20:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA10612; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:51:52 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:51:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:45:16 -0500 Message-Id: <199611211645.LAA11746@caracas.terraport.net> X-Sender: marett@mail.terraport.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: marett@terraport.net (Douglas M. Marett) Subject: Correa Reactor Resent-Message-ID: <"Rkejf.0.ib2.bY8bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2261 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I am glad that the Correa's have made some admissions with regard to the connection between their work and that of Reich. I am unaware of any other laboratory at this time that has attempted to replicate the PAGD experiments of Correa, besides Dave Marett and my own. I would be curious to know if any one else has tried it, since I have encountered a series of technical problems which were addressed only vaguely in the patents. 1) Firstly, is the destruction of the tube by the PAGD process. Tubes made of Pyrex with opposing H34 aluminum plates were found to sputter large amounts of aluminum onto the sides of the glass envelope. In some cases, tubes have become heavily mirrored with only one hours operation, often leading to arcing along the sputtered conduction path. In order to eliminate this problem, I have resorted to tube designs resembling a geiger-muller tube, with an internal aluminum cathode and a metal anode sheath forming the outer vacuum enclosure. This has solved the sputtering problem, as the sputter only lands on metal surfaces, but has increased the complexity of construction considerably. 2) The second problem is the electrical cleanup of the gas inside the tube. Generally, the PAGD operates most effectively when the tube and its metal components have been thoroughly out-gassed by well-known heating and evacuation techniques, and then a controlled input of a new gas, such as air or argon, is introduced into the tube at the correct pressure. I have found that as the tube is allowed to pulse, the pulse rate rapidly declines and then stops altogether. Correa addresses this problem in his PCT application #WO 94/09560, page 31, saying that the decline is due to the intrinsic capacitance of the charge pack, or the output load. Since I have not yet attempted a frequency count with a charge pack connected, I have not yet been able to verify this. However, I have also noticed during pulse count experiments that the vacuum level inside the tube begins to increase as the pulses occur, with the vacuum often rising by an order of magnitude, leading to the extinction of the pulse effect above about 5E-2 Torr. I am under the impression that this process is caused by the electrical cleanup of gas inside the tube. In such a process, the highly accelerated gas ions are literally driven into the metal of the opposing plates, and can only be recovered by deliberate outgassing. Under such circumstances, I have had to continuously add more and more argon into the tube to sustain the pulsation, which eventually reverts to a glow discharge. This process is reversed by outgassing the aluminum plates as before with heat and evacuation. Because of these problems, I have found it difficult to construct a Correa Reactor which can sustain pulsations without continuous maintenance. If anyone else has attempted these experiments, or can see some error in protocol which I might be able to correct, please let me know. Thanks, Doug Marett From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 09:39:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA16075; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:16:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:16:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 12:09:38 -0500 (EST) From: wl0170@cnsvax.albany.edu Subject: Simple(and small) is beautiful To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Resent-Message-ID: <"XcfGH3.0.1x3.Bv8bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2262 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I agree with Colin Quinney that simple devices are what we needed. Simplicity more often means fundamental and robust process. It is even more important in this transitional period, where confusion and chaos seems to be the normal. To me, simplest device would be one with no moving parts, no burning, no fancy manufacturing process, this limits down to circuits and magnets. How about Smith coil? This is a caduceus (double) winding. Anyone with information regarding Smith or Russell's work in this area(like web sites)? With my modest means, I need a simple and small project to begin expereimenting with. I heard a lot of talks about space energy. Jeane Manning's book The Coming Energy Revolution, Brain Oleary's Miracle in The Void are excellent, if you haven't read them already. But I never saw a actual working device. OK, maybe its my fault, for I didn't really search hard for them in the past. I have to make a living for the family. But if any of this new energy stuff is true, which I tend to believe(They can't be all liers), then I will kick myself for the rest of my life if I do not put myself into the front line. I want to serve human and earth more than anything else. I believe many vorterxian have this energy revolution as one of their main goal in life, what James Redfield calls Birth Vision in his book Tenth Insight. Right now I am looking for the close encounter of first kind. (Yes space brothers, you are welcome to my neighborhood too) Doing is Being. Do it or see it myself. BTW, I am a solid state physicist in training. I did most of my research work on X-ray scattering study of crystals and superconductivity. There is nothing but reality Xiaobo Kan From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 09:44:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA21429; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:39:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:39:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 12:21:08 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199611211721.MAA19101@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <199611211427.GAA04424@mail.eskimo.com> (mdleb@nortel.ca) Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Resent-Message-ID: <"UzUFy1.0.jE5.MF9bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2266 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gene G. Batten (mdleb@nortel.ca) said: > I could also ask, "So what if it is shown NOT to be an Over Unity process?" > If this process actually does produce a burnable gas that will > power a car, if it is less expensive than gasoline, and if there are not > other intolerable side effects, then I want one. No you don't. (Well there are conditions where you might...) Basically you end up with a coal burning automobile, with an intermediate that is a VERY nasty gas in even small concentrations. (About 40% carbon monoxide by volume, and a significant amount of hydrogen sulfide. HS is very, very, nasty. People who work around it have a rule: "If you can't smell it, you are dead." Basically, when your nose saturates (at parts per million in air) either you switch to oxygen or die. However if someone designed a system where the water gas is generated under pressure with a double seal containment, and good pollution control on the exhaust, you could get more miles per pound of coal than per pound of gasoline. > I would like to know more about this process. Like: > 1. what type of electricity is used? DC, pulsed DC, or AC? What > voltages and current? Low voltage and high current--a car battery is fine. The purpose of the arc is to ignite the carbon under water. C4 + 4 H2O --> 4 CO + 4 H2. (You also get some C + 2 H2O --> CO2 + 2 H2. If you could push that to completion it would be great.) > 2. how much carbon and is it a "special" kind? Not really. Coal will do fine once you get it started. > 3. what flow rate is required to sustain combustion in a given size engine? See above. The real problem is that the reaction is self sustaining. You either have to be able to limit the carbon input--using coal dust--or the water. Using steam is the usual. But if you don't have a way to shut down, you have all that gas building up. There are still some power plants that run on water gas...convert the (low quality) coal to a much higher quality gas, then burn the gas in gas turbines for peaking power. A power plant can afford to store enough gas to dump coal into the reaction chamber a chunk or six 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 Thu Nov 21 09:46:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA16848; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:18:57 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:18:57 -0800 (PST) Date: 21 Nov 96 12:15:22 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Message-ID: <961121171521_76570.2270_FHU34-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"inXbt1.0.A74.yx8bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2263 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Vortexians: AquaFuel experiments are in progress at two labs. There is another group with a similar but elegantly different approach that has come forward. More details of this in IE#10, later in December. Basically, forget all chemical combustion calulations from the NASA-listed composition. We are working from first-principles, i.e. a direct combustion energy measurement from a known quantity of gas, especially comparison tests with other gases of known combustion energy. There is still a mystery here which we hope to resolve. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 10:10:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA24975; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:54:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:54:59 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:55:06 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: Correa Reactor Resent-Message-ID: <"6m10Y3.0.766.kT9bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2267 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Douglas Marett wrote: > 1) Firstly, is the destruction of the tube by the PAGD process. Tubes >made of Pyrex with opposing H34 aluminum plates were found to sputter large >amounts of aluminum onto the sides of the glass envelope....... >2) The second problem is the electrical cleanup of the gas inside the tube. .....I have found >that as the tube is allowed to pulse, the pulse rate rapidly declines and >then stops altogether...... >recovered by deliberate outgassing. Under such >circumstances, I have had to continuously add more and more argon into the >tube to >sustain the pulsation,..... This process is reversed by outgassing the >aluminum plates as before with heat and evacuation. The abnormal glow regime always (by definition of 'abnormal glow') accelerates ions to the cathode through a large potential drop. This is how one class of commercial sputtering devices is made. Try helium. Lighter atoms sputter less than heavy. The fact is, Ar is the usual working gas in commercial sputtering. Helium usually escapes from near surface implantation layers more rapidly than either Ne or Ar. He might help reduce your gas pressure variations. 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 Nov 21 11:43:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA15752; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:23:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:23:19 -0800 (PST) Date: 21 Nov 96 14:19:51 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Message-ID: <961121191951_76570.2270_FHU60-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"W9BjY.0.-r3.ZmAbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2268 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Russ, You wrote: "I did some back of the envelope calcs, Horace, and found the Aquafuel hypothesis unconvincing. Compare the volume of gas formed with volume of typical fuel required for the engine." I find this incomprehensible. Please be specific -- what did your calculations show? I repeat, the gas analysis cannot be used to determine the combustion value of the gas, since we are dealing with a *claimed* anomalous phenomenon. One can't use an "answer" computed from presumptive composition to get anything but the same answer. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 12:10:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA22648; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:56:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:56:46 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 14:52:34 -0500 Message-ID: <961121145234_1385495601@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Water gas Resent-Message-ID: <"uV8S_.0.gX5.xFBbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2269 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I worked on the design of a water gas plant while with Abex corp in Birmingham Al. some years ago. What I remember is that coal burned with steam in a atomsphere with insufficient oxygen will produce a gas with a heating content of 150 BTU's/FT3. This gas contains nitrogen, co, co2, and H2 along with all sorts of bad trace gases So2, H2S, NoX etc. Blast furnaces and coke ovens produce similar gas in Steel Mills. If you remove the nitrogen from the combustion gas prior to coubusion a more potent gas emerges with a heating content 300 BTU's /FT 3. Neither of these gases is a potent as natural gas, Natural gas has a BTU content of 1000 BTU/FT3. Most of the water gas plants, the blast furnaces, the coke plants that produced this and similar gases shut down, they were an envorinmental mess. It costs mega bucks to clean them up. That's why the steal industry died. I did at one time work for Bethlehem Steel in a power plant. The boiler for this plant was fueled with a mixture of coke oven, blast furnace, and natural gas. That job died with the coming of the environmental movement in the 1970's. The water gas thing is nothing new to me. The power plant #3 in the Franlkin Mills of the Bethlehem Co. (were I was) was built in 1912. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 12:17:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA23869; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 12:01:17 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 12:01:17 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961121151356.006fe580@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 15:14:21 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Aquafuel. Cc: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"B8qir3.0.pq5.7KBbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2270 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:19 PM 11/20/96 -0800, Horace wrote: > >As to the silence about AquaFuel - that could either mean >no interest, or very much private interest. And a hesitation to discuss it until after issue #10 of Infinite Energy. I believe Eugene is expecting comprehensive test results from a replication. >It was noted in the IE article that one pound of carbon plus one kilowatt >of electricity produces 80 ft^3 f gas, or 134,000 BTU's. Since 1 BTU = >1,055 J = 1055 watt seconds, 1 BTU = 0.293 watt hrs., or 1 W-hr = 3.412 BTU >or 1 KWH = 3,412 BTU. > >Now, the total input (excluding the water, assumed to be in ground state) >is therefore 14,100 BTU (carbon) plus 3,412 BTU (1 KWH), or 17,512 BTU. >Unless I have a big mistake here, like confusing some strange BTU type, >misreading the article, or making or calculation error, etc., which is very >possible, that is a COP of over 7 (i.e. 134,000/17,512 = 7.652). It could >be even better if you consider the heat released by the arc. Yes, no figures on that yet, but in Richardson's patent, #5,435,274, at the DESCRIPTION, FIG. 2: "...electrodes....carbon rod...heats the water drastically..." That may be promising, or it may be just a local effect. > >Something that I think is attractive about AquaFuel is the prospect of >producing the carbon directly from the atmosphere. This could be done >using nuclear energy or renewables like wind. CO2 could be removed from >the atmosphere and the carbon separated from the CO2 electrochemically. >Such a process might be especially efficient here in Alaska where, further >North, it is often -40 deg. F and the wind blows continuously. The carbon >is much easier to store and transport than hydrogen. Further, maybe the >process will work with coal directly, or if not, then processed coal. If >pollutants from coal could be reduced to anywhwere near the level shown for >burning AgauFuel made from pure carbon this would represent a major step >forward for coal, environmentally speaking, even though CO2 would still >ultimately be produced. > That is a great idea. What would be the economies of scale? I mean, if the device is sufficiently O/U, why not just use some of the excess energy from the AquaFuel generator itself . >One thing that bothers me about the composition of AquaFuel is that it >seems like it would be unstable. I'm no chemist, but that fuel survived its own birth from a 5000 degree electric Arc... without combustion. Would that not preclude any instabilities ? . >Maybe some of the chemists >here could explain this and confirm or correct my COP calculation? > I believe Russ George has some information that I would also like to hear about. Are you up and running again on Vortex ? Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 13:49:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA09511; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 13:15:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 13:15:46 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 14:15:15 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Resent-Message-ID: <"JSl-A1.0.RK2.-PCbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2272 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gene Mallove wrote: >I repeat, the gas analysis cannot be used to determine the combustion value of >the gas, since we are dealing with a *claimed* anomalous phenomenon. One can't >use an "answer" computed from presumptive composition to get anything but the >same answer. No, you've got it wrong, Gene. The water gas shift reaction has been studied exhaustively and used industrially for about 150 yr. This is fact, not theory. It is incumbant on the proponents of anomalous phenomena to prove their point by experimental data. In this case, the data must measure ALL input energy (electrical plus chemical) and output energy (heat of combustion or dynamometer-measured motor energy). Anything less is just unproved hypothesis. 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 Nov 21 16:54:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA17135; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 16:21:55 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 16:21:55 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Pd-B Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 23:56:52 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <329434e5.7235127@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <01BBD7B6.E7A6AB20@sparc1.nhelab.iae.or.jp> In-Reply-To: <01BBD7B6.E7A6AB20@sparc1.nhelab.iae.or.jp> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.330 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"L_e8e.0.aB4.T8Fbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2273 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 21 Nov 1996 14:18:43 +-900, Kennel wrote: >Robin, > Ed Storms has studied several palladium samples with varied amounts=20 >of boron additives. The results are not conclusive as to whether boron=20 >helps or hinders, or whether an optimum concentration exists.=20 Thanks Elliot. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 17:58:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA05351; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:41:54 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:41:54 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa Reactor Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 01:38:10 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <329e0076.16953653@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.330 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"HZUs7.0.WJ1.dIGbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2275 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:55:06 -0800, Michael J. Schaffer wrote: [snip] > The abnormal glow regime always (by definition of 'abnormal glow') >accelerates ions to the cathode through a large potential drop. This is >how one class of commercial sputtering devices is made. Try helium. >Lighter atoms sputter less than heavy. The fact is, Ar is the usual >working gas in commercial sputtering. > Helium usually escapes from near surface implantation layers more >rapidly than either Ne or Ar. He might help reduce your gas pressure >variations. > >Michael J. Schaffer >General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA >Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 > > > Would Hydrogen work? (No other gasses present of course. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 17:59:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA05975; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:50:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:50:13 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Off topic but weird: Methane Hydrate Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 01:38:03 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3299f2f5.13496601@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.330 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"TFooD2.0.HT1.zLGbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2277 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 23:18:42 -0800 (PST), William Beaty wrote: [snip] >Wait around a few hours and see if your craft suddenly founders in a = huge >eruption of bubbles. Extinguish cigarettes first, though! [snip] If your craft founders, you won't live to tell the tale! Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 18:01:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA05392; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:41:09 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:41:09 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 01:38:06 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <329bfce2.16038099@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.330 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"e4kUa2.0.AK1.jIGbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2276 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I did a calculation of the energy content of 80 ft^3 of aquafuel, based on the assumption that only the CO and the H provide heat. (This seems reasonable given that these comprise almost all the combustible materials). I get a total heat value for 80 ft^3 of 23 thousand BTU, not the 134000 BTU reported in IE. Those of you interested in the calculation can reply via private email, and I will send you a Mathcad document with the calculation. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 19:41:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA27750; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 19:23:49 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 19:23:49 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611220323.TAA04697@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, 21 Nov 1996 19:22:50 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: CF comes to Hollywood Resent-Message-ID: <"RpRhG1.0.Rn6.3pHbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2278 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:34 PM 11/21/96 EST, you wrote: >With the coming rash of Hollywood features about CF and o-u (desperately >trying to stay on topic here), I offer this cautionary tale I heard. > >It's a truly wonderful story. Someone said that if you sell the >film rights to a novel, you should keep the number of the local rape >crisis centre handy. This man, Barry Longyear, wrote a book called >'Enemy Mine', about a human and an alien shipwrecked on a planet after a >space battle, and how they had to co-operate etc etc - quite well done. > >So Hollywood bought the movie rights, and turned it into a complete >Chris > > a slow evening Chris? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 21:58:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA01264; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 21:49:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 21:49:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:49:34 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Resent-Message-ID: <"k5Iwk2.0.cJ.PxJbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2280 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >I did a calculation of the energy content of 80 ft^3 of aquafuel, >based on the assumption that only the CO and the H provide heat. >(This seems reasonable given that these comprise almost all the >combustible materials). >I get a total heat value for 80 ft^3 of 23 thousand BTU, not the >134000 BTU reported in IE. >Those of you interested in the calculation can reply via private >email, and I will send you a Mathcad document with the calculation. > > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk Robin, Why not post the calculations? If your calculation is correct, then there is still a COP of 23,000/17,512 = 1.313. If the true volume of gas produced is 60 instead of 80 that 31 % excess would disappear. However, there is still the unmeasured heat produced by the arc for which to account. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 21 23:25:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA11054; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 23:22:43 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 23:22:43 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:22:13 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <329653b3.4383083@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.330 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"SZnqZ3.0.Zi2.1JLbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2281 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:49:34 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >Robin, > >Why not post the calculations? > Because Mathcad does automatic unit conversions, which would otherwise turn a 2 line computation into a full page ascii mess. >If your calculation is correct, then there is still a COP of = 23,000/17,512 >=3D 1.313. If the true volume of gas produced is 60 instead of 80 that= 31 % >excess would disappear. However, there is still the unmeasured heat >produced by the arc for which to account. [snip] Agreed. Furthermore, I find the presence of nitrogen in the gas interesting, though this may be an artifact of the collection method, or the source of the "carbon". Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 01:18:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA05824; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 01:14:35 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 01:14:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 00:15:20 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Aquafuel. Resent-Message-ID: <"F_E7q2.0.rQ1.wxMbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2282 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 3:14 PM 11/21/96, Quinney wrote: >At 11:19 PM 11/20/96 -0800, Horace wrote: [snip] >>that is a COP of over 7 (i.e. 134,000/17,512 = 7.652). It could >>be even better if you consider the heat released by the arc. > >Yes, no figures on that yet, but in Richardson's patent, #5,435,274, at the >DESCRIPTION, FIG. 2: "...electrodes....carbon rod...heats the water >drastically..." That may be promising, or it may be just a local effect. Whatever heat that is produced by the arc, large or small, must be added to the chemical heat of the gas to calculate the total output energy. >> >>Something that I think is attractive about AquaFuel is the prospect of >>producing the carbon directly from the atmosphere. [snip] > >That is a great idea. What would be the economies of scale? I mean, if the >device is sufficiently O/U, why not just use some of the excess energy from >the AquaFuel generator itself . > [snip] >Colin Quinney. Yes, it certainly occurred to me to use the o-u energy, but I am just not that confident about this being o-u yet, despite the numbers we see. These things have a way of evaporating pretty quickly. My main point here is that the process may not even have to be o-u to be of use. There is a massive amount of wind energy available in Alaska, and lots of irons besides this one still in the fire for o-u energy production. Any source of energy could be used for the carbon extraction. There are other possibilities for processing AquaFuel. One is to extract the CO etc. by liquefaction, and save the H2, burn the CO to run the plant. Another possibility is coal gassification, turning coal into methane, which typically begins by creating water gas. There are existing tested technologies for coal gassification that are not yet economically feasible, but will be eventually. There are existing technologies for shipping LNG and distributing methane. Another possibility is to futher process the gas into fuels like octane, or into feedstocks for plastics. Another thought, especially if this is an o-u process, is to attempt it using CO2 gas to feed the arc instead of carbon. Use hollow metal electrodes to feed the CO2 gas into the arc. This would greatly simplify the process if it worked. Since the fuels supplied would be in ground state, the enegy supplied would then be that of the arc. There are many possibilities for processing CO2 chemically. Coming up with economic data would require a significant engineering effort. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 02:12:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA06279; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:04:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:04:23 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 22:42:40 -0500 Message-ID: <961121224239_229816979@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: get C from the atomosphere Resent-Message-ID: <"psWhc1.0.vX1.IOIbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2279 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Colin, I it takes energy to remove the C from CO2. It fact it takes as much or more than the energy liberated when the c was burned. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 04:42:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA07702; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 22:26:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 22:26:28 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Beads? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 22:48:58 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <961120090855_100060.173_JHB71-1@CompuServe.COM> from "Norman Horwood" at Nov 20, 96 04:08:56 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: <"Wk1-y1.0.Du1.QM_ao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2248 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > It seems obvious to a mere Engineer that you will get irregular pathways > for the current thru an amorphous mass of spheres with variable conductivity > at their points of contact. I am amazed that no one seems to have tried a > pancake configuration with say 2 or 3 layers only of beads. If nothing > else it should give a higher bead utilisation factor cf a long narrow tube > with electrodes at each end. On the other hand, a continuum of gradient is more likely to overlap any "sweet spot", if such a sweet spot exists. -- - 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 Nov 22 04:52:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA28204; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 12:19:35 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 12:19:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:20:34 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Correa Reactor Resent-Message-ID: <"ZyJE43.0.cu6.MbBbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2271 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >I have found it difficult to construct a Correa >Reactor >which can sustain pulsations without continuous maintenance. > If anyone else has attempted these experiments, or can see some error >in protocol which I might be able to correct, please let me know. Thanks, > >Doug Marett > Suggest copper electrodes, helium gas should increase lifetime, but maybe change arc characteristics undesirably. You might also want to want to try molybdenum or even a molybdenum-steel alloy if Mo not available to you. I suspect Mo to be a good choice because it requires a high current density to maintain arc stability. High arc stability is *not* what you are looking for, so Mo should be a good choice. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 05:12:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA21378; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 16:40:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 16:40:11 -0800 (PST) Date: 21 Nov 96 18:34:17 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: CF comes to Hollywood Message-ID: <961121233417_100433.1541_BHG86-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"qitQA1.0.xD5.KPFbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2274 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: With the coming rash of Hollywood features about CF and o-u (desperately trying to stay on topic here), I offer this cautionary tale I heard. It's a truly wonderful story. Someone said that if you sell the film rights to a novel, you should keep the number of the local rape crisis centre handy. This man, Barry Longyear, wrote a book called 'Enemy Mine', about a human and an alien shipwrecked on a planet after a space battle, and how they had to co-operate etc etc - quite well done. So Hollywood bought the movie rights, and turned it into a complete travesty. In the film there was some kind of underground quarry where evil humans enslaved alien workers. So Longyear asked what these caverns were supposed to be producing. "Silicon. It's used for making electronics. Very important and rare, is silicon." After he recovered from that shock, he asked why the scene was in the film at all. "Look, Barry. The movie is called 'Enemy Mine', so there's gotta be a mine in it somewhere, right?" Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 05:28:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA02908; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 05:24:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 05:24:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:22:26 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Off topic but weird: Methane Hydrate In-Reply-To: <3299f2f5.13496601@mail.netspace.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Ba0jU.0.Jj.7cQbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2283 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Off topic comment: Bill Beatty used the word "founders". Bless him. I have seen 'top' writers use the word "Flounders" ..... which is maybe plural fish. My father was a liguist, multiligual, died a liguist. To see one person use a word, in context, correctly, bless him. If any one knows Bill Beatty personally, and is physicaly close enough to buy him a beer or coffee [whichever he prefers], please do so, tell him it is not a fish and send me the bill. I will send a USPS postal money order for the cost. JHS On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 23:18:42 -0800 (PST), William Beaty wrote: > [snip] > >Wait around a few hours and see if your craft suddenly founders in a huge > >eruption of bubbles. Extinguish cigarettes first, though! > [snip] > If your craft founders, you won't live to tell the tale! > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on > temperature. > "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 06:16:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA14461; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 06:07:36 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 06:07:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 06:07:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611221407.GAA14405@mail.eskimo.com> 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: Correa Reactor Resent-Message-ID: <"9MMoW.0.lX3.YERbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2284 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Suggest copper electrodes, helium gas should increase lifetime, but maybe >change arc characteristics undesirably. You might also want to want to try >molybdenum or even a molybdenum-steel alloy if Mo not available to you. I >suspect Mo to be a good choice because it requires a high current density >to maintain arc stability. High arc stability is *not* what you are >looking for, so Mo should be a good choice. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > Somewhere in the patents the Correas stated that copper worked poorly but that steel was almost as good as aluminum. Jeff Fink From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 06:54:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA21092; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 06:36:34 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 06:36:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:27:31 +0100 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: Yusmar Vs Griggs Resent-Message-ID: <"ME1MP2.0.J95.hfRbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2285 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris writes >CETI shows data. Miley shows data. So do Griggs and the Correas. >Meyer and Potapov do not. Neither (I think) do any of the 'o-u motor' >people. For Griggs, what data are you exactly talking about ? Are there any news about the NASA test that was supposed to find out if Griggs machine was o/u or not ? Jean DeLagarde From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 07:32:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA21388; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:39:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:39:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 12:35:46 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199611211735.MAA19129@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <3.0.32.19961121111548.00732fd4@inforamp.net> (message from Quinney on Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:16:18 -0500) Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Resent-Message-ID: <"PWuyF3.0.6E5.GF9bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2265 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner (hheffner@anc.ak.net) wrote: >One thing that bothers me about the composition of AquaFuel is that it >seems like it would be unstable. Here is the composition noted in IE: > >Compound Percent >--------------- ------- >Hydrogen 46.483 >Carbon dioxide 9.329 >Ethylene 0.049 >Acetylene 0.616 >Oxygen 1.164 >Nitrogen 3.818 >Methane 0.181 >Carbon Monoxide 38.370 > ======= >Total 100.015 Looks like water gas to me, except that the acetylene is a little high, so they are pouring more energy than necessary into the arc. Also no HS, probably due to the metal content in the electrodes used. Don't worry about the remaining oxygen. The reason it isn't stable is the same reason that wooden desk doesn't burst into flames. The binding energy of O2 is very high, and it takes a lot of effort to get it reacting. (Once it does, watch out, the "oxygen chains" can get started such as: H2 + O2 --> H2O + O, O + O2 --> O3, O3 + H2 --> H2O2 + O, H2O2 --> H2O + O. You can store "Brown's gas" or any other H2 and O2 mixture in the dark at room temperature for years. But along comes one cosmic ray, and all gone!) 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 Nov 22 07:43:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA28631; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:23:03 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:23:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 16:36:28 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <3295ba76.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Cc: "'Dieter Britz'" Subject: CETI in C&EN. Resent-Message-ID: <"6MGmv.0.6_6.uKSbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2286 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear fellows, Can somebody please scan the short paper re: "Clean Energy Technology of Dallas claims its Patterson Power Cell research kit can transmutate metals" published in Chemical Enginerering News 74, 46, Nov 18, 1996 p 9 ? C & EN is accessable through http://www.chemcenter.org, but you can read only the titles. It seems the press has remarked this event. Nothing in WSJ? 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 Fri Nov 22 07:49:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA00355; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:29:33 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:29:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961122104102.006e600c@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:41:27 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: get C from the atmospheres Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"aAmzT.0.T5.GRSbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2287 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:42 PM 11/21/96 -0500, you wrote: >Colin, I it takes energy to remove the C from CO2. It fact it takes as much >or more than the energy liberated when the c was burned. > >Frank Z > Well Frank, of course it does, that is a given. But this 'is' Vortex, after all....and we are discussing the possibility of O/U in an AquaFuel generator in an area where there was no large local supply of carbon..Horace's home State of Alaska. Anyway it was Horace's idea, not mine. Actually, I thought it was a very good idea. Then I thought a better one: Remove the carbon from the 'combustion' exhaust, instead of the air, and process 'that' into new electrodes. (remember, this is Vortex!) But before I could post it, Horace beat me to the punch with an even better one. The exhaust gases, as primarily CO2, can be supplied directly through hollow metal tubes to the Arc. That does away with the carbon electrodes altogether. Horace's modification could add an additional factor into the equation, however; the extra oxygen being introduced from the CO2, might make the gas unstable,... combustion at the source (Arc),...or worse yet, in the compressed canisters. Ideally, combustion would occur only where you wanted it, like Brown's gas, but I wouldn't want to try it. The AquaFuel gas analysis would certainly be different. It wouldn't be AquaFuel anymore ...(Hmmm... Interesting...) Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 07:54:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA01495; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:34:53 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:34:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 23:36:16 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961122233422.2747ecca@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: Re: AquaFuel. Query Resent-Message-ID: <"AYgZL1.0.DN.CWSbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2288 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Is 'Aquafuel' an explosive, or does it need an oxidizer? Previous responses -seem- to indicate that 'aquafuel' requires an oxidizer. I have an immediate application for this, thus the urgency of my query ********************************************************** * http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 ******** ********************************************************** From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 08:05:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA03187; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:42:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:42:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961122105230.00686600@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:52:53 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: get C from the atomosphere Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"MhjZP3.0.hn.gdSbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2289 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:42 PM 11/21/96 -0500, you wrote: >Colin, I it takes energy to remove the C from CO2. It fact it takes as much >or more than the energy liberated when the c was burned. > >Frank Z > get C from the "Atomosphere"...Would that be a Bucky-ball ? : -) CQ. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 09:06:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA13632; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:40:41 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:40:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:36:58 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Off topic but weird: Methane Hydrate Resent-Message-ID: <"JofD3.0.uK3.YTTbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2290 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Bill Beatty used the word "founders". Bless him. I have seen >'top' writers use the word "Flounders" ..... which is maybe plural fish. > [snip] > > > JHS > I missed Bill Beaty's post - must be one of many that did not get through to me. BTW, though founders is laudibly correct as used, flounders also has non-fishy meanings (: floun0der1 (floun2d=F5r) intr.v. floun0dered, floun0der0ing, floun0ders. 1. To make clumsy attempts to move or regain one's balance. 2. To move or act clumsily and in confusion. -floun0der1 n. The act of floundering. floun0der2 (floun2d=F5r) n., pl. flounder or floun0ders. Any of various marine flatfishes of the families Bothidae and Pleuronectidae, which include important food fishes. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 09:13:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA16967; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:56:49 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:56:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961122120417.006aaa28@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:04:41 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Query Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"hFhxA1.0.x84.qiTbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2292 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:36 PM 11/22/96 +0800, you wrote: >Is 'Aquafuel' an explosive, or does it need an oxidizer? >Previous responses -seem- to indicate that 'aquafuel' requires an oxidizer. >I have an immediate application for this, thus the urgency of my query Below is the composition of the fuel: REMEMBER THAT THE CARBON MONOXIDE CONTENT OF THIS FUEL, prior to combustion, IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS! DO ALL EXPERIMENTS OUTSIDE. or at the *very* least, in a very WELL ventilated area, with very high exhaust velocity on the ventilation hood. I personally would never 'experiment' with this stuff except outside, while breathing with scuba gear. Use of CO detectors in your immediate environment is mandatory, even outside. CO is VERY VERY nasty stuff to breath. It causes death. Here is the composition noted in IE: > >Compound Percent >--------------- ------- >Hydrogen 46.483 >Carbon dioxide 9.329 >Ethylene 0.049 >Acetylene 0.616 >Oxygen 1.164 >Nitrogen 3.818 >Methane 0.181 >Carbon Monoxide 38.370 > ======= >Total 100.015 I believe it can be fed directly into a Briggs and Stratton IC engine. It is in a gaseous state so it does not need to be atomized. Remove the carburetor. The regulated mix is 3-5 air to 1 fuel. Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 09:20:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA16763; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:56:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:56:46 -0800 (PST) Date: 22 Nov 96 11:29:57 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Yusmar Vs Griggs Message-ID: <961122162956_100433.1541_BHG61-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"XXwUw.0.q54.4hTbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2291 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jean, > For Griggs, what data are you exactly talking about ? Data we took ourselves and published, data which all kinds of people have taken (and maybe not published). > Are there any news about the NASA test that was supposed to find > out if Griggs machine was o/u or not ? My NASA contact at Huntsville tells me that all you get out of the people doing the tests are "wouldn't you like to know" smiles. I suppose it is time I asked again. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 14:40:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA03588; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 13:52:05 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 13:52:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 09:41:54 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: Correa Reactor Resent-Message-ID: <"M-Pao3.0.yt.-1Ybo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2296 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Re a working gas to reduce sputtering in Correa discharges, Robin van Spaandonk asked: >Would Hydrogen work? (No other gasses present of course. :) Yes, hydrogen would sputter even less than helium. Hydrogen-air mixtures are combustible and even explosive over a wide range of mixtures. A practical safety rule for home use is to keep the H2 pressure below about 10 torr; then, no matter what mixture ratio might result from an air leak, the worst possible explosion will be too weak to break a glass vessel. 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 Nov 22 10:35:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA26740; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 09:53:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 09:53:58 -0800 (PST) Date: 22 Nov 96 12:43:55 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Subject: Definitely plugged Message-ID: <961122174354_72240.1256_EHB72-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Grbxj2.0.dX6.wXUbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2294 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: William Beaty >INTERNET:billb@eskimo.com; Vortex Bill: I sent a few messages after those two . . . Vortex is definitely plugged up. No big deal. I was trying to tell Barry that CETI cells produce as much heat as they ever did. This is a test message to you and Vortex. Testing, 1, 2, 3 . . . Do you read me? I do not think there is a 1-day delay. The dates and times of the last 10 messages are not that long. I think something is eating up messages. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 16:24:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA18792; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:36:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:36:39 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:30:35 -0500 Message-ID: <961122153035_1984292376@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: inquire Resent-Message-ID: <"QI2C43.0.Jb4.OZZbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2297 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: fwd --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: inquire Date: 96-11-22 15:30:04 EST From: FZNIDARSIC To: tracy.maples@msfc.nasa.gov Tracy Maples, As per our phone conversation I am very interested in the testing of the Griggs Hydrosonic pump. I understand that this testing is being conducted by NASA Huntsville. My group has a similar technology in Johnstown Pa. Our technology was imported from Russia. ref http://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/index.html I am interested in in your results. Please post my inquire. Frank Znidarsic 481 Boyer St. Johnstown Pa. 15906 fznidarsic@aol.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 17:23:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA02366; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 16:34:32 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 16:34:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 19:30:51 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Recieved about 7: 40 eastern In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"gpTsD3.0.pa.kPabo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2298 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 22 Nov 1996, Chuck Davis wrote: > On 22 Nov 96 12:43 -0500 (+0300), Jed Rothwell wrote to me: > > > To: William Beaty >INTERNET:billb@eskimo.com; Vortex > > > Bill: > > > I sent a few messages after those two . . . Vortex is definitely plugged up. > > No big deal. I was trying to tell Barry that CETI cells produce as much heat > > as they ever did. > > > This is a test message to you and Vortex. Testing, 1, 2, 3 . . . Do you read > > me? > > > I do not think there is a 1-day delay. The dates and times of the last 10 > > messages are not that long. I think something is eating up messages. > > > - Jed > > FYI This message was received here at 10:25 am local time.... > > -- > .-. .-. > / \ .-. .-. / \ > / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ > -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- > RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / > \ / `-' `-' \ / > `-' `-' > Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. > -Albert Einstein- > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 17:44:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA06805; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 16:54:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 16:54:22 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:51:04 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: PAGD, CO2 and Water Vapor Resent-Message-ID: <"LudjX.0.9g1.Riabo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2299 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Some more thoughts: Combustion could be triggered immediately in the environment of the arc: 120 V 120 V ---/\/\/\---- Isolation Transformers ---/\/\/\---- ====== ====== ---/\/\/\------------- ------------/\/\/\---- | arc-> * ::::: * <- arc | ---------------------- ---------------------- | HV discharge | | between arcs | CO2 + H2O atmosphere | | --------- HV Supply -------- Th HV supply could be high frequency HV to create an ionizing spark discharge to ensure oxidation in the fringe area of the arcs. The arc circuits could include rectification if necessary. The arcs could be fed CO2 and water vapor if necessary, i.e. if not sufficiently available in environment of enclosure. Possibly one of the arcs could be replaced by a metal plate. Such a plate maybe could be made a cathode plate and DC used in the power supply to increase the gas yield. The objective is to generate excess heat with this device and directly recycle the CO2. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 20:32:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA24562; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 20:07:14 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 20:07:14 -0800 (PST) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 23:05:56 -0500 Message-ID: <961122230556_1552835983@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Correa Device Resent-Message-ID: <"F7Si.0.d_5.WXdbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2303 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gentlemen, it's fine to work with the Correa device, but as with the attempts to replicate the Patterson beads and the Wright flyer, please study the patents. Doug Marett is encountering problems with sputtering. I believe the Correas did also, but have workarounds which I haven't dug into. The PAGD phenomenon depends in part on the work function of the electrodes, and the presence of intense field emission (autoelectronic emission) under conditions not predicted by accepted theory. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 22 23:33:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA02699; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:34:17 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:34:17 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Pd-B Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 01:23:35 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3296a191.7443331@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199611201507.HAA10068@mail.eskimo.com> In-Reply-To: <199611201507.HAA10068@mail.eskimo.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.330 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"wlfrQ2.0.1g.Bsyao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2246 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:01:43 -0700, Thomas N. Claytor wrote: >According to McKubre's group, dilute alloys of Boron in Palladium occupy= the >same octahedral sites as the hydrogen or deuterium. Their original = argument >was that the Boron occupies these sites and so less loading is required = to >obtain a "fully loaded" Pd-D lattice. I don't think this is a currently >held view, but as far as anyone knows (I doubt any work has been done to >confirm this), the Boron is interstitial rather than substitutional and >randomly distributed. Thanks. In the case of it being interstitial, is there any correlation between boron concentration, and produced power? (I would expect an almost linear relationship for low concentrations). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 00:56:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA08268; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 00:52:43 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 00:52:43 -0800 (PST) Date: 23 Nov 96 03:51:01 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Query Message-ID: <961123085100_100060.173_JHB79-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"fnxBn.0.x02.Ojhbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2304 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Colin, >> I believe it can be fed directly into a Briggs and Stratton IC engine. It is in a gaseous state so it does not need to be atomized. Remove the carburetor. The regulated mix is 3-5 air to 1 fuel. << I have a feeling that it is not quite as simple as that! For a start you still have to regulate the flow of both the fuel gas and air to keep the a/f ratio reasonably constant. Also it might be advisable to prevent back-fires setting off the whole fuel storage and pipework contents. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 07:09:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA12603; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 19:26:38 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 19:26:38 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa Reactor- metals and gases Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 03:25:05 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3299684b.20993603@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199611221716.MAA09546@caracas.terraport.net> In-Reply-To: <199611221716.MAA09546@caracas.terraport.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.330 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"3pK5o3.0.f43.Oxcbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2302 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:16:58 -0500, Douglas M. Marett wrote: [snip] >Mr. Spaandonk suggests hydrogen, which I have been reluctant to try = because >of its explosiveness! > >Doug Marett > > Given the very low pressure in the tube, I wouldn't think that there = would be much gas to worry about. Therefore even if it did explode, it = shouldn't be much of a problem. Furthermore, I meant pure hydrogen, not a hydrogen air mixture. =46illing the tube in the first place, would of course require some care. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 07:44:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA12484; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 19:26:05 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 19:26:05 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Pd-B Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 03:25:08 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <329a69ec.21411168@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <3.0b36.32.19961121074328.006d71d8@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0b36.32.19961121074328.006d71d8@world.std.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.330 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"hnrKR1.0.y23.ywcbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2301 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 21 Nov 1996 07:43:35 -0500, Mitchell Swartz wrote: [snip] > Alloys up to 7 atomic weight % appear to be single phase alloys. >>From about 13-16% two phase alloys. They anneal by 700C, and=20 >were reported by A. Sievertz, K. Bruning., Z. physik. Chem, 168, 1934, = p412. > > Xray analysis has suggested hexagonal structure, but the papers >are older, cf. J.H.Buddery, A. Welch, Nature, 167, 1951, p362. >They may not have separated out all of the components observed >at other atomic weight distributional phases, including those >relevant here. > [snip] I think this is going to require a trip to the library. Thanks Mitchell. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 08:23:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA25722 for billb@eskimo.com; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:23:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:23:56 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: joeflynn@delphi.delphi.com Sat Nov 23 08:23:53 1996 Received: from bos1h.delphi.com (SYSTEM@[199.93.4.8]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA25679 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:23:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.delphi.com (1073744992@bix.com) by delphi.com (PMDF V5.0-7 #10880) id <01IC6MB211JK95P8V8@delphi.com> for vortex-l@eskimo.com; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:23:53 -0500 (EST) Old-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 11:23:24 -0500 From: joeflynn@delphi.delphi.com (Charles J. Flynn) Subject: Re: NOT WHETHER BUT HOW YOU SPIN X-Sender: joeflynn@pop.delphi.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-id: <01IC6MB57FZ695P8V8@delphi.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Mark, I've been out of town the last couple of weeks. I'll E-mail you some info this weekend. My post's to Vortex have not been making it through lately, something must be awry. I will e-mail directly to you. Following is also a response to Horace that did not seem to make it through. The inconsistancy in sucessfully sending posts to Vortex makes for confusing dialog. >> >>If you would like a diagram of the actual coil arrangement >>email me and I'll send or fax you a thousand word picture. >>If you have a scope available, wrap the coil as described, move >>a small magnet back and forth over the coil, you'll see the >>induced voltage. >> >>Joe Flynn > > >Joe, > >Moving a small magnet back and forth over the coil is totally different >from the originally described rotating magnets because you are generating >an AC output by changing the net amount of magnetic flux going *through* >the coil. Another way to look at it is that you are creating a momentary >imblance in the number of lines of flux cutting the coil per second. Each >complete pass of the magnet over the coil should produce *two* pulses one + >and one - pulse. If you time it right and don't go completely over the >coil you can merge the two adjacent + peaks and the two adjacent - peaks >into a single pair of + and - peaks so it looks like the waveform is in >synch with the hand motion, but it is actually 90 degrees out of phase. > >In the orginal case of the rotating magnets (assuming they are very uniorm) >there is complete balance at all times - so you should get no induced >current. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > >JOEFLYNN@delphi.com wrote: > >Horace, I was simply demonstrating that an EMF would be induced in the coil as I >described it. Therefore any change in B in the original experiment would produce an >EMF in the coil. Only three things will effect the EMF..a change in B, a change in the >rate at which B is cut, or a change in the number of turns in the coil. Remember 90 >degrees is for a perfect hypothetical coil without capacitance or resistance, and in >practice is always less than 90 degrees out of phase. >> >> The above is from a paper I am publishing in the near future >> "External Magnetic Effects on Current Loops in Stationary >> Magnetic Fields". It is based on 25 years of study and >> experimentation on this subject. Anyone wanting further >> information on the publication or more accurate coil >> configuration for the above experiment E-mail >> joeflynn@delphi.com > >Hi Joe, >I would like further information on the the above. >Any help would be appriciated! >Mark > >email to: >mmans@aeneas.net > > **************E-MAIL CONTENTS: COPYRIGHTS APPLY FLYNN RESEARCH INC******************** Joe Flynn E-mail joeflynn@delphi.com Flynn Research Inc. Fax (816)537-5950 P.O. Box 11657 Kansas City, Mo. 64138 **************************************************************************** ********** From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 08:45:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA28241; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 13:24:35 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 13:24:35 -0800 (PST) From: RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com (Chuck Davis) Date: 22 Nov 96 10:28:41 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <961122174354_72240.1256_EHB72-1@CompuServe.COM> (by: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>) Message-ID: Subject: Re: Definitely plugged Organization: ROSHI Corporation X-Mailer: MiniMail 1.4b (2.7.96) (c) 1996 by Pelle Claesson of TheEnd Amiga (http://www.lls.se/~volley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"ZrP-c1.0.Av6.EdXbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2295 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 22 Nov 96 12:43 -0500 (+0300), Jed Rothwell wrote to me: > To: William Beaty >INTERNET:billb@eskimo.com; Vortex > Bill: > I sent a few messages after those two . . . Vortex is definitely plugged = up. > No big deal. I was trying to tell Barry that CETI cells produce as much h= eat > as they ever did. > This is a test message to you and Vortex. Testing, 1, 2, 3 . . . Do you r= ead > me? > I do not think there is a 1-day delay. The dates and times of the last 10 > messages are not that long. I think something is eating up messages. > - Jed FYI This message was received here at 10:25 am local time.... -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------= \-- RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre mind= s. -Albert Einstein- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 09:02:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA03137; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:51:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:51:37 -0800 (PST) From: RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com (Chuck Davis) Date: 23 Nov 96 08:50:08 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: (by: RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com (Chuck Davis)) Message-ID: Subject: Re2: Definitely plugged Organization: ROSHI Corporation X-Mailer: MiniMail 1.4b (2.7.96) (c) 1996 by Pelle Claesson of TheEnd Amiga (http://www.lls.se/~volley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"ieMZg3.0.vm.Mkobo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2305 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 22 Nov 96 10:28 -0800, Chuck Davis wrote to me: > On 22 Nov 96 12:43 -0500 (+0300), Jed Rothwell wrote to me: >> To: William Beaty >INTERNET:billb@eskimo.com; Vortex >> Bill: >> I sent a few messages after those two . . . Vortex is definitely plugged= up. >> No big deal. I was trying to tell Barry that CETI cells produce as much = heat >> as they ever did. >> This is a test message to you and Vortex. Testing, 1, 2, 3 . . . Do you = read >> me? >> I do not think there is a 1-day delay. The dates and times of the last 1= 0 >> messages are not that long. I think something is eating up messages. >> - Jed > FYI This message was received here at 10:25 am 11/22 LA local time.... This time it's 8:46 am. Looks like 22+ hrs. -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------= \-- RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre mind= s. -Albert Einstein- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 09:18:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA08051; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 09:08:57 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 09:08:57 -0800 (PST) From: RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com (Chuck Davis) Date: 23 Nov 96 09:07:24 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: (by: RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com (Chuck Davis)) Message-ID: Subject: Re3: Definitely plugged Organization: ROSHI Corporation X-Mailer: MiniMail 1.4b (2.7.96) (c) 1996 by Pelle Claesson of TheEnd Amiga (http://www.lls.se/~volley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"Ps2wh2.0.iz1.e-obo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2306 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 23 Nov 96 8:50 -0800, Chuck Davis wrote to me: > On 22 Nov 96 10:28 -0800, Chuck Davis wrote to me: >> On 22 Nov 96 12:43 -0500 (+0300), Jed Rothwell wrote to me: >>> To: William Beaty >INTERNET:billb@eskimo.com; Vortex >>> Bill: >>> I sent a few messages after those two . . . Vortex is definitely plugge= d up. >>> No big deal. I was trying to tell Barry that CETI cells produce as much= heat >>> as they ever did. >>> This is a test message to you and Vortex. Testing, 1, 2, 3 . . . Do you= read >>> me? >>> I do not think there is a 1-day delay. The dates and times of the last = 10 >>> messages are not that long. I think something is eating up messages. >>> - Jed >> FYI This message was received here at 10:25 am 11/22 LA local time.... > This time it's 8:46 am. Looks like 22+ hrs. OK. Ten minutes ;*\ Looks like the speed of light keeps changing at my location.... -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------= \-- RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' You don't have to swim faster than the shark, you just have to swim faster than the guy next to you- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 11:18:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA09081; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 10:58:30 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 10:58:30 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 09:59:31 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Correa Reactor Resent-Message-ID: <"JHsvZ.0.oD2.Kbqbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2307 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >I have found it difficult to construct a Correa >Reactor >which can sustain pulsations without continuous maintenance. [snip] > >Doug Marett > Earlier I wrote: "Suggest copper electrodes, helium gas should increase lifetime, but maybe change arc characteristics undesirably. You might also want to want to try molybdenum or even a molybdenum-steel alloy if Mo not available to you. I suspect Mo to be a good choice because it requires a high current density to maintain arc stability. High arc stability is *not* what you are looking for, so Mo should be a good choice." Which was meant to read: "Suggest copper electrodes, helium gas. This should increase lifetime, but maybe change arc characteristics undesirably. You might also want to want to try molybdenum or even a molybdenum-steel alloy if Mo not available to you. I suspect Mo to be a good choice because it requires a high current density to maintain arc stability. High arc stability is *not* what you are looking for, so Mo should be a good choice." On further thought I would suggest argon gas. Xenon might be better, but infeasible in production due to cost. There is an unlimited supply of argon in the atmosphere. In earlier rantings I hypothesized a mechanism by which ZPE might be extracted in as collision betwen an H+ ion and a noble gas like Xe, Ar, or He. It is even possible such interactions may be useful to the PAGD energy production, as Ar constitutes 0.9 percent of the atmosphere and would be present as an impurity in glass, metal electrodes, etc. Using hydrogen could not be expected to increase the liftime of the PAGD, but a mixture of H2 and Ar may generate a much more substantial o-u effect, and justify the H2 maintenance problem. To more directly answer your question, using Ar with molybdenum electrodes should greatly increase the lifetime. It would be another interresting experiment to run with hot electrodes, to see if they would automatically degas. As to the H2 + noble gas experiment, I should mention that I called every neon sign person in a 100 mile radius (not really a big distance in Alaska, but that constitutes half the poulation of the state) to find one who would attempt an H2/Xe or H2/Ar mixture to try out my ZPE extraction idea. After further consideration he later objected to using H2 and suggested maybe I would like to pursue it on my own. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 11:54:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA18162; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:34:14 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:34:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611231933.LAA15520@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:33:44 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: D2 in glow discharge Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"sM9Bp2.0.dR4.o6rbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2308 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Lots of folks, including myself, have been running D2 in GD tubes for a few years now. No problem in handiling it. Russ George From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 11:56:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA23198; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 09:28:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 09:28:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:16:58 -0500 Message-Id: <199611221716.MAA09546@caracas.terraport.net> X-Sender: marett@mail.terraport.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: marett@terraport.net (Douglas M. Marett) Subject: Correa Reactor- metals and gases Resent-Message-ID: <"7yTI-3.0.Lg5.iAUbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2293 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner said: > Suggest copper electrodes, helium gas should increase lifetime, but maybe >change arc characteristics undesirably. You might also want to want to try >molybdenum or even a molybdenum-steel alloy if Mo not available to you. I >suspect Mo to be a good choice because it requires a high current density >to maintain arc stability. High arc stability is *not* what you are >looking for, so Mo should be a good choice. >From the Correa PCT application WO94/03918, the Correas discuss the metals suitable for PAGD production. The best are aluminum, zinc, nickel, and iron. Silver and caesium also worked. Copper could be made to work only using argon or helium tube filing, not air, and only in a narrow pressure window. I don't know whether molybdenum would work. Is it capable of sputtering? Michael Schaffer said: > The abnormal glow regime always (by definition of 'abnormal glow') >accelerates ions to the cathode through a large potential drop. This is >how one class of commercial sputtering devices is made. Try helium. >Lighter atoms sputter less than heavy. The fact is, Ar is the usual >working gas in commercial sputtering. > Helium usually escapes from near surface implantation layers more >rapidly than either Ne or Ar. He might help reduce your gas pressure >variations. As for the use of helium, this sounds like it might work, but I was advised against this by the University of Toronto glass blowers as they said that helium is capable of diffusing through pyrex, and thus is unsuitable for stable tube filing. If this could be prevented, then it could be a solution. Mr. Spaandonk suggests hydrogen, which I have been reluctant to try because of its explosiveness! Doug Marett From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 12:20:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA26038; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:05:37 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:05:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611232004.MAA20301@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:05:07 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: How about this for off topic Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"VQXws3.0.iM6.Darbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2310 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >From today's Washington Post electronic edition. "An Israeli military court has convicted four soldiers of negligently shooting to death an 18-year-old Palestinian in the West Bank. The sentence? One hour in jail and a fine of one Israeli agora, less than one-third of a U.S. cent." Once in awhile some act really gets to me and about all I can do is try to see that the act is witnessed by people so that maybe the villans will think twice about doing it again. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 12:21:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA25528; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:03:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:03:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:01:18 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Simple(and small) is beautiful In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Bppg52.0.mE6.2Yrbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2309 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 21 Nov 1996 wl0170@cnsvax.albany.edu wrote: > I agree with Colin Quinney that simple devices are what we needed. > Simplicity more often means fundamental and robust process. It is even > more important in this transitional period, where confusion and chaos > seems to be the normal. > To me, simplest device would be one with no moving parts, no burning, > no fancy manufacturing process, this limits down to circuits and magnets. > How about Smith coil? This is a caduceus (double) winding. Anyone with > information regarding Smith or Russell's work in this area(like web > sites)? With my modest means, I need a simple and small project to begin > expereimenting with. > I heard a lot of talks about space energy. Jeane Manning's book The > Coming Energy Revolution, Brain Oleary's Miracle in The Void are excellent, > if you haven't read them already. But I never saw a actual working > device. OK, maybe its my fault, for I didn't really search hard for them > in the past. I have to make a living for the family. > But if any of this new energy stuff is true, which I tend to > believe(They can't be all liers), then I will kick > myself for the rest of my life if I do not put myself into the front > line. I want to serve human and earth more than anything else. I believe > many vorterxian have this energy revolution as one of > their main goal in life, what James Redfield calls Birth Vision in his > book Tenth Insight. Right now I am looking for the close encounter of first > kind. (Yes space brothers, you are welcome to my neighborhood too) Doing > is Being. Do it or see it myself. > > BTW, I am a solid state physicist in training. I did most of my research > work on X-ray scattering study of crystals and superconductivity. > > There is nothing but reality > > Xiaobo Kan > > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 12:29:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA29095; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:17:54 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:17:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961123152958.0071e010@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:30:21 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Query Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"9rFKy1.0.W67.mlrbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2311 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:51 AM 11/23/96 EST, you wrote: >Colin, > >>> I believe it can be fed directly into a Briggs and Stratton IC engine. It >is in a gaseous state so it does not need to be atomized. >Remove the carburetor. The regulated mix is 3-5 air to 1 fuel. << > >I have a feeling that it is not quite as simple as that! > >For a start you still have to regulate the flow of both the fuel gas and air to >keep the a/f ratio reasonably constant. Also it might be advisable to prevent >back-fires setting off the whole fuel storage and pipework contents. > >Norman > You are correct. It is much more complex. There's also the filtering of the carbon particles, and fuel compression, canister selection, fittings, just generally a whole bog of stuff. Safety is of primary concern.....CQ. > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 13:38:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA11910; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 13:02:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 13:02:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961123161414.006fdb20@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 16:14:42 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Missing Messages Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"brOK91.0.zv2.OPsbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2312 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Yo Vo: Here's two more messages from Horace that didn't get through to Vortex yesterday that he forwarded to me. I would have posted them earlier but with 5 of us in this household using the computer, and all of us on different shifts, we all have to take a number. Sometimes it just doesn't work.......Colin Quinney. X-From_: hheffner@anc.ak.net Fri Nov 22 19:49 EST 1996 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:50:56 -0800 To: quinney@inforamp.net From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: get C from the atmospheres Content-Length: 2758 This was posted some hours ago but did not show up so here's a personal copy: >At 10:42 PM 11/21/96 -0500, you wrote: >>Colin, I it takes energy to remove the C from CO2. It fact it takes as much >>or more than the energy liberated when the c was burned. >> >>Frank Z >> > >Well Frank, of course it does, that is a given. But this 'is' Vortex, after >all....and we are discussing the possibility of O/U in an AquaFuel >generator in an area where there was no large local supply of >carbon..Horace's home State of Alaska. Anyway it was Horace's idea, not mine. >Actually, I thought it was a very good idea. Thanks Colin. Yes Frank, I know it takes energy to remove the carbon. The point is renewable energy storage/shipping in the form of carbon or hydrocarbons, vs the more popular present concepts using H2. Or maybe using AquaFuel etc. as an intermediary step in producing the H2 instead of using electrolysis directly. Mining the atmosphere instead of the ground is also much more benign because it creates a balance. BTW Alaska is *loaded* with coal - giant reserves. Few people here are interested in polluting the water or creating eyesores to get at it though. There is an effort underway to open a coal mine near Palmer. At the first sign of pollution the courts will be busy for years. > >Then I thought a better one: Remove the carbon from the 'combustion' >exhaust, instead of the air, and process 'that' into new electrodes. >(remember, this is Vortex!) >But before I could post it, Horace beat me to the punch with an even >better one. The exhaust gases, as primarily CO2, can be supplied directly >through hollow metal tubes to the Arc. That does away with the carbon >electrodes altogether. >Horace's modification could add an additional factor into the equation, >however; the extra oxygen being introduced from the CO2, might make the >gas unstable,... combustion at the source (Arc),...or worse yet, in the >compressed canisters. Ideally, combustion would occur only where you wanted >it, like Brown's gas, but I wouldn't want to try it. The AquaFuel gas >analysis would certainly be different. It wouldn't be AquaFuel anymore >...(Hmmm... Interesting...) > >Colin Quinney. Yes, sounds like it might be worth an experiment or two. Some more thoughts - mix steam and CO2 and feed to the arc. Maybe you don't need to put underwater. Could use a sealed chamber to enclose the arc, with piston or turbine feeds into and out of the chamber to recapture the heat energy. Might be useful to use resistance element preheated electrodes to generate the arc. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 (CQ)The second message from Horace follows: X-From_: hheffner@anc.ak.net Fri Nov 22 19:48 EST 1996 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:50:40 -0800 To: quinney@inforamp.net From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: PAGD, CO2 and Water Vapor Content-Length: 806 Here's another post that did not show up: Synthesizing - why not combine the attributes of PAGD and Water Gas. Use molybdenum electrodes with CO2 and water vapor for the gas. The thinking behind this is basically that if there is an o-u characteristic to carbon and water in an arc, such a characteristic should show up in an arc through CO2 and H2O because, in part, these ground state ingredients will decompose in an arc. It may even be possible to combine a low voltage arc in the same enclosure with PAGD type electrodes. The HV PAGD oscillations should get an extra kick from the oxidation of the products created in the arc. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 13:56:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA18017; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 13:27:41 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 13:27:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 14:28:35 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Query Resent-Message-ID: <"_zLoF2.0.OP4.5nsbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2313 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Re: >>> I believe it can be fed directly into a Briggs and Stratton IC engine. It >is in a gaseous state so it does not need to be atomized. >Remove the carburetor. The regulated mix is 3-5 air to 1 fuel. << > >I have a feeling that it is not quite as simple as that! > >For a start you still have to regulate the flow of both the fuel gas and air Try consulting with a local supplier of propane for fork lift trucks; the necessary technology ought to be very similar to propane IC engines. 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 Nov 23 13:57:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA18411; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 13:29:25 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 13:29:25 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 14:30:27 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: Correa Reactor- metals and gases Resent-Message-ID: <"mFmlT2.0.VV4.iosbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2314 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Re: >As for the use of helium, this sounds like it might work, but >I was advised against this by the University of Toronto glass blowers as they >said that helium is capable of diffusing through pyrex, and thus is >unsuitable for stable tube filling. Yes, He does diffuse, but it is slow. The tube will last for some years. 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 Nov 23 15:40:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA17589; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:11:17 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:11:17 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: D2 in glow discharge Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 23:10:29 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3298834a.5628092@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199611231933.LAA15520@mom.hooked.net> In-Reply-To: <199611231933.LAA15520@mom.hooked.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.334 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"ysH_D3.0.iI4.JIubo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2315 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:33:44 +0000, Russ George wrote: >Lots of folks, including myself, have been running D2 in GD tubes for=20 >a few years now. No problem in handiling it.=20 > >Russ George > > Ok Russ, how about a hint of the sort of results you have been getting? = :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 15:56:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA23141; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 18:10:04 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 18:10:04 -0800 (PST) From: alansch@zip.com.au (Alan Schneider) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa Reactor- metals and gases Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 03:19:52 GMT Message-ID: <32966a5a.1066753@mail.zip.com.au> References: <199611221716.MAA09546@caracas.terraport.net> In-Reply-To: <199611221716.MAA09546@caracas.terraport.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/16.299 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"1RHDf3.0.Rf5.mpbbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2300 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:16:58 -0500, marett@terraport.net (Douglas M. Marett) wrote: [Horace Heffner's contribution snipped] [discussion of suitable metals snipped] [Michael Schaffer's contribution snipped] _>As for the use of helium, this sounds like it might work, but _>I was advised against this by the University of Toronto glass=20 _>blowers as they said that helium is capable of diffusing through _>pyrex, and thus is unsuitable for stable tube filing. If this could=20 _>be prevented, then it could be a solution. How about He-Ne gas lasers? What sort of glass do they use as=20 an envelope? I don't think there is any problem there with the helium diffusing out of those tubes. Is there any rule or requirement=20 for the use of pyrex? There are hundreds of differently formulated glasses around, one must be suitable for use with helium. _>Mr. Spaandonk suggests hydrogen, which I have been=20 _>reluctant to try because of its explosiveness! Hydrogen, in and of itself and by itself, is not explosive. The presence of oxygen is required to make an explosive mixture.=20 There is no reason why it wouldn't work in a discharge tube.=20 In fact I have a vague recollection of reading about its use in=20 some class of gaseous thermionic tube years ago. HV rectifier=20 perhaps?=20 Although, being a smaller atom than helium, it is probably=20 even more likely to diffuse through pyrex. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams that Stuff is made of. - Michael Sinz =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 18:02:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA10549; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 17:55:04 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 17:55:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611240154.RAA10502@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: 101256@wxvax9.esa.lanl.gov X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 19:52:53 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Thomas N. Claytor" Subject: Re: Pd-B Resent-Message-ID: <"bPJz63.0.ia2.thwbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2316 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Thanks. In the case of it being interstitial, is there any correlation >between boron concentration, and produced power? (I would expect an >almost linear relationship for low concentrations). >Regards, >Robin van Spaandonk McKubre added both boron (as boric acid) and Aluminum (aluminum foil) to the cells to try and stimulate the heat production, but as far as I know, once again it was not as reproducible as we would like. Ed Storms also tried a 5% boron alloy (for excess heat) with little effect. However the 5% alloy when tried with our plasma system showed a small tritium production. So we are planning on running a more dilute alloy, 0.1%. Thus, for excess heat I don't think there exists a relationship, but I think we will get an inverse relationship similar to the effect for Pd Rh alloys (tritium production increases with decreasing Rh (from 10% to 0.l%)), but of course, at some point it would have to decrease with decreasing Rh. Thomas N. Claytor Los Alamos National Laboratory ESA-MT, MS C914 Los Alamos NM, 87545 505-667-6216 voice 505-665-7176 fax From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 18:29:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA20601; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 18:25:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 18:25:26 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961124023018.0071e5a4@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, 23 Nov 1996 18:30:18 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Query Resent-Message-ID: <"uaebZ3.0.j15.K8xbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2317 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:51 AM 11/23/96 EST, you wrote: >Colin, > >>> I believe it can be fed directly into a Briggs and Stratton IC engine. It >is in a gaseous state so it does not need to be atomized. >Remove the carburetor. The regulated mix is 3-5 air to 1 fuel. << > >I have a feeling that it is not quite as simple as that! > >For a start you still have to regulate the flow of both the fuel gas and air to >keep the a/f ratio reasonably constant. Forklifts have butterfly valves that might be useful for that. I stopped by a place that repairs them, and they gave me a used one for free. Gary From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 20:10:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA03140; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 00:57:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 00:57:11 -0800 (PST) Date: 20 Nov 96 11:48:23 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: CETI demo in the press Message-ID: <961120164822_76570.2270_FHU40-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"W3wPO1.0.zm.cb1bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2249 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Apparently the first media coverage of the CETI demo was C&EN. Chemical & Engineering News ran a story on the CETI Research Kits, 1/2 page, page 9, November 18, 1996: ********** "Cold fusion' device hits the market [Begin Italics] Ladies and gentlemen: Now you can create metals in your very own laboratory! Change nickel into iron, silver, copper, magnesium, chromium, and other elements--without messy radioactive byproducts! Watch for yourself as the amazing electrolytic cell transmutes elements and produces heat! Be the first to figure out how the low-temperature nuclear reaction works! [End of italics] That's right, for only $3,750 anyone can own the Patterson Power Cell research kit, produced by Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETI) based in Dallas. The system was discussed last month in Hokkaido, Japan, at the 6th International Conference on Cold Fusion and was on display last week at the American Nuclear Society's Nuclear Technology Expo in Washington, DC. CETI was founded in 1995 to epxloit the patented technology developed by industrial chemist James A. Patterson, the firm's chairman of the board and chief scientist. His cell electrolyzes a lithium sulfate solution as it flows past tiny polymer beads coated with nickel or palladium or both. The device produces excess heat and trasnmutes the metal coating the micropheres, CETI claims. Recently, Patterson has been collaborating with George H. Miley, professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Their description of the device's nuclear transmutations was just published in Infinite Energy, a magazine devoted to promoting cold fusion. "We don't understand the mechanism," says CETI President and Chief Executive Officer James W. Reding. "We're selling the kits to get the technology out into other people's labs so they can prove it is real and help us understand the novel fundamental nuclear reactions that don't produce any harmful nuclear by-products." Reding tells C&EN that the company launched the kits on November 10 and had orders for 60 within three days. But some skeptical scientists say they don't need any equipment to reach a conclusion on the validity of the CETI claims. "They have simply misread the obvious evidence that extended electrolysis results in significant levels of contamination of the microspheres," nuclear physicist Richard A. Blue tells C&EN. Retired form the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Blue has followed the cold fusion controversy for years. "Any knowledgeable person can confirm thet the data presented by Miley and Patterson demonstrate the presence of silicon, calcium, titanium, and chromium in the proper natural abundance ratios," Blue continues. "Once you accept that fact, their argument in favor of transmutations goes out the window." Pamela Zurer [The article has a photo by Zurer of Patterson with the cell set up] Caption: Patterson with a new version of his power cell. ******** There are at least three other news organizations that appear to be planning stories on the CETI demo. Stay tuned. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 21:53:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA18305; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 21:35:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 21:35:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 21:34:37 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty Reply-To: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Interesting WWW site Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"el7sC2.0.mT4.3wzbo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2318 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I found this site while NOT searching for 'vortex' keyword! Sounds like more people being paid to have fun. http://www.ifdt.uh.edu/vtc/ U. of Houston Vortex Technology Center n.b. the disturbingly Yusmarlike device described. .....................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 Vortex Propulsion Current Projects * Vortex Thruster * Detonation Pulsejet Engine * Liquid Piston Engine * Metal Combustion Engine Metal Combustion Engine (MCE) This metal combustion engine (already designed and developed) uses the highly exothermic reaction in a vortex chamber of pure aluminum with water as the energy source for underwater and air propulsion. The device permits controlled aluminum combustion by exploiting swirling flow features and innovative grinding techniques. This engine can provide a 50% increase in power to weight ratio as compared to conventional turbines using hydrocarbon fuels. Furthermore, the use of aluminum as a fuel results in complete elimination of toxic emissions, thus making MCE an environment friendly technology. The design and development of this project was funded partly by DARPA and ONR. Further testing of air and water MCE versions continues in collaboration with Allied Signal and ONR. Click here for more! Vortex Thruster (VT) This wingless device generates high lift to enable vertical takeoff, hovering and cruising while generating minimal noise and vibration. A sq.mt device can generate 4 tons of thrust while consuming a fraction of the energy used by a conventional jet engine (for the same passenger capacity), thus producing a substantially enhanced efficiency. The basic working principle of this invention is to create a strong tornado-like swirling flow to produce low pressure above a lifting surface, which generates thrust. Physically, the difference between conventional jet propulsion and our thruster is that in the former the net force and power required are determined only by the axial velocity component. In VT, thrust is generated by reversed entrained flow, enhanced by turbulence, so that a relatively small amount of power is required. This novel device can potentially replace helicopters and can be easily mounted on aircraft and marine vessels. A laboratory scale model has been developed and tested to serve as a proof-of-concept. Discussions are in progress with McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed-Martin for joint research on this project. Click here for more! Detonation Pulsejet Engine This valveless engine design effectively achieves high compression ratios and propulsion efficiency while assuring complete combustion (reducing NOx emissions) using a novel shock wave resonator. High thermal and propulsion efficiency and reduced specific fuel consumption (by at least 40% compared to conventional turbojet engines) are among the remarkable features of this invention. Compression ratios under optimal regimes are estimated at 60:1 and effective thrust at 60kN. It can be incorporated in wings or in ailerons on airplanes for use as wing-tip stabilizers and altitude controllers. This engine is an efficient alternative to or replacement of current turbojet engines used for commercial and military flight. Click here for more! Liquid Piston Engine (LPE) A unique internal combustion engine with no moving mechanical parts, leading to higher efficiency lower friction and decreased maintenance has been invented and a cold prototype has been tested at UH. The LPE uses a swirling liquid as a piston and a flywheel whose kinetic energy is tapped using hydromotors. The LPE has been designed for use in automobile engines and may work even better for marine propulsion. The initial development of the cold prototype was funded by DARPA. Further funding is being sought from DARPA and from the Ford Motor Company. Click here for more! [INLINE] Home About Opportunities People Map Home About Opportunities People Map VTCLogo UH Logo This page is a part of the VTC , located at the University of Houston's Mechanical Engineering department. Questions and comments regarding the contents of this site can be addressed to: wmaster@www.ifdt.uh.edu. Power Generation Current Projects * Single Stage Two-Fluid Turbine * Ocean Thermal Energy Converter * Aluminum Vortex Fuel Cell * Vortex Nuclear Reactor Single Stage Two-Fluid Turbine (SST) This innovative, single-stage, compact, inexpensive vapor/liquid turbine with an eccentric impeller and a rotating liquid ring offers efficient conversion of thermal and kinetic energy stored in vapor, vapor/liquid or liquid flows to mechanical energy. This turbine is promising for exploiting vast geothermal energy in the Texas coast' underground. Unlike conventional turbines which operate by increasing the kinetic energy of the expanding fluid (e.g. steam), our design uses expanding gases to impart kinetic energy to a rotating liquid ring which then produces work as in a hydraulic turbine. The high density fluid of the liquid ring transfers as much energy in a single stage of expansion as conventional turbines do with low density steam in many stages. The flexibility of the design allows the turbine to be driven by a heated pressurized liquid or a compressed vapor, or a vapor/liquid combination. This invention offers an environmentally safe use of fossil fuels. The ability of the device to operate with poor quality steam makes it especially well suited for applications involving the recovery of economic geothermal and geopressured energies (in abundant storage in the Texas coast). Additional funding will be sought from the U.S. Department of Energy. Click here for more! Ocean Thermal Energy Converter (OTEC) We have developed a new Ocean Thermal Energy Converter (OTEC) which utilizes air as the working fluid, air bubbles as efficient heat exchangers between air and water, and sonic wave in two-phase media as the energy carrier for the thermodynamic cycle, and directly transforms sonic wave energy into electrical energy. The estimated efficiency of the proposed OTEC is twice that from traditional systems. Even more significant is the drastic reduction in construction and maintenance cost due to reduced volume and absence of heat exchangers and rotating machinery. We plan to commercialize our OTEC Technology via licenses to Texas companies. A huge untapped market along the large Texas and US coastlines, together with UH membership within the Latin American Development Council positions us to take a leadership role in developing a floating demonstration plant. Click here for more! Aluminum Vortex Fuel Cell (AVFC) Our design of this compact, powerful and durable electrical power source uses abundantly available aluminum for chemical to electrical energy conversion. This allows a significant increase in the power/volume ratio and life-times as compared to conventional fuel cells and batteries. The AVFC uses a centrifugal fluidized bed to increase chemical reaction surface areas, to prevent electrode passivation and to evacuate reaction products. They are ideal for application in electric and even conventional automobiles. DARPA, ONR, and Allied Signal are prospective collaborators. Click here for more! Vortex Nuclear Reactor (VNR) As this is also based on the same principle as the CCR, nuclear fuel pellets in a VNR will have large reaction area. Therefore, VNR requires smaller pellets than conventional nuclear reactors, thereby making it safer and more efficient. This is ideal for electric power generation and rocket propulsion. Click here for more! [INLINE] Home About Opportunities People Map Home About Opportunities People Map VTCLogo UH Logo This page is a part of the VTC , located at the University of Houston's Mechanical Engineering department. Questions and comments regarding the contents of this site can be addressed to: wmaster@www.ifdt.uh.edu. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 22:01:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA04483; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 06:27:34 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 06:27:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611211427.GAA04424@mail.eskimo.com> Date: 21 Nov 1996 09:05 EST Sender: "gene (g.) batten" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "gene (g.) batten" Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Resent-Message-ID: <"bqqR9.0.u51.FR6bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2257 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In message "AquaFuel.", you write: > From: Quinney > > > It was an ordinary carbon electric-arc in normal water. The environmentally > > friendly and car-engine friendly 'gas' given off by this process was > > collected, filtered, and compressed. > > It could be used in your automobile directly with only a very small > > modification to your engine,...NO pollutants. > > It was totally amazing. > > There are two possibilities here. > > 1) William Richardson has discovered a simple BUT OVERLOOKED > property of common materials. > > 2) This is the same water gas, made almost the same way, that we > used to cook with when I was much younger. (I remember when the local > gas company came around in the fifties changing burners nozzles for > "natural" gas instead of water gas.) Water gas is a mixture of carbon > monoxide and hydrogen. It can be made by passing steam over burning > coal or using an arc in water. Why did PG&E switch to natural gas? > Carbon monoxide is very nasty stuff, and the state basically forced the > conversion. > > > After being analyzed, it was also said to contain more than enough BTU > > energy to fuel an internal combustion engine to drive a generator to make > > the electricity to create the Arc, with lots left over. > > I am unfamiliar with electro-nuclear-chemistry theories that attempt to > > explain this anomaly. That were hinted at in the article, but I was hoping > > to read at least 'some' discussion about AquaFuel here on Vortex. > > My guess is that they didn't count the BTUs from the carbon > electrodes. Actually if these are normal "carbon" arc lamp > electrodes, they have metals added to reduce the (electrical) > resistance and to adjust the color temperature of the arc. Figuring > out a real energy balance would be quite tricky. > > > Robert I. Eachus Robert, I agree with you. Item #2 above is probably the correct evaluation of what is happening with the AqualFuel system. Yes, it would be tricky to do an energy balance on the system, allowing for the contribuiton of the carbon and metals within the carbon rod. I could also ask, "So what if it is shown NOT to be an Over Unity process?" If this process actually does produce a burnable gas that will power a car, if it is less expensive than gasoline, and if there are not other intolerable side effects, then I want one. I would like to know more about this process. Like: 1. what type of electricity is used? DC, pulsed DC, or AC? What voltages and current? 2. how much carbon and is it a "special" kind? 3. what flow rate is required to sustain combustion in a given size engine? You get the idea. If anyone on this list can add to this discussion, please do. Regards, Gene Batten mdleb@nortel.ca From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 23 23:08:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA19434; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:23:54 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:23:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: "RMCarrell@aol.com" , Vortex-L Subject: RE: Correas, Reich, and Marett Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:09:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"maNlJ.0.Yl4.XmGao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2210 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mike In view of the transmutation ideas flying around here, have the Correas checked their cathodes for other elements? Is there any chance of getting them active in our group? Are they still suffering from inventor's disease? I would think their proprietary interest would primarily be in the details of the tube construction, and they might be willing to be more open with respect to the science involved. It might be worth our while to ask them. -Hank Scudder ---------- From: RMCarrell@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Correas, Reich, and Marett Date: Monday, November 18, 1996 3:19PM Doug Marett has posted some information about his relationships with the Correas, and the work of Wilhem Reich. I have forwarded this to Correa and have at hand an 11 page open letter in reply, which I received by fax this morning. It contains details of the Correa's relationships with Marett and the evolution of the PAGD discoveries of the Correas. I will summarize the letter, with specific quotes as appropriate. The Correas met David and Douglas Marett in 1980, when they were 16, and have remained on good terms with David, but ceased being on speaking terms with Douglas in 1992. The Correas had helped Prof. E. Mann of York University to organize a conference of Reich's work in 1979, and had written essays on Reich's work, and built an Orgone accumulator. Mann requested that the Correas befriend the Maretts and help them with their interest in Reich's work, which at that time had been derived from popular magazines and not Reich's actual texts. Correa's interest in Reich began in his youth in Portugal. In 1979 they (Paulo and Alexandra) read Reich's communications about the "Orgone Motor", whch was referenced in their paper "Excess Energy (XS NRG (tm)) Conversion System Utilizing Autogenous Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (PAGD) published in the Proceedings of the Third Symposium on New Energy, and delivered at the same symposium. "In the paper we wrote 'Reich claimed to have discovered a spontaneous pulsatory activity in cold cathode diode sealed at high vacuum, and to have achieved oscillatory frequencies that reached >30Kc' ". NOTE: this a a refutation of Marett's charge that the Correas have not given credit to Reich's work. By early 1980, the Correas were building Vacor tubes and searching for the phenomena Reich described. By 1987 they succeeded in exceeding the pulsation rates Reich reported, attaining 120 Kcps in high vacuum tubes, corresponding to a regime which "...has nothing whatsoever to do with the PAGD regime...the discharge has neither the same waveform, nor does it utilize autoelectronic field emission, or employ abnormal glow discharge. The PAGD regime is a plasma regime that operates at low gas pressures, whereas the high-speed pulsations observed by Reich, and also by us, require a very high vacuum indeed." "Reich clearly stated that to 'start and operate' the 'Orgone motor' a 'factor Y' (which he never divulged) was required...All of the witnesses to Reich's 'Orgone motor'....reported that Reich did not drive his motor with Vacor tubes...it was driven from an accumulator". Marett's homepage shows a low power motor counter being driven by a "Vacor-type" tube. The Correas, on the other hand, achieve o/u energy without a motor, "Factor Y", and the "measurements with motors in our electromechanical patents show only entropic behavior". "The PAGD discovery is not Reich's work." Reich purposefully avoided production of X-rays, but the Correas in 1987 became interested in X-ray production for purposes of cleaning electrode assemblies used in their chemistry work. They "discovered that so-called Aurora tubes, with large area electrodes gave very good results indeed....In the process Alexandra and I ended up learning how to sustain indefinite X-ray production and achieve very clean vacua without ordinary electron bombardment...***It was during the course of this experimentation with X-ray production that we first dicovered the emission discontinuities characteristic of the PAGD regime***". Thus the discovery of the PAGD regime was not an outgrowth of duplication of Reich's work, but was in the course of another line of work altogether. The Correas went on to sudy all aspects of the PAGD regime and adopted three designs; coaxial (similar to a GM tube), planar (similar to the Vacor, but also analogus to many others), and a third with a point anode and large aluminum cathode. The Correa patents are not on the tube electrode configuration, nor on the metals used (which include aluminum in a list of many others), but "on the cold-cathode utilization of such devices for purposes of sustaining an autogenous pulsation in the abnormal glow discharge region by utilizing autoelectronic emissions." It is thus clear that a) the Correas helped the Maretts understand the work of Reich, b) have publicly referred to Reich's work, c) duplicated part of Reich's work and obtained performance greater than Reich's in certain areas, d) made independant discoveries in the course of work not related to Reich's, e) identified and characterized a plasma discharge regime which yields substantial o/u energy, and obtained several patents thereon. The similarities to Reich's devices cited by Marett are coincidences of structure, not of function, and are superficial. Marett has acknowledged: "I am not attempting to belittle the Correas work - I think that it may very well be an excellent piece of scientific work." In all scientific work, particularly in the matters of priority and inspiration, it is necessary to see from the viepoint of the actual inventor, for others may not see the actual sequence of events, and can draw wrong conclusions. IMHO there is room here for everyone to be right. And it seems that the work of Reich will be found to contain many interesting discoveries when seen from a present perepective. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 24 01:14:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA25317; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 08:57:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 08:57:58 -0800 (PST) Date: 19 Nov 96 11:55:18 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: Various comments about CETI Message-ID: <961119165518_72240.1256_EHB90-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"_kWad.0.VB6.LSUao"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2220 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex There have been various comments about CETI's policies and about the beads themselves. I am terribly busy today but I thought I would take a few minutes to relate some of what I learned from Patterson, Reding, Miley and others at ICCF6, to clear up some of these issues, and to relate some news and chit-chat. This is a long message because I do not have time to write a short one. John Steck asks "if CF is happening on an atomic level, why are macro structures being employed?" That's an interesting question. Chris Tinsley and Mike Carrell explained that the round shape is beneficial, and that the size is close to optimum. Other round-ish shapes might work, and very-much-smaller structures like palladium black particles have shown promise in CF. The beads may not be the last word, but they work better than other macroscopic substrates for thin film. You might ask a similar question about fission bombs: If the reaction happens atomic level, why get all worked up about precision macroscopic geometry and chemical processes? Why worry about explosives? Answer: because an atom bomb is a Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reaction (CANR) (what Ed Storms wants to call CF). Actually, you might call an atom bomb Mechanically Assisted, and increasingly people say that the mechanics of deuteron mobility within the metal is a critical point in CF . . . but I digress. Someone here asked what happened to the large CETI cell. I believe it stopped working after a few months because of conventional chemical problems. The intense local heat and the oxygen in the circulating water damaged the beads. This is a design weakness in a cell with multiple anodes and cathodes. It remains to be seen whether a more robust scaled-up cell can be built. The long term performance of larger, hotter cells has been unsatisfactory. This is one reason CETI has de-emphasized heat generation in favor of transmutation. Reding told me he thinks the cells would not be cost effective as a source of energy because they "burn nickel." This "burning" is not chemical, of course, but on the other hand it does not produce as much heat per unit of mass as fissioning uranium, perhaps because energy is lost in endothermic reactions. I disagreed with Reding's analysis. First, I do not think high cost has been conclusively demonstrated yet. Second, even a terribly expensive energy source can find certain critical niche markets, with thermoelectric generators (TEG). In my view it is much too early to de-emphasize energy applications. This is my opinion, but I believe CETI is also de-emphasizing the heat because they want to continue to maintain a low profile. They continue to say they hope cold fusion remains a quiet backwater of scientific research, for the reasons I have spelled out here previously. In conversations in Japan I did not get any sense that they have changed this low-profile strategy, or that they feel it is a mistake. They have opened up a little by selling 60 transmutation kits to qualified researchers. This is not calculated to excite wide-ranging public interest in the product. While we are on the subject of nuclear powered TEGs, they have been much in the news lately, as the Russians dropped a few somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. Yesterday on NPR there was a fascinating short piece on plutonium oxide spacecraft TEGs. The lady from NASA described the material as being like a ceramic coffee cup. If you drop it, it might shatter, but it would not turn to dust, and Pu dust is what would be dangerous. The TEG in its steel container is remarkably robust. Some years ago a U.S. weather monitoring satellite was launched from a Pacific base. It went haywire and had to be destroyed by remote control. They fished the TEG unit out of ocean and found it was still working fine, they used it in another spacecraft. NPR says that Jeremy Rifkin, a well known national gadfly, has sued the government to prevent the use of Pu TEG. He says they represent "a low probability, high risk threat" from accidentally powdered Pu. The fact that it is physically impossible to turn the stuff into powder -- even when you deliberately detonate the rocket -- cuts no ice with him. Rifkin once described cold fusion as being like giving a machine gun to a baby. I do not know of any reason to think that the present beads produce any less heat than the older ones, or any more heat for that matter. The demo in Washington was reportedly on the order of 1 watt in, 5 out. This is about the same as they the last few years in this power and temperature range. I expect that if they were to increase the mass of beads, raise the temperature and back off the input power after the reaction started, they would get the same spectacular input to output ratios we saw last year. That has been the technique all along. They simply do not feel like doing that. At ILENR2 Reding said that there is a large difference in performance from one batch to another, and from one cell to another. I don't think that every bead batch can produce the large ratios, but some can. Some of Miley's bead did too, which is why his Delta T was sometimes as high as 4 deg C. John Logajan wonders "if they can yet tune the beads for one result or the other, assuming they really work at all." I believe the answer is no, they cannot tune them. But they can try one batch after another. (And yes, they really do work, or else Patterson, Miley, Cravens et al. have gone crazy.) Martin Sevior writes: I agree that widespread verification of 100:1 heat gain would be more impressive than difficult measurements of the contents of a cathode that will naturally attract every positive ion. First, CETI does not appear to want widespread verification of that heat gain, as I said. Second, the galvanized gunk hypothesis ("cathodes attracting positive ions") cannot explain these results. At Bockris pointed out, that hypothesis is off by 20 orders of magnitude. Silver could could never get under the layers of metal of metal, especially not without leaving a trace at the surface. This is theoretically impossible, and Miley showed it does not happen experimentally, by adding silver. And, when you make beads with glass in the middle and nickel on the outside, the transmutations and heat are eliminated or muted. I do not see how the ions would care what is in the bead core. Third, this hypothesis cannot explain the excess heat, X-rays, or the isotope shifts. I do not think anyone here has seriously challenged those isotope shifts, despite Kennel & Merriman. Yes, questions have been raised, but knowing Miley as I do, I assume they will soon be answered. Merriman wrote: Actually, I predict that the kits they are selling will result in a sort of morass of confusion over transmutation vs contamination, and that they will be inadequate to answer the questions they pose. I have not seen any such morass or confusion. I think the experiments performed by Mizuno, Minevski and Miley have been models of clarity. They are classic physics experiments, easier and more convincing than, say, the oil droplet experiment that Chris Tinsley thinks Millikan fudged. If the 60 experimenters with RIFEX kits do half as well as Miley, they will prove the point to my satisfaction. At ICCF6, Kennel and others at the NHE have expressed doubts about Miley's work, but I do not think their objections have scientific merit, and neither did Miley as far as I could tell. (But I did not have time to discuss the issue in detail -- so let us wait to see what he has to say about these latest objections.) If the people at the NHE got results one-tenth as convincing as Miley's, they would doing cartwheels and popping champagne corks, instead of worrying when MITI will finally give up on them. I cannot imagine why the NHE is not first in line purchase a RIFEX, but as I said in my Open Letter, I cannot imagine why they also ignore Ohmori, Mizuno, Storms, Fleischmann, Celani, Bockris, Cravens, Ikegami et al. I have not seen Merriman, or anyone else, challenge Minevski's findings of 70% transmuted metal deep within the palladium. I do not think anyone can challenge that, any more than they can challenge the spectacular excess heat results from Pons and Lonchampt at ICCF6. If there is any a morass of confusion here, it is in the minds of people who are ignoring the evidence or inventing impossible hypotheses about chemical transport of silver into deep layers of metal, in cells where there is no silver to start with. Nuclear reactions do occur in metals. That is an established fact, based on the excess heat and tritium at places like LANL, whereas nobody has even begun to establish the reality of a process that can grab silver out of nowhere and move it deep into nickel or palladium. To be blunt, we should bear in mind who is working from a position of strength here, and who is arm waving. Miley had tons of data and corroborating evidence from thousands of other experiments to support his nuclear hypothesis. People who believe in the transport theory have nothing to show in support of it. John Logajan wrote: . . . if you are saying that isotopic evaluation is unconvincing, one wonders if it can really be called a useful tool of science in any regard. Right. If we are going to assert that SIMS and NAA machines don't work, let us begin by canceling all conventional theories based on isotopic analysis. That might not be a bad idea. Perhaps isotopic shifts occur all over the place, the way Joe Champion asserts, but our instruments are so unreliable we have never been able to detect them. Or these shifts have been swept under the rug as "instrument error." On this basis, established theory is far more vulnerable to attack than CF. The same goes for calorimetry, which many scientists suddenly question when the subject of CF comes up. If you really, truly, honestly do not believe it is possible for Ohmori to detect the difference between 0.1 watts and 1.0 watts, I think you should go back and toss out your beliefs in conventional science, starting with the conservation of energy. That will leave the door wide open. To paraphrase Lord Chesterfield's maxim about religion, a man who stops believing in calorimetry will believe in any damn thing. Barry writes: If you think scientists cannot be convinced by calorimetry, then I've got news for you: they will be even less convinced by parts-per-billion radiationless transmutations. Quite right. But that tells us about the scientists, not the experiments. They *should be* convinced by both. In any field other than cold fusion they would be convinced. They have never raised any valid objections to the calorimetry, transmutations, tritium, or x-rays, helium or any of the other major experimental evidence for CF. I see no serious scientific papers describing faults in this research. The only thing like that is Hoffman's "A Dialog on Chemically Induced Nuclear Effects." If I may say so myself, I pointed out many weaknesses in that book (I.E. #3). So did Ed Storms. Would anyone like to write a rebuttal? As John Logajan correctly pointed out, we are talking about 400 million parts per billion here. Many transmutations would be cost effective on this scale. CETI has targeted the most cost effective of all: remediation of nuclear waste. Why not say 4 parts per 10? Do you include all atoms in the calorimeter? "Parts per billion" is an example of loaded language, in which we create a "morass of confusion" by arbitrarily moving numbers 9 orders of magnitude. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 24 01:29:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA02276; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:19:34 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:19:34 -0800 (PST) Date: 21 Nov 96 10:15:06 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Thoughts on CETI Strategy Message-ID: <961121151505_72240.1256_EHB108-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"bTI0T2.0.RZ.m38bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2259 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Barry writes: This seems to be serious indeed, since CETI themselves seem incapable of producing even a few hundred cc of beads as good as the ones they had made a year earlier. Where did you hear that? That's completely untrue, as far as I know. The beads fabricated at U. Illinois are better than any previous ones. The heat generation from recent demos is as good as it ever was, taking into account power and temperature levels. At ILENR2 Reding said that there is a large difference in performance from one batch to another, and from one cell to another. I don't think that every bead batch can produce the large ratios, but some can. Some of Miley's bead did too, which is why his Delta T was sometimes as high as 4 deg C. John Logajan wonders "if they can yet tune the beads for one result or the other, assuming they really work at all." I believe the answer is no, they cannot tune them, but they can try one batch after another. Along these line . . . I thought I posted the following comments earlier, but maybe I didn't: Someone here asked what happened to the large CETI cell. I believe it stopped working after a few months because of conventional chemical problems. The intense local heat and the oxygen in the circulating water damaged the beads. This is a design weakness in a cell with multiple anodes and cathodes. It remains to be seen whether a more robust scaled-up cell can be built. The long term performance of larger, hotter cells has been unsatisfactory. This is one of reasons CETI has de-emphasized heat generation in favor of transmutation. Reding told me he thinks the cells would not be cost effective as a source of energy because they "burn nickel." This "burning" is not chemical, of course, but on the other hand it does not produce as much heat per unit of mass as fissioning uranium, perhaps because energy is lost in endothermic reactions. I disagreed with Reding's analysis. First, I do not think high cost has been conclusively demonstrated. Second, even an expensive energy source can find certain critical niche markets, with thermoelectric generators (TEG). In my view it is much too early to de-emphasize energy applications. This is my opinion, but I believe CETI is also de-emphasizing the heat because they want to continue to maintain a low profile. My impression talking to them at ICCF6 is that they continue to hope cold fusion remains a quiet backwater of scientific research, for the reasons I have spelled out here previously. Gene got a different impression. I did not get the sense that they have changed this low-profile strategy, or that they feel it is a mistake. They have opened up somewhat by selling 60 transmutation kits to qualified researchers, but I do not think this is intended to excite wide-ranging public interest in the product. By the way, nuclear powered TEGs have been in the news lately, because the Russians dropped a few somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. On NPR there was an interesting short piece on plutonium oxide spacecraft TEGs. The lady from NASA described the material as being like a ceramic coffee cup. If you drop it, it might shatter, but it would not turn to dust, and Pu dust is what would be dangerous. The TEG in its steel container is remarkably robust. Some years ago a U.S. weather monitoring satellite was launched from a Pacific base. It went haywire and had to be destroyed by remote control. They fished the TEG unit out of ocean and found it was still working fine, they used it in another spacecraft. NPR says that Jeremy Rifkin, a well known national gadfly, has sued the government to prevent the use of Pu TEG. He says they represent "a low probability, high risk threat" from accidentally powdered Pu. The fact that it is impossible to turn the stuff into powder -- even when you deliberately detonate the rocket -- cuts no ice with him. Rifkin is quite a guy. He once described cold fusion as being like giving a baby a machine gun. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 24 02:03:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA20415; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:36:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:36:18 -0800 (PST) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 12:14:15 -0500 Message-ID: <961121121414_1351916996@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Thoughts on CETI Strategy Resent-Message-ID: <"hma0-3.0.t-4.HC9bo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2264 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 96-11-21 08:43:30 EST, Barry Merriman took some good shots at my clay pigeon. Here's another round: I said: >> 1. Sell the transmutation cells, have Miley instruct the users. Possibly half >> will fail, but 30 confirmations will be serious business -- how many do you >> want and how far do the skpetics want to move the goalposts? Barry said: >I fully expect that the Miley results are reasonably repeatable, >especially if they are subtle contamination.....I need interesting >variations of that experiment now. You confuse moving goalposts >with the normal process of scientific investigation: given the >first "answers", its time for the next round of questions. Fair enough, it's probable that there will be 30 variations regardless. Miley published only a few of his findings, with the most data. If it isn't "subtle contamination", that's an important finding, and important answer in itself. I said: >> 2. The argument of Huizenga & company fails; the nuclear products are there >> for all to see who are competant to look. Now its time to rewrite the books, >> close down the hot fusion projects and divert the money to something useful. >> A congressional hearing or two would make an interesting diversion. Barry said: >Yes, its always a good idea to have congress set our science policy. >:-) Well, has the money invested in hot fusion yielded tangible results? And has the US Patent Office eased its policy of refusing patents on CF so people like Mills and George could get protection and be more open about their developments? Should the "high energy physics establishment" be in charge of science policy? I said: > 3. Now serious resources can be focussed on a serious engineering problem, > building power units. CETI has reserved this arena for its industrial > partners. It was one thing when we thought the fuel was water, but now the > "fuel" is carefully prepared beads. What kind of an infrastructure will be > needed? Barry said: >This seems to be serious indeed, since CETI themselves seem incapable >of producing even a few hundred cc of beads as good as the ones they >had made a year earlier. I think I saw the goalposts move :-). Yes, there are major engineering problems, as there were with making the first IC's. And the USAF poured millions into the technology to get electronics for ICBM's. The report of the Huizenga committee shut the door on US investment in CF technology, and that committee based its findings on reports from university labs that in retrospect have been found to be highly questionable, science as bad as any the CF'rs have been accused of doing. I said: >> 4. And the sly, deadly bottom line: What is the balance between the energy >> cost to prepare and maintain a CF reactor and its lifetime energy yield? The >> dirty little secret of the nuclear power industry is that the balance is >> negative for conventional nuclear plants Barry said: > You had better tell this to France---they are above 85% nuclear >now. Amazing that the french are so misguided. Perhaps I'm off base on this, and I'm not rabidly anti-nuclear. I think a good case is made that the actual harm to the environment and people is comparable or less than from the coal and oil industries. And France probably has one of the best-run programs, with the safety and economies of scale the follow from standardized designs balanced against the cost of imported fuel. In the US, the cost is higher because of custom plant designs and rampant fears about waste disposal. The energy cost accounting depends on how you do it and there is much to argue over. It should include the extraction of all raw materials, their fabrication, fabrication of the plant itself, energy support of the personnel, decomissioning, waste disposal, the whole end-to-end cost. I have seen claims that the balance sheet is negative, one can make it positive as well by adjusting the assumptions and window of consideration. And if the transmutation processes can quench the radioactivity of the nuclear waste and make plutonium decide to be something else, that would be a tremendous boost. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 24 07:23:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA02779; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 07:16:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 07:16:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <329866F6.40B@interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 10:17:10 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Interesting WWW site - Beaty References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"VWmy13.0.Lh.fR6co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2319 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: William Beaty wrote: > > I found this site while NOT searching for 'vortex' keyword! Sounds like > more people being paid to have fun. > > http://www.ifdt.uh.edu/vtc/ U. of Houston Vortex Technology Center > > n.b. the disturbingly Yusmarlike device described. > (see Bill's Vortex post for details) Gee, Bill, I got my ME degree from the U of Houston in 1958 - this makes ne want to go back for graduate work! These VTC folks seem to be bent at as sharp an angle as YOU-ALL Vortexians - just in another direction! Thanks for the post, Bill - yor're better than Popular Science. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 24 07:51:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA07850; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 07:44:48 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 07:44:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <32986D80.581C@interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 10:45:05 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Off topic but weird: Methane Hydrate References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"8ifzl.0.Xw1.kr6co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2320 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: William Beaty wrote: > Methane Hydrate fuels the Bermuda Triangle! (snip) > shallow craters which showed up in side-scan sonar plots of the > ocean floor in the UK's North Sea. (snip) > To test all this speculation, all we need do is take a trip Bill, if you're suggesting an ocean trip in mid winter, I vote for the Bermuda Triangle over the North Sea! Keep the good stuff comming! ---------------Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 24 08:59:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA25148; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 08:51:53 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 08:51:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <32987D2A.4A19@interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 11:51:54 -0500 From: "Francis J. Stenger" Reply-To: fstenger@interlaced.net Organization: NASA (Retired) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com CC: Vortex Subject: Re: Thoughts on CETI Strategy References: <961121151505_72240.1256_EHB108-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"gVY8U2.0.q86.dq7co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2321 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > (snip) > Reding told me he thinks the cells would not be cost effective as a source of > energy because they "burn nickel." This "burning" is not chemical, of course, > but on the other hand it does not produce as much heat per unit of mass as > fissioning uranium, perhaps because energy is lost in endothermic reactions. It still seems to me that metal-lattice-stress induced electron capture reactions are still a better explanation of "CF" than hydrogen fusion. As one example, if high lattice stress (caused by H or D infiltration) "warped" the wave function of the inner electron shells of Nickel 58 enough for double-electron-capture to occur, the resulting conversion to iron 58 would release 1.9 Mev of energy. To get 50 watts of heat for 10,000 hours from this reaction would require the conversion of 0.56 gram of Nickel 58 (67.9% abundance). Various "internal conversion" mechanisms might explain the lack of hard radiation - if neutrino emission occurs, no one in a CF lab will ever see it. Key phrases: -internal conversion -double beta decay -double electron capture -Auger electron emission -internal pair formation (more than 1.022 Mev available) -radiationless transitions - occurs when both nuclear states have zero spin and the same parity. These concepts are all MAINSTREAM physics - and we're dealing with ways to get NEGATIVE (hello!) electrons to STAY in a POSITIVE nucleus. I know that all this still does not explain all the wierd stuff about CF, but it seems to me a better road than hydrogen fusion. (Some H fusion could still occur as a secondary process.) Put me in the transmutation camp - maybe via electron-capture! Frank Stenger PS: Above key phrases from 1993 Encyclopedia of Physics. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 24 10:01:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA05584; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 09:32:38 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 09:32:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611241732.JAA13346@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 09:32:32 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Correa Reactor- metals and gases Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"CUwtK3.0.AN1.rQ8co"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2322 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Deuterium lamps have been in use for years and last for years. They are glass. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 24 11:25:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA03252; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 11:22:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 11:22:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 13:21:53 -0600 Message-Id: <9611241921.AA18852@dsm7.dsmnet.com> X-Sender: dtmiller@dsmnet.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: "Dean T. Miller" Subject: Re: Off topic but weird: Methane Hydrate Resent-Message-ID: <"tOQG63.0.jo.a1Aco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2323 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:18 PM 11/20/96 -0800, William Beaty wrote: > >Did anyone catch the article in the last Sci News on Methane Hydrate >deposits on the ocean floor? Flammable ice cubes. >What observable phenomena might this create? For one, it might be the >cause of the unexplained "barsial guns," ... Methane Hydrate fuels the Bermuda >Triangle! Hah. Great surmising. I'm reposting that on CompuServe (UFO and Encounters forums). -- Dean -- from Des Moines From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 24 13:37:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA01237; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 13:13:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 13:13:16 -0800 (PST) Date: 24 Nov 96 16:10:56 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: ppb? ppm? ppt? Message-ID: <961124211055_72240.1256_EHB36-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"iZdDH2.0.AJ.gfBco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2324 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex A couple of petulant messages I posted here finally appeared a week after I wrote them. I took Barry to task for converting 4 parts per 10 (ppt) into parts per billion (ppb). He later pointed out that it is only 4 parts per 10 if you assume this is transmutation. Well, by the same token, it is only parts per billion if you assume the instruments cannot tell the difference between water and silver. It makes no sense to compare the silver to all other atoms in the cell. The only comparisons that makes sense are: Silver compared to starting mass of metal in the bead (if you assume it is transmutation) OR Silver compared to silver contamination in the cell, from all sources (if you assume this is contamination). Miley, Mizuno, Ohmori and others made both comparisons. There was no detectible level of silver contamination in the cells, not even ppb. The contamination hypothesis is ruled out. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 24 16:20:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA16956; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 16:17:57 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 16:17:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <01BBDAB1.A68DD480@sparc1.nhelab.iae.or.jp> From: Kennel To: "'Vortex'" Subject: Re: ppb? ppm? ppt? Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 09:18:35 +-900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"fIMF6.0.r84.pMEco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2325 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed wrote: =20 >>Miley, Mizuno, Ohmori and others made both comparisons. There was no = detectible level of silver contamination in the cells, not even ppb. The = contamination hypothesis is ruled out.<< Jed, I think it is presumptuous to say what the chemical composition of = laboratory dirt "has" to be. Electrochemical systems always (no matter = what the electrolyte or materials in the system) deposit a certain = amount of chemical crud on the cathdode. This may be small, but must be = non-zero. There may also be some anomalous (nuclear product?) crud as = well. But how do you tell which is which? For the moment, there is NO = version of the experiment which produces zero crud on the cathode (i.e., = there is no adequate control experiment, so there is no way to separate = chemical contamination from nuclear products). I think that isotopic = shift, if it can be shown to exist, is the most compelling argument. = Mizuno's data looks promising (Cu 63 w/o Cu 65), but I would like to see = it confirmed with NAA. Then assuming it's real, you have several = options for explaining it. One is that copper is initially deposited as = chemical crud, but also participates in a nuclear reaction, then Cu-65 = is "burned" somehow. Two, it might be that some other crud is = deposited, and then somehow transmuted into Cu-63. Three, the virgin = (Pd) may produce Cu-63 by itself. I'll be happy if any of these turn = out to be true, but it is ignorant to suggest that chemical mass = transport can be totally avoided in an ionic solution of caustic = liquids. But the number one option, for the moment, is that it is chemical = reaction plus a false positive due to weakness in the measurement = technique. The proponents must disprove this hypothesis by experiment, = not just argue it away. Best regards, Elliot Kennel Sapporo Japan From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 24 16:42:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA20755; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 16:39:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 16:39:40 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa Reactor- metals and gases Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 00:39:46 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <3299e143.8442264@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199611221716.MAA09546@caracas.terraport.net> <32966a5a.1066753@mail.zip.com.au> In-Reply-To: <32966a5a.1066753@mail.zip.com.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.334 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"npv7t1.0.C45.BhEco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2326 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 23 Nov 1996 03:19:52 GMT, Alan Schneider wrote: [snip] >Although, being a smaller atom than helium, it is probably=20 >even more likely to diffuse through pyrex. > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams that Stuff is made of. > - Michael Sinz >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > I believe that due to the double charge on a helium nucleus, helium is in fact a "smaller" atom than hydrogen. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 24 18:16:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA11389; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 18:12:03 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 18:12:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 18:12:06 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: H. Coler device from 1920-1945 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"_edMg2.0.tn2.o1Gco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2327 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: More "good stuff" for Frank S.! The "Coler device" originated in WWII Germany, the creation of a crank researcher with some unconventional theory of magnetism. It's simpler form was a circle of carefully-adjusted bar magnets wound with coils, which put out a small DC flow. Note that this was stand-alone operation, no dry cells, etc., and was demonstrated for the British military using materials they provided (attempting to prevent fraud.) In the past I had seen breif and incomplete transcriptions of the old document that recorded events when Coler brought his invention to the British Military. Now I see that Conny Ohstrom has a very enlarged version of this on his website, with GIF diagrams and even some records of readings taken during demonstrations, and some docs from much earlier Coler work. The description of the lengthy adjustment process used to trigger the anomalous operation is convincing, it sounds like he was trying to hit some little nonlinear region which produced oscillation. Yet the claim is for DC output, and they were apparantly verifying lack of hi-freq AC with contemporary hotwire AC meters. Makes for very eerie reading, if one assumes that the effect was real. It all happened long ago, and the same story has been repeating over and over whenever another inventor stumbles across the effect. We just don't get it. Seems that history will unfailingly repeat itself until we do. Coler Invention C. Ohstrom 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 Sun Nov 24 19:20:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA22811; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 19:11:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 19:11:13 -0800 (PST) Date: 24 Nov 96 22:10:17 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Re: ppb? ppm? ppt? Message-ID: <961125031016_72240.1256_EHB122-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"HJi5f.0.Fa5.FvGco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2328 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Elliot Kennel writes: I think it is presumptuous to say what the chemical composition of = laboratory dirt "has" to be. Quite right. The dirt must be measured and accounted for. Electrochemical systems always (no matter what the electrolyte or materials in the system) deposit a certain amount of chemical crud on the cathdode. Yes, but they never deposit crud which is not in the system in the first place. Silver cannot not magically pass through the walls of the cell from the outside. This may be small, but must be non-zero. There may also be some anomalous (nuclear product?) crud as well. But how do you tell which is which? It is very simple. You tell by assaying everything in the cell: anode, cathode, wires and electrolyte. That is what Miley, Mizuno, Ohmori and the others have done. Chris Tinsley has suggested they do this again using a different method. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 24 19:53:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA01058; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 19:49:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 19:49:59 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <01BBDACF.40F98380@sparc1.nhelab.iae.or.jp> From: Kennel To: "'Vortex'" Subject: EK's reply to JR: ppb? ppm? ppt? Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 12:50:35 +-900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"LMCdG.0.RG.bTHco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2329 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Elliot wrote: This (chemical mass transport) may be small, but must be non-zero. There may also be some anomalous (nuclear product?) crud as well. But how do you tell which is which? Jed wrote: It is very simple. You tell by assaying everything in the cell: anode, cathode, wires and electrolyte. I don't think that is enough. All the near surface material in the pipes, thermocouples, brazes (likely source of silver, BTW), and any part of the cell or pump or containment which contacts the electrolyte is a possible source of mass transport. And if the silver (or whatever) turns out to be natural abundance, I think that the nuclear transmutation hypothesis is very weak. Afterwards, one should assay the nickel remaining plus the weight of the crud and see how it compares to the initial nickel (and/or Pd). I bet that the weight increases. BTW, another interesting check would be to run the cell for a very long time and see if the crud mass exceeds the initial mass of metal. Actually, I tend to think that some of the stuff these folks are looking at is due to some sort of anomalous reaction, but I also think that 95% is simply crud. But more work is needed before anything can be considered proven, in my opinion. Best regards, Elliot From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 24 21:21:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA19909; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 21:18:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 21:18:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Correa Reactor- metals and gases To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 23:18:25 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <3299e143.8442264@mail.netspace.net.au> from "Robin van Spaandonk" at Nov 25, 96 00:39:46 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: <"WP1AY1.0.us4.UmIco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2330 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk writes: > I believe that due to the double charge on a helium nucleus, helium is in > fact a "smaller" atom than hydrogen. But helium is a jealous keeper of its electrons while hydrogen is more promiscious. Strip (share) an electron from a hydrogen atom and it becomes very small indeed! -- - 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 Nov 24 21:33:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA21915; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 21:31:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 21:31:22 -0800 (PST) Date: 25 Nov 96 00:30:20 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: ppb? ppm? ppt? Message-ID: <961125053020_72240.1256_EHB100-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"p2Q7h.0.LM5.eyIco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2331 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Elliot writes: I don't think that is enough. All the near surface material in the pipes, thermocouples, brazes (likely source of silver, BTW), and any part of the cell or pump or containment which contacts the electrolyte is a possible source of mass transport. Elliot, for crying out loud, please read the literature. Bockris, Mizuno and Ohmori have no pipes, exposed thermocouples or brazes. They used static calorimeters. As I wrote here several times, they check the container, anode, wires, electrolyte and everything else before and after the experiments. Brazes are poison to CF experiments: nobody should ever use them. I recommend crimping instead. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the silver is found deep in the cathode, where no silver contamination *ever goes*, even when you deliberately introduce massive amounts of silver into the cell. And nothing ever goes down there without leaving traces at the surface. BTW, another interesting check would be to run the cell for a very long time and see if the crud mass exceeds the initial mass of metal. The microphotos show clearly that the beads are reduced in size. Chunks of the surface crack and fall off. If the crud mass was anything even close to the initial mass of metal, it would block off loading and the experiment would fail. You never get a CF reaction in dirty electrolyte. There would be no excess heat, and no x-rays. And if the silver (or whatever) turns out to be natural abundance, I think that the nuclear transmutation hypothesis is very weak. Why? Do you understand how the transmutations work? Can you set the rules already? Intuitively, it does seem likely that the isotope ratios would follow from one element to the next, but that has not been proven by any means. Who knows? Perhaps a stew of primordial plasm forms in the lattice and new elements form in their natural isotopic ratios. Since the phenomenon cannot be predicted or explained by any standard theory, the standard theories cannot dictate how it must work. Actually, I tend to think that some of the stuff these folks are looking at is due to some sort of anomalous reaction, but I also think that 95% is simply crud. You have no basis whatsoever for thinking that. It could not possibly be 95% or 5%, or even 0.5% crud. There is no known mechanism for getting the crud under the surface without leaving most of it on top, and *none is found on top*. How can you blithely make this assertion when you know it is physically impossible?!? That is like saying that 95% of the silver must have slipped in from a parallel universe. Or it must be pixie dust. Such assertions have no meaning in this context: you cannot just say "I think it happened" when every known law and experimental observation in chemistry and physics shows that it cannot happen and never has happened. And even if it did happen, it would not be accompanied by massive excess heat and x-rays. There is only one phenomenon commonly associated with metal lattices that can cause this material to appear under the surface: a nuclear reaction. We know such reactions do occur because they have been seen in hundreds of other labs, where they produce tritium, helium, excess heat, x-rays and so on. I realize they do not appear in your lab. I gather you therefore doubt they appear elsewhere for that reason, but I think that is irrational. I'll bet you cannot make a Boeing 747 appear in your lab either, but that should not make you doubt they exist. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 24 22:32:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA05078; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 22:31:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 22:31:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <32994B78.731@rt66.com> Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 23:32:08 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fznidarsic@aol.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu Subject: Yusmar study in Russia Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="YUSMAR.DOD" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="YUSMAR.DOD" Resent-Message-ID: <"cmmIv1.0.AF1.aqJco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2332 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: /1dQQ7oIAAABCgABAAAAAPv/BQAyAOgDAAD//wYAAABCAAAABgAQAAAASAAAAAAC8AIAAJ4A AAAMAFoAAACOAwAAUm9tYW4ACCN8AFoAAAABAAABDwAAAAEAAAABeW9YAloA9BpcEhoJAAAA ECBQjgBAB1ERAxBYAlD+/v7+/v7+///////////+//////////////////////////8AASIA ggD/////NQH//4UB///VAf////////AB////////XkwvTGNfcnYvQkJMey97L2hfX19fX19f X19fLy9ye3JVgF9oY2hjX21yNEdoVXZtaGhoaF9acl9yX2NfQkJCaF8vX2NaY1o+Wmg0NGM0 nGhfY19RUUdoVXJfWlVCJkJysQAvLy8AAC9oAAAAAAAANAAALwAAAF8AaAAAX19fX19fX19f X1+OY1pjWmNaY1pjWjQ0NDQ0NDQ0bWhoX2hfaF9oX3JocmhyaHJoL1pfX2hjaF9oX2NaaF9j Y19faGhfXwAAAABjWmNaAAAAAGNaaGhjWgAAbV8AAAAAbVptWnJocmg0aGhoNDQ0aAAARwAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaGgvLwAAAAAAAAAALy9OLwAALwBHYy9VX19fYwAvX19f X1pfAF9fX19fAC8vAC8vLy8vLwAALy8vAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAvAAAAAAAvLwAAAAAAAAAA AAAALwBfX05fewAAAAAAAFUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAF8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0WgBfAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAF9fGQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAABa/i8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vTC9MY19ydi9CQkx7L3sv aF9fX19fX19fX18vL3J7clWAX2hjaGNfbXI0R2hVdm1oaGhoX1pyX3JfY19CQkJoXy9fY1pj Wj5aaDQ0YzScaF9jX1FRR2hVcl9aVUImQnIvLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8v Ly8vLy8vL1pfX2M0Y2hfX19fX19fNHtfXy9aRy8vX19fX19fVV9fX19fX19jY2NjYzQ0NDRo bWhoaGhoX2hycnJyY2NoX19fX19fjlpaWlpaNDQ0NF9oX19fX19VX2hoaGhaY0Vwc29uIFN0 eWx1cyBDT0xPUiBJSXMAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABFUFNUQ09JSS5XUlMAwgF4APQaXBIaCQAA ABAgQI4AlNflARsAjwCUAo8AzAEUeCEEqlgCQPv/BQAyAC4HAAD//woAAAAaBAAA//8IAAAA JAQAAAcAEgAAACwEAAABAvACAAA+BAAA0AYGAAEABgAG0AgAfAB4AAAAUm9tYW4AQXJpYWwg IChUVCkAAAEiAIIA/////zUB//+FAf//1QH////////wAf///////144OEdvb7KFJkNDTnU4 Qzg4b29vb29vb29vbzg4dXV1b8uFhZCQhXqckDhkhW+nkJyFnJCFepCFvYWFejg4OF5vQ29v ZG9vOG9vLCxkLKdvb29vQ2Q4b2SQZGRkQzRDdbEAOENDAABDQwAAAAAAAFAAAEMAAABvAHoA AIVvhW+Fb4VvhW/IspBkhW+Fb4VvhW84ODg4ODg4OJBvnG+cb5xvnG+Qb5BvkG+Qb4VkhW+Q b5x6nG+FZJBvhW+Fb4VvhW8AAAAAkGSQZAAAAACFb4VvhW8AAJxvAAAAAJxvnG+Qb5BvUHpD ekNDOHoAAGQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJxvyL0AAAAAAAAAAIVkTkYAADgAa29D em9vb28Ab0pJp6dvQwCTk2+nQwAsLABDQ2/IQ0MAAG9vyAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAyAAAAAAA LEMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMgAQ0NOQ24AAAAAAABuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB1AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA UHMAdQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABvbxkAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAc/6WlpaWlpaWlpaWlpaWlpaWlpaWlpaWlpaWlpaWlpYEljg4R29v soUmQ0NOdThDODhvb29vb29vb29vODh1dXVvy4WFkJCFepyQOGSFb6eQnIWckIV6kIW9hYV6 ODg4Xm9Db29kb284b28sLGQsp29vb29DZDhvZJBkZGRDNEN1lpaWLG9DyG9vQ8iFQ8iWlpaW LCxDQ0ZvyEPIZEO9lpaFOENvb29vNG9Dk0pvdUOTb1BuQ0NDc2s4Q0NJb6enp3qFhYWFhYXI kIWFhYU4ODg4kJCcnJycnHWckJCQkIWFem9vb29vb7Jkb29vbzg4ODhvb29vb29vbnpvb29v ZG/7/wUAMgAAAAAADwBYAQAAYAcAAP//RgAAAFgAAAAIAAIAAAC4CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADYB VgCRADcAWgBDAEwAaAEBAAAAAXlvWAJaAPQaXBIaCQAAABAgUI4AQAdREQMQWAJQ/v7+/v7+ /v///////////v//////////////////////////mAz//5cAMQBYAEMAOABoAQEABgABovtY AlgA5BsyFLwHAAAAABBQsQCKBlERAxBYAlD+/v7+/v7+//7////+///+//////////////// ////////////////xwFfOAQDXzgEAl84xgNfOAEANAkBAHwAAQAcDAEA9ggBADQJAQByCQEA sAkBAO4JAQAsCgEA9ggBADQJAQByCQEAsAkBAO4JAQAsCgEANAkBAP/////2CAEANAkBAHIJ AQCwCQEA7gkBACwKAQD2CAEANAkBAHIJAQCwCQEA7gkBACwKAQAWBQEAVAUBAJIFAQDQBQEA DgYBAEwGAQCwCQEAfAAAAAAAAADUARAAAAqXAFIAAADDAC0AEAAB1NAGBgABAAYABtDRASMA AFgCWADkGzIUvAcAAAAAEFCxAIoGUREDEAGi+1gCUCMAAdHARAHAwAwEwC0xQMEAYAlgCaAA wSAtwIAMwCDAVAHAMcAwAcA+XTA8ODw4ODw4PDg8ODw4PCBGPDzAPgTAPMA+BMA8wD4EwDzA PgTAPMA+BMA8IMACAcA8IMA+BMA8wAcBwDw2wFgBwDwNwEMBwDzAQwHAPMBDAcA8wEMBwDzA QwHAPMBDAcA8wEMBwDzAQwHAPCDARwHAPMBHAcA8wEcBwDwpJT0gIEU+RT4gYz40wCIEwD42 Yz44PGM+Yz4gICAgVFJJVElVTSwgTkVVVFJPTiwNQU5EIFJBRElPQ0FSQk9OIFJFR0lTVFJB VElPTiBXSVRIIFRIRSBZVVNNQVIgSFlEUk9GQUNJTElUWQ1SVU5OSU5HCgpZdS5OLkJhemh1 dG92MSwgVi5QLktvcmV0c2t5MSwgQS5CLkt1em5ldHNvdjEsIFl1LlMuUG90YXBvdjIsIFYu UC5OaWtpdHNreTMsDU4uWWEuTmV2ZXpoaW4zLCBFLkkuU2F1bmluNCwgVi5PLktvcmR1a2V2 aWNoNSwgQS5GLlRpdGVua292NSAgCsEACAcIB3gAwTEiRXJ6aW9uIiBDZW50ZXIsIFAuTy5C b3ggMTY5LCAxMDUwMDcgTW9zY293LCBSdXNzaWEKwQAIBwgHeADBMiJWaXpvciIgU2NpZW50 aWZpYyBGaXJtLCBLaXNoaW5ldiwgTW9sZG92YQrBAAgHCAd4AMEzIkVuZXJnaXlhIiBSb2Nr ZXQgU3BhY2UgQ29ycG9yYXRpb24sIEthbGluaW5ncmFkLCBNb3Njb3cgUmVnaW9uLCBSdXNz aWENwQAIBwgHeADBNEluc3RpdHV0ZSBvZiBQaHlzaWNhbCBDaGVtaXN0cnksIFJ1c3NpYW4g QWNhZGVteSBvZiBTY2llbmNlcywgTW9zY293LA3UARAAAAqXAFIAAwrDAC0AEAAB1FJ1c3Np YSDBAGAJYAmgAME1SW5zdGl0dXRlIG9mIE51Y2xlYXIgUGh5c2ljcywgTW9zY293IFN0YXRl IFVuaXZlcnNpdHksIE1vc2NvdywgUnVzc2lhIAoKQWJzdHJhY3QKSGlnaCBzdGF0aXN0aWNh bCAoPjMgU1lNQk9MIDExNSBcZiAiU3ltYm9sIiApIGFuZCBzeXN0ZW1hdGljIGNvbmZpZGVu Y2UgbGV2ZWxzIGhhdmUNYmVlbiByZWFjaGVkIGluIHJlY29yZGluZyB0aGUgbnVjbGVhciBw cm9kdWN0cyAodHJpdGl1bSwgbmV1dHJvbiBlbWlzc2lvbiwgYW5kDXJhZGlvY2FyYm9uKSB0 aGF0IG9jY3VycmVkIGluIHRoZSBZdXNtYXIgaHlkcm9mYWNpbGl0eSB3b3JraW5nIGZsdWlk IGFzIHByZWRpY3RlZCBieSB0aGUNRXJ6aW9uIG1vZGVsIGZvciBjYXRhbHl6ZWQgdHJhbnNt dXRhdGlvbiBvZiBudWNsZWkuIFRoZSBwZW5kaW5nIGV4dGVuc2lvbiBvZiB0aGUNRXJ6aW9u IG1vZGVsIHJlc2VhcmNoIGlzIGV4cGVjdGVkIHRvIGltcHJvdmUgdGhlIFl1c21hciBwcm9w ZXJ0aWVzIHJlbGV2YW50IHRvDWVuZXJneS4gCjEuIEludHJvZHVjdGlvbgpDb2xkIGZ1c2lv biBpcyB3ZWxsLWtub3duIHRvIHByb2NlZWQgdW5kZXIgbm9uZXF1bGlicml1bSBjb25kaXRp b25zLCBuYW1lbHksIHVuZGVyDWVsZWN0cm9seXNpcywgZWxlY3RyaWMgZGlzY2hhcmdlLCBt ZWNoYW5pY2FsIGltcGFjdCwgc29ub2x1bWluZXNjZW5jZSwgdWx0cmFzb25pYw1lZmZlY3Rz LCBldGMuIEouR3JpZ2dzIFsxXSBhbmQgWXUuUG90YXBvdiBbMl0gaGF2ZSByZXBvcnRlZCBh IGZlYXNpYmlsaXR5IG9mIGdlbmVyYXRpbmcNYWRkaXRpb25hbCBwb3dlciBpbiB0aGUgaHlk cm9keW5hbWljIGZhY2lsaXRpZXMgd2hlcmUgdGhlIG5vbmVxdWlsaWJyaXVtIGNhdml0YXRp b24NcHJvY2VzcyBpcyBpbmR1Y2VkIGluIHB1cmUgd2F0ZXIuIFRoZSBpbmNyZWFzZWQgZW5l cmd5IG91dHB1dCBpbiB0aGUgbGlrZSBmYWNpbGl0aWVzIHdhcw1hY2NvdW50ZWQgZm9yIGVh cmxpZXIgaW4gdGVybXMgb2YgdGhlIEVyemlvbiBtb2RlbCBvZiBjb2xkIGZ1c2lvbiBbMy01 XS4gSW4gdGhlIHByZXNlbnQNd29yaywgdGhlIEVyemlvbiBtb2RlbCByZXByZXNlbnRhdGlv bnMgYXJlIHZlcmlmaWVkIHVzaW5nIHRoZSBZdXNtYXIgaHlkcm9mYWNpbGl0eQ1kZXNpZ25l ZCBieSBEci4gWXUuUG90YXBvdi4gVGhlIEVyemlvbiBtb2RlbCBhc3N1bWVzIHRoYXQgaW50 ZW5zaXZlIGNhdml0YXRpb24gb2YgYQ1oeWRyb2ZhY2lsaXR5IHdvcmtpbmcgZmx1aWQgbWF5 IHByb3ZlIHRvIGJlIGEgdHJpZ2dlciBvZiBudWNsZWFyIHJlYWN0aW9ucyBpbnZvbHZpbmcN ZW5pb24sIMBUAcBOLCBhbmQgZXJ6aW9ucywgwFQBwG8gYW5kIMBUAcAtLCBzaG91bGQgc29t ZSByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgYmUgbWV0IGFzIHJlZ2FyZHMgdGhlDXdvcmtpbmcgZmx1aWQgY29t cG9zaXRpb24uIE5hbWVseSwgdGhlIHByZXNlbmNlIG9mIGRvbm9yIG51Y2xlaSAowFQBwE4s IGNhcnJpZXJzIG9mDXJlYWN0aW9uIGNhdGFseXN0cykgYW5kIG9mIGZ1ZWwgbnVjbGVpICh1 c2VkIGluIHRoZSBudWNsZWFyIHJlYWN0aW9ucyBpbnZvbHZpbmcgwFQBwE4NdG9nZXRoZXIg d2l0aCBzcG9yYWRpYyDAVAHAbyBhbmQgwFQBwC0pLiBUaGUgRXJ6aW9uIG1vZGVsIHByZWRp Y3RzIHRoYXQgc29tZSBleHBlcmltZW50cw1jYW4gZ2l2ZSByaXNlIHRvIHlpZWxkcyBvZiBu ZXV0cm9ucyBvciBnYW1tYS1yYXlzIHRoYXQgYWNjb21wYW55IHRoZSBudWNsZWFyDXRyYW5z bXV0YXRpb24gcmVhY3Rpb25zIGFuZCBwcm9kdWN0aW9uIG9mIHJhZGlvYWN0aXZlIGlzb3Rv cGVzLiBBY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gdGhlDW1vZGVsLCAxNk8sIDEyQywgYW5kIDY0TmkgY2FuIGJl IGRvbm9ycy4gSW4gY2FzZSBjYXZpdGF0aW9uIHRyaWdnZXJzIHRoZSBtZWNoYW5pc20Nb2Yg ZW5pb24gZW1pc3Npb24gZnJvbSBhIGRvbm9yIG51Y2xldXMsIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgZXJ6 aW9uLWluZHVjZWQgY2F0YWx5dGljDXJlYWN0aW9ucyBtYXkgcHJvY2VlZCBpZiB0aGUgd29y a2luZyBmbHVpZCBjb21wcmlzZXMgc3VjaCBlbGVtZW50cyBhcyB0cml0aXVtLCBsaXRoaXVt LA3UARAAAAqXAFIAfyPDAC0AEAAB1GFuZCBjYXJib246IMEAuAu4C8gAwcEAEA4QDvAAwUQg KyDAVAHATsEAwBLAEkABwT3BABgVGBVoAcHAVAHAbyArIFQgKyAwLjExIE1lVizBAHgeeB4I AsHBANAg0CAwAsHBACgjKCNYAsHBACgjKCP//8GQ1AEQAAAKlwBSAGgkwwAtABAAAdQoMSkg wQAIBwgHeADBwQBgCWAJoADBRCArIMBUAcAtwQAQDhAO8ADBPcEAaBBoEBgBwcBUAcBOICsg biArIDUuNTggTWVWLMEAyBnIGbgBwcEAIBwgHOABwcEAeB54HggCwcEA0CDQIDACwSgyKSDB ACgjKCNYAsHBACgjKCP//8GQ1AEQAAAKlwBSAFElwwAtABAAAdRUICsgwFQBwE7BAGAJYAmg AME9wQC4C7gLyADBwFQBwC0gKyA0SGUgKyAxMi4wIE1lVizBABgVGBVoAcHBAHAXcBeQAcHB AMgZyBm4AcEoMykgwQAgHCAc4AHBwQB4HngeCALBNkxpICsgwFQBwC3BACgjKCNYAsGQ1AEQ AAAKlwBSADomwwAtABAAAdQ9wQAIBwgHeADBwFQBwE4gKyA0SGUgKyBuICs0LjIgTWVWwQBo EGgQGAHBwQDAEsASQAHBwQAYFRgVaAHBKDQpIMEAcBdwF5ABwcEAyBnIGbgBwTZMaSArIMBU AcBOwQB4HngeCALBPcEA0CDQIDACwcBUAcAtICsN1AEQAAAKlwBSACMnwwAtABAAAdQ4QmUo MsAnBsA0SGUpICsgOS42IE1lVizBABAOEA7wAMHBAGgQaBAYAcEoNSkgwQDAEsASQAHBwQAY FRgVaAHBMTNDICsgwFQBwE7BAMgZyBm4AcE9wQAgHCAc4AHBwFQBwG8gKyAxNEMgKyAyLjAz DdQBEAAACpcAUgAMKMMALQAQAAHUTWVWLMEACAcIB3gAwcEAYAlgCaAAwcEAuAu4C8gAwSg2 KSDBABAOEA7wAMHBAGgQaBAYAcExM0MgKyDAVAHAb8EAGBUYFWgBwT3BAHAXcBeQAcHAVAHA TiArMTJDICsxLjIwIE1lVi7BANAg0CAwAsHBACgjKCNYAsHBACgjKCP//8GQKDcpIEluIG90 aGVyIHdvcmRzLCBhIGhlYXZ5IHdhdGVyIGFkbWl4dHVyZSB0byB0aGUgWXVzbWFyIHdvcmtp bmcgZmx1aWQgKGxpZ2h0IHdhdGVyKdQAIgAAGvUoAQAAAAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAEsAQwKvAA AAAiAADUC21heSByZXN1bHQgaW4gcHJvZHVjdGlvbiBvZiB0cml0aXVtIChyZWFjdGlvbiAo MSkpLCBhDXRyaXRpdW0tY29udGFtaW5hdGVkIGhlYXZ5IHdhdGVyIGFkbWl4dHVyZSBvciBs aXRoaXVtIGFkbWl4dHVyZSBpbiBuZXV0cm9uIHByb2R1Y3Rpb24NKHJlYWN0aW9ucyAoMiks KDMpIG9yICg0KSwgKDUpKSwgYW5kIGNhcmJvbi1jb250YWluaW5nIGFkbWl4dHVyZXMgaW4g cmFkaW9jYXJib24gcHJvZHVjdGlvbg0ocmVhY3Rpb25zICg2KSwgKDcpKS4gVGhlIG1haW4g YWltIG9mIHRoZSBwcmVzZW50IHdvcmsgd2FzIHRvIHZlcmlmeSB0aGUgRXJ6aW9uIG1vZGVs 1AAiAAAa9SgBAAAAAAACAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBI0n4QAAACIAANQLcHJlZGljdGlvbnMgYnkg ZGV0ZWN0aW5nIGV2ZW50dWFsIHByb2R1Y3RzIG9mIHJlYWN0aW9ucyAoMSktKDcpLiBUaGUg ZmFjdCB0aGUgcmVhY3Rpb25zIHByb2NlZWQgYWN0dWFsbHkgbWF5IGJlIGNvbmZpcm1lZCBi eSBvcGVyYXRpbmcgdGhlIGh5ZHJvZmFjaWxpdHkgKGRldGVjdGlvbiBvZiBuZXV0cm9ucykg b3IgYnkgYW5hbHl6aW5nIHRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGZsdWlkIHNhbXBsZXMgYWZ0ZXIgdGhlIGZh Y2lsaXR5IGlzIHR1cm5lZCBvZmYuIFRoZSBoeWRyb2ZhY2lsaXR5IHdhcyBpbiBvcGVyYXRp b24gZm9yIDE2IHdvcmtpbmcgZGF5cyBmcm9tIEFwcmlsIHRvIFNlcHRlbWJlciwgMTk5NS4g VGhlIGZhY2lsaXR5IHdhcyB0dXJuZWQgb24gMTQyIHRpbWVzICh0aGUgb3BlcmF0aW9uIG1v ZGVzIGFyZSBkZXNjcmliZWQgaW4gU2VjdGlvbiAyIGJlbG93KS4gVGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZmx1 aWQgd2FzIGEgbWl4dHVyZSBvZiB0YXAgd2F0ZXIsIHZhcmlvdXMgY29tYmluYXRpb25zIG9m IExpSiwgTGlCciwgTGkyU080LCBMaUNsLCBMaU9ILCBhbmQgTmlTTzQgc29sdXRpb25zLCBh bmQgRDJPOyB0b3RhbGxpbmcgdG8gYWJvdXQgNDAgZGlmZmVyZW50IHNvbHV0aW9ucy4gQSBm cmFjdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZXhwZXJpbWVudGFsIHJlc3VsdHMgdGh1cyBvYnRhaW5lZCBhcmUg cmVwb3J0ZWQgaGVyZS4NCjIuIFl1c21hciBoeWRyb2ZhY2lsaXR5ClRoZSBoeWRyb2ZhY2ls aXR5IChzZWUgRmlnLjEpIGlzIGEgY2xvc2VkIHN5c3RlbSBvZiB0dWJlcyBvZiBkaWZmZXJl bnQgY3Jvc3Mgc2VjdGlvbnMgKHRoZSBsYXJnZXN0IGRpYW1ldGVyIGlzIDUgY20pIGNvbm5l Y3RlZCB0byBhbiBlbGVjdHJpYyBwdW1wIGFuZCBhbiBlbGVjdHJpYyBtb3Rvci4gVGhlIHB1 bXAgY2FwYWNpdHkgaXMgMTIgbTMvaG91ciwgdGhlIG1vdG9yIHBvd2VyIGlzIDcuNSBrVywg dGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZmx1aWQgdm9sdW1lIGlzIDEwIGwuIEZsdWlkIGZsb3cgY29udHJvbCBk ZXZpY2VzIHBsYWNlZCBpbnNpZGUgdGhlIHR1YmVzIGluIHRoZSB1cHBlciBwYXJ0IG9mIHRo ZSBmYWNpbGl0eSBtYWtlIHRoZSBmbHVpZCByb3RhdGUuIEEgY2F2aXRhdGlvbi1pbmR1Y2lu ZyBpbnNlcnQgaXMgYWxzbyBtb3VudGVkIGluc2lkZSB0aGUgdHViaW5nLiBUaGUgbWF4aW11 bSBhZG1pc3NpYmxlIHByZXNzdXJlIGlzIDEwIGF0bS4gVGhlIGh5ZHJvZmFjaWxpdHkgaXMg ZXF1aXBwZWQgd2l0aCBoZWF0IHNlbnNvcnMgKDEtNCwgRmlnLjEpLCBhIHByZXNzdXJlIGdh dWdlIHRoYXQgc3VwcGxpZXMgaXRzIGRhdGEgdG8gcmVjb3JkZXJzLCBhbmQgdmFsdmVzIGF0 IHRoZSBmYWNpbGl0eSB0b3AgYW5kIGJvdHRvbSBmb3IgdmFyeWluZyB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBm bHVpZCBjb21wb3NpdGlvbiBhbmQgZm9yIHNhbXBsaW5nIHdhdGVyIGFuZCBzb2x1dGlvbnMu DVNpbmdsZSBhbmQgbXVsdGlwbGUgb3BlcmF0aW9uIG1vZGVzIHdlcmUgdXNlZC4gSW4gdGhl IHNpbmdsZSBtb2RlLCB0aGUgY29udGludW91cyBvcGVyYXRpb24gdGltZSB3YXMgdXAgdG8g VCA9IDEgaG91cikuIEluIHRoZSBtdWx0aXBsZSBtb2RlLCB0aGUgZmFjaWxpdHkgd2FzIHR1 cm5lZCBvbiB1cCB0byAxNSB0aW1lcyBmb3IgVCA9IDE1IG1pbikuIFRoZSB0dXJuLW9mZiBt b21lbnQgd2FzIGluZGljYXRlZCBieSBvY2N1cnJlbmNlIG9mIHRoZSBtYXhpbXVtIGFkbWlz c2libGUgcHJlc3N1cmUgb2YgMTAgYXRtIGFuZCB0aGUgbWF4aW11bSB0ZW1wZXJhdHVyZSBv ZiBjYXNpbmcgKDEwMG9DLCBub3JtYWxseSBhdCBwb2ludCA0LCBGaWcuMSkuIFRoZSBmbHVp ZCBwcmVzc3VyZSB2YXJpYXRpb24gcmF0ZSAoc2VlIEZpZy4yKSB3YXMgZGVmaW5lZCB0byBh IGdyZWF0IGV4dGVudCBieSB0aGUgdm9sdW1lIG9mIGFuIGFpciBidWJibGUgdGhhdCByZW1h aW5lZCBpbiB0aGUgdHViZSBzeXN0ZW0gYWZ0ZXIgZmlsbGluZy4gV2l0aCBhbiBhaXIgYnVi YmxlIHZvbHVtZSBiZWxvdyAxMCBjbTMsIHRoZSBkb21haW4gb2YgZ3JhZHVhbCBwcmVzc3Vy ZSB2YXJpYXRpb25zICgxIGluIEZpZy4yKSBkZWNyZWFzZWQgYW5kIGNvdWxkIGFjdHVhbGx5 IGRpc2FwcGVhciBhbmQgdHVybiBpbnRvIHRoZSBkb21haW4gb2YgYXZhbGFuY2hlLWxpa2Ug cHJlc3N1cmUgcmlzZSAoMiBpbiBGaWcuMikgdXAgdG8gMTAgYXRtIHdpdGhpbiBhIHZlcnkg c2hvcnQgdGltZSAoYmVsb3cgMSBtaW4uKS4gSW4gdGhpcyBjYXNlIHRlbXBlcmF0dXJlIGlu c2lkZSB0aGUgZmFjaWxpdHkgaW5jcmVhc2VkIGdyYWR1YWxseSBkdXJpbmcgYSBzaW5nbGUg b3BlcmF0aW9uIHJ1biwgc28gYW55IHByb25vdW5jZWQgYmVuZCB3YXMgYWJzZW50IGluIHRo ZSBQKFQpIGN1cnZlLiBUaGUgYXZhbGFuY2hlLWxpa2UgcHJlc3N1cmUgcmlzZSB3YXMgcHJv YmFibHkgYWNjb3VudGVkIGZvciBieSBpbml0aWF0aW9uIG9mIHZpb2xlbnQgY2F2aXRhdGlv bi4NCjMuIFRyaXRpdW0gbWVhc3VyZW1lbnRzClRyaXRpdW0gcHJvZHVjdGlvbiB3YXMgcmVj b3JkZWQgYnkgbWVhc3VyaW5nIGJldGEtYWN0aXZpdHkgaW4gdGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZmx1aWQg c2FtcGxlcyB0YWtlbiB3aGVuIHRoZSBZdXNtYXIgZmFjaWxpdHkgd2FzIG5vdCBpbiBvcGVy YXRpb24gYW5kIGFmdGVyIGl0IHdhcyB0dXJuZWQgb24uIFRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGZsdWlkIHdh cyBhIG1peHR1cmUgb2YgbGlnaHQgKDEwIGwpIGFuZCBoZWF2eSAoMTAgbWwpIHdhdGVyLiBU aGUgdHJpdGl1bSBiZXRhLWFjdGl2aXR5ICh0aGUgaGlnaGVzdCBiZXRhLXNwZWN0cnVtIGVu ZXJneSBpcyAxOC42IGtlViwgdGhlIGhhbGYtbGlmZSBpcyAxMi4zIHllYXJzKSB3YXMgbWVh c3VyZWQgYnkgYSBsaXF1aWQgc2NpbnRpbGxhdGUuDVRoZSBpbml0aWFsIHNhbXBsZXMgd2Vy ZSA1MC1tbCBwb3J0aW9ucyBvZiB0YXAgd2F0ZXIgYW5kIGEgbWl4dHVyZSBvZiBoZWF2eSBh bmQgbGlnaHQgd2F0ZXIuIFRoZSBhY3Rpdml0eSBvZiB0d28gaW5pdGlhbCB0YXAgd2F0ZXIg c2FtcGxlcyBkaWQgbm90IGV4Y2VlZCB0aGUgMC41IEJxL21sIGJhY2tncm91bmQuIFRoZSBz cGVjaWZpYyBhY3Rpdml0eSBvZiB0aGUgaW5pdGlhbCBtaXh0dXJlIHNhbXBsZSB3YXMgMjjA AQbAMC41IEJxL21sLiBBZnRlciB0aGUgZmlyc3QgYW5kIHNlY29uZCAxMi1taW4gbG9uZyBv cGVyYXRpb24gcnVucyB0aGUgc2FtcGxlIHNwZWNpZmljIGFjdGl2aXR5IHdhcyAzM8ABBsAw LjUgQnEvbWwgYW5kIDM0wAEGwDAuNSBCcS9tbCwgcmVzcGVjdGl2ZWx5LiANVGh1cywgYSAy MCUgc3BlY2lmaWMgYWN0aXZpdHkgZXhjZXNzICg1wAEGwDAuNyBCcS9tbCkgb3ZlciB0aGUg YmFja2dyb3VuZCBvY2N1cnJlZCBpbiB0aGUgWXVzbWFyIHdvcmtpbmcgZmx1aWQgd2l0aCBh IDAuNyUgaGVhdnkgd2F0ZXIgYWRtaXh0dXJlIGFmdGVyIGEgMTItbWluIGxvbmcgZmFjaWxp dHkgb3BlcmF0aW9uLiBUaGUgc2Vjb25kIDEyLW1pbiBsb25nIG9wZXJhdGlvbiBydW4gZmFp bGVkIGFjdHVhbGx5IHRvIHJhaXNlIHRoZSBzcGVjaWZpYyBhY3Rpdml0eSBvZiB0aGUgc29s dXRpb24uIA1UaGUgdGVzdCBzdHVkeSBvZiB0aGUgdHJpdGl1bSBtZWFzdXJlbWVudCBtZXRo b2QgaXMgZGVzY3JpYmVkIGluIFs3XS4gUmVsaWFiaWxpdHkgb2YgdGhlIHJlc3VsdHMgb2J0 YWluZWQgd2FzIGNvbmZpcm1lZCBpbiB0aGUgcmVwZWF0ZWQgbWVhc3VyZW1lbnQgcnVuIG9m IHRoZSBzYW1lIGZsdWlkIHNhbXBsZXMgd2l0aCBCZXRhLTIgcmFkaW9tZXRlciBhIG1vbnRo IGxhdGVyLiBBZnRlciB0aGUgZmlyc3QgYW5kIHNlY29uZCBvcGVyYXRpb24gcnVucyB0aGUg c3BlY2lmaWMgYWN0aXZpdHkgd2FzIDbAAQbAMC44IGFuZCA1wAEGwDAuOCBCcS9tbCBpbiBl eGNlc3Mgb2YgdGhlIGJhY2tncm91bmQuDQo0LiBOZXV0cm9uIG1lYXN1cmVtZW50cwpOZXV0 cm9ucyB3ZXJlIGRldGVjdGVkIGluIHR3byBjaGFubmVscyBvZiB1bml0IDUgKEZpZy4xKSB0 aGF0IGluY2x1ZGVkIDYgM0hlIGNvdW50ZXJzIGVuY2FzZWQgaW4gUGxleGlnbGFzIChmYXN0 IGFuZCB0aGVybWFsIG5ldXRyb25zLCBjaGFubmVsIDEpIGFuZCBzaXggY291bnRlcnMgb2Yg dGhlIHNhbWUgdHlwZSB3aXRob3V0IGEgbW9kZXJhdG9yICh0aGVybWFsIG5ldXRyb25zLCBj aGFubmVsIDIpLiBUaGUgZWZmZWN0aXZlbmVzcyBvZiBlaXRoZXIgY2hhbm5lbHMgKHNvbWUg MC41JSBhbmQgMC4yNSUpIHdhcyBleHBlcmltZW50YWxseSB0ZXN0ZWQgd2l0aCBhIDI1MkNy IHNvdXJjZS4gRWFjaCBydW4gb2YgbmV1dHJvbiBmbHV4IG1lYXN1cmVtZW50cyBsYXN0ZWQg Zm9yIDIgbWluIGluIGVpdGhlciBvZiB0aGUgY2hhbm5lbHMgYW5kLCBiZXNpZGVzLCB0aGUg cmVzdWx0cyBvZiB0aGUgY2hhbm5lbHMgd2VyZSBzdW1tZWQgdXAuIEJhY2tncm91bmQgcmFk aWF0aW9uIHdhcyBtZWFzdXJlZCBiZWZvcmUgZWFjaCBvZiB0aGUgcnVucy4gVGhlIHRvdGFs IGJhY2tncm91bmQgbWVhc3VyZW1lbnQgdGltZSB3YXMgMjQuOCBob3Vycy4gVGhlIG1lYXN1 cmVtZW50IHRpbWUgb2YgdGhlIGVmZmVjdCB3YXMgMjkuMiBob3Vycy4gUHJlc2VudGVkIGJl bG93IGFyZSB0aGUgcmVzdWx0cyBvYnRhaW5lZCBpbiB0aHJlZSBuZXV0cm9uIG1lYXN1cmVt ZW50IHJ1bnMgdXNpbmcgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyB3b3JraW5nIGZsdWlkIGNvbXBvc2l0aW9u czoNwQBYAlgCWALBKDEpIDEwIGwgSDJPICsgMzAwIG1sIEQyMCwgYSAzLjUgQnEvbWwgc3Bl Y2lmaWMgYWN0aXZpdHkgZm9yIHRyaXRpdW07DcEAWAJYAlgCwSgyKSAxMCBsIEgyTyArIDIw MCBnIExpQnI7CsEAWAJYAlgCwSgzKSAxMCBsIEgyTyArMTUwIGcgRDJPICgzLjUga0JxL21s KSArIDQwMCBnIExpQnIgKyAyNTAgZyBOaVNPNC4NQ29tcG9zaXRpb24gKDMpIHdhcyBwcmVw YXJlZCB3aXRoIGEgdmlldyB0byBpbmNyZWFzaW5nIHRoZSBjb250ZW50cyBvZiBuZXV0cm9u IGNvbnZlcnRlciAoRCtUIGFuZCBMaSkgYW5kIGRvbm9yIChOaSksIHRoZXJlYnkgaW50ZW5z aWZ5aW5nIHRoZSBuZXV0cm9uIGZsdXggaW4gY29uZm9ybWl0eSB3aXRoIHRoZSBFcnppb24g bW9kZWwuIA1Ob25lIG9mIG5ldXRyb25zIChhbiBleGNlc3Mgb2YgLTEwLjLAAQbAMjUuNSBu ZXV0cm9ucykgd2VyZSBkZXRlY3RlZCBmb3IgMTcgbWluIGluIHRoZSB0d28gY2hhbm5lbHMg Ynkgb3BlcmF0aW5nIHRoZSBZdXNtYXIgZmFjaWxpdHkgd2l0aG91dCBhbnkgYWRtaXh0dXJl cyB0byB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBmbHVpZC4gSW4gdGhlIGNvbXBvc2l0aW9uICgxKSB0ZXN0cywg MzguNcABBsAxMi4zIG5ldXRyb25zIHdlcmUgZGV0ZWN0ZWQgZm9yIDkgbWluIGFmdGVyIHR3 byBZdXNtYXIgb3BlcmF0aW9uIHJ1bnMuIEluIHRoZSBjb21wb3NpdGlvbiAoMikgdGVzdHMs IDExMy4zwAEGwDM2LjUgbmV1dHJvbnMgd2VyZSBkZXRlY3RlZCBmb3IgMzQgbWluIGFmdGVy IHR3byBvcGVyYXRpb24gcnVucy4gSW4gdGhlIGNvbXBvc2l0aW9uICgzKSB0ZXN0cywgMzA0 wAEGwDIxIG5ldXRyb25zIHdlcmUgZGV0ZWN0ZWQgZm9yIDIuNSBob3VycyBhZnRlciAxMyBv cGVyYXRpb24gcnVucyAoZnJvbSAxLjUgbWluIHRvIDYgbWluIGVhY2gpLiBJbiB0aGUgbGFz dCBjYXNlIG5ldXRyb25zIG9jY3VycmVkIG9ubHkgYWZ0ZXIgdGhlIDh0aCBvcGVyYXRpb24g cnVuIGFuZCB3ZXJlIHJlY29yZGVkIHdpdGggdHdvIGludGVycnVwdGlvbnMgZm9yIDgwIG1p biBhZnRlciB0aGUgZmFjaWxpdHkgd2FzIHR1cm5lZCBvZmYgKEZpZy4zKS4NU28sIGFkbWl4 dHVyZSBvZiBkZWZpbml0ZSBlbGVtZW50cyAoRCtUIG9yIExpKSB0byB0aGUgWXVzbWFyIHdv cmtpbmcgZmx1aWQgcmVzdWx0cyBpbiBvY2N1cnJlbmNlIG9mIG5ldXRyb24gZW1pc3Npb24u IFRoZSBwcm9jZXNzIGlzIHNwb3JhZGljIGlkIGdldHMgaW5pdGlhdGVkIG9ubHkgYXQgdGhl IG1vbWVudCBvZiBwcmVzc3VyZSByaXNlIChjYXZpdGF0aW9uKSBhbmQgbWF5IHByb2NlZWQg YWZ0ZXIgdGhlIGh5ZHJvZmFjaWxpdHkgaXMgdHVybmVkIG9mZiAoc28gY2FsbGVkIGxpZmUg YWZ0ZXIgZGVhdGgpLg0KNS4gUmFkaW9jYXJib24gbWVhc3VyZW1lbnRzClRoZSBmZWFzaWJp bGl0eSBvZiBiZXRhLWFjdGl2ZSBjYXJib24tMTQgcHJvZHVjdGlvbiAoRSA9IDE1NiBrZVYs IGEgNS43eDEwMyBoYWxmLWxpZmUpIHdhcyB0ZXN0ZWQgdXNpbmcgVG9zb2wgQTQwTSBhbnRp ZnJlZXplIChtYW51ZmFjdHVyZWQgaW4gT2N0b2JlciwgMTk5MikgYXMgdGhlIGNhcmJvbi1j b250YWluaW5nIGZsdWlkLiBUaGUgc2FtcGxlIGFjdGl2aXR5IHdhcyBtZWFzdXJlZCBieSB0 aGUgc2FtZSB0ZWNobmlxdWVzIGFzIGluIHRyaXRpdW0gbWVhc3VyZW1lbnRzLCB0aGUgb25s eSBleGNsdXNpb24gd2FzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGJldGEtZW5lcmd5IGRldGVjdGlvbiB0aHJlc2hv bGQgd2FzIHJhaXNlZCkuDVNwZWNpZmljIGFjdGl2aXR5IG1lYXN1cmVkIGluIHRoZSBpbml0 aWFsIHNhbXBsZSBwcm92ZWQgdG8gYmUgMS42wAEGwDAuMDIgQnEvbWwuIEEgNC42wAEGwDAu MiBCcS9tbCBzcGVjaWZpYyBhY3Rpdml0eSB3YXMgcmVjb3JkZWQgaW4gdGhlIHNhbXBsZSBm b3IgMS41IGhvdXJzIGFmdGVyIDcgb3BlcmF0aW9uIHJ1bnMgb2YgdGhlIGZhY2lsaXR5IChm cm9tIDEuNSBtaW4gdG8gMTAgbWluIGVhY2gpLg1TbywgYWZ0ZXIgcmVwZWF0ZWQgb3BlcmF0 aW9uIHJ1bnMgb2YgVG9zb2wtb3BlcmF0ZWQgWXVzbWFyIGZhY2lsaXR5IHRoZSBzcGVjaWZp YyBiZXRhLWFjdGl2aXR5IG9mIHRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGZsdWlkIGR1ZSB0byByYWRpb2NhcmJv biBlbWlzc2lvbiBpbmNyZWFzZWQgYnkgMy4wwAEGwDAuMDMgQnEvbWwuDQoKNi4gRGlzY3Vz c2lvbiBvZiByZXN1bHRzCkFuYWx5c2lzIG9mIHRoZSB0ZW50YXRpdmUgZXhwZXJpbWVudGFs IHJlc3VsdHMgaGFzIGRlbW9uc3RyYXRlZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBwcmVkaWN0aW9ucyBvZiB0aGUg RXJzaW9uIG1vZGVsIGZvciBudWNsZWFyIHRyYW5zbXV0YXRpb24gcmVhbGl6ZWQgd2l0aCB0 aGUgWXVzbWFyIGh5ZHJvZmFjaWxpdHkgYXJlIGNvcnJlY3QuIE5hbWVseSwgYXMgcHJlZGlj dGVkIGJ5IHRoZSBtb2RlbCwgbnVjbGVhciBwcm9kdWN0cyAodHJpdGl1bSwgbmV1dHJvbnMs IGFuZCBjYXJib24tMTQpIHdlcmUgZGV0ZWN0ZWQgcXVpdGUgc2FmZWx5ICh0aGUgZWZmZWN0 IG1hZ25pdHVkZSBleGNlZWRzIHRocmVlIHN0YW5kYXJkIGRldmlhdGlvbnMsIGFuZCBldmVu IGEgaHVuZHJlZCBzdGFuZGFyZCBkZXZpYXRpb25zIGZvciByYWRpb2NhcmJvbikuIFRoZSBu dWNsZWFyIHByb2R1Y3RzIHdlcmUgcmVjb3JkZWQgb25seSBpbiB0aGUgcHJlc2VuY2Ugb2Yg cXVpdGUgZGVmaW5pdGUgZWxlbWVudHMgaW4gdGhlIGNvbXBvc2l0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBmYWNp bGl0eSB3b3JraW5nIGZsdWlkLg1PbiB0aGUgb3RoZXIgaGFuZCwgdGhlIHRyYW5zbXV0YXRp b24gcHJvZHVjdCBvY2N1cnJlbmNlIHByb2JhYmlsaXR5IGlzIGZhciBmcm9tIHVuaXR5IGFu ZCBtYXkgYmUgMC4yLTAuMyAoYXMgZXN0aW1hdGVkIGluIHRoZSBuZXV0cm9uIGRldGVjdGlv biBleHBlcmltZW50KS4gQmVzaWRlcywgaGF2aW5nIGJlZW4gb25jZSBpbml0aWF0ZWQgKGJ5 IGNhdml0YXRpb24gaW4gdGhlIGZsdWlkLCBmb3IgaW5zdGFuY2UpLCB0aGUgcHJvY2VzcyBt YXkgbGFzdCBmb3IgYSBzdWZmaWNpZW50bHkgbG9uZyB0aW1lIG9mIGRvemVucyBvZiBtaW51 dGVzIChzZWUgRmlnLjMpLiBUaGVyZWZvcmUsIHRoZSBwcm9jZXNzIGhhcyBzdGlsbCB0byBi ZSBvcHRpbWl6ZWQgYnksIGZpcnN0IG9mIGFsbCwgdmFyeWluZyB0aGUgY29udGVudHMgb2Yg cmVhZ2VudHMgKGRvbm9yIG51Y2xlaSBhbmQgZnVlbCBudWNsZWkpIGFuZCBtb2RpZnlpbmcg dGhlIG1hdGVyaWFscyBhbmQgZGVzaWduIG9mIHRoZSBoeWRyb2ZhY2lsaXR5LiBUaGUgcGVu ZGluZyBleHRlbnNpb24gb2Ygd29ya3MgaW4gdGhlc2UgcmVzZWFyY2ggbGluZXMgaXMgZXhw ZWN0ZWQgdG8gaW1wcm92ZSB0aGUgWXVzbWFyIHByb3BlcnRpZXMgcmVsZXZhbnQgdG8gZW5l cmd5IGFuZCBlY29sb2d5Lg0KUmVmZXJlbmNlcwoxLiBKLkdyaWdncy4gUHJvYy4gSW50ZXJu LiBTeW1wLiBvbiBDb2xkIEZ1c2lvbiBhbmQgTmV3IFBvd2VyIFNvdXJjZXMsIE1pbnNrLCBN YXksIDE5OTQsIHAuMjUyLg0yLiBZdS5TLlBvdGFwb3YuIFBhdGVudCBvZiBSdXNzaWFuIEZl ZGVyYXRpb24gTm8uMjA0NTcxNSwgUHJpb3JpdHkgb2YgQXByaWwgMjYsIDE5OTMsIEZpbGVk IE9jdG9iZXIgMTAsIDE5OTUuDTMuIFl1Lk4uQmF6aHV0b3YgYW5kIEcuTS5WZXJlc2hrb3Yu IFByZXByaW50IENTUkltYXNoIE5vLjEsIDE5OTAuDTQuIFl1Lk4uQmF6aHV0b3YgYW5kIEcu TS5WZXJlc2hrb3YuIFByb2MuIDFzdCBSdXNzaWFuIENvbmYuIG9uIENvbGQgRnVzaW9uLCBB YnJhdS1EdXJzbywgU2VwdGVtYmVyLU9jdG9iZXIsIDE5OTMsIHAuMjMNNS4gWXUuTi5CYXpo dXRvdiBhbmQgQS5CLkt1em5ldHNvdi4gUHJvYy4gMm5kIFJ1c3NpYW4gQ29uZi4gb24gQ29s ZCBGdXNpb24sIFNvY2hpLCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIsIDE5OTUsIHAuMjUuDTYuIFl1Lk4uQmF6aHV0 b3YsIEEuQi5LdXpuZXRzb3YgYW5kIEUuQi5QbGV0bmlrb3YuIFByZXByaW50ICJFUlpJT04i IENlbnRlciBOby4xLCBDU1JJbWFzaCwgMTk5My4NNy4gWXUuTi5CYXpodXRvdiwgQS5CLkt1 em5ldHNvdiwgWXUuUC5DaGVydG92IGV0IGFsLiBJbjogQ29sZCBGdXNpb24sIENTUkltYXNo LCBLYWxpbmluZ3JhZCwgMTk5MiwgcC43Ni4NCkZJR1VSRSBDQVBUSU9OUwpGaWcuMS4gQSBz Y2hlbWF0aWMgb2YgWXVzbWFyIGh5ZHJvZmFjaWxpdHkKwQBYAlgCWALBwQCwBLAEsATBMS00 ICAtICBoZWF0IHNlbnNvcnMKwQBYAlgCWALBwQCwBLAEsATBNSAgICAgLSAgZmFzdCBhbmQg c2xvdyBuZXV0cm9uIGRldGVjdGlvbiB1bml0CgpGaWcuMi4gVmFyaWF0aW9ucyBvZiBmbHVp ZCBwcmVzc3VyZSBQIHdpdGhpbiBhIFl1c21hciBvcGVyYXRpb24gcnVuIChkb21haW5zIDEg YW5kIDIpIGFuZCBhZnRlciB0aGUgZmFjaWxpdHkgaXMgdHVybmVkIG9mZiAoZG9tYWluIDMp Lg0KRmlnLjMuIE5ldXRyb24gZGV0ZWN0aW9uICh0aGUgwAEGwCBTWU1CT0wgMTE1IFxmICJT eW1ib2wiICByYW5nZSBpcyBpbmRpY2F0ZWQpIGR1cmluZyByZXBlYXRlZCBZdXNtYXIgb3Bl cmF0aW9uIHJ1bnMgKHRoZSBibGFjayBpbnRlcnZhbHMgYWxvbmcgdC1heGlzKSB1c2luZyBU K0QgYW5kIExpIGFkbWl4dHVyZXMuDSDAIwTAfS7ApgHAwBwBwEHAjQzAwAYEwCDAjgzAbiDA jwzAwFgBwCDAkAzAbiDAgAzAIMAnBsAgwEgBwCDAJQHAIMAnAcAgwFMBwCDAPwHAICAgICAg ICAgIyAkIDMgNCBAIEEgUiBTIGEgYiBlIGcgaiDAngzAIMAHBMAgwDYBwCDANAHAICAgICBn IGkgwBYEwCDAFATAIMBAAcAgwDoBwCDAKQHAIMArAcAgZyB0IHwgfSB+IMCNDMAgwI4MwCDA jwzAIMAfBMAgwAAEwCDAIQTAICDBAKgqqCqoKsHBAAAtAC0ALcHBAFgvWC9YL8ENwQBYAlgC WALBaMEAKAUoBSgFwWnBAPgH+Af4B8FqwQDICsgKyArBwD4EwMEAIA0gDSANwcAOBMDBAHgP eA94D8HAPwTAwQDQEdAR0BHBwEsEwMEAKBQoFCgUwcCwAcDBAIAWgBaAFsHAIwTAwQDYGNgY 2BjBYwplCmgKagpxCnMKaQpqCmsKbgpvCnAKwI8MwArAkAzACsAcBMAKwB8EwArAAATACsAh BMAKwEUBwMBTAcDANQHAwCkBwMA1AcDAKQHAwDUBwMApAcDANQHAwCkBwMA1AcDAKQHAwDUB wMApAcDANQHAwCkBwMA1AcDAKQHAwDUBwMApAcDANQHAwFMBwMApAcDANQHAwCkBwMA1AcDA KQHAwDUBwMApAcDANQHAwCkBwMA1AcDAUwHAwDUBwMBNAcDANQHAwE0BwMA1AcDAVAHAwDUB wMAnBsDAOAHAwDUBwMAnBsDAKQHAwDUBwMAnBsDAKQHAwDUBwMAnBsDAOAHAwDUBwMAnBsDA OAHAwDUBwMAnBsDAKQHAwDUBwMAnBsDAKQHAwDUBwMAsAcDANQHAwCwBwMA1AcDALAHAwDUB wMAnBsDAOAHAwDUBwMAnBsDAIgHAwDUBwMAnBsDAKQHAwDUBwMAnBsDAOAHACiAgIMBDAcAK ICAgIAogICDAQwHACiAgICAKCiAhCiAgICAKICAgIAogICAKICAgICAgIE7AIQTACsAZCMAK wAUEwArAEQHACsAQBMAKwAoEwArAEgTACsAIBMAKwCABwArAUAHACsBIAcAKwFgBwArAFwHA CsAbAcAKwE0BwArAHwHACsAjAcAKwC8BwArAKQHACiAMIAwgDMEAWAJYAlgCwQwKDAoMIAwg DCAMIAwgDCAMMAwyDDYMNww4DDsMPAw9DEAMQgxZDFsMXwxgDGIMZAxlDGYMaAxqDCAgICAg ICAgKyAsID0gPiDAEATAIMAyAcAgwCAEwCDAHwTAIMAzAcAgwDUBwCDANAHAIMBWAcAgwAcB wCDAEgTAIC4gQiDAjQzAIMCODMAgwCgEwCDAsAHAIEsgTCBYIFkgwCAEwCDAHwTAIMAOAcAg wAEGwCDACgTAIMASBMAgwEMBwMA9AcDAMwHAwEMBwMA9AcDALwHAwEMBwMAdAcDAQwHAwB0B wMBDAcDAPQHAwC8BwMBDAcDAPQHAwDMBwMBDAcDAHQHAwEMBwMAdAcDAQwHAwD0BwMAzAcDA QwHAwD0BwMAvAcDAQwHAwB0BwMBDAcDAHQHAwEMBwMAdAcDAQwHAwD0BwMAzAcDAQwHAwD0B wMAvAcDAQwHAwB0BwMBDAcDAHQHAwEMBwMA9AcDALwHAwEMBwMA9AcDAMwHAwEMBwMAdAcDA QwHAwEYBwMBDAcDARgHAwEMBwMBGAcDAQwHAwEYBwMBDAcDAPgHAwEMBwMAvAcDAQwHAwC8B wMBDAcDALwHAwEMBwMA+AcDAQwHAwD4BwMBDAcDALwHAwEMBwMAvAcDAQwHAwEYBwMBDAcDA RgHAwEMBwMBGAcDAQwHAwEYBwMBDAcDARgHACgogIQogICDAQwHACiAgICAKICAgIAogICDA QwHACiAgICAKICAgVMASBMAgwB8BwCDAIwHAIHglwJAMwCXAKATAKMCnAcAoRy1RLUkxSjFg MWExwFQBwDHAVwHAMcBDAcDAPQHAwEMBwMAzAcDAQwHAwDMBwMBDAcDAMwHAwEMBwMAvAcDA QwHAwC8BwMBDAcDAIQHAICAgIAogICAgCgogIQogICDAQwHACiAgICDAgAzAIMAOAcAgwCcG wCDASAHAIGUgZyDAngzAIMA2AcAgICBnIMAOAcAgwBQEwCDABgHAIMAZBMAgYyBlIHYgwC8B wCBjCsBLBMAKwBUBwArAPgHACgwuDFcMfgzAGQjAIMADBMAgwFYBwCDAngzAIMALBMAgwAwE wCDAGQTAIDwgwBIEAA== From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 24 22:33:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA05934 for billb@eskimo.com; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 22:33:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 22:33:39 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: rmforall@rt66.com Sun Nov 24 22:33:38 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 WAA05827 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 22:33:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from pmc28.rt66.com (pmc28.rt66.com [204.134.97.48]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA18979; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 23:33:33 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <32994BE8.1F75@rt66.com> Old-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 23:34:00 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fznidarsic@aol.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu Subject: (no subject) Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="ERZBAS.DOD" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ERZBAS.DOD" X-Diagnostic: Submission size exceeds 40000 bytes X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: /1dQQ9wLAAABCgABAAAAAPv/BQAyAOgDAAD//wYAAABCAAAABwAlAAAASAAAAAAC8AIAAJ4A AAAMAFoAAACOAwAAUm9tYW4AUm9tYW4AQXJpYWwgIChUVCkAQXJpYWwgKEJvbGQpICAoVFQp ACBQjgBAB1ERAxBYAlD+/v7+/v7+///////////+//////////////////////////8AASIA ggD/////NQH//4UB///VAf////////AB////////XkwvTGNfcnYvQkJMey97L2hfX19fX19f X19fLy9ye3JVgF9oY2hjX21yNEdoVXZtaGhoaF9acl9yX2NfQkJCaF8vX2NaY1o+Wmg0NGM0 nGhfY19RUUdoVXJfWlVCJkJysQAvLy8AAC9oAAAAAAAANAAALwAAAF8AaAAAX19fX19fX19f X1+OY1pjWmNaY1pjWjQ0NDQ0NDQ0bWhoX2hfaF9oX3JocmhyaHJoL1pfX2hjaF9oX2NaaF9j Y19faGhfXwAAAABjWmNaAAAAAGNaaGhjWgAAbV8AAAAAbVptWnJocmg0aGhoNDQ0aAAARwAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaGgvLwAAAAAAAAAALy9OLwAALwBHYy9VX19fYwAvX19f X1pfAF9fX19fAC8vAC8vLy8vLwAALy8vAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAvAAAAAAAvLwAAAAAAAAAA AAAALwBfX05fewAAAAAAAFUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAF8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0WgBfAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAF9fGQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAABa/i8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vTC9MY19ydi9CQkx7L3sv aF9fX19fX19fX18vL3J7clWAX2hjaGNfbXI0R2hVdm1oaGhoX1pyX3JfY19CQkJoXy9fY1pj Wj5aaDQ0YzScaF9jX1FRR2hVcl9aVUImQnIvLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLy8v Ly8vLy8vL1pfX2M0Y2hfX19fX19fNHtfXy9aRy8vX19fX19fVV9fX19fX19jY2NjYzQ0NDRo bWhoaGhoX2hycnJyY2NoX19fX19fjlpaWlpaNDQ0NF9oX19fX19VX2hoaGhaY0Vwc29uIFN0 eWx1cyBDT0xPUiBJSXMAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABFUFNUQ09JSS5XUlMAwgF4APQaXBIaCQAA ABAgQI4AlNflARsAjwCUAo8AzAEUeCEEqlgCQPv/BQAyAC4HAAD//woAAAAaBAAA//8IAAAA JAQAAAYAEAAAACwEAAABAvACAAA+BAAA0AYGAAEABgAG0AgAfAB4AAAACCN8AFoAAAABAAAB DwAAACkAAAEiAIIA/////zUB//+FAf//1QH////////wAf///////144OEdvb7KFJkNDTnU4 Qzg4b29vb29vb29vbzg4dXV1b8uFhZCQhXqckDhkhW+nkJyFnJCFepCFvYWFejg4OF5vQ29v ZG9vOG9vLCxkLKdvb29vQ2Q4b2SQZGRkQzRDdbEAOENDAABDQwAAAAAAAFAAAEMAAABvAHoA AIVvhW+Fb4VvhW/IspBkhW+Fb4VvhW84ODg4ODg4OJBvnG+cb5xvnG+Qb5BvkG+Qb4VkhW+Q b5x6nG+FZJBvhW+Fb4VvhW8AAAAAkGSQZAAAAACFb4VvhW8AAJxvAAAAAJxvnG+Qb5BvUHpD ekNDOHoAAGQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJxvyL0AAAAAAAAAAIVkTkYAADgAa29D em9vb28Ab0pJp6dvQwCTk2+nQwAsLABDQ2/IQ0MAAG9vyAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAyAAAAAAA LEMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMgAQ0NOQ24AAAAAAABuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB1AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA UHMAdQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABvbxkAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAc/6WlpaWlpaWlpaWlpaWlpaWlpaWlpaWlpaWlpaWlpYEljg4R29v soUmQ0NOdThDODhvb29vb29vb29vODh1dXVvy4WFkJCFepyQOGSFb6eQnIWckIV6kIW9hYV6 ODg4Xm9Db29kb284b28sLGQsp29vb29DZDhvZJBkZGRDNEN1lpaWLG9DyG9vQ8iFQ8iWlpaW LCxDQ0ZvyEPIZEO9lpaFOENvb29vNG9Dk0pvdUOTb1BuQ0NDc2s4Q0NJb6enp3qFhYWFhYXI kIWFhYU4ODg4kJCcnJycnHWckJCQkIWFem9vb29vb7Jkb29vbzg4ODhvb29vb29vbnpvb29v ZG/7/wUAMgCoCwAADwBYAQAAYAcAAP//MQAAAG0AAAACAvACAAC4CAAA//8CAAAAPAQAADYB EACRADcAWgBDAEwAaAEBAAAAAXlvWAJaAPQaXBIaCQAAABAgUI4AQAdREQMQWAJQ/v7+/v7+ /v///////////v//////////////////////////mAwRAJcAMQBYAEMAOABoAQEABgABovtY AlgA5BsyFLwHAAAAABBQsQCKBlERAxBYAlD+/v7+/v7+//7///8C///+//////////////// ///////////WDP//mQAvAGAAQwA4AGgBAQASAAHgR1gCYADkGzIUHAcAAAAAEHCxAApOURED EFgCkP7+/v7+/v7//v////////7///////////////////////////////8zAAIADgn/AKcJ BQARCf8AaQQDAfUNAwAdAgMBSQkEAFsAAwFZCQQAiAADAZEEAwB/AAMBtwQDAMgDAwHsBAMA gAADAewCAQAFAAMBjwMKAO4AAAEiAIIA/////zUB//+FAf//1QH////////wAf///////144 Q19vb7KQMENDTnU4Qzg4b29vb29vb29vb0NDdXV1esOQkJCQhXqckDhvkHqnkJyFnJCFepCF vYWFekM4Q3VvQ296b3pvQ3p6ODhvOLJ6enp6Tm9Dem+cb29kTjhOdbEAOENDAABDQwAAAAAA AFAAAEMAAABvAHoAAJBvkG+Qb5BvkG/IspBvhW+Fb4VvhW84ODg4ODg4OJB6nHqcepx6nHqQ epB6kHqQeoVvkG+Qepx6nHqFb5B6hXqQb5BvkG8AAAAAkG+QbwAAAACFb4VvhW8AAJx6AAAA AJx6nHqQepB6UHpDekNDOHoAAG8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJx6yL0AAAAAAAAA AIVvTkYAADgAb29Dem9vb28Ab0pJp6dvQwCTk2+nQwA4OABkZG/IQ0MAAG9vyAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAyAAAAAAAOGQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMgAQ0NOQ24AAAAAAABuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB1AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUHMAdQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABv bxkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAc/6WlpaWlpaWlpaWlpaWlpaWlpaWlpaWlpaW lpaWlpYEljhDX29vspAwQ0NOdThDODhvb29vb29vb29vQ0N1dXV6w5CQkJCFepyQOG+QeqeQ nIWckIV6kIW9hYV6QzhDdW9Db3pvem9Deno4OG84snp6enpOb0N6b5xvb2ROOE51lpaWOG9k yG9vQ8iFQ8iWlpaWODhkZEZvyEPIb0O9lpaFOENvb29vOG9Dk0pvdUOTb1BuQ0NDc284Q0NJ b6enp3qQkJCQkJDIkIWFhYU4ODg4kJCcnJycnHWckJCQkIWFem9vb29vb7Jvb29vbzg4ODh6 enp6enp6bnp6enp6b3r7/wUAMgAAAAAACAACAAAA2gsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA1AEQAAAKlwBSAAAAwwAtABAAAdTQBgYAAQAGAAbQ0QEjAABYAlgA5Bsy FLwHAAAAABBQsQCKBlERAxABovtYAlAjAAHRwwzD1AcKAHgh/KkDAAoAB9TUBgoAeCH8qQMA CgAG1MQMxNQHCgB4IfypAwAKAAfUwEQBwMAMBMAtMUDBAGAJYAmgAMEgIC3AgAzAIHxAQyAg wEcBwD7AQwHAOMBDAcA4OMBDAcA4wEMBwDjAQwHAOMBDAcA4wEMBwCBGwEMBwErAkAzAwEMB wMCQDMDAQwHAwJAMwMBDAcDAkAzAwEMBwMCQDMDAQwHATMBGAcDAQwHAIMCQDMDAQwHAwEEB wMBDAcA/McBFAcA+IG8gbyBvIG8NbyBvIG8gbyAgcSBxIHEgKcCxAcAgICDAEATAICDAEATA ICAgwFABwCAgNNQAIgAAGukAAQAAAAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDCAgN8BQ AcAgIDjAQwHAwFABwCAgwFABwCAgbnrUACIAABoAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEAADw AAAAIgAA1AwgCgoKRXJ6aW9uIE1vZGVsIG9mIENhdGFseXRpYyBOdWNsZWFyIFRyYW5zbXV0 YXRpb24KYW5kIEl0cyBJbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbiBvZiBCYWxsLUxpZ2h0bmluZyAKYW5kIE90 aGVyIEFub21hbG91cyBHZW9waHlzaWNhbCBQaGVub21lbmEKCgpZdS5OLkJhemh1dG92CgpF cnppb24gQ2VudGVyLCBQLk8uQm94IDE2OSwgMTA1MDc3IE1vc2NvdywgUnVzc2lhCtQBEAAA CpcAUgADCsMALQAQAAHUCgpBYnN0cmFjdApUaGUgcHJpbmNpcGxlcyB0aGF0ICB1bmRlcmxp ZSB0aGUgRXJ6aW9uIE1vZGVsIG9mIGNhdGFseXRpYyBudWNsZWFyIHRyYW5zbXV0YXRpb24g YXJlDWRlc2NyaWJlZC4gVGhlIEVyemlvbiBNb2RlbCBwZXJtaXRzIHRoZSBtYWluIGFub21h bG91cyBmZWF0dXJlcyBvZiBDb2xkIEZ1c2lvbiB0bw1iZSByZWFkaWx5IGludGVycHJldGVk LiBCYWxsLUxpZ2h0bmluZyBhbmQgc29tZSBvdGhlciBhbm9tYWxvdXMgZ2VvcGh5c2ljYWwN cGhlbm9tZW5hIGFyZSBpbnRlcnByZXRlZCBpbiB0ZXJtcyBvZiB0aGlzIG1vZGVsLiBUaGUg ZnVuZGFtZW50YWwgYW5kIGFwcGxpZWQNcHJvYmxlbXMgcmVzb2x2ZWQgd2l0aCBFcnppb24g TW9kZWwgYXJlIGluZGljYXRlZC4gCgoxLiBJbnRyb2R1Y3Rpb24KTG9uZyBiZWZvcmUgQ29s ZCBGdXNpb24gZGlzY292ZXJ5IFsxXSBJIGFuZCBteSBjby1hdXRob3JzIGhhZCBwcm9wb3Nl ZCB0aGUNaHlwb3RoZXNpcyBbMl0gb2YgbmV3IG1hc3NpdmUgc3RhYmxlIGhhZHJvbnMgZXhp c3RlbmNlIGluIFVuaXZlcnNlIGZvciBpbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbg1vZiBsYXJnZSBzZXJpZXMg b2YgYW5vbWFsb3VzIENvc21pYyBSYXkgZXhwZXJpbWVudHMuIFRvIHB1dCB0aGlzIGh5cG90 aGVzaXMgaW4NYWNjb3JkYW5jZSB3aXRoIFNhbGFtLVdlaW5iZXJnLUdsYXNob3cgU3RhbmRh cmQgRWxlbWVudGFyeSBQYXJ0aWNsZSBNb2RlbCBHLg1WZXJlc2hrb3YgY291bGQgZmluZCB0 aGUgZGVjaXNpb24gb2YgdGhpcyBwcm9ibGVtIGluIHRlcm1zIG9mIEdhdWdlIE1pcnJvciBN b2RlbA0tVmVyZXNoa292IE1vZGVsIChWTSkgYnkgbWVhbnMgb2YgaW50cm9kdWN0aW9uIG9m IG5ldyBtYXNzaXZlIG1pcnJvciBmZXJtaW9ucw0obGVwdG9ucyBhbmQgcXVhcmtzKSBpbnRv IFN0YW5kYXJkIE1vZGVsIChTTSkgWzNdLiBUaGUgbGlnaHRlc3QgbWlycm9yIHVudGlxdWFy ayAoDUVNQkVEIEVxdWF0aW9uICAgICkgY2FuIHByb3ZpZGUgdGhlIGV4aXN0ZW5jZSBvZiBo eXBvdGhldGljYWwgc3RhYmxlIG1hc3NpdmUgbWVzb24NZG91YmxldCAtIGVyemlvbnMgKCBF TUJFRCBFcXVhdGlvbiAgICAgIEVNQkVEIEVxdWF0aW9uICAgICkuIE1vcmVvdmVyIHRoZSBl eGlzdGVuY2UNb2Ygb25seSBvbmUgc3RhYmxlIGVyemlvbiBudWNsZXVzIHNpbmdsZXQgLSBl bmlvbiAoIEVNQkVEIEVxdWF0aW9uICAgICkgd2hpY2ggY2FuIGJlDWNvbnNpZGVyZWQgYXMg Y29tcG91bmQgc3RhdGUgb2YgZXJ6aW9uIGFuZCBudWNsZW9uICggRU1CRUQgRXF1YXRpb24g ICAgICBFTUJFRA1FcXVhdGlvbiAgICApIGlzIHBvc3NpYmxlIGluIHRlcm1zIG9mIFZNLiBB bGwgdGhlIHJlc3QgZXJ6aW9uIG51Y2xlaSBhcmUgbm90IHN0YWJsZSBhbmQNZGVjYXkgYnkg bnVjbGVpIGxpZmV0aW1lICggU1lNQk9MIDEyNiBcZiAiU3ltYm9sIiAxMC0yMHMpIGludG8g ZXJ6aW9ucyAoZW5pb25zKSBhbmQNdXN1YWwgbnVjbGVpLiBWTSBjYW4gY3JlYXRlIG9ubHkg b25lIHF1YXJrIHZlcnNpb24gb2YgdGhlIGh5cG90aGV0aWNhbCBwYXJ0aWNsZXMgd2hpY2gN ZG9lcyBub3QgY29udHJhZGljdCBTTSwgQ29zbW9sb2d5IGFuZCBDb3Ntb2dvbnkgYW5kIHNv IGFsbCBoaWdoIGVuZXJneSBwaHlzaWNzDWFuZCBudWNsZWFyIHBoeXNpY3MgZXhwZXJpbWVu dGFsIHJlc3VsdHMgYW5kIHJlc3VsdHMgb2YgbmV3IHBhcnRpY2xlIHNlYXJjaCBhdA1hY2Nl bGVyYXRvcnMgYW5kIGluIG1hdHRlci4gTW9yZW92ZXIgaXQgY2FuIGV4cGxhaW4gbGFyZ2Ug dG90YWxpdHkgb2YgYW5vbWFsb3VzDWV4cGVyaW1lbnRhbCByZXN1bHRzIG5vdCBvbmx5IGlu IENvc21pYyBSYXlzIGJ1dCBpbiBBc3Ryb3BoeXNpY3MgdG9vOiBsb3cgc29sYXINbmV1dHJp bm8gZmx1eDsgSnVwaXRlciByYWRpYXRpb24gZXhjZXNzOyBjYXRhc3Ryb3BoaWMgcmVkdWNp bmcgb2YgTGksIEJlLCBCIGNvbnRlbnRzIGluDXRoZSBhYnVuZGFuY2UgY3VydmUgb2YgU29s YXIgYW5kIEVhcnRoIG1hdHRlciBjaGVtaWNhbCBlbGVtZW50czsgYmlnIGZsdXggb2YgbmV1 dHJhbA1oaWdoIGVuZXJneSBwYXJ0aWNsZXMgZnJvbSBsb2NhbCBzcGFjZSBzb3VyY2VzIFs0 XS4gQW5kIGFsbCB0aGVzZSAxNSB5ZWFycyB3ZSBhcmUNd29ya2luZyBjb25zdGFudGx5IGlu IHRoZSBmaWVsZCBvZiBkaXJlY3QgZXJ6aW9ucyBzZWFyY2ggdG8gZGVjaWRlIGlzIHRoaXMg aHlwb3RoZXNpcyB0cnVlDW9yIG5vdCBbNV0uIAoKMi4gRXJ6aW9uIG1vZGVsIG9mIGNhdGFs eXRpYyBudWNsZWFyIHRyYW5zbXV0YXRpb27UACIAABr1KAMAAAAAAAEAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE MCrwAAAAIgAA1IxGcm9tIHRoZSBiZWdpbm5pbmcgQ29sZCBGdXNpb24gKENGKSBoYXMgY2F1 c2VkIHN0cm9uZyBvYmplY3Rpb25zIG9mIG9ydGhvZG94DXNjaWVudGlzdHMgZHVlIHRvIG9i dmlvdXMgY29udHJhZGljdGlvbnMgb2YgQ0YgZXhwZXJpbWVudGFsIHJlc3VsdHMgdG8gdGhl IHRyYWRpdGlvbmFsDXRoZW9yZXRpY2FsIG5vdGlvbnMuIEFuZCBpdCB3YXMgdmVyeSBwbGVh c2FudCBhbmQgc3VycHJpc2Ugb3Bwb3J0dW5pdHkgZm9yIHVzIHRvIGdpdmUNbmF0dXJhbCBh bmQgc3RyYWlnaHQgc2NpZW50aWZpYyBpbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbiBvZiBDRiBleHBlcmltZW50 cyBkdWUgdG8gZXJ6aW9uIChlbmlvbikNbnVjbGVpIGludGVyYWN0aW9uIGZlYXR1cmVzIFsz LDZdLiBEdXJpbmcgZmlyc3QgeWVhciBvZiBDRiBpbnZlc3RpZ2F0aW9uIGl0IHdhcyBmb3Vu ZCBvdXQN1AEQAAAKlwBSAI0EwwAtABAAAdR0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIG1haW4gQ0YgZmVhdHVy ZXMgWzddOiDBAMASwBJAAcExKSBydW5uaW5nIHByb2Nlc3MgdW5zdGF0aW9uYXJpdHk7CtQB EAAACpcAUgB2BcMALQAQAAHUwQAIBwgHeADBMikgZ3JlYXQgKCBTWU1CT0wgMTI2IFxmICJT eW1ib2wiIDEwNSkgeWllbGQgZmx1Y3R1YXRpb247IMEAIBwgHOABwTMpIGF0dGVudWF0aW9u IGFuZA1mb2xsb3dpbmcgdW5yZXByb2R1Y2liaWxpdHk7CsEACAcIB3gAwTQpIHlpZWxkIHN1 cHByZXNzaW9uIG9mIG5ldXRyb24gdG8gdHJpdGl1bSAoMTAzIC0gMTAxMSkgYW5kIG9mIHRy aXRpdW0gdG8gZW5lcmd5ICgN1AEQAAAKlwBSADEIwwAtABAAAdRTWU1CT0wgMTI2IFxmICJT eW1ib2wiIDEwMyk7IMEAaBBoEBgBwTUpIG5ldyBlbGVtZW50cyBhbmQgaXNvdG9wZXMgcHJv ZHVjdGlvbi4KVGhlIEVyemlvbiBNb2RlbCAoRU0pIG9mIGNhdGFseXRpYyBudWNsZWFyIHRy YW5zbXV0YXRpb24gY291bGQgZ2l2ZSBpbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbiBmb3INYWxsIHRoZXNlIENG ICBmZWF0dXJlcyBbOF0uIEVNIGJhc2VkIG9uIHRoZSBhc3N1bXB0aW9uIG9mIGVuaW9uLW51 Y2xldXMgYm91bmRlZA1zdGF0ZSBleGlzdGVuY2UgaW4gbWF0dGVyIHdpdGggZmV3IGNvbmNl bnRyYXRpb24gKEMgU1lNQk9MIDEyNiBcZiAiU3ltYm9sIiAxMC0yMSAtDTEwLTE2IG51Y2wu LTEpLiBFbmlvbnMgbWF5IGJlIGNhcHR1cmVkIChFYyBTWU1CT0wgMTI2IFxmICJTeW1ib2wi IDEgLSAxMDBlVikgYnkNc21hbGwga2luZCBvZiBzb21lIGlzb3RvcGVzIChkb25vcnMpIGFu ZCBhcmUgc3RvcmVkIGluIHRoaXMgc3RhdGUgcmF0aGVyIGxvbmcgKA1TWU1CT0wgMTI2IFxm ICJTeW1ib2wiIDEwNiAtIDEwOSB5ZWFycykgdW50aWwgdGhlaXIgcmVsZWFzZSBieSBudWNs ZWFyIGludGVyYWN0aW9ucy4NRW5pb25zIGNhbiBiZSBlaXRoZXIgcmVsaWN0IGVuaW9ucyBv ciB0aGV5IGNhbiBjb21lIHRvIEVhcnRoIGluIENvc21pYyBSYXkNY29tcG9uZW50LiBFcnpp b24gbnVjbGVpIGNhbiBub3QgZXhpc3QgdGhhdCdzIHdoeSBlbmlvbnMgYW5kIGVyemlvbnMg dGFrZSBwYXJ0IG9ubHkgaW4NZXhjaGFuZ2UgcmVhY3Rpb25zLCB0aGF0IGlzIGVuaW9uICgg RU1CRUQgRXF1YXRpb24gICAgKSB0dXJucyBpbnRvIGVyemlvbiAoIEVNQkVEDUVxdWF0aW9u ICAgICBvciAgRU1CRUQgRXF1YXRpb24gICAgKSwgYW5kIGVyemlvbiBlaXRoZXIgY2hhbmdl cyBpdHMgc2lnbiAoIEVNQkVEDUVxdWF0aW9uICAgICBTWU1CT0wgMTc0IFxmICJTeW1ib2wi ICBFTUJFRCBFcXVhdGlvbiAgICAgb3IgIEVNQkVEIEVxdWF0aW9uICAgIA1TWU1CT0wgMTc0 IFxmICJTeW1ib2wiICBFTUJFRCBFcXVhdGlvbiAgICApIG9yIHR1cm5zIGludG8gZW5pb24g KCBFTUJFRCBFcXVhdGlvbiANICApLiBUaHVzIGluIHByaW5jaXBsZSBpdCBpcyBwb3NzaWJs ZSB0byBleGlzdCA2IGRpZmZlcmVudCBlcnppb24tbnVjbGV1cyBleGNoYW5nZQ1yZWFjdGlv bnMgb24gZXZlcnkgbnVjbGV1cyAoIEVNQkVEIEVxdWF0aW9uICAgICBTWU1CT0wgMTc0IFxm ICJTeW1ib2wiICBFTUJFRA1FcXVhdGlvbiAgICA7ICBFTUJFRCBFcXVhdGlvbiAgICAgU1lN Qk9MIDE3NCBcZiAiU3ltYm9sIiAgRU1CRUQgRXF1YXRpb24gICAgOyANRU1CRUQgRXF1YXRp b24gICAgIFNZTUJPTCAxNzQgXGYgIlN5bWJvbCIgIEVNQkVEIEVxdWF0aW9uICAgIDsgIEVN QkVEDUVxdWF0aW9uICAgICBTWU1CT0wgMTc0IFxmICJTeW1ib2wiICBFTUJFRCBFcXVhdGlv biAgICA7IEVNQkVEIEVxdWF0aW9uICAgIA1TWU1CT0wgMTc0IFxmICJTeW1ib2wiICBFTUJF RCBFcXVhdGlvbiAgICA7ICBFTUJFRCBFcXVhdGlvbiAgICAgU1lNQk9MIDE3NCBcZg0iU3lt Ym9sIiAgRU1CRUQgRXF1YXRpb24gICAgKS4gSW4gdGhpcyBjYXNlIG51Y2xldXMgZWl0aGVy IGxvc2VzIG51Y2xlb24gKHByb3RvbiBvcg1uZXV0cm9uKSBvciBhY3F1aXJlcyBudWNsZW9u IG9yIGNoYW5nZXMgaXRzIHNpZ24gKCBTWU1CT0wgMTc3IFxmICJTeW1ib2wiIDEpDXByZXNl cnZpbmcgbnVjbGVvbiBudW1iZXIuIEluIEVNIG9ubHkgMiBmcmVlIHBhcmFtZXRlcnMgZXhp c3Q6IGVuaW9uIGNvdXBsaW5nDWNvbnN0YW50cyBmcm9tICggRU1CRUQgRXF1YXRpb24gICAg KSBmdXNpb24gYW5kICggRU1CRUQgRXF1YXRpb24gICAgKSBmdXNpb24uIElmIHdlDWtub3cg IHRoZW0gd2UgY2FuIGNvbXB1dGUgYWxsIG91dHB1dCBlbmVyZ3kgZm9yIGFsbCA2IGVyemlv bi1udWNsZXVzIGV4Y2hhbmdlDXJlYWN0aW9ucyBmb3IgYWxsIGtub3duIGlzb3RvcGVzLiBU aGVzZSBlbmlvbiBjb3VwbGluZyBjb25zdGFudHMgd2VyZSBjaG9zZW4gdG8NcHJvdmlkZSBy dW5uaW5nIG9mIGRldXRlcml1bSBmdXNpb24gcmVhY3Rpb25zIHdpdGggb25seSB0cml0aXVt IChUKSBnZW5lcmF0aW9uIGFuZA1oZWxpdW0tMyBnZW5lcmF0aW9uIHByb2hpYml0aW9uLiBN b3Jlb3ZlciB0aGUgdHJpdGl1bSBlbmVyZ3kgbXVzdCBiZSByYXRoZXIgc21hbGwgKA1TWU1C T0wgNjAgXGYgIlN5bWJvbCIgMCwxIE1lVikgZm9yIGZhc3QgbmV1dHJvbnMgKCBTWU1CT0wg MTI2IFxmICJTeW1ib2wiIDE0DU1lVikgd291bGQgbm90IGJlIGdlbmVyYXRlZCBieSBmdXNp b24gcmVhY3Rpb24gd2l0aCBkZXV0ZXJpdW0uIEdvb2QgYWdyZWVtZW50IG9mDUVNIHByZWRp Y3Rpb25zIHdpdGggUm9saXNvbiBhbmQgTydHcmVkeSByZXN1bHRzIG9mIHBhbGxhZGl1bSB0 cmFuc211dGF0aW9uDWV4cGVyaW1lbnQgc2hvd2VkIHBvc3NpYmxlIHRydXRoIG9mIEVNIFs5 XS4gRnVydGhlciB0ZXN0aW5nIG9mIEVNIHdhcyBpbiBnb29kDWFncmVlbWVudCB3aXRoIGFu b3RoZXIgbnVjbGVhciB0cmFuc211dGF0aW9uIHJlc3VsdHMgb2YgICAgQ0YgZXhwZXJpbWVu dHMgdG9vIFsxMF0uDVRodXMgYWxsIG91dHB1dCBlbmVyZ2llcyBmb3IgYWxsIGVyemlvbiBu dWNsZXVzIGV4Y2hhbmdlIHJlYWN0aW9ucyBmb3IgYWxsIHN0YWJsZSBbMTFdDWFuZCB1bnN0 YWJsZSBbMTJdIGlzb3RvcGVzIGhhZCBiZWVuIGNhbGN1bGF0ZWQuIEl0IHBlcm1pdHMgdXMg dG8gdGVzdCB0aGUgRU0gd2l0aCBhbGwNZXhwZXJpbWVudCByZXN1bHRzIG5vdCBvbmx5IGlu IENGIGJ1dCBpbiBHZW9waHlzaWNzIGFuZCBBc3Ryb3BoeXNpY3MgdG9vIGFuZCB0bw1wcmVk aWN0IG1vc3Qgb3B0aW11bSBleHBlcmltZW50cy4gCjMuIEludGVycHJldGF0aW9uIG9mIGJh bGwtbGlnaHRuaW5nIGFuZCBzb21lIG90aGVyIGFub21hbG91cyBnZW9waHlzaWNhbCBwaGVu b21lbmHUACIAABr1KAQAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEMCrwAAAAIgAA1AtCYWxsLWxpZ2h0 bmluZyAoQkwpIGlzIHRoZSBsb2NhbCAoIFNZTUJPTCAxMjYgXGYgIlN5bWJvbCIgMTBjbSkg c3RhYmxlICggU1lNQk9MIDEyNg1cZiAiU3ltYm9sIiAxMDBzKSBwb3dlcmZ1bCAoIFNZTUJP TCAxMjYgXGYgIlN5bWJvbCIgMWtXKSBjb2xkIHBsYXptb2lkIFsxM10uDUFsdGhvdWdoIGFi b3V0IDEwMCBiYWxsLWxpZ2h0bmluZyB0aGVvcmV0aWMgbW9kZWxzIGV4aXN0IHRoZXJlIGlz IG5vdCBnZW5lcmFsbHkgYWNjZXB0ZWQNYW1vbmcgdGhlbSAodGhlIHNhbWUgaXMgaW4gQ0Yp IGJlY2F1c2UgaXQgaXMgdmVyeSBkaWZmaWN1bHQgdG8gZ2l2ZSBjb3JyZWN0IGFuZCBvYnZp b3VzDWludGVycHJldGF0aW9uIHRvIHN1Y2ggZXhvdGljIHBoZW5vbWVub24uIFdlIHNoYWxs IHRyeSB0byBnaXZlIHNpbXBsZSBwcmluY2lwYWwNaW50ZXJwcmV0YXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIG1h aW4gQkwgcGVjdWxpYXJpdGllcyBpbiB0ZXJtcyBvZiBFTS4gTGV0IHVzIHN1cHBvc2UgdGhh dCBsaWdodG5pbmcNZGlzY2hhcmdlIGNydXNoZXMgdHJlZSBhbmQgc2V0cyBpbiBmaXJlIGFu ZCBldmFwb3JhdGVzIHNvbWUgZGVjaWdyYW1zIG9mIHdvb2QuIE9uDXNvbWUgY29uZGl0aW9u cyBhYm91dCAgYmlsbGlvbiAoIFNZTUJPTCAxMjYgXGYgIlN5bWJvbCIgMTA5KSBlbmlvbnMg bWF5IGJlY29tZQ1mcmVlIChUIFNZTUJPTCAxMjYgXGYgIlN5bWJvbCIgMjAwMCBTWU1CT0wg MTc2IFxmICJTeW1ib2wiIEMpIGFuZCB0byB0dXJuIG9uIHRoZQ1mb2xsb3dpbmcgY2F0YWx5 dGljIG51Y2xlYXIgcmVhY3Rpb25zIGFtb25nIGNoZW1pY2FsIGVsZW1lbnRzIChILCBDLCBO LCBPKSBvZg3UARAAAAqXAFIAGgnDAC0AEAAB1GV2YXBvcmF0ZWQgd29vZDogwQC4C7gLyADB MUgowFQBwC0swFQBwDApbsEAaBBoEBgBwSvBAMASwBJAAcExLDY1wQAYFRgVaAHBTWVWwQBw F3AXkAHBKDEwMCnBAMgZyBm4AcEoMSkK1AEQAAAKlwBSAAMKwwAtABAAAdTBAAgHCAd4AMEy SCjAVAHATizAVAHAMCkzSMEAEA4QDvAAwSvBAGgQaBAYAcEwLDExwQDAEsASQAHBTWVWwQAY FRgVaAHBKDAsMDIpwQBwF3AXkAHBKDIpCtQBEAAACpcAUgDsCsMALQAQAAHUwQAIBwgHeADB MkgowFQBwDAswFQBwE4pMUjBABAOEA7wAMErwQBoEGgQGAHBMyw5wQDAEsASQAHBTWVWwQAY FRgVaAHBKDAsMDIpwQBwF3AXkAHBKDMpCtQBEAAACpcAUgDVC8MALQAQAAHUwQAIBwgHeADB MTNDKMBUAcBOLMBUAcAwKTE0Q8EAEA4QDvAAwSvBAGgQaBAYAcEyLDDBAMASwBJAAcFNZVbB ABgVGBVoAcEoMSwxKcEAcBdwF5ABwSg0KQrUARAAAAqXAFIAvgzDAC0AEAAB1MEACAcIB3gA wTEzQyjAVAHAMCzAVAHATikxMkPBABAOEA7wAMErwQBoEGgQGAHBMSwywQDAEsASQAHBTWVW wQAYFRgVaAHBKDEsMSnBAHAXcBeQAcEoNSkK1AEQAAAKlwBSAKcNwwAtABAAAdTBAAgHCAd4 AMExNE4owFQBwE4swFQBwDApMTVOwQAQDhAO8ADBK8EAaBBoEBgBwTQsN8EAwBLAEkABwU1l VsEAGBUYFWgBwSgxMDApwQBwF3AXkAHBKDYpCtQBEAAACpcAUgCQDsMALQAQAAHUwQAIBwgH eADBMTROKMBUAcAtLMBUAcBOKTEzQ8EAEA4QDvAAwSvBAGgQaBAYAcEwLDI1wQDAEsASQAHB TWVWwQAYFRgVaAHBKDEwMCnBAHAXcBeQAcEoNykK1AEQAAAKlwBSAHkPwwAtABAAAdTBAAgH CAd4AMExNE4owFQBwC0swFQBwDApMTRDwQAQDhAO8ADBK8EAaBBoEBgBwTIsM8EAwBLAEkAB wU1lVsEAGBUYFWgBwSgxMDApwQBwF3AXkAHBKDgpCtQBEAAACpcAUgBiEMMALQAQAAHUwQAI BwgHeADBMTVOKMBUAcBOLMBUAcAtKTE2T8EAEA4QDvAAwSvBAGgQaBAYAcE0LDPBAMASwBJA AcFNZVbBABgVGBVoAcEoMCwzKcEAcBdwF5ABwSg5KQrUARAAAAqXAFIASxHDAC0AEAAB1MEA CAcIB3gAwTE3TyjAVAHATizAVAHAMCkxOE/BABAOEA7wAMErwQBoEGgQGAHBMSw5wQDAEsAS QAHBTWVWwQAYFRgVaAHBKDAsMDQpwQBwF3AXkAHBKDEwKQ3UARAAAAqXAFIANBLDAC0AEAAB 1MEACAcIB3gAwTE3TyjAVAHAMCzAVAHATikxNk/BABAOEA7wAMErwQBoEGgQGAHBMiwwwQDA EsASQAHBTWVWwQAYFRgVaAHBKDAsMDQpwQBwF3AXkAHBKDExKQ3UARAAAAqXAFIAHRPDAC0A EAAB1MEACAcIB3gAwTE4TyjAVAHATizAVAHALSkxOUbBABAOEA7wAMErwQBoEGgQGAHBMCwy wQDAEsASQAHBTWVWwQAYFRgVaAHBKDAsMinBAHAXcBeQAcEoMTIpClRoZSBpc290b3BlIGNv bXBvc2l0aW9uICglKSBpcyBpbmRpY2F0ZWQgaW4gYnJhY2tldHMgYXNzdW1pbmcgdGhhdCBj b21wb3NpdGlvbiBvZg1kaWZmZXJlbnQgY2hlbWljYWwgZWxlbWVudHMgaXMgdGhlIHNhbWUu ICBOb3cgbGV0IHVzIHN1cHBvc2UgdGhhdCBhdmVyYWdlIGRlbnNpdHkgb2YNcGxhem1vaWQg bWF0dGVyIHdpbGwgYmUgYSBmZXcgbW9yZSB0aGFuIGFpciBkZW5zaXR5LiBUaGVuIGxldCB1 cyBmaW5kIG91dCB3aGF0DXJlYWN0aW9ucyB3aWxsIGJlIG1haW4gaW4gdGhlIGVyemlvbi1u dWNsZWFyIHRyYW5zbXV0YXRpb24gY3ljbGUuIEZvciBuZXV0cmFsIGN5Y2xlICgNRU1CRUQg RXF1YXRpb24gICAgIFNZTUJPTCAxNzQgXGYgIlN5bWJvbCIgIEVNQkVEIEVxdWF0aW9uICAg ICBTWU1CT0wgMTc0IFxmDSJTeW1ib2wiICBFTUJFRCBFcXVhdGlvbiAgICApIGl0IHdpbGwg YmUgKDUpIGFuZCAoNikgcmVhY3Rpb25zOg3UARAAAAqXAFIAfBnDAC0AEAAB1MEACAcIB3gA wTE0TijAVAHATizAVAHAMCkxNU7BABAOEA7wAMErwQBoEGgQGAHBNCw3wQDAEsASQAHBTWVW wQAYFRgVaAHBKDEwMCnBAHAXcBeQAcEoMTMpwQDIGcgZuAHBMTNDKMBUAcAwLMBUAcBOKTEy Q8EA0CDQIDACwSvBACgjKCNYAsGQ1AEQAAAKlwBSAGUawwAtABAAAdQxLDLBAAgHCAd4AMFN ZVbBAGAJYAmgAMEoMSkgRm9yIGNoYXJnZWQgY3ljbGUgKCBFTUJFRCBFcXVhdGlvbiAgICAg U1lNQk9MIDE3NCBcZiAiU3ltYm9sIiANRU1CRUQgRXF1YXRpb24gICAgIFNZTUJPTCAxNzQg XGYgIlN5bWJvbCIgIEVNQkVEIEVxdWF0aW9uICAgICkgaXQgd2lsbCBiZSAoMTIpLA3UARAA AAqXAFIANxzDAC0AEAAB1Cg5KSwgKDcpIHJlYWN0aW9uczogwQC4C7gLyADBMThPKMBUAcBO LMBUAcAtKTE5RsEAwBLAEkABwSvBABgVGBVoAcEwLDLBAHAXcBeQAcFNZVbBAMgZyBm4AcEo MCwyKQrUARAAAAqXAFIAIB3DAC0AEAAB1MEACAcIB3gAwTE1TijAVAHATizAVAHALSkxNk/B ABAOEA7wAMErwQBoEGgQGAHBNCwzwQDAEsASQAHBTWVWwQAYFRgVaAHBKDAsMynBAHAXcBeQ AcEoMTQpCtQBEAAACpcAUgAJHsMALQAQAAHUwQAIBwgHeADBMTROKMBUAcAtLMBUAcBOKTEz Q8EAEA4QDvAAwSvBAGgQaBAYAcEwLDI1wQDAEsASQAHBTWVWwQAYFRgVaAHBKDEwMCkKVGhl IG1peGVkIGN5Y2xlICggRU1CRUQgRXF1YXRpb24gICAgIFNZTUJPTCAxNzQgXGYgIlN5bWJv bCIgIEVNQkVEIEVxdWF0aW9uICAgIA1TWU1CT0wgMTc0IFxmICJTeW1ib2wiICBFTUJFRCBF cXVhdGlvbiAgICAgU1lNQk9MIDE3NCBcZiAiU3ltYm9sIiAgRU1CRUQN1AEQAAAKlwBSAMQg wwAtABAAAdRFcXVhdGlvbiAgICApIGlzIHBvc3NpYmxlIHRvbzogwQBoEGgQGAHBMTVOKMBU AcBOLMBUAcAtKTE2T8EAcBdwF5ABwSvBAMgZyBm4AcE0LDPBACAcIBzgAcFNZVbBAHgeeB4I AsEoMCwzKQrUARAAAAqXAFIArSHDAC0AEAAB1MEACAcIB3gAwTE4TyjAVAHATizAVAHALSkx OUbBABAOEA7wAMErwQBoEGgQGAHBMCwywQDAEsASQAHBTWVWwQAYFRgVaAHBKDAsMikK1AEQ AAAKlwBSAJYiwwAtABAAAdTBAAgHCAd4AMExSCjAVAHALSzAVAHAMCluwQC4C7gLyADBK8EA EA4QDvAAwTEsNjXBAGgQaBAYAcFNZVbBAMASwBJAAcEoMTAwKcEAGBUYFWgBwSgxNSkK1AEQ AAAKlwBSAH8jwwAtABAAAdTBAAgHCAd4AMExNE4owFQBwC0swFQBwDApMTRDwQAQDhAO8ADB K8EAaBBoEBgBwTIsM8EAwBLAEkABwU1lVsEAGBUYFWgBwSgxMDApCtQBEAAACpcAUgBoJMMA LQAQAAHUwQAIBwgHeADBMTNDKMBUAcAwLMBUAcBOKTEyQ8EAEA4QDvAAwSvBAGgQaBAYAcEx LDLBAMASwBJAAcFNZVbBABgVGBVoAcEoMSkKIEl0IGlzIGV2aWRlbnQgZnJvbSB0aGUgaXNv dG9wZSBjb21wb3NpdGlvbiB0aGF0IHRoZSBtYWluIGN5Y2xlIG11c3QgYmUgbmV1dHJhbCBj eWNsZQ0oMTMpIGlmIHRoZSBjcm9zcy1zZWN0aW9ucyBvZiByZWFjdGlvbnMgKDEgLSAxMikg ZG9uJ3QgZGlmZmVyIGVhY2ggZnJvbSBvdGhlciBzdHJvbmdseS4gVG8NZGVmaW5lIGN5Y2xl ICgxMykgcG93ZXIgbGV0IHVzIHJlbWVtYmVyIHRoYXQgc3VjaCBjeWNsZSBmcmVxdWVuY3kg aW4gY29uZGVuc2VkDW1hdHRlciAoUGREIG9yIFRpRDIpIGlzIGVxdWFsIHRvICBTWU1CT0wg MTI2IFxmICJTeW1ib2wiICAxMDExcy0xIGFuZCBpbiBzdWNoIGENd2F5IHRoZSBlcXVpdmFs ZW50IHBvd2VyIG11c3QgYmUgZXF1YWwgdG8gIFNZTUJPTCAxMjYgXGYgIlN5bWJvbCIgIDAs MVcu1AAiAAAa9SgFAAAAAAACAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBDAq8AAAACIAANQLTW9yZW92ZXIgbGV0 IHVzIHJlbWVtYmVyIHRoYXQgcGxhem1vaWQgbWF0dGVyIGRlbnNpdHkgaXMgMTAzIHRpbWVz IGxlc3MgdGhhbg1jb25kZW5zZWQgbWF0dGVyIGRlbnNpdHkgYW5kIDEzQyBpc290b3BlIGNv bmNlbnRyYXRpb24gaXMgZXF1YWwgdG8gIFNZTUJPTCAxMjYgXGYNIlN5bWJvbCIgIDAsMDEu IEFzIGEgcmVzdWx0IHdlIGhhdmUgdGhlIGVyemlvbiBjeWNsZSBmcmVxdWVuY3kgb2YgQkwg aXMgZXF1YWwgdG8gDVNZTUJPTCAxMjYgXGYgIlN5bWJvbCIgIDEwNnMtMSwgYW5kIHRoZSBl cXVpdmFsZW50IGN5Y2xlIHBvd2VyIGlzIGVxdWFsIHRvIA1TWU1CT0wgMTI2IFxmICJTeW1i b2wiICAxMC02Vy4gVGhlIHdob2xlIEJMICgxMDkgZW5pb25zKSBwb3dlciBpcyAgU1lNQk9M IDEyNg1cZiAiU3ltYm9sIiAgMWtXLiBJZiB3ZSBzdXBwb3NlIHRoYXQgZXJ6aW9uIHZlbG9j aXR5IGluICg1KSwgKDYpIHJlYWN0aW9ucyB3aWxsIGJlIA1TWU1CT0wgMTI2IFxmICJTeW1i b2wiICAxMDRjbcADBMBzLTEgd2UgY2FuIGZpbmQgZXJ6aW9uIG1pZGRsZSBpbnRlcmFjdGlv biByYW5nZSB0bw1iZSBlcXVhbCB0byAgU1lNQk9MIDEyNiBcZiAiU3ltYm9sIiAgMCwxbW0u IEl0IGlzIG11Y2ggbGVzcyB0aGFuIEJMIHJhZGl1cy4gQnV0IGluDXN1Y2ggYSB3YXkgdGhl IG1pZGRsZSBCTCBsaWZlIHRpbWUgbXVzdCBiZSBvbmx5ICBTWU1CT0wgMTI2IFxmICJTeW1i b2wiICAxcyBkdWUgdG8NZXJ6aW9uIGRpZmZ1c2luZy4gSWYgQkwga2VybmVsIGRlbnNpdHkg d2FzIGFzIGNvbmRlbnNlZCBtYXR0ZXIgZGVuc2l0eSwgQkwgcG93ZXINd291bGQgaW5jcmVh c2UgaW4gcHJvcG9ydGlvbiB1cCB0byAgU1lNQk9MIDEyNiBcZiAiU3ltYm9sIiAgMU1XLCBC TCBsaWZlLXRpbWUgLSB1cA10byAgU1lNQk9MIDEyNiBcZiAiU3ltYm9sIiAxMDNzLCBhbmQg QkwgcmFkaXVzIC0gdXAgdG8gIFNZTUJPTCAxMjYgXGYgIlN5bWJvbCIgDTEwY20uIElmIEJM IHJhZGl1cyB3YXMgIFNZTUJPTCAxMjYgXGYgIlN5bWJvbCIgIDFjbSwgQkwgbGlmZS10aW1l IHdvdWxkIGJlIA1TWU1CT0wgMTI2IFxmICJTeW1ib2wiICAxMHMuIFRoaXMgZmFjdCB3YXMg bm90aWNlZCBmb3IgYXJ0aWZpY2lhbCBCTCBbMTNdIGF0IGhpZ2gNdm9sdGFnZSBkaXNjaGFy Z2VzIGluIHBvbHltZXRoeWxtZXRoYWNyeWxhdC4gQXQgaGlnaCB2b2x0YWdlIGRpc2NoYXJn ZSBpbiB3YXRlciBpdCBpcw1wb3NzaWJsZSB0byBoYXZlIGZyZWUgZW5pb24gd2hpY2ggY2Fu IHByb3ZpZGUgZXJ6aW9uIG51Y2xlYXIgY3ljbGUgcmVhY3Rpb25zIG9uIHRoZSBIDWFuZCBP IGlzb3RvcGVzLiBUaGUgMTdPIGFuZCAySCBkZW5zaXRpZXMgYXJlIDEwMyB0aW1lcyBsZXNz IHRoYW4gUGREIHN5c3RlbSBvbmVzLg1UaGF0IGlzIHdoeSB0aGUgY3ljbGUgZnJlcXVlbmN5 IHdpbGwgYmUgIFNZTUJPTCAxMjYgXGYgIlN5bWJvbCIgMTA4cy0xIGFuZCBjeWNsZQ1wb3dl ciB3aWxsIGJlICBTWU1CT0wgMTI2IFxmICJTeW1ib2wiICAxMC00Vy4gTWlkZGxlIGludGVy YWN0aW9uIHJhbmdlIG9mIG5ldXRyYWwNZXJ6aW9uICggRU1CRUQgRXF1YXRpb24gICAgKSBp biB3YXRlciB3aWxsIGJlICBTWU1CT0wgMTI2IFxmICJTeW1ib2wiICAxIFNZTUJPTA0xMDkg XGYgIlN5bWJvbCIgbS4gSWYgQkwgbGlmZS10aW1lIGlzICBTWU1CT0wgMTI2IFxmICJTeW1i b2wiICAwLDFzIGFuZCBhYm91dCAxMDANZXJ6aW9ucyBwYXJ0aWNpcGF0ZSBpbiB0aGlzIGN5 Y2xlIHRoYW4gcGxhem1vaWQgcmFkaXVzIGlzICBTWU1CT0wgMTI2IFxmICJTeW1ib2wiIA0x bW0gYW5kIGl0cyBwb3dlciBpcyAgU1lNQk9MIDEyNiBcZiAiU3ltYm9sIiAgMTAtMlcuIEl0 IGNvcnJlc3BvbmRzIHRvIHJlc3VsdHMgb2YNcGFwZXIgWzE0XS4gVW5rbm93biByYWRpYXRp b24gd2l0aCB3YXZlIGxlbmd0aHMgNzk1IG5tIGFuZCA3NDMgbm0gKCBTWU1CT0wgMTAxDVxm ICJTeW1ib2wiICAgU1lNQk9MIDEyNiBcZiAiU3ltYm9sIiAgMSw2IGVWKSBtYXkgYmUgaW50 ZXJwcmV0ZWQgYXMgY2hhcmFjdGVyaXN0aWMNcmFkaWF0aW9uIG9mIGVuaW9ucyBjYXB0dXJl ZCBieSAxNk8gbnVjbGVpIGluIGhvdCBwbGFzbW9pZCBtYXR0ZXIuIFdhdmUgbGVuZ3RoDWRv dWJsZXQgaXMgZHVlIHRvIHRoaW4gc3BsaXR0aW5nIG9mIEwtUyBpbnRlcmFjdGlvbi4gQXMg aXQgd2FzIHNob3duIGVhcmxpZXIgRU0gY2FuIGdpdmUNcHJpbmNpcGFsIGludGVycHJldGF0 aW9uIGZvciBCTCBwaGVub21lbm9uIChqdXN0IGFzIG5hdHVyYWwgc28gYXJ0aWZpY2lhbCkg YW5kIGNhbg1pbmRpY2F0ZSBCTCBtYWluIHBhcmFtZXRlcnMgKHJhZGl1cywgbGlmZSB0aW1l LCBwb3dlcikgcmF0aGVyIHdlbGwuIFRoaXMgQkwNaW50ZXJwcmV0YXRpb24gd2l0aCBoZWxw IG9mIEVNIGlzIG5vdCBzaW5nbGUuIEVhcmxpZXIgc3VjaCBpbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbiB3YXMg bWFkZSBpbiB0d28NZGlmZmVyZW50IHdvcmtzIFsxNV0gYnkgbWVhbnMgb2YgZGlmZmVyZW50 IG1lY2hhbmlzbXMgb2YgQ0YgYnV0IHRoZXNlIG1vZGVscw1pbnRyb2R1Y2VkIG5ldyBlbGVt ZW50YXJ5IHBhcnRpY2xlcy4gSXQgbXVzdCBiZSB2ZXJ5IHN5bXB0b21hdGljLiBFeGNlcHQg QkwgdGhlcmUNYXJlIGFub3RoZXIgZ2VvcGh5c2ljYWwgYW5vbWFsb3VzIHBoZW5vbWVuYSwg d2hpY2ggY2FuIGJlIGludGVycHJldGVkIGluIHRlcm1zIG9mDUVNLiBPbmUgb2YgdGhlbSBp cyBpbmRpY2F0aW9uIG9uIGFidW5kYW5jZSBvZiB0cml0aXVtIGFuZCAzSGUgY29uY2VudHJh dGlvbiBpbiB0aGUNdm9sY2FubyBlcnVwdGlvbiBwcm9kdWN0cyBbMTZdLiBJdCBtYXkgYmUg aW50ZXJwcmV0ZWQgYXMgdGhlIHJlc3VsdCBvZiByZWFjdGlvbiAoMikNcnVubmluZyBpbiB0 aGUgRWFydGggZW50cmFpbHMuIEFub3RoZXIgaW50ZXJlc3QgYW5vbWFsb3VzIHBoZW5vbWVu b24gaXMgMTNDIGlzb3RvcGUNaW1wb3ZlcmlzaG1lbnQgaW5zaWRlIG9mIGRpYW1vbmRzIG9m IE5vcnRoIFlha3V0aWEgKC0xNMBLBMApIGFuZCBBdXN0cmFsaWEgKC0xMcBLBMApLA1hbHRo b3VnaCBjYXJib24gaXNvdG9wZSBkaXNjcmVwYW5jeSBpcyBub3QgbW9yZSB0aGFuIDMgLSA1 wEsEwCBpbiBFYXJ0aCBlbnRyYWlscy4gVGhpcw1mYWN0IG1heSBiZSBpbnRlcnByZXRlZCBi eSByZWFjdGlvbiBjeWNsZXMgKDQpLCAoNSkgaW5pdGlhdGVkIGJ5IGVuaW9ucyByZWxlYXNl ZCBmcm9tDTEyQyBkb25vciBhZnRlciBjcmFja2luZyBvZiBkaWFtb25kIGNyeXN0YWwuIAo0 LiBDb25jbHVzaW9uCkludGVycHJldGF0aW9uIG9mIEJMIGFuZCBvdGhlciBhbm9tYWxvdXMg Z2VvcGh5c2ljYWwgcGhlbm9tZW5hIGRlc2NyaWJlZCBpbiB0ZXJtcw1vZiBFTSBvZiBjYXRh bHl0aWMgbnVjbGVhciB0cmFuc211dGF0aW9uIGV4dGVuZHMgbW9yZSB0aGUgbGlzdCBvZiBh bm9tYWxvdXMgbmF0dXJlDXBoZW5vbWVuYSBpbnRlcnByZXRlZCBieSBFTSBhbmQgcHVibGlz aGVkIGVhcmxpZXIuIElmIHJlc3VtZSBhbGwgcHVibGljYXRpb25zIG9uIHRoaXMN1AEQAAAK lwBSAAwowwAtABAAAdRzdWJqZWN0IHdlIGNhbiBnaXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0IG9mIHBvc3NpYmls aXRpZXMgcHJvdmlkZWQgYnkgRU06IMEAIBwgHOABwTEpIEludGVycHJldGF0aW9uIG9mDWFu b21hbG91cyBleHBlcmltZW50YWwgcmVzdWx0cyBpbiBDb3NtaWMgUmF5cywgQXN0cm9waHlz aWNzIGFuZCBHZW9waHlzaWNzO9QAIgAAGvUoBgAAAAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAEsAQwKvAAAAAi AADUC8EACAcIB3gAwTIpIEludGVycHJldGF0aW9uIG9mIGFub21hbG91cyBDRiBwZWN1bGlh cml0aWVzOwrBAAgHCAd4AMEzKSBDcmVhdGlvbiBhbmQgb3B0aW1pc2F0aW9uIG9mIGVuZXJn eSBzb3VyY2VzOwrBAAgHCAd4AME0KSBSYWRpb2FjdGl2ZSB3YXN0ZSB1dGlsaXphdGlvbjsK wQAIBwgHeADBNSkgU29tZSBzdGFibGUgY2hlbWljYWwgZWxlbWVudHMgYW5kIGlzb3RvcGVz IHByb2R1Y3Rpb24gKEhlLCBOZSwgQXUpLiBBbGwNdGhpcyBkZW1vbnN0cmF0ZXMgZ3JlYXQg b3Bwb3J0dW5pdGllcyBvZiBFTS4KSW4gY29uY2x1c2lvbiBJIHdhbnQgdG8gdGhhbmsgQS5N LkRyb2J5c2hldnNreSwgUC5JLkdvbHVibmljaGl5IGFuZCBBLkkuS2xpbW92IGZvcg11c2Vm dWwgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbnMgb24gdGhpcyBwcm9ibGVtIGFuZCBleHByZXNzIGdyYXRpdHVkZSB0 byBhbGwgbXkgY29sbGVhZ3VlcyBmb3IgdGhlaXINZmFpdGhmdWxuZXNzIGxveWFsdHkgdG8g RXJ6aW9uIGlkZWEuIApSZWZlcmVuY2VzCtQBEAAACpcAUgAxCMMALQAQAAHUMS7BAAgHCAd4 AMFGbGVpc2NobWFubiBNLiwgYW5kIFMuIFBvbnMsIEouIEVsZWN0cm9hbi4gQ2hlbWlzdHJ5 LCAxOTg5LCAyNjEsIDMwMSDBANAg0CAwAsFKb25lcw1TLiBldCBhbC4sIE5hdHVyZSwgMzM4 LDE5ODksIDczNwrUARAAAAqXAFIAAwrDAC0AEAAB1DIuwQAIBwgHeADBQmF6aHV0b3YgWXUu IE4uLCBLaHJlbm92IEIuIEEuLCBhbmQgRy4gQi4gS2hyaXN0aWFuc2VuLCAiQWJvdXQgT25l DU9wcG9ydHVuaXR5IG9mIFNlY29uZCBTaG93ZXIgU3BlY3RydW0gSW50ZXJwcmV0YXRpb24g T2JzZXJ2ZWQgYXQgU21hbGwgRGVwdGgNVW5kZXJncm91bmQiLCBJc3Zlc3RpeWEgQU4gVVNT Uiwgc2VyLiBwaHlzLiwgdi40NiwgOSwgMTk4MiwgMjQyNS0yNDI3DdQBEAAACpcAUgC+DMMA LQAQAAHUMy7BAAgHCAd4AMFCYXpodXRvdiBZdS4gTi4sIGFuZCBHLiBNLiBWZXJlc2hrb3Ys ICJOZXcgU3RhYmxlIEhhZHJvbnMgaW4gQ29zbWljIFJheXMsDVRoZWlyIFRoZW9yZXRpY2Fs IEludGVycHJldGF0aW9uIGFuZCBQb3NzaWJsZSBSb2xlIGluIENvbGQgRnVzaW9uIiwgUHJl cHJpbnQgTjEsDdQBEAAACpcAUgCQDsMALQAQAAHUQ1NSSW1hc2ggS2FsaW5pbmdyYWQsIE1v c2NvdyBSZWdpb24sIDE5OTAgwQBwF3AXkAHBQmF6aHV0b3YgWXUuIE4uLCBhbmQgRy4gTS4N VmVyZXNoa292LCAiTW9kZWwgb2YgQ29sZCBOdWNsZWFyIFRyYW5zbXV0YXRpb24gYnkgRXJ6 aW9uIENhdGFseXNpcyBFcnppb24gTW9kZWwgb2YNQ29sZCBGdXNpb24iLCBQcm9jLiA0LXRo IEludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgQ29uZmVyZW5jZSBvbiBDb2xkIEZ1c2lvbiwgSGF3YWlpLCAxOTkz LCA0LCA4DdQBEAAACpcAUgBLEcMALQAQAAHUNC7BAAgHCAd4AMFCYXpodXRvdiBZdS4gTi4s ICJQb3NzaWJsZSBFeGhpYml0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBFcnppb24tTnVjbGVhciBUcmFuc211dGF0 aW9uIGluDUFzdHJvcGh5c2ljcyIsIFByb2MuIDQtdGggSW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCBDb25mZXJl bmNlIG9uIENvbGQgRnVzaW9uLCBIYXdhaWksIDE5OTMsIDQsIDI1DdQBEAAACpcAUgAdE8MA LQAQAAHUNS7BAAgHCAd4AMFCYXpodXRvdiBZdS4gTi4sICJTZWFyY2ggZm9yIHRoZSBEZWNh eXMgb2YgSHlwb3RoZXRpY2FsIEhlYXZ5IEhhZHJvbnMgaW4NQ29zbWljIFJheXMiLCBQcm9j LiAxOC10aCBJbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsIENvc21pYyBSYXkgQ29uZmVyZW5jZSwgQmFuZ2Fsb3Jl LCAxOTgzLA3UARAAAAqXAFIA7xTDAC0AEAAB1HYuMTEsIDI0LTI2IDYuwQC4C7gLyADBQmF6 aHV0b3YgWXUuIE4uLCBWZXJlc2hrb3YgRy4gTS4sIEt1em1pbiBSLiBOLiwgYW5kIEEuIE0u DUZyb2xvdiwgIkludGVycHJldGF0aW9uIG9mIENvbGQgRnVzaW9uIGJ5IEVyemlvbiBDYXRh bHlzaXMiLCBQcm9jLiAiUGxhc21hIFBoeXNpY3MgYW5kDVNvbWUgUXVlc3Rpb25zIG9mIEdl bmVyYWwgUGh5c2ljcyIsIENTUkltYXNoIEthbGluaW5ncmFkLCBNb3Njb3cgUmVnaW9uLCAx OTkwLA3UARAAAAqXAFIAqhfDAC0AEAAB1DY3LTcwIDcuwQBgCWAJoADBQm9ja3JpcyBJLiBP J00uIGV0IGFsLiwgRnVzaW9uIFRlY2hub2xvZ3ksIDE5OTAsIDE4LCAxLCAzMQ3UARAAAAqX AFIAkxjDAC0AEAAB1DguwQAIBwgHeADBQmF6aHV0b3YgWXUuIE4uLCBhbmQgRy4gTS4gVmVy ZXNoa292LCAiRXJ6aW9uIENhdGFseXNpcyBvZiBDb2xkIEZ1c2lvbg1SZWFjdGlvbnMiLCAg UHJvYy4gIDEtc3QgUnVzc2lhbiBDb25mZXJlbmNlIG9uIENvbGQgRnVzaW9uLCBBYnJhdS1E dXJzbywgMTk5MywN1AEQAAAKlwBSAGUawwAtABAAAdQyMi0zOSA5LsEAYAlgCaAAwUJhemh1 dG92IFl1LiBOLiwgYW5kIEEuIEIuIEt1em5ldHNvdiwgIklzb3RvcGljIGFuZCBDaGVtaWNh bA1Db21wb3NpdGlvbiBDaGFuZ2VzIG9mIFBhbGxhZGl1bSBpbiBDb2xkIEZ1c2lvbiBFeHBl cmltZW50cyBpbiB0aGUgRXJ6aW9uIE1vZGVsIiwNUHJvYy4gNC10aCBJbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFs IENvbmZlcmVuY2Ugb24gQ29sZCBGdXNpb24sIEhhd2FpaSwgMTk5MywgNCwgMjYN1AEQAAAK lwBSACAdwwAtABAAAdQxMC7BAAgHCAd4AMFCYXpodXRvdiBZdS4gTi4sIGFuZCBBLiBCLiBL dXpuZXRzb3YsICJJbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbiBvZiBDb2xkIEZ1c2lvbg1FeHBlcmltZW50cyBp biB0aGUgRXJ6aW9uIE1vZGVsIEZyYW1ld29yayIsIFByb2MuIDEtc3QgUnVzc2lhbiBDb25m ZXJlbmNlIG9uIENvbGQN1AEQAAAKlwBSAPIewwAtABAAAdRGdXNpb24sIEFicmF1LUR1cnNv LCAxOTkzLCA0MC00MyDBAMASwBJAAcFCYXpodXRvdiBZdS4gTi4sIGFuZCBBLiBCLiBLdXpu ZXRzb3YsDSJJbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbiBvZiBOZXcgU2V0IG9mIEV4cGVyaW1lbnRzIG9uIENv bGQgRnVzaW9uIGluIHRoZSBFcnppb24gTW9kZWwNRnJhbWV3b3JrIiwgUHJvYy4gMi1uZCBS dXNzaWFuIENvbmZlcmVuY2Ugb24gQ29sZCBGdXNpb24gYW5kIE51Y2xlYXIN1AEQAAAKlwBS AK0hwwAtABAAAdRUcmFuc211dGF0aW9uIiwgU29jaGksIDE5OTQsIDI1LTI5IDExLsEAwBLA EkABwUJhemh1dG92IFl1LiBOLiwgYW5kIEEuIEIuIEt1em5ldHNvdiwNIkVyemlvbi1OdWNs ZWFyIFNwZWN0cm9zY29weSBvZiBTdGFibGUgSXNvdG9wZXMiLCBQcmVwcmludCBONCwgQ1NS SW1hc2gsDdQBEAAACpcAUgB/I8MALQAQAAHUS2FsaW5pbmdyYWQsIE1vc2NvdyBSZWdpb24s IDE5OTIgMTIuwQDAEsASQAHBQmF6aHV0b3YgWXUuIE4uLCBLdXpuZXRzb3YgQS4gQi4sIGFu ZCBFLiBWLg1QbGV0bmlrb3YsICJTcGVjdHJvc2NvcHkgb2YgRXJ6aW9uLUNhdGFseXRpYyBU cmFuc211dGF0aW9uIG9mIE51Y2xlaSAiLCBQcmVwcmludCBOMSwNIkVyemlvbiIgQ2VudGVy LCBDU1JJbWFzaCwgS2FsaW5pbmdyYWQsIE1vc2NvdyBSZWdpb24sIDE5OTMsIDE3Mg3UARAA AAqXAFIAOibDAC0AEAAB1DEzLsEACAcIB3gAwSJCYWxsLUxpZ2h0bmluZyBpbiBMYWJvcmF0 b3J5LCBNb3Njb3csICJLaGltaXlhIiwgMTk5NCAxNC7BACAcIBzgAcFHb2x1Ym5pY2h5IFAu IEkuIGV0DWFsLiwgUHJvYy4gb2YgSW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCBTeW1wb3NpdW0gIkNvbGQgRnVz aW9uIGFuZCBOZXcgRW5lcmd5IFNvdXJjZXMiLCBNaW5zaywN1AEQAAAKlwBSAAwowwAtABAA AdQxOTk0LCA0MS00OCAxNS7BALgLuAvIAMFMZXdpcyBFLiwgRnVzaW9uIFRlY2hub2xvZ3ks IFN1Ym1pdHRlZCBpbiBEZWNlbWJlciAoMTk5MikNwQAIBwgHeADBTWF0c3Vtb3RvIFQuLCBC dWxsZXRpbiBvZiB0aGUgRmFjdWx0eSBvZiBFbmdpbmVlcmluZyBIb2trYWlkbyBVbml2ZXJz aXR5LNQAIgAAGvUoBwAAAAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAEsAQwKvAAAAAiAADUC9QBEAAACpcAUgAA AMMALQAQAAHUMTc1KDE5OTUpLCA3Mi04NiAxNi7BABAOEA7wAMFKb25lcyBTLiBFLiBldCBh bC4sIFByZXByaW50IEJZVVBIWVMsIDE5ODksIDMzOS0zODkN1AEQAAAKlwBSAOkAwwAtABAA AdQxNy7BAAgHCAd4AMFHYWxpbW92IEUuIE0uLCBhbmQgUy4gQXBzdGFpbiwgIkh5cG90aGVz ZXMuIFByb2dub3NlcyIsIE1vc2NvdywgIlpuYW5peWUiLA3UARAAAAqXAFIA0gHDAC0AEAAB 1DE5OTAsIDkzLTEwNSAgwCMEwH0uwKYBwMAcAcBBwI0MwMAGBMAgwI4MwG4gwI8MwMBYAcAg wJAMwG4geiA6IMAqAcAgICBGLSAgLCDALwHAIMAvAcAgIMEAyBnIGbgBwSDAIwTAICAgwQAg HCAc4AHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAKICDUACIAABq7AggAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE 0ALwAAAAIgAA1AwgwCEBwCDAoAzAIAomICDUACIAABrpAAkAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE 8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZSAgwEMBwCAgIC0gICAgMCAgICAwYiAgICDAIAHAIMA/AcAg wEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuKyAtICAgISAgVSDARQHAICAgwBIE wCAgIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1CJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gICDAVwHAICAgXyAgIFkgIEAg IFsgUiDAnQzAIGIgICAgICBNICAgIFbAQgHAIDogO8EAcBdwF5ABwXsgwFkBwDA8IGggwC8B wCDALwHAICDBAHgeeB4IAsEgRiAgICDBANAg0CAwAsEgICAgICAgIA0uICAgMSAgICAgINQA IgAAGtIBCgAAAAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAEsATgAfAAAAAiAADUDCBAIGAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukA CwAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlQCDAQwHAICAgLSAgICAw wEwBwCAgICAwICAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICAh ICDAVAHAICAgwEMBwHQgIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgICBTeW1ib2wgLSAgDcBXAcAgICAhICAtICAg wCABwCDAngzAICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgICBTeW1ib2wgLSAgIMBXAcAgICAhICDAEATA ICAgwCABwCDALQHAICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgIFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiAtICAgwFcB wCAgICEgDXsgICDAIAHAIMBJAcAgICEgIH0gICDAIAHAIMBMAcAgICEgIDsgICDAIAHAIMAp BMAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICAgIFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbsAcAcAgIC0gICDAVwHAICAg ISAgVSAgIMAgAcAgwAgGwCAgISAgZCDARQHAICAN1AEQAAAKlwBSALsCwwAtABAAAdTAEgTA ICAgICJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gICDAVwHAICAgICDAQgHAIDogZyB7IMAhBMArwB4BwCBoIMAvAcAg wC8BwCAgwQAYFRgVaAHBID8gICAgwQBwF3AXkAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAgICDUACIA ABq7AgwAAAAAAAIAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE0ALwAAAAIgAA1AwgQCDAoAzAIAomICDUACIAABrp AA0AAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZUAgwEMBwCAgIC0gICAg MMAMBMAgICAgMMAnAcAgICAgwCABwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAt ICAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBDAcBuICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcNUm9tYW7AHwHAKCAt ICAgwFcBwCAgICEgIDAgICDAIAHAIMCADMAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICAgIFN5bWJvbCAt ICAgwFcBwCAgICEgIMAQBMAgICDAIAHAIMAwAcAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICAgVGltZXMg TmV3DVJvbWFuwB8BwCggLSAgIMBXAcAgICAhICB7ICAgwCABwCDAAQbAICAhICB9ICAgwCAB wCB7ICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW7ABgHATyAtICAgwFcBwCAg ICEgIFUgICDAIAHAIMBIAcAgICEgDdQBEAAACpcAUgC7AsMALQAQAAHUdSDARQHAICAgwBIE wCAgICAiU3lzdGVtICAtICAgwFcBwCAgIMCADMAgwIAMwCDAgAzAIMCADMAgwIAMwCDAgAzA IMCADMAgwIAMwCDAgAzAIMCADMAgwIAMwCDAgAzAIMCADMAgwIAMwCDAgAzAIMCADMAgwIAM wCDAQgHAIDogwEgBwCDAngzAID4swBEBwCB8IMAvAcAgwC8BwCAgwQAoIygjWALBDdQBEAAA CpcAUgCkA8MALQAQAAHUQCAgICDBAAgHCAd4AMEgICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgIAogINQAIgAA Go0EDgAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsASwBPAAAAAiAADUDCBgIMAgAcAKCiYgINQAIgAAGtIB DwAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATgAfAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlUCDAQwHAICAgLSAgICAw CiAgICAwTyAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICAhICDA VAHAICAgMCDAJwTAICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuWCAgLSAgIMBXAcAg ICAhICBOIA0gwCABwCDATQHAICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4g LSAgIMBXAcAgICAhICBVICAgwCABwCBBICAhICB1dWRkICAgwCABwCDALwHAICDARQHAIEDA WQHAwJAMwCAgICBTeW1ib2wgLSAN1AEQAAAKlwBSALsCwwAtABAAAdQgwFcBwCAgICEgIMAQ BMAgICDAIAHAIDUgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuWCAgLSAgIMBX AcAgICAhICB7ICAgwCABwCDATQHAwQAgHCAc4AHBICEgIH0gwEUBwCAgIMASBMAgICAN1AEQ AAAKlwBSAKQDwwAtABAAAdQiU3lzdGVtICAtICAgwFcBwCAgIDogOiAiIMCeDMAgwBYEwC5Y IHwgwC8BwCDALwHAICDBAMASwBJAAcEgwC8BwCAgIMEAGBUYFWgBwSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAx ICAgICAg1AAiAAAapAMQAAAAAAACAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBMAD8AAAACIAANQMIGAgwCABwCAK JiAg1AAiAAAa6QARAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGVQICAg wCABwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAhICDAVAHAICAgwEMBwHQg IMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgICBTeW1ib2wgLSAgIMBXAcAgICEgIC0gICDAIAHAIFYgIMBFAcANQMBZ AcDAkAzAICAgIFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbsA9AcBaIC0gIMBXAcAgICAhICBwICAgwCABwCBK ICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgIFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiBZIC0gICDAVwHAICAhICAsDdQB EAAACpcAUgDSAcMALQAQAAHUwEUBwCAgIMASBMAgICAgIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAgIGfA QgHAwAUEwH3ACQTAIMA7AcBzwAgGwD8gwDsBwHnARQHAwAMEwMBKAcDACgTAIMA7AcB8wAgG wMA0AcAgwDsBwH57wAMEwMAnAcDACgTAIMA7AcB+wAgGwMA1AcAgwDsBwMBCAcAgOiBOICAg wKYMwC3AIQHAICwgwC8BwCDALwHAICDBANAg0CAwAsEgwB4BwCAgIMEAKCMoI1gCwSANICAg ICAgIC4gICAxICAgICAg1AAiAAAauwISAAAAAAACAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBNAC8AAAACIAANQM IMAhAcAgIAomICDUACIAABrpABMAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRo VHlwZSAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAg ICDAQwHAbiAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIsADAcAgLSAgIMBXAcAgICEg IDAgDSDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuwDMBwCAtICDA VwHAICAgISAgbiDARQHAICAgwBIEwCAgICAiU3lzdGVtICAtICAgwFcBwCAgwLEBwCA6IMAa AcAgVyBuJMCQDMAgVCDALwHADdQBEAAACpcAUgDSAcMALQAQAAHUwC8BwCAgwQAIBwgHeADB IMAkBMAgICDBAGAJYAmgAMEgICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgICAgINQAIgAAGtIBFAAAAAAAAgAA ADMqMyozKrAEsATgAfAAAAAiAADUDCAgIMCADMAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukAFQAAAAAAAAAAADMq MyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlUCAgIMCADMAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAg UHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBXAcAgwCcEwCAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgIFRpbWVz IE5ldyBSb21hbmYgLSAgIMBXAcAgICEgDdQBEAAACpcAUgDpAMMALQAQAAHUTiDARQHAICAg wBIEwCAgICAiU3lzdGVtICAtICDAVwHAICAgSCAgwJ0MwCAgICAgICAgIMAoBMAkIGcgIHog OiBXICAgPitUICwgwC8BwCDALwHAICDBACAcIBzgAcEgwCEEwCAgIMEAeB54HggCwSAgICAg ICAgIC4gICAxICAgIA0g1AAiAAAa0gEWAAAAAAACAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBOAB8AAAACIAANQM IMAhAcAgICAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QAXAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMTWF0 aFR5cGUgICAgwCABwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAhICDAVAHA ICAgwEMBwHQgIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgICBTeW1ib2wgLSAgIMBXAcAgICEgIC0gwEUBwCAgIMAS BMAgICAN1AEQAAAKlwBSAOkAwwAtABAAAdQiU3lzdGVtICAtICDAVwHAICAgIGAgwEcBwCBg IMBHAcAgIGAgwEcBwMCxAcAgOiA0ICAgJiNAICwgwC8BwCDALwHAICDBABgVGBVoAcEgwCQE wCAgIMEAcBdwF5ABwSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAxICAgICAg1AAiAAAa6QAYAAAAAAACAAAAMyoz KjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMIMAhAcAgIAomICDUACIAABrpABkAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqw BLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZSAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdt YXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAgICDAQwHAbiAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFu IC0gICDAVwHAICAhICAwIMBFAcAgDdQBEAAACpcAUgDpAMMALQAQAAHUIMASBMAgICAgIlN5 c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAgIMCODMDBABAOEA7wAMHADgHAIMAlAcAgwA8EwCB2IDggwD4EwNQA IgAAGukAGgAAAAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDNQBEAAACpcAUgAAAMMALQAQ AAHUwD0BwCBQcmFnbWF0aWNhwLEBwCA6IDQgICAmI0AgLCDALwHAIMAvAcAgIMEAaBBoEBgB wSDAJATAICAgwQDAEsASQAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAgICDUACIAABoAABsAAAAAAAAA AAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEAADwAAAAIgAA1AwgwCEBwCAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukAHAAAAAAAAAAAADMq MyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlICAgIMAgAcAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAg UHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBDAcBuICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcg Um9tYW4gLSAgIMBXAcAgICEgIDAgwEUBwCAN1AEQAAAKlwBSAOkAwwAtABAAAdQgwBIEwCAg ICAiU3lzdGVtICAtICDAVwHAICAgwI4MwMEAEA4QDvAAwcAOAcAgwCUBwCDADwTAIHYgOCDA PgTA1AAiAAAa6QAdAAAAAAACAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQM1AEQAAAKlwBSAAAA wwAtABAAAdTAPQHAIFByYWdtYXRpY2F6IDogVyAgID4rVCAsIMAvAcAgwC8BwCAgwQBoEGgQ GAHBIMAhBMAgICDBAMASwBJAAcEgICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgICAgINQAIgAAGgAAHgAAAAAA AAAAADMqMyozKrAEsAQAAPAAAAAiAADUDCDAIQHAICAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukAHwAAAAAAAAAA ADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlICAgIMAgAcAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAM wCAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBDAcB0ICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICAgU3ltYm9s IC0gICDAVwHAICAhICAtIMBFAcAgICDAEgTAICAgDdQBEAAACpcAUgDpAMMALQAQAAHUIlN5 c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAgICBgIMBHAcAgYCDARwHAICBgIMBHAcB6IDogVyAgID4rVCAsIMAv AcAgwC8BwCAgwQAYFRgVaAHBIMAhBMAgICDBAHAXcBeQAcEgICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgICAg INQAIgAAGukAIAAAAAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDCDAIQHAICAgCiYgINQA IgAAGukAIQAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlICAgIMAgAcAg ICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBDAcB0ICDARQHA IMCQDMAgICAgU3ltYm9sIC0gICDAVwHAICAhICAtIMBFAcAgICDAEgTAICAgDdQBEAAACpcA UgDpAMMALQAQAAHUIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAgICBgIMBHAcAgYCDARwHAICBgIMBHAcDA sQHAIDogNCAgICYjQCAsIMAvAcAgwC8BwCAgwQAYFRgVaAHBIMAkBMAgICDBAHAXcBeQAcEg ICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgICAgINQAIgAAGukAIgAAAAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAi AADUDCDAIQHAICAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QAjAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQM TWF0aFR5cGUgICAgwCABwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAhICDA VAHAICAgwEMBwG4gIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgIFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAg MCDARQHAIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1CDAEgTAICAgICJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAg ICDAjgzAwQAQDhAO8ADBwA4BwCDAJQHAIMAPBMAgdiA4IMA+BMDUACIAABrpACQAAAAAAAIA AAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AzUARAAAAqXAFIAAADDAC0AEAAB1MA9AcAgUHJhZ21h dGljYcCxAcAgOiDAGgHAIFcgbiTAkAzAIFQgwC8BwCDALwHAICDBAMASwBJAAcEgwCQEwCAg IMEAGBUYFWgBwSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAxICAgCiAg1AAiAAAa6QAlAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMq sASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMICAgwIAMwCAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QAmAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASw BPAA8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGVQICAgwIAMwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0 aWNhICAtICAhICDAVAHAICAgwFcBwCDAJwTAICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJv bWFuZiAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAN1AEQAAAKlwBSAOkAwwAtABAAAdROIMBFAcAgICDAEgTAICAg ICJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICBIICDAnQzAICAgICAgICAgwCgEwCQgZyAgwLEBwCA6IMAa AcAgVyBuJMCQDMAgVCDALwHAIMAvAcAgIMEAIBwgHOABwSDAJATAICAgwQB4HngeCALBICAg ICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAgDSDUACIAABrSAScAAAAAAAIAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE4AHwAAAAIgAA 1AwgICDAgAzAIAomICDUACIAABrpACgAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxN YXRoVHlwZVAgICDAgAzAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBU AcAgICDAVwHAIMAnBMAgIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW5mIC0gICDAVwHA ICAhIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1E4gwEUBwCAgIMASBMAgICAgIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAg wFcBwCAgIEggIMCdDMAgICAgICAgICDAKATAJCBnICDAsQHAIDogNCAgICYjQCAsIMAvAcAg wC8BwCAgwQAgHCAc4AHBIMAkBMAgICDBAHgeeB4IAsEgICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgICANINQA IgAAGtIBKQAAAAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAEsATgAfAAAAAiAADUDCDAIQHAICAKJiAg1AAiAAAa 6QAqAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGUgICAgwCABwCAgIMBF AcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAhICDAVAHAICAgwEMBwG4gIMBFAcAgwJAM wCAgIFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAgMCDARQHAIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDD AC0AEAAB1CDAEgTAICAgICJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICDAjgzAwQAQDhAO8ADBwA4BwCDA JQHAIMAPBMAgdiA4IMA+BMDUACIAABrpACsAAAAAAAIAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA 1AzUARAAAAqXAFIAAADDAC0AEAAB1MA9AcAgUHJhZ21hdGljYcCxAcAgOiDAGgHAIFcgbiTA kAzAIFQgwC8BwCDALwHAICDBAMASwBJAAcEgwCQEwCAgIMEAGBUYFWgBwSAgICAgICAgIC4g ICAxICAgCiAg1AAiAAAa6QAsAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMICAgwIAM wCAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QAtAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGVQ ICAgwIAMwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAhICDAVAHAICAgwFcB wCDAJwTAICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuZiAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAN1AEQ AAAKlwBSAOkAwwAtABAAAdROIMBFAcAgICDAEgTAICAgICJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICBI ICDAnQzAICAgICAgICAgwCgEwCQgZyAgeiA6IFcgICA+K1QgLCDALwHAIMAvAcAgIMEAIBwg HOABwSDAIQTAICAgwQB4HngeCALBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAgDSDUACIAABrSAS4AAAAA AAIAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE4AHwAAAAIgAA1AwgwCEBwCAgIAomICDUACIAABrpAC8AAAAAAAAA AAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZSAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQ DMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAgICDAQwHAdCAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgIFN5bWJv bCAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAgLSDARQHAICAgwBIEwCAgIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1CJT eXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICAgYCDARwHAIGAgwEcBwCAgYCDARwHAwLEBwCA6IDQgICAmI0Ag LCDALwHAIMAvAcAgIMEAGBUYFWgBwSDAJATAICAgwQBwF3AXkAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEg ICAgICDUACIAABrpADAAAAAAAAIAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AwgwCEBwCAgCiYg INQAIgAAGukAMQAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlICAgIMAg AcAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBDAcBuICDA RQHAIMCQDMAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4gLSAgIMBXAcAgICEgIDAgwEUBwCAN1AEQAAAK lwBSAOkAwwAtABAAAdQgwBIEwCAgICAiU3lzdGVtICAtICDAVwHAICAgwI4MwMEAEA4QDvAA wcAOAcAgwCUBwCDADwTAIHYgOCDAPgTA1AAiAAAa6QAyAAAAAAACAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA 8AAAACIAANQM1AEQAAAKlwBSAAAAwwAtABAAAdTAPQHAIFByYWdtYXRpY2HAsQHAIDogwBoB wCBXIG4kwJAMwCBUIMAvAcAgwC8BwCAgwQDAEsASQAHBIMAkBMAgICDBABgVGBVoAcEgICAg ICAgICAuICAgMSAgIAogINQAIgAAGukAMwAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADU DCAgIMCADMAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukANAAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1h dGhUeXBlUCAgIMCADMAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQB wCAgIMBXAcAgwCcEwCAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgIFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbmYgLSAgIMBXAcAg ICEgDdQBEAAACpcAUgDpAMMALQAQAAHUTiDARQHAICAgwBIEwCAgICAiU3lzdGVtICAtICDA VwHAICAgSCAgwJ0MwCAgICAgICAgIMAoBMAkIGcgIMCxAcAgOiA0ICAgJiNAICwgwC8BwCDA LwHAICDBACAcIBzgAcEgwCQEwCAgIMEAeB54HggCwSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAxICAgIA0g1AAi AAAa0gE1AAAAAAACAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBOAB8AAAACIAANQMIMAhAcAgIAomICDUACIAABrp ADYAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZSAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUB wCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAgICDAQwHAbiAgwEUBwCDAkAzA ICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIC0gICDAVwHAICAhICAwIMBFAcAgDdQBEAAACpcAUgDpAMMA LQAQAAHUIMASBMAgICAgIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAgIMCODMDBABAOEA7wAMHADgHAIMAl AcAgwA8EwCB2IDggwD4EwNQAIgAAGukANwAAAAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADU DNQBEAAACpcAUgAAAMMALQAQAAHUwD0BwCBQcmFnbWF0aWNheiA6IFcgICA+K1QgLCDALwHA IMAvAcAgIMEAaBBoEBgBwSDAIQTAICAgwQDAEsASQAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAgICDU ACIAABoAADgAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEAADwAAAAIgAA1AwgwCEBwCAgIAomICDUACIA ABrpADkAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZSAgICDAIAHAICAg wEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAgICDAQwHAdCAgwEUBwCDA kAzAICAgIFN5bWJvbCAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAgLSDARQHAICAgwBIEwCAgIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA 6QDDAC0AEAAB1CJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICAgYCDARwHAIGAgwEcBwCAgYCDARwHAeiA6 IFcgICA+K1QgLCDALwHAIMAvAcAgIMEAGBUYFWgBwSDAIQTAICAgwQBwF3AXkAHBICAgICAg ICAgLiAgIDEgICAgICDUACIAABrpADoAAAAAAAIAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1Awg wCEBwCAgIAomICDUACIAABrpADsAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRo VHlwZSAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAg ICDAQwHAdCAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgIFN5bWJvbCAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAgLSDARQHAICAgwBIE wCAgIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1CJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICAgYCDARwHAIGAg wEcBwCAgYCDARwHAwLEBwCA6IMAaAcAgVyBuJMCQDMAgVCDALwHAIMAvAcAgIMEAcBdwF5AB wSDAJATAICAgwQDIGcgZuAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAgICDUACIAABrpADwAAAAAAAIA AAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AwgICDAgAzAIAomICDUACIAABrpAD0AAAAAAAAAAAAz KjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZVAgICDAgAzAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAg IFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAgICDAVwHAIMAnBMAgIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgICBUaW1l cyBOZXcgUm9tYW5mIC0gICDAVwHAICAhIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1E4gwEUBwCAg IMASBMAgICAgIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAgIEggIMCdDMAgICAgICAgICDAKATAJCBnICB6 IDogVyAgID4rVCAsIMAvAcAgwC8BwCAgwQAgHCAc4AHBIMAhBMAgICDBAHgeeB4IAsEgICAg ICAgICAuICAgMSAgICANINQAIgAAGtIBPgAAAAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAEsATgAfAAAAAiAADU DCDAIQHAICAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukAPwAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1h dGhUeXBlICAgIMAgAcAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQB wCAgIMBDAcB0ICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICAgU3ltYm9sIC0gICDAVwHAICAhICAtIMBFAcAgICDA EgTAICAgDdQBEAAACpcAUgDpAMMALQAQAAHUIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAgICBgIMBHAcAg YCDARwHAICBgIMBHAcDAsQHAIDogNCAgICYjQCAsIMAvAcAgwC8BwCAgwQAYFRgVaAHBIMAk BMAgICDBAHAXcBeQAcEgICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgICAgINQAIgAAGukAQAAAAAAAAgAAADMq MyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDCDAIQHAICAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QBBAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMq sASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGUgICAgwCABwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFn bWF0aWNhICAtICAhICDAVAHAICAgwEMBwG4gIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgIFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21h biAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAgMCDARQHAIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1CDAEgTAICAgICJT eXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICDAjgzAwQAQDhAO8ADBwA4BwCDAJQHAIMAPBMAgdiA4IMA+BMDU ACIAABrpAEIAAAAAAAIAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AzUARAAAAqXAFIAAADDAC0A EAAB1MA9AcAgUHJhZ21hdGljYTogOiDApgHAIMCeDMAgZinAHwTAIHwgwC8BwCDALwHAICDB AGgQaBAYAcEgwC8BwCAgIMEAwBLAEkABwSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAxICAgCiAg1AAiAAAa6QBD AAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMIGAgICAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QBEAAAAAAAA AAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGVQICAgwCABwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDA kAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAhICDAVAHAICAgwEMBwHQgIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgICBTeW1i b2wgLSAgIMBXAcAgICEgIC0gICDAIAHAIE4gIMBFAcANQMBZAcDAkAzAICAgVGltZXMgTmV3 IFJvbWFuIC0gIMBXAcAgICAhICAsICAgwCABwCAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgICBUaW1l cyBOZXcgUm9tYW4gLSAgIMBXAcAgICEgIHAgwEUBwCAgDcASBMAgICAgIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAg wFcBwCAgIMA1AcAgwAsEwCDAEATAIDggwCsBwCAg1AAiAAAa0gFFAAAAAAACAAAAMyozKjMq sASwBOAB8AAAACIAANQMINQAIgAAGgAARgAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsAQAAPAAAAAiAADU DCA4INQAIgAAGgAARwAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsAQAAPAAAAAiAADUDNQBEAAACpcAUgAA AMMALQAQAAHUIMAhAcAgwCAEwCBZIMCgDMAgwE4EwCDAIATAIMBQAcAgwDsBwCDAkAzAIE8g eCDANQHAIMCADMAgOiA6ICIgeyB2LVggaCDALwHAIMAvAcAgIMEAGBUYFWgBwSDAMQHAICAg wQBwF3AXkAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAgICDUACIAABoAAEgAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqw BLAEAADwAAAAIgAA1AwgQCDAIAHAIAomICDUACIAABrpAEkAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE 8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZUAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRp Y2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAgICDAQwHAbiAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuICAt ICAgwFcBwCAgISANMCAgIMAgAcAgMCAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9t YW4gLSAgwFcBwCAgICEgICwgICDAIAHAIMAZBMAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICAgIFRpbWVz IE5ldyBSb21hbiAgLSAgDdQBEAAACpcAUgDSAcMALQAQAAHUwFcBwCAgISAgbiDARQHAICAg wBIEwCAgICAiU3lzdGVtICAtICDAVwHAICAgwFcBwMAyAcAgwCABwMAhAcDAIAHAwCEBwMBW AcDAIQHAwCABwMAhAcDARwHAIMAgAcDAHAHAIsA7AcB0wCABwCDAsQHAIDogwBoBwCBXIG4k wJAMwCBUIMAvAcAgwC8BwCAgwQDQINAgMALBIMAkBMAgICDBACgjKCNYAsEgDSAgICAgICAu ICAgMSAgICAgINQAIgAAGrsCSgAAAAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAEsATQAvAAAAAiAADUDCAgIMCA DMAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukASwAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBl UCAgIMCADMAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBX AcAgwCcEwCAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgIFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbmYgLSAgIMBXAcAgICEgDdQB EAAACpcAUgDpAMMALQAQAAHUTiDARQHAICAgwBIEwCAgICAiU3lzdGVtICAtICDAVwHAICAg SCAgwJ0MwCAgICAgICAgIMAoBMAkIGcgIMCxAcAgOiA0ICAgJiNAICwgwC8BwCDALwHAICDB ACAcIBzgAcEgwCQEwCAgIMEAeB54HggCwSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAxICAgIA0g1AAiAAAa0gFM AAAAAAACAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBOAB8AAAACIAANQMIMAhAcAgIAomICDUACIAABrpAE0AAAAA AAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZSAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkB wMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAgICDAQwHAbiAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgVGlt ZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIC0gICDAVwHAICAhICAwIMBFAcAgDdQBEAAACpcAUgDpAMMALQAQAAHU IMASBMAgICAgIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAgIMCODMDBABAOEA7wAMHADgHAIMAlAcAgwA8E wCB2IDggwD4EwNQAIgAAGukATgAAAAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDNQBEAAA CpcAUgAAAMMALQAQAAHUwD0BwCBQcmFnbWF0aWNhwLEBwCA6IMAaAcAgVyBuJMCQDMAgVCDA LwHAIMAvAcAgIMEAwBLAEkABwSDAJATAICAgwQAYFRgVaAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAK ICDUACIAABrpAE8AAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AwgICDAgAzAIAomICDU ACIAABrpAFAAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZVAgICDAgAzA ICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAgICDAVwHAIMAnBMAg IMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW5mIC0gICDAVwHAICAhIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA 6QDDAC0AEAAB1E4gwEUBwCAgIMASBMAgICAgIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAgIEggIMCdDMAg ICAgICAgICDAKATAJCBnICDAsQHAIDogwBoBwCBXIG4kwJAMwCBUIMAvAcAgwC8BwCAgwQAg HCAc4AHBIMAkBMAgICDBAHgeeB4IAsEgICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgICANINQAIgAAGtIBUQAA AAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAEsATgAfAAAAAiAADUDCAgIMCADMAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukAUgAAAAAA AAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlUCAgIMCADMAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHA wJAMwCAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBXAcAgwCcEwCAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAg IFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbmYgLSAgIMBXAcAgICEgDdQBEAAACpcAUgDpAMMALQAQAAHUTiDA RQHAICAgwBIEwCAgICAiU3lzdGVtICAtICDAVwHAICAgSCAgwJ0MwCAgICAgICAgIMAoBMAk IGcgIHogOiBXICAgPitUICwgwC8BwCDALwHAICDBACAcIBzgAcEgwCEEwCAgIMEAeB54HggC wSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAxICAgIA0g1AAiAAAa0gFTAAAAAAACAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBOAB8AAA ACIAANQMIMAhAcAgICAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QBUAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIA ANQMTWF0aFR5cGUgICAgwCABwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAh ICDAVAHAICAgwEMBwHQgIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgICBTeW1ib2wgLSAgIMBXAcAgICEgIC0gwEUB wCAgIMASBMAgICAN1AEQAAAKlwBSAOkAwwAtABAAAdQiU3lzdGVtICAtICDAVwHAICAgIGAg wEcBwCBgIMBHAcAgIGAgwEcBwMCxAcAgOiDAGgHAIFcgbiTAkAzAIFQgwC8BwCDALwHAICDB AHAXcBeQAcEgwCQEwCAgIMEAyBnIGbgBwSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAxICAgICAg1AAiAAAa6QBV AAAAAAACAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMICAgwIAMwCAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QBWAAAA AAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGVQICAgwIAMwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZ AcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAhICDAVAHAICAgwFcBwCDAJwTAICDARQHAIMCQDMAg ICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuZiAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAN1AEQAAAKlwBSAOkAwwAtABAAAdRO IMBFAcAgICDAEgTAICAgICJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICBIICDAnQzAICAgICAgICAgwCgE wCQgZyAgwLEBwCA6IMAaAcAgVyBuJMCQDMAgVCDALwHAIMAvAcAgIMEAIBwgHOABwSDAJATA ICAgwQB4HngeCALBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAgDSDUACIAABrSAVcAAAAAAAIAAAAzKjMq MyqwBLAE4AHwAAAAIgAA1AwgICDAgAzAIAomICDUACIAABrpAFgAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqw BLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZVAgICDAgAzAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdt YXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAgICDAVwHAIMAnBMAgIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcg Um9tYW5mIC0gICDAVwHAICAhIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1E4gwEUBwCAgIMASBMAg ICAgIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAgIEggIMCdDMAgICAgICAgICDAKATAJCBnICB6IDogVyAg ID4rVCAsIMAvAcAgwC8BwCAgwQAgHCAc4AHBIMAhBMAgICDBAHgeeB4IAsEgICAgICAgICAu ICAgMSAgICANINQAIgAAGtIBWQAAAAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAEsATgAfAAAAAiAADUDCDAIQHA ICAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukAWgAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBl ICAgIMAgAcAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBD AcB0ICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICAgU3ltYm9sIC0gICDAVwHAICAhICAtIMBFAcAgICDAEgTAICAg DdQBEAAACpcAUgDpAMMALQAQAAHUIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAgICBgIMBHAcAgYCDARwHA ICBgIMBHAcDAsQHAIDogNCAgICYjQCAsIMAvAcAgwC8BwCAgwQAYFRgVaAHBIMAkBMAgICDB AHAXcBeQAcEgICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgICAgINQAIgAAGukAWwAAAAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAE sATwAPAAAAAiAADUDCDAIQHAICAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QBcAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA 8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGUgICAgwCABwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNh ICAtICAhICDAVAHAICAgwEMBwG4gIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgIFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiAtICAg wFcBwCAgISAgMCDARQHAIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1CDAEgTAICAgICJTeXN0ZW0g IC0gIMBXAcAgICDAjgzAwQAQDhAO8ADBwA4BwCDAJQHAIMAPBMAgdiA4IMA+BMDUACIAABrp AF0AAAAAAAIAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AzUARAAAAqXAFIAAADDAC0AEAAB1MA9 AcAgUHJhZ21hdGljYcCxAcAgOiDAGgHAIFcgbiTAkAzAIFQgwC8BwCDALwHAICDBAMASwBJA AcEgwCQEwCAgIMEAGBUYFWgBwSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAxICAgCiAg1AAiAAAa6QBeAAAAAAAA AAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMICAgwIAMwCAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QBfAAAAAAAAAAAA MyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGVQICAgwIAMwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzA ICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAhICDAVAHAICAgwFcBwCDAJwTAICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICAgVGlt ZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuZiAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAN1AEQAAAKlwBSAOkAwwAtABAAAdROIMBFAcAg ICDAEgTAICAgICJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICBIICDAnQzAICAgICAgICAgwCgEwCQgZyAg wLEBwCA6IDQgICAmI0AgLCDALwHAIMAvAcAgIMEAIBwgHOABwSDAJATAICAgwQB4HngeCALB ICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAgDSDUACIAABrSAWAAAAAAAAIAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE4AHwAAAA IgAA1AwgwCEBwCAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukAYQAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADU DE1hdGhUeXBlICAgIMAgAcAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAg wFQBwCAgIMBDAcBuICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4gLSAgIMBXAcAgICEg IDAgwEUBwCAN1AEQAAAKlwBSAOkAwwAtABAAAdQgwBIEwCAgICAiU3lzdGVtICAtICDAVwHA ICAgwI4MwMEAEA4QDvAAwcAOAcAgwCUBwCDADwTAIHYgOCDAPgTA1AAiAAAa6QBiAAAAAAAC AAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQM1AEQAAAKlwBSAAAAwwAtABAAAdTAPQHAIFByYWdt YXRpY2HAPgHAICAgICAgwQAQDhAO8ADBRXF1YXRpb25AICAgIAogICAgIMAOBMBVIAogIFkg wI8MwCAgICAgCtQBEAAACpcAUgC7AsMALQAQAAHUTUVUQUZJTEVQSUNUwCoBwCDANQHAwFUB wEggIMAqAcAgICBGLSDBAGgQaBAYAcEgwCMEwCAgIMEAwBLAEkABwSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAx ICAgCiAg1AAiAAAapANjAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBMAD8AAAACIAANQMIMAhAcAgwKAM wCAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QBkAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGUg IMBDAcAgICAtICAgIDAgICAgMGIgICAgwCABwCDAPwHAIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICAgIFRp bWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbisgLSAgICEgIFUgwEUBwCAgIMASBMAgICAN1AEQAAAKlwBSAOkAwwAt ABAAAdQiU3lzdGVtICAtICAgwFcBwCAgIF8gICBZICBAICBbIFIgwJ0MwCBiICAgICAgTSAg ICBWViAgICAgIMEAcBdwF5ABwUVxdWF0aW9uYCAgICAKICAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgwFQBwCAg CiAgIMAnBMAtCiDAJwTAwBAEwCDAPgTAeyAgICDADgTAVSDADgTAZCDAPgTAfSDAPgTAO1DA gAzAQ2EgICAK1AEQAAAKlwBSAI0EwwAtABAAAdRNRVRBRklMRVBJQ1Q7wQC4C7gLyADBwDgE wMBVAcDABwHAICA7wQBoEGgQGAHBeyDAWQHAMCDBAMASwBJAAcEgRiAgICDBABgVGBVoAcEg ICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgICAgINQAIgAAGo0EZQAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsASwBPAAAAAi AADUDCBAIGAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukAZgAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1h dGhUeXBlQCDAQwHAICAgLSAgICAwwEwBwCAgICAwICAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQ DMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICAhICDAVAHAICAgwEMBwHQgIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgICBTeW1i b2wgLSAgDcBXAcAgICAhICAtICAgwCABwCDAngzAICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgICBTeW1i b2wgLSAgIMBXAcAgICAhICDAEATAICAgwCABwCDALQHAICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgIFRp bWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiAtICAgwFcBwCAgICEgDXsgICDAIAHAIMBJAcAgICEgIH0gICDAIAHA IMBMAcAgICEgIDsgICDAIAHAIMApBMAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICAgIFRpbWVzIE5ldyBS b21hbsAcAcAgIC0gICDAVwHAICAgISAgVSAgIMAgAcAgwAgGwCAgISAgZCDARQHAICAN1AEQ AAAKlwBSALsCwwAtABAAAdTAEgTAICAgICJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gICDAVwHAICAgICBWICAgICAg wQBoEGgQGAHBRXF1YXRpb25gICAgICAgICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICDAVAHAICAKICAgwAMBwDAK IMAnBMDAEATAIMA+BMB7ICAgIMAOBMBVIMAOBMB1IMA+BMB9UMCADMBDYSAgIArUARAAAAqX AFIAdgXDAC0AEAAB1E1FVEFGSUxFUElDVGcgwDgEwMBVAcDABwHAICBnIHsgwCEEwCsgwQBo EGgQGAHBID8gICAgwQDAEsASQAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAKICDUACIAABpfBmcAAAAA AAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEkAbwAAAAIgAA1AwgQCDAoAzAIAomICDUACIAABrpAGgAAAAAAAAA AAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZUAgwEMBwCAgIC0gICAgMMAMBMAgICAg MMAnAcAgICAgwCABwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAgISAgwFQB wCAgIMBDAcBuICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcNUm9tYW7AHwHAKCAtICAgwFcBwCAg ICEgIDAgICDAIAHAIMCADMAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICAgIFN5bWJvbCAtICAgwFcBwCAg ICEgIMAQBMAgICDAIAHAIMAwAcAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICAgVGltZXMgTmV3DVJvbWFu wB8BwCggLSAgIMBXAcAgICAhICB7ICAgwCABwCDAAQbAICAhICB9ICAgwCABwCB7ICDARQHA IEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW7ABgHATyAtICAgwFcBwCAgICEgIFUgICDA IAHAIMBIAcAgICEgDdQBEAAACpcAUgC7AsMALQAQAAHUdSDARQHAICAgwBIEwCAgICAiU3lz dGVtICAtICAgwFcBwCAgIMCADMAgwIAMwCDAgAzAIMCADMAgwIAMwCDAgAzAIMCADMAgwIAM wCDAgAzAIMCADMAgwIAMwCDAgAzAIMCADMAgwIAMwCDAgAzAIMCADMAgwIAMwCB2ICAgICAg wQDQINAgMALBkEVxdWF0aW9uwIAMwCAgICAgICAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgwFQBwCAgIAogIMAO BMBOIAogwCcEwMAQBMAgwD4EwHsgICAgwA4EwFUgwA4EwHUgwA4EwHUgwA4EwGQgwA4EwGQg wD4EwH3ARQHAwCcBwCDACATAwBsBwCDAJwHAIMAXAcBvwCcBwCDANQHAd8AnAcAgwAgEwMA1 AcB+wEUBwMAnAcAgICAKTUVUQUZJTEVQSUNUwEgBwApiwFUBwMAHAcAgIMBIAcAK1AEQAAAK lwBSADEIwwAtABAAAdTAngzAID4sIMEACAcIB3gAwSBAICAgIMEAuAu4C8gAwSAgICAgICAg IC4gICAxICAgCiAg1AAiAAAaGglpAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBGAJ8AAAACIAANQMIGAg wCABwAoKJiAg1AAiAAAa0gFqAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBOAB8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5 cGVQIMBDAcAgICAtICAgIDAKICAgIDBPICAgIMAgAcAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgUHJh Z21hdGljYSAgLSAgICEgIMBUAcAgICAwIMAnBMAgIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcg Um9tYW5YICAtICAgwFcBwCAgICEgIE4gDSDAIAHAIMBNAcAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICAg IFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiAtICAgwFcBwCAgICEgIFUgICDAIAHAIEEgICEgIHV1ZGQgICDA IAHAIMAvAcAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICAgIFN5bWJvbCAtIA3UARAAAAqXAFIAuwLDAC0A EAAB1CDAVwHAICAgISAgwBAEwCAgIMAgAcAgNSAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgICBUaW1lcyBO ZXcgUm9tYW5YICAtICAgwFcBwCAgICEgIHsgICDAIAHAIMBNAcDBACAcIBzgAcEgISAgfSDA RQHAICAgwBIEwCAgIA3UARAAAAqXAFIApAPDAC0AEAAB1CJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gICDAVwHAICAg wAUEwCAgICAgIMEAEA4QDvAAwUVxdWF0aW9uYCAgICAgICAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgwFQBwCAg CiAgIMAnBMAtCiDADgTAcCDAPgTALCDAVwHAIMBRAcAgwEcBwD/AWQHAIG4gICAK1AEQAAAK lwBSAF8GwwAtABAAAdRNRVRBRklMRVBJQ1QiIGLAVQHAICAgIiDAngzAIMAWBMAuIMEAaBBo EBgBwSDALwHAICAgwQDAEsASQAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAKICDUACIAABpIB2sAAAAA AAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEgAfwAAAAIgAA1AwgYCDAIAHAIAomICDUACIAABrpAGwAAAAAAAAA AAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZVAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQ DMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAgICDAQwHAdCAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgIFN5bWJv bCAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAgLSAgIMAgAcAgViAgwEUBwA1AwFkBwMCQDMAgICAgVGltZXMgTmV3 IFJvbWFuwD0BwFogLSAgwFcBwCAgICEgIHAgICDAIAHAIEogIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICAg VGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIFkgLSAgIMBXAcAgICEgICwN1AEQAAAKlwBSANIBwwAtABAAAdTA RQHAICAgwBIEwCAgICAiU3lzdGVtICAtICDAVwHAICAgZ8BCAcDABQTAfcAJBMAgwDsBwHPA CAbAPyDAOwHAecBFAcDAAwTAwEoBwMAKBMAgwDsBwHzACAbAwDQBwCDAOwHAfnvAAwTAwCcB wMAKBMAgwDsBwH7ACAbAwDUBwCDAOwHAViAgICAgIMEAIBwgHOABwUVxdWF0aW9uYCAgICAg ICANUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgwFQBwCAgCiAgIMADAcAwCiDADgTAbiBtZW1vcnk6IEVxdWF0aW9u IEVkaXQgICAK1AEQAAAKlwBSAHYFwwAtABAAAdRNRVRBRklMRVBJQ1ROIMA1AcDAVQHAwAcB wCAgTiAgIMCmDMAtIMEAaBBoEBgBwSDAHgHAICAgwQDAEsASQAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEg ICAKICDUACIAABpfBm0AAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEkAbwAAAAIgAA1AwgwCEBwCAgCiYg INQAIgAAGukAbgAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlICAgIMAg AcAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBDAcBuICDA RQHAIMCQDMAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iwAMBwCAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAgMCAN1AEQAAAK lwBSAOkAwwAtABAAAdQgwCABwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICAgIFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21h bsAzAcAgLSAgwFcBwCAgICEgIG4gwEUBwCAgIMASBMAgICAgIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgIMBXAcAg ICAgICAgICDBANAg0CAwAsGQRXF1YXRpb25gICAgICAgICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICDAVAHAICAg CiAgwA4EwE4gIMAgAcAgwCEBwCDAVwHAIMBRAcAgwEcBwD/AWQHAIG4gICAK1AEQAAAKlwBS AKQDwwAtABAAAdRNRVRBRklMRVBJQ1TAGgHAIMAXBMDAVQHAaCAgwBoBwCBXIG4kIMEAaBBo EBgBwSDAJATAICAgwQDAEsASQAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAKICDUACIAABqNBG8AAAAA AAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEsATwAAAAIgAA1AwgICDAgAzAIAomICDUACIAABrpAHAAAAAAAAAA AAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZVAgICDAgAzAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQ DMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAgICDAVwHAIMAnBMAgIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgICBU aW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW5mIC0gICDAVwHAICAhIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1E4gwEUB wCAgIMASBMAgICAgIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAgIEggIMCdDMAgICAgICAgICDAKATAJCBn ICDAPwHAICAgICAgwQBwF3AXkAHBRXF1YXRpb25gICAgICAgICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICDAVAHA ICAKICAgwCcEwC0gIMCODMAgIMBFAcAgwCQEwCAgICAgICDARwHAbiAgIArUARAAAAqXAFIA uwLDAC0AEAAB1E1FVEFGSUxFUElDVFcgwDUBwMBVAcBIICBXICAgPisgwQBoEGgQGAHBIMAh BMAgICDBAMASwBJAAcEgICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgIAogINQAIgAAGqQDcQAAAAAAAAAAADMq MyozKrAEsATAA/AAAAAiAADUDCDAIQHAICAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukAcgAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyoz KrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlICAgIMAgAcAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgUHJh Z21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBDAcB0ICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICAgU3ltYm9sIC0gICDA VwHAICAhICAtIMBFAcAgICDAEgTAICAgDdQBEAAACpcAUgDpAMMALQAQAAHUIlN5c3RlbSAg LSAgwFcBwCAgICBgIMBHAcAgYCDARwHAICBgIMBHAcAgICAgICAgwQBoEGgQGAHBRXF1YXRp b25gICAgICAgICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICDAVAHAICAKICAgwAMBwDAgwCABwCDAIQHAIMBXAcAg wFEBwCDARwHAP8BZAcAgbiAgIArUARAAAAqXAFIAuwLDAC0AEAAB1E1FVEFGSUxFUElDVDQg wDUBwMBVAcBoICA0ICAgJiMgwQBoEGgQGAHBIMAkBMAgICDBAMASwBJAAcEgICAgICAgICAu ICAgMSAgIAogINQAIgAAGqQDcwAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATAA/AAAAAiAADUDCDAIQHA ICAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QB0AAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGUg ICAgwCABwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAhICDAVAHAICAgwEMB wG4gIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgIFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAgMCDARQHAIA3U ARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1CDAEgTAICAgICJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICDAjgzAwQAQ DhAO8ADBwA4BwCDAJQHAIMAPBMAgdiA4IMA+BMDUACIAABrpAHUAAAAAAAIAAAAzKjMqMyqw BLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AzUARAAAAqXAFIAAADDAC0AEAAB1MA9AcAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgICAg ICDBALgLuAvIAMFFcXVhdGlvbmAgICAgCiAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIMBUAcAgIAogICDAAwHA MCDAIAHAIMAhAcAgwFcBwCDAUQHAIMBHAcA/wFkBwCBuICAgCtQBEAAACpcAUgC7AsMALQAQ AAHUTUVUQUZJTEVQSUNUNCDANQHAwFUBwGggIDQgICAgLSDBAGgQaBAYAcEgwCQEwCAgIMEA wBLAEkABwSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAxICAgCiAg1AAiAAAapAN2AAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASw BMAD8AAAACIAANQMIMAhAcAgIAomICDUACIAABrpAHcAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADw AAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZSAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2Eg IC0gICEgIMBUAcAgICDAQwHAbiAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIC0gICDA VwHAICAhICAwIMBFAcAgDdQBEAAACpcAUgDpAMMALQAQAAHUIMASBMAgICAgIlN5c3RlbSAg LSAgwFcBwCAgIMCODMDBABAOEA7wAMHADgHAIMAlAcAgwA8EwCB2IDggwD4EwNQAIgAAGukA eAAAAAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDNQBEAAACpcAUgAAAMMALQAQAAHUwD0B wCBQcmFnbWF0aWNhwD8BwCAgICAgIMEAuAu4C8gAwUVxdWF0aW9uYCAgICAKICAgUHJhZ21h dGljYSAgwFQBwCAgCiAgIMAnBMAtICDAjgzAICDARQHAIMAkBMAgICAgICAgwEcBwG4gICAK 1AEQAAAKlwBSALsCwwAtABAAAdRNRVRBRklMRVBJQ1RXIMA1AcDAVQHASCAgVyAgICAsIMEA aBBoEBgBwSDAIQTAICAgwQDAEsASQAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAKICDUACIAABqkA3kA AAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEwAPwAAAAIgAA1AwgwCEBwCAgIAomICDUACIAABrpAHoAAAAA AAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZSAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkB wMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAgICDAQwHAdCAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgIFN5 bWJvbCAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAgLSDARQHAICAgwBIEwCAgIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB 1CJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICAgYCDARwHAIGAgwEcBwCAgYCDARwHAwD8BwCAgICAgIMEA aBBoEBgBwUVxdWF0aW9uYCAgICAgICAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgwFQBwCAgCiAgIMAnBMAtICDA jgzAICDARQHAIMAkBMAgICAgICAgwEcBwG4gICAK1AEQAAAKlwBSALsCwwAtABAAAdRNRVRB RklMRVBJQ1RXIMA1AcDAVQHASCAgVyAgIMA+AcAhIMEAaBBoEBgBwSDAIQTAICAgwQDAEsAS QAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAKICDUACIAABqkA3sAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEwAPw AAAAIgAA1AwgwCEBwCAgIAomICDUACIAABrpAHwAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAA IgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZSAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0g ICEgIMBUAcAgICDAQwHAdCAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgIFN5bWJvbCAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAgLSDA RQHAICAgwBIEwCAgIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1CJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICAg YCDARwHAIGAgwEcBwCAgYCDARwHAICAgICAgIMEAaBBoEBgBwUVxdWF0aW9uYCAgICAgICAg UHJhZ21hdGljYSAgwFQBwCAgCiAgIMADAcAwIMAgAcAgwCEBwCDAVwHAIMBRAcAgwEcBwD/A WQHAIG4gICAK1AEQAAAKlwBSALsCwwAtABAAAdRNRVRBRklMRVBJQ1Q0IMA1AcDAVQHAaCAg NCAgIMAlAcAuIMEAaBBoEBgBwSDAJATAICAgwQDAEsASQAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAK ICDUACIAABqkA30AAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEwAPwAAAAIgAA1AwgwCEBwCAgCiYgINQA IgAAGukAfgAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlICAgIMAgAcAg ICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBDAcBuICDARQHA IMCQDMAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4gLSAgIMBXAcAgICEgIDAgwEUBwCAN1AEQAAAKlwBS AOkAwwAtABAAAdQgwBIEwCAgICAiU3lzdGVtICAtICDAVwHAICAgwI4MwMEAEA4QDvAAwcAO AcAgwCUBwCDADwTAIHYgOCDAPgTA1AAiAAAa6QB/AAAAAAACAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAA ACIAANQM1AEQAAAKlwBSAAAAwwAtABAAAdTAPQHAIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgICAgICAgwQC4C7gL yADBRXF1YXRpb25gICAgIAogICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICDAVAHAICAgCiAgwA4EwE4gIMAgAcAg wCEBwCDAVwHAIMBRAcAgwEcBwD/AWQHAIG4gICAK1AEQAAAKlwBSALsCwwAtABAAAdRNRVRB RklMRVBJQ1TAGgHAIMAXBMDAVQHAaCAgwBoBwCBXIMAhBMAqIMEAaBBoEBgBwSDAJATAICAg wQDAEsASQAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAKICDUACIAABqkA4AAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqw BLAEwAPwAAAAIgAA1AwgICDAgAzAIAomICDUACIAABrpAIEAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE 8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZVAgICDAgAzAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRp Y2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAgICDAVwHAIMAnBMAgIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9t YW5mIC0gICDAVwHAICAhIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1E4gwEUBwCAgIMASBMAgICAg IlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAgIEggIMCdDMAgICAgICAgICDAKATAJCBnICAgICAgICAgwQBw F3AXkAHBRXF1YXRpb25gICAgICAgICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICDAVAHAICAgCiAgwA4EwE4gIMAg AcAgwCEBwCDAVwHAIMBRAcAgwEcBwD/AWQHAIG4gICAK1AEQAAAKlwBSALsCwwAtABAAAdRN RVRBRklMRVBJQ1TAGgHAIMAXBMDAVQHAaCAgwBoBwCBXIFYiIMEAaBBoEBgBwSDAJATAICAg wQDAEsASQAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAKICDUACIAABqkA4IAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqw BLAEwAPwAAAAIgAA1AwgICDAgAzAIAomICDUACIAABrpAIMAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE 8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZVAgICDAgAzAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRp Y2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAgICDAVwHAIMAnBMAgIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9t YW5mIC0gICDAVwHAICAhIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1E4gwEUBwCAgIMASBMAgICAg IlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAgIEggIMCdDMAgICAgICAgICDAKATAJCBnICAgICAgICAgwQBw F3AXkAHBRXF1YXRpb25gICAgICAgICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICDAVAHAICAKICAgwAMBwDAgwCAB wCDAIQHAIMBXAcAgwFEBwCDARwHAP8BZAcAgbiAgIArUARAAAAqXAFIAuwLDAC0AEAAB1E1F VEFGSUxFUElDVDQgwDUBwMBVAcBoICA0ICAgViEgwQBoEGgQGAHBIMAkBMAgICDBAMASwBJA AcEgICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgIAogINQAIgAAGqQDhAAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATAA/AA AAAiAADUDCDAIQHAICAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QCFAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIA ANQMTWF0aFR5cGUgICAgwCABwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAh ICDAVAHAICAgwEMBwG4gIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgIFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiAtICAgwFcBwCAg ISAgMCDARQHAIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1CDAEgTAICAgICJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBX AcAgICDAjgzAwQAQDhAO8ADBwA4BwCDAJQHAIMAPBMAgdiA4IMA+BMDUACIAABrpAIYAAAAA AAIAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AzUARAAAAqXAFIAAADDAC0AEAAB1MA9AcAgUHJh Z21hdGljYSAgICAgICDBALgLuAvIAMFFcXVhdGlvbmAgICAgCiAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIMBU AcAgICAKICDADgTATiAgwCABwCDAIQHAIMBXAcAgwFEBwCDARwHAP8BZAcAgbiAgIArUARAA AAqXAFIAuwLDAC0AEAAB1E1FVEFGSUxFUElDVMAaAcAgwBcEwMBVAcBoICDAGgHAIFcgRiQg wQBoEGgQGAHBIMAkBMAgICDBAMASwBJAAcEgICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgIAogINQAIgAAGqQD hwAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATAA/AAAAAiAADUDCAgIMCADMAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukAiAAA AAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlUCAgIMCADMAgICDARQHAIEDA WQHAwJAMwCAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBXAcAgwCcEwCAgwEUBwCDAkAzA ICAgIFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbmYgLSAgIMBXAcAgICEgDdQBEAAACpcAUgDpAMMALQAQAAHU TiDARQHAICAgwBIEwCAgICAiU3lzdGVtICAtICDAVwHAICAgSCAgwJ0MwCAgICAgICAgIMAo BMAkIGcgIMA/AcAgICAgICDBAHAXcBeQAcFFcXVhdGlvbmAgICAgICAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2Eg IMBUAcAgIAogICDAJwTALSAgwI4MwCAgwEUBwCDAJATAICAgICAgIMBHAcBuICAgCtQBEAAA CpcAUgC7AsMALQAQAAHUTUVUQUZJTEVQSUNUVyDANQHAwFUBwEggIFcgICAgKyDBAGgQaBAY AcEgwCEEwCAgIMEAwBLAEkABwSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAxICAgCiAg1AAiAAAapAOJAAAAAAAA AAAAMyozKjMqsASwBMAD8AAAACIAANQMIMAhAcAgICAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QCKAAAAAAAAAAAA MyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGUgICAgwCABwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzA ICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAhICDAVAHAICAgwEMBwHQgIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgICBTeW1ib2wg LSAgIMBXAcAgICEgIC0gwEUBwCAgIMASBMAgICAN1AEQAAAKlwBSAOkAwwAtABAAAdQiU3lz dGVtICAtICDAVwHAICAgIGAgwEcBwCBgIMBHAcAgIGAgwEcBwCAgICAgICDBAGgQaBAYAcFF cXVhdGlvbmAgICAgICAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIMBUAcAgIAogICDAAwHAMCDAIAHAIMAhAcAg wFcBwCDAUQHAIMBHAcA/wFkBwCBuICAgCtQBEAAACpcAUgC7AsMALQAQAAHUTUVUQUZJTEVQ SUNUNCDANQHAwFUBwGggIDQgICB2LCDBAGgQaBAYAcEgwCQEwCAgIMEAwBLAEkABwSAgICAg ICAgIC4gICAxICAgCiAg1AAiAAAapAOLAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBMAD8AAAACIAANQM IMAhAcAgIAomICDUACIAABrpAIwAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRo VHlwZSAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAg ICDAQwHAbiAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIC0gICDAVwHAICAhICAwIMBF AcAgDdQBEAAACpcAUgDpAMMALQAQAAHUIMASBMAgICAgIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAgIMCO DMDBABAOEA7wAMHADgHAIMAlAcAgwA8EwCB2IDggwD4EwNQAIgAAGukAjQAAAAAAAgAAADMq MyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDNQBEAAACpcAUgAAAMMALQAQAAHUwD0BwCBQcmFnbWF0aWNh ICAgICAgIMEAuAu4C8gAwUVxdWF0aW9uYCAgICAKICAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgwFQBwCAgIAog IMAOBMBOICDAIAHAIMAhAcAgwFcBwCDAUQHAIMBHAcA/wFkBwCBuICAgCtQBEAAACpcAUgC7 AsMALQAQAAHUTUVUQUZJTEVQSUNUwBoBwCDAFwTAwFUBwGggIMAaAcAgVyAuISDBAGgQaBAY AcEgwCQEwCAgIMEAwBLAEkABwSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAxICAgCiAg1AAiAAAapAOOAAAAAAAA AAAAMyozKjMqsASwBMAD8AAAACIAANQMICAgwIAMwCAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QCPAAAAAAAAAAAA MyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGVQICAgwIAMwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzA ICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAhICDAVAHAICAgwFcBwCDAJwTAICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICAgVGlt ZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuZiAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAN1AEQAAAKlwBSAOkAwwAtABAAAdROIMBFAcAg ICDAEgTAICAgICJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICBIICDAnQzAICAgICAgICAgwCgEwCQgZyAg ICAgICAgIMEAcBdwF5ABwUVxdWF0aW9uYCAgICAgICAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgwFQBwCAgCiAg IMADAcAwIMAgAcAgwCEBwCDAVwHAIMBRAcAgwEcBwD/AWQHAIG4gICAK1AEQAAAKlwBSALsC wwAtABAAAdRNRVRBRklMRVBJQ1Q0IMA1AcDAVQHAaCAgNCAgICAjIMEAaBBoEBgBwSDAJATA ICAgwQDAEsASQAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAKICDUACIAABqkA5AAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMq MyqwBLAEwAPwAAAAIgAA1AwgwCEBwCAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukAkQAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAE sATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlICAgIMAgAcAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgUHJhZ21h dGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBDAcBuICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4g LSAgIMBXAcAgICEgIDAgwEUBwCAN1AEQAAAKlwBSAOkAwwAtABAAAdQgwBIEwCAgICAiU3lz dGVtICAtICDAVwHAICAgwI4MwMEAEA4QDvAAwcAOAcAgwCUBwCDADwTAIHYgOCDAPgTA1AAi AAAa6QCSAAAAAAACAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQM1AEQAAAKlwBSAAAAwwAtABAA AdTAPQHAIFByYWdtYXRpY2HAPwHAICAgICAgwQC4C7gLyADBRXF1YXRpb25gICAgIAogICBQ cmFnbWF0aWNhICDAVAHAICAKICAgwCcEwC0gIMCODMAgIMBFAcAgwCQEwCAgICAgICDARwHA biAgIArUARAAAAqXAFIAuwLDAC0AEAAB1E1FVEFGSUxFUElDVFcgwDUBwMBVAcBIICBXICAg LisgwQBoEGgQGAHBIMAhBMAgICDBAMASwBJAAcEgICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgIAogINQAIgAA GqQDkwAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATAA/AAAAAiAADUDCDAIQHAICAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukA lAAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlICAgIMAgAcAgICDARQHA IEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBDAcB0ICDARQHAIMCQDMAg ICAgU3ltYm9sIC0gICDAVwHAICAhICAtIMBFAcAgICDAEgTAICAgDdQBEAAACpcAUgDpAMMA LQAQAAHUIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAgICBgIMBHAcAgYCDARwHAICBgIMBHAcDAPwHAICAg ICAgwQBoEGgQGAHBRXF1YXRpb25gICAgICAgICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICDAVAHAICAKICAgwCcE wC0gIMCODMAgIMBFAcAgwCQEwCAgICAgICDARwHAbiAgIArUARAAAAqXAFIAuwLDAC0AEAAB 1E1FVEFGSUxFUElDVFcgwDUBwMBVAcBIICBXICAgJiIgwQBoEGgQGAHBIMAhBMAgICDBAMAS wBJAAcEgICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgIAogINQAIgAAGqQDlQAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATA A/AAAAAiAADUDCDAIQHAICAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukAlgAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAA AAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlICAgIMAgAcAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAg LSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBDAcB0ICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICAgU3ltYm9sIC0gICDAVwHAICAhICAt IMBFAcAgICDAEgTAICAgDdQBEAAACpcAUgDpAMMALQAQAAHUIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAg ICBgIMBHAcAgYCDARwHAICBgIMBHAcAgICAgICAgwQBoEGgQGAHBRXF1YXRpb25gICAgICAg ICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICDAVAHAICAgCiAgwA4EwE4gIMAgAcAgwCEBwCDAVwHAIMBRAcAgwEcB wD/AWQHAIG4gICAK1AEQAAAKlwBSALsCwwAtABAAAdRNRVRBRklMRVBJQ1TAGgHAIMAXBMDA VQHAaCAgwBoBwCBXIMAyAcAhIMEAaBBoEBgBwSDAJATAICAgwQDAEsASQAHBICAgICAgICAg LiAgIDEgICAKICDUACIAABqkA5cAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEwAPwAAAAIgAA1AwgICDA gAzAIAomICDUACIAABrpAJgAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlw ZVAgICDAgAzAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAgICDA VwHAIMAnBMAgIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW5mIC0gICDAVwHAICAhIA3U ARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1E4gwEUBwCAgIMASBMAgICAgIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAg IEggIMCdDMAgICAgICAgICDAKATAJCBnICDAPwHAICAgICAgwQBwF3AXkAHBRXF1YXRpb25g ICAgICAgICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICDAVAHAICAKICAgwCcEwC0gIMCODMAgIMBFAcAgwCQEwCAg ICAgICDARwHAbiAgIArUARAAAAqXAFIAuwLDAC0AEAAB1E1FVEFGSUxFUElDVFcgwDUBwMBV AcBIICBXICAgwDIBwCwgwQBoEGgQGAHBIMAhBMAgICDBAMASwBJAAcEgICAgICAgICAuICAg MSAgIAogINQAIgAAGqQDmQAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATAA/AAAAAiAADUDCDAIQHAICAg CiYgINQAIgAAGukAmgAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlICAg IMAgAcAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBDAcB0 ICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICAgU3ltYm9sIC0gICDAVwHAICAhICAtIMBFAcAgICDAEgTAICAgDdQB EAAACpcAUgDpAMMALQAQAAHUIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAgwFcBwCAgICBgIMBHAcAgYCDARwHAICBg IMBHAcAgICAgICAgwQBoEGgQGAHBRXF1YXRpb25gICAgICAgICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICDAVAHA ICAKICAgwAMBwDAgwCABwCDAIQHAIMBXAcAgwFEBwCDARwHAP8BZAcAgbiAgIArUARAAAAqX AFIAuwLDAC0AEAAB1E1FVEFGSUxFUElDVDQgwDUBwMBVAcBoICA0ICAgwAUEwCIgwQBoEGgQ GAHBIMAkBMAgICDBAMASwBJAAcEgICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgIAogINQAIgAAGqQDmwAAAAAA AAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATAA/AAAAAiAADUDCDAIQHAICAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QCcAAAAAAAAAAAA MyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGUgICAgwCABwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzA ICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAhICDAVAHAICAgwEMBwG4gIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgIFRpbWVzIE5l dyBSb21hbiAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAgMCDARQHAIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1CDAEgTA ICAgICJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICDAjgzAwQAQDhAO8ADBwA4BwCDAJQHAIMAPBMAgdiA4 IMA+BMDUACIAABrpAJ0AAAAAAAIAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AzUARAAAAqXAFIA AADDAC0AEAAB1MA9AcAgUHJhZ21hdGljYcAFBMAgICAgICDBALgLuAvIAMFFcXVhdGlvbmAg ICAgCiAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIMBUAcAgIAogICDAJwTALQogwD4EwCwgwA4EwHAgwFcBwCAg IArUARAAAAqXAFIApAPDAC0AEAAB1E1FVEFGSUxFUElDVMCmAcAgYsBVAcAgICDApgHAIMCe DMAgZikgwQBoEGgQGAHBIMAvAcAgICDBAMASwBJAAcEgICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgIAogINQA IgAAGo0EngAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsASwBPAAAAAiAADUDCBgICAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukA nwAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlUCAgIMAgAcAgICDARQHA IEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBDAcB0ICDARQHAIMCQDMAg ICAgU3ltYm9sIC0gICDAVwHAICAhICAtICAgwCABwCBOICDARQHADUDAWQHAwJAMwCAgIFRp bWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiAtICDAVwHAICAgISAgLCAgIMAgAcAgICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAg ICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIC0gICDAVwHAICAhICBwIMBFAcAgIA3AEgTAICAgICJTeXN0 ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICDANQHAIMALBMAgwBAEwCA4IMArAcAgINQAIgAAGtIBoAAAAAAAAgAA ADMqMyozKrAEsATgAfAAAAAiAADUDCDUACIAABoAAKEAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEAADw AAAAIgAA1AwgOCDUACIAABoAAKIAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEAADwAAAAIgAA1AzUARAA AAqXAFIAAADDAC0AEAAB1CDAIQHAIMAgBMAgWSDAoAzAIMBOBMAgwCAEwCDAUAHAIMA7AcAg wJAMwCBPIHggwDUBwCDAgAzAIMAFBMAgICAgICDBAGgQaBAYAcFFcXVhdGlvbmAgICAgCiAg IFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIMBUAcAgIAogICDAAwHAMAogwD4EwCwgwA4EwG7AJwHAIMBDAcDARQHA wCcBwHggwAgEwH3AJwHAfsAXAcDAGQjAwAgEwD/AJwHAwA8EwCDAoAzAICAgIArUARAAAAqX AFIApAPDAC0AEAAB1E1FVEFGSUxFUElDVCIgwDgEwMBVAcAgICAiIHsgdi0gwQBoEGgQGAHB IMAxAcAgICDBAMASwBJAAcEgICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgIAogINQAIgAAGo0EowAAAAAAAAAA ADMqMyozKrAEsASwBPAAAAAiAADUDCBAIMAgAcAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukApAAAAAAAAAAAADMq MyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlQCAgIMAgAcAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAg UHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBDAcBuICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcg Um9tYW4gIC0gICDAVwHAICAhIA0wICAgwCABwCAwICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgIFRpbWVz IE5ldyBSb21hbiAtICDAVwHAICAgISAgLCAgIMAgAcAgwBkEwCAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAg ICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuICAtICAN1AEQAAAKlwBSANIBwwAtABAAAdTAVwHAICAhICBu IMBFAcAgICDAEgTAICAgICJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICDAVwHAwDIBwCDAIAHAwCEBwMAg AcDAIQHAwFYBwMAhAcDAIAHAwCEBwMBHAcAgwCABwMAcAcAiwDsBwHTAIAHAICAgICAgICDB AMgZyBm4AcFFcXVhdGlvbmAgICAgICAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgDcBUAcAgICAKICDADgTATiAg wCABwCDAIQHAIMBXAcAgwFEBwCDARwHAP8BZAcAgbiAgIArUARAAAAqXAFIAjQTDAC0AEAAB 1E1FVEFGSUxFUElDVMAaAcAgwBcEwMBVAcBoICDAGgHAIFcgViIgwQBoEGgQGAHBIMAkBMAg ICDBAMASwBJAAcEgICAgICAgICAuICAgMSAgIAogINQAIgAAGnYFpQAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyoz KrAEsASgBfAAAAAiAADUDCAgIMCADMAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukApgAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAE sATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlUCAgIMCADMAgICDARQHAIEDAWQHAwJAMwCAgUHJhZ21h dGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBXAcAgwCcEwCAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgIFRpbWVzIE5ldyBS b21hbmYgLSAgIMBXAcAgICEgDdQBEAAACpcAUgDpAMMALQAQAAHUTiDARQHAICAgwBIEwCAg ICAiU3lzdGVtICAtICDAVwHAICAgSCAgwJ0MwCAgICAgICAgIMAoBMAkIGcgICAgICAgICDB AHAXcBeQAcFFcXVhdGlvbmAgICAgICAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIMBUAcAgIAogICDAAwHAMCDA IAHAIMAhAcAgwFcBwCDAUQHAIMBHAcA/wFkBwCBuICAgCtQBEAAACpcAUgC7AsMALQAQAAHU TUVUQUZJTEVQSUNUNCDANQHAwFUBwGggIDQgICBWISDBAGgQaBAYAcEgwCQEwCAgIMEAwBLA EkABwSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAxICAgCiAg1AAiAAAapAOnAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBMAD 8AAAACIAANQMIMAhAcAgIAomICDUACIAABrpAKgAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAA IgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZSAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0g ICEgIMBUAcAgICDAQwHAbiAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIC0gICDAVwHA ICAhICAwIMBFAcAgDdQBEAAACpcAUgDpAMMALQAQAAHUIMASBMAgICAgIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAg wFcBwCAgIMCODMDBABAOEA7wAMHADgHAIMAlAcAgwA8EwCB2IDggwD4EwNQAIgAAGukAqQAA AAAAAgAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDNQBEAAACpcAUgAAAMMALQAQAAHUwD0BwCBQ cmFnbWF0aWNhICAgICAgIMEAuAu4C8gAwUVxdWF0aW9uYCAgICAKICAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAg wFQBwCAgIAogIMAOBMBOICDAIAHAIMAhAcAgwFcBwCDAUQHAIMBHAcA/wFkBwCBuICAgCtQB EAAACpcAUgC7AsMALQAQAAHUTUVUQUZJTEVQSUNUwBoBwCDAFwTAwFUBwGggIMAaAcAgVyBW IiDBAGgQaBAYAcEgwCQEwCAgIMEAwBLAEkABwSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAxICAgCiAg1AAiAAAa pAOqAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBMAD8AAAACIAANQMICAgwIAMwCAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QCr AAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGVQICAgwIAMwCAgIMBFAcAg QMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAhICDAVAHAICAgwFcBwCDAJwTAICDARQHAIMCQ DMAgICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuZiAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAN1AEQAAAKlwBSAOkAwwAtABAA AdROIMBFAcAgICDAEgTAICAgICJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICBIICDAnQzAICAgICAgICAg wCgEwCQgZyAgICAgICAgIMEAcBdwF5ABwUVxdWF0aW9uYCAgICAgICAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAg wFQBwCAgIAogIMAOBMBOICDAIAHAIMAhAcAgwFcBwCDAUQHAIMBHAcA/wFkBwCBuICAgCtQB EAAACpcAUgC7AsMALQAQAAHUTUVUQUZJTEVQSUNUwBoBwCDAFwTAwFUBwGggIMAaAcAgVyBW IiDBAGgQaBAYAcEgwCQEwCAgIMEAwBLAEkABwSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAxICAgCiAg1AAiAAAa pAOsAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBMAD8AAAACIAANQMICAgwIAMwCAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QCt AAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGVQICAgwIAMwCAgIMBFAcAg QMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAhICDAVAHAICAgwFcBwCDAJwTAICDARQHAIMCQ DMAgICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuZiAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAN1AEQAAAKlwBSAOkAwwAtABAA AdROIMBFAcAgICDAEgTAICAgICJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICBIICDAnQzAICAgICAgICAg wCgEwCQgZyAgwD8BwCAgICAgIMEAcBdwF5ABwUVxdWF0aW9uYCAgICAgICAgUHJhZ21hdGlj YSAgwFQBwCAgCiAgIMAnBMAtICDAjgzAICDARQHAIMAkBMAgICAgICAgwEcBwG4gICAK1AEQ AAAKlwBSALsCwwAtABAAAdRNRVRBRklMRVBJQ1RXIMA1AcDAVQHASCAgVyAgID4rIMEAaBBo EBgBwSDAIQTAICAgwQDAEsASQAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAKICDUACIAABqkA64AAAAA AAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEwAPwAAAAIgAA1AwgwCEBwCAgIAomICDUACIAABrpAK8AAAAAAAAA AAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxNYXRoVHlwZSAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQ DMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBUAcAgICDAQwHAdCAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgIFN5bWJv bCAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAgLSDARQHAICAgwBIEwCAgIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1CJT eXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICAgYCDARwHAIGAgwEcBwCAgYCDARwHAICAgICAgIMEAaBBoEBgB wUVxdWF0aW9uYCAgICAgICAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgwFQBwCAgIAogIMAOBMBOICDAIAHAIMAh AcAgwFcBwCDAUQHAIMBHAcA/wFkBwCBuICAgCtQBEAAACpcAUgC7AsMALQAQAAHUTUVUQUZJ TEVQSUNUwBoBwCDAFwTAwFUBwGggIMAaAcAgVyBWIiDBAGgQaBAYAcEgwCQEwCAgIMEAwBLA EkABwSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAxICAgCiAg1AAiAAAapAOwAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBMAD 8AAAACIAANQMICAgwIAMwCAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QCxAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAA ACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGVQICAgwIAMwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAt ICAhICDAVAHAICAgwFcBwCDAJwTAICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuZiAt ICAgwFcBwCAgISAN1AEQAAAKlwBSAOkAwwAtABAAAdROIMBFAcAgICDAEgTAICAgICJTeXN0 ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICBIICDAnQzAICAgICAgICAgwCgEwCQgZyAgICAgICAgIMEAcBdwF5AB wUVxdWF0aW9uYCAgICAgICAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgwFQBwCAgIAogIMAOBMBOICDAIAHAIMAh AcAgwFcBwCDAUQHAIMBHAcA/wFkBwCBuICAgCtQBEAAACpcAUgC7AsMALQAQAAHUTUVUQUZJ TEVQSUNUwBoBwCDAFwTAwFUBwGggIMAaAcAgVyBWIiDBAGgQaBAYAcEgwCQEwCAgIMEAwBLA EkABwSAgICAgICAgIC4gICAxICAgCiAg1AAiAAAapAOyAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBMAD 8AAAACIAANQMICAgwIAMwCAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QCzAAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAA ACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGVQICAgwIAMwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAt ICAhICDAVAHAICAgwFcBwCDAJwTAICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICAgVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuZiAt ICAgwFcBwCAgISAN1AEQAAAKlwBSAOkAwwAtABAAAdROIMBFAcAgICDAEgTAICAgICJTeXN0 ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICBIICDAnQzAICAgICAgICAgwCgEwCQgZyAgwD8BwCAgICAgIMEAcBdw F5ABwUVxdWF0aW9uYCAgICAgICAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgwFQBwCAgCiAgIMAnBMAtICDAjgzA ICDARQHAIMAkBMAgICAgICAgwEcBwG4gICAK1AEQAAAKlwBSALsCwwAtABAAAdRNRVRBRklM RVBJQ1RXIMA1AcDAVQHASCAgVyAgID4rIMEAaBBoEBgBwSDAIQTAICAgwQDAEsASQAHBICAg ICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAKICDUACIAABqkA7QAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEwAPwAAAAIgAA 1AwgwCEBwCAgIAomICDUACIAABrpALUAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxN YXRoVHlwZSAgICDAIAHAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBU AcAgICDAQwHAdCAgwEUBwCDAkAzAICAgIFN5bWJvbCAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAgLSDARQHAICAg wBIEwCAgIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1CJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICAgYCDARwHA IGAgwEcBwCAgYCDARwHAICAgICAgIMEAaBBoEBgBwUVxdWF0aW9uYCAgICAgICAgUHJhZ21h dGljYSAgwFQBwCAgCiAgIMADAcAwIMAgAcAgwCEBwCDAVwHAIMBRAcAgwEcBwD/AWQHAIG4g ICAK1AEQAAAKlwBSALsCwwAtABAAAdRNRVRBRklMRVBJQ1Q0IMA1AcDAVQHAaCAgNCAgIFYh IMEAaBBoEBgBwSDAJATAICAgwQDAEsASQAHBICAgICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAKICDUACIAABqk A7YAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEwAPwAAAAIgAA1AwgwCEBwCAgCiYgINQAIgAAGukAtwAA AAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATwAPAAAAAiAADUDE1hdGhUeXBlICAgIMAgAcAgICDARQHAIEDA WQHAwJAMwCAgUHJhZ21hdGljYSAgLSAgISAgwFQBwCAgIMBDAcBuICDARQHAIMCQDMAgICBU aW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4gLSAgIMBXAcAgICEgIDAgwEUBwCAN1AEQAAAKlwBSAOkAwwAtABAA AdQgwBIEwCAgICAiU3lzdGVtICAtICDAVwHAICAgwI4MwMEAEA4QDvAAwcAOAcAgwCUBwCDA DwTAIHYgOCDAPgTA1AAiAAAa6QC4AAAAAAACAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQM1AEQ AAAKlwBSAAAAwwAtABAAAdTAPQHAIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgICAgICAgwQC4C7gLyADBRXF1YXRp b25gICAgIAogICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICDAVAHAICAgCiAgwA4EwE4gIMAgAcAgwCEBwCDAVwHA IMBRAcAgwEcBwD/AWQHAIG4gICAK1AEQAAAKlwBSALsCwwAtABAAAdRNRVRBRklMRVBJQ1TA GgHAIMAXBMDAVQHAaCAgwBoBwCBXIFYiIMEAaBBoEBgBwSDAJATAICAgwQDAEsASQAHBICAg ICAgICAgLiAgIDEgICAKICDUACIAABqkA7kAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAEwAPwAAAAIgAA 1AwgICDAgAzAIAomICDUACIAABrpALoAAAAAAAAAAAAzKjMqMyqwBLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AxN YXRoVHlwZVAgICDAgAzAICAgwEUBwCBAwFkBwMCQDMAgIFByYWdtYXRpY2EgIC0gICEgIMBU AcAgICDAVwHAIMAnBMAgIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgICBUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW5mIC0gICDAVwHA ICAhIA3UARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1E4gwEUBwCAgIMASBMAgICAgIlN5c3RlbSAgLSAg wFcBwCAgIEggIMCdDMAgICAgICAgICDAKATAJCBnICAgICAgICAgwQBwF3AXkAHBRXF1YXRp b25gICAgICAgICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICDAVAHAICAKICAgwAMBwDAgwCABwCDAIQHAIMBXAcAg wFEBwCDARwHAP8BZAcAgbiAgIArUARAAAAqXAFIAuwLDAC0AEAAB1E1FVEFGSUxFUElDVDQg wDUBwMBVAcBoICA0ICAgViEgwQBoEGgQGAHBIMAkBMAgICDBAMASwBJAAcEgICAgICAgICAu ICAgMSAgIAogINQAIgAAGqQDuwAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyozKrAEsATAA/AAAAAiAADUDCDAIQHA ICAKJiAg1AAiAAAa6QC8AAAAAAAAAAAAMyozKjMqsASwBPAA8AAAACIAANQMTWF0aFR5cGUg ICAgwCABwCAgIMBFAcAgQMBZAcDAkAzAICBQcmFnbWF0aWNhICAtICAhICDAVAHAICAgwEMB wG4gIMBFAcAgwJAMwCAgIFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiAtICAgwFcBwCAgISAgMCDARQHAIA3U ARAAAAqXAFIA6QDDAC0AEAAB1CDAEgTAICAgICJTeXN0ZW0gIC0gIMBXAcAgICDAjgzAwQAQ DhAO8ADBwA4BwCDAJQHAIMAPBMAgdiA4IMA+BMDUACIAABrpAL0AAAAAAAIAAAAzKjMqMyqw BLAE8ADwAAAAIgAA1AzUARAAAAqXAFIAAADDAC0AEAAB1MA9AcAgUHJhZ21hdGljYcCADMAg WSAgICAgLCAtIC4gLyDADgTAIMA/BMAgwCAEwCDAHwTAIMAABMAgwCEEwCDAIgTAIMACAcAg wAYEwCDABwHAIMAXBMAgwA8EwCDACAbAIMBRAcAgICAgIMEAyBnIGbgBwSAKIE0gTiBdIF4g XyBgIGEgYiBxIHIgcyB0IMBCAcAgwEQBwCDAOQHAIMBBAcAgwD0BwCDACAbAIEkKSgpgCmEK YwrARQHAwAgGwMA7AcDACAbAwCsBwMAhAcDAOwHAwAgGwMA7AcDACAbAwCcGwMAwAcDAOwHA wAgGwMA7AcDACAbAwB4BwMAQBMDAOwHAwAgGwMA7AcDACAbAwAEGwMAGBMDAOwHAwAgGwMA7 AcDACAbAwJ4MwMAfBMDAOwHAwAgGwMA7AcDACAbAwCMEwMCBDMDAOwHAwAgGwMA7AcDACAbA wDsBwMAIBsB7wAgGwMA7AcDACAbAwDsBwMAIBsAKICAgICAgIMBZAcDARgHATCAgCkAgwBQG wMAcBMAgICAgwD8BwMCgDMBKICAKQCDAPQHAwI8MwCAgICDAPwHAwB4BwEcgIApAIHzApgHA ICAgIMBRAcDALwHARCAgCkAgJMBLBMAgICAgwFEBwNQAIgAAGgMKvgAAAAAAAAAAADMqMyoz KrAEsARQCvAAAAAiAADUDEIgIApAIMA2AcDAOATAICAgIMBZAcDAkAzAQCAgCkAgwD0BwMAO BMAgICAgICAgICAgMGMKZArARAHACsBGAcAKwBsBwArATQHACgogICAgICAg From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Nov 24 23:10:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA12513; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 23:07:52 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 23:07:52 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <01BBDAEA.F2B6F6A0@sparc1.nhelab.iae.or.jp> From: Kennel To: "'Vortex'" Subject: RE: ppb? ppm? ppt? Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 16:08:44 +-900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"OD6WV1.0.Q33.7NKco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2333 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex >>Elliot, for crying out loud,<< Jed, don't cry out loud. It's enough to just explain yourself clearly. >>please read the literature.<< I do. >>Bockris, Mizuno and Ohmori have no pipes, exposed thermocouples or = brazes.<< Yes, they are aware of the problem and have tried to circumvent it. But = does this prove they been successful ? Custer was aware of Indians, but they got = him anyway. All the systems are contained in something, and so mass = transport is possible.=20 >>Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the silver is found = deep in the cathode, where no silver contamination *ever goes*, even when you deliberately introduce massive amounts of silver into the cell.<< Prove it by experiment, then. Put in some deliberate silver contaminant = in the anode, say, and show that it goes nowhere but on the surface. You're = asking me to believe in a comparitively vague theory of silver mass transport in = order to disprove theories which say nuclear transmutation can not occur. >>You never get a CF reaction in dirty electrolyte. There would be no excess heat, and no x-rays.<< =20 Yes, I know that. But there would be chemical mass transport. I = suspect you might continue to accumulate additional crud from a (presently unknown) = source. That's the point. And if the silver (or whatever) turns out to be natural abundance, = I think that the nuclear transmutation hypothesis is very weak. >>Why? Do you understand how the transmutations work? Can you set the = rules already?<< Well, why should the transmutation effect yield the same reaction = product as the Big Bang? These don't seem to be related processes. So it is = not absolutely impossible, but "very weak" seems appropriate. =20 Actually, I tend to think that some of the stuff these folks are = looking at is due to some sort of anomalous reaction, but I also think that = 95% is simply crud. >>You have no basis whatsoever for thinking that.<< Sure, I do. I'm believe that mechanisms such as beta emission or = electron capture, or alpha emission or even Hagelstein's neutron hopping, might = be possible. I'm working full-time to prove it. These would result in transmutations of nearly the same Z as the initial atoms. But = radiationless fission and fusion of heavy nuclei is a much more bitter pill to = swallow. Not impossible, but I want the data to be more persuasive than = simpleassurances from the researchers that they are clean experimenters. Proof of isotope = shift in ONE element by NAA and SIMS would do it for me, BTW. =20 >>There is only one phenomenon<< Ha! It's very difficult to argue for one interpretation by excluding "all" other possibilities. Anomalous chemical dirt is difficult, but = not impossible to believe in. Anomalous nuclear dirt is possible, but = not=20 the one obvious phenomenon, in my view. Maybe I'm wrong. That can be = proven by experiment. Best regards, Elliot From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 25 00:30:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA26287 for billb@eskimo.com; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 00:30:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 00:30:39 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: max@triode.net.au Mon Nov 25 00:30:34 1996 Received: from iggy.triode.net.au (root@iggy.triode.net.au [203.63.235.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA26230 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 00:30:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from max.triode.net.au (max.triode.net.au [203.63.235.170]) by iggy.triode.net.au (8.8.3/8.6.9(iggy)) with SMTP id TAA01462 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 19:30:37 +1100 Message-ID: <329A3451.2703@triode.net.au> Old-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 16:05:37 -0800 From: Max X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex List Subject: Subscribe digest Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Diagnostic: Added to the subscriber list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Can anyone tell me how to change my subscription to digest mode? Thanks. Max. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 25 07:17:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA15194; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 06:57:13 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 06:57:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 06:57:17 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Need a job? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"m8FKp1.0.Fj3.8FRco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2334 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Respond directly to author, who is 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: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 08:08:27 -0500 From: eagle To: billb@eskimo.com Subject: (no subject) Hello Bill, I was wondering if you know of people who are qualified to work with pulsed plasmas for different commercial uses? I will be looking for a few people who are able to work fulltime in this field for water purification, mining and defense. Any input would be appreciated. Ron From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 25 07:32:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA23416; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 07:28:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 07:28:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:28:41 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199611251528.KAA29890@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <3.0.32.19961122120417.006aaa28@inforamp.net> (message from Quinney on Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:04:41 -0500) Subject: Re: AquaFuel. Query Resent-Message-ID: <"hQPYc1.0.jj5.ciRco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2335 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Colin Quinney said: > REMEMBER THAT THE CARBON MONOXIDE CONTENT OF THIS FUEL, prior to > combustion, IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS! > DO ALL EXPERIMENTS OUTSIDE. or at the *very* least, in a very WELL > ventilated area, with very high exhaust velocity on the ventilation hood. I > personally would never 'experiment' with this stuff except outside, while > breathing with scuba gear. Use of CO detectors in your immediate > environment is mandatory, even outside. CO is VERY VERY nasty stuff to > breath. It causes death. It causes worse than that! CO bonds more tightly to hemoglobin than O2 does, so it kills by cutting off your ability to use oxygen. But the FIRST sign of trouble is the same as if you fly too high without oxygen. You lose the ability to think clearly. Now imagine yourself drunk and playing with explosives--you may not be the only one to suffer. This is why most water gas plants now use double containment and put the controls in another building. Also note that CO builds up in your system. While it will flush out after exposure, the usual "safe margin" is to wait forty-eight hours after exposure before going back into an area where you would potentially be exposed. If you work with the stuff every day--or have an exhaust leak in your car--it can build up for weeks until you can't breathe. 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 Nov 11 06:33:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA02024; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 06:31:32 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 06:31:32 -0800 (PST) Date: 11 Nov 96 09:29:59 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: What are you talking about, Russ? Message-ID: <961111142958_72240.1256_EHB167-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"pb9hg3.0.VV.3ZpXo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2054 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Russ George wrote: Stuff it Chris I have never criticized Arata's work. Indeed I think his work is some of the best in the field. He is in fact the only person in the field who has seen as much 4He as we have. Further he and I are on very good terms and in communication. Yet during a previous discussion of Arata's work, on June 30, he posted this single comment, without elaboration: MITI has attempted 45 times to reproduce Arata's experiment and failed. If Russ is on such good terms with Arata, and if he knows so much, why didn't he attempt to explain these 45 failed experiments? Who performed them? Where are they documented? Why did they fail? Any reasonable person would take this a criticism of Arata's work. As Chris said, in future please state clearly what you are implying, giving factual references to support your comments. Russ goes on to say: I am not criticizing any particular person in regard to SIMS evidence nor would I. It is simply a fact that SIMS does not see nobel gases. Any standard text on SIMS techniques will reveal this. Scientists who have reported SIMS results recently include Minevski, Mizuno, Ohmori and Miley. In every case their findings been backed up with other instruments. I think it is reasonable to assume that these people are familiar with the basic content of "any standard text on SIMS." Therefore, I do not think that any of them have attempted to detect noble gases (not nobel) with SIMS machines, so Russ's point appears to be 100% hypothetical. He seems to be saying that someone, somewhere might someday make this mistake, but there is no "particular person" who has made it. I do not understand the point of this comment. Everyone claiming isotope identifications other than tritium helium for which sound techniques are available is being very careful with those claims. Yes, indeed, they are being very careful. As I said, they use multiple detection systems, and they perform many runs before announcing their results. The collection of more than 50 used cathodes in Ohmori's lab brought that point home to me. Since he acknowledges these people are careful, why is Russ worried that they might be trying to detect noble gasses with SIMS? People with no experience in this area fanning the flames with their unbridled enthusiasm do the field no service. Who do you refer to here, Russ? Who has unbridled enthusiasm, what flames do they fan, and what disservice to the field do they do? Please state clearly what you are implying, giving factual references to support your comments. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 14 07:09:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA06932; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 06:53:38 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 06:53:38 -0800 (PST) Date: 14 Nov 96 09:50:45 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Subject: Uploaded ICCF6 Review Message-ID: <961114145045_72240.1256_EHB147-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"tmo2f2.0.Ei1.l9pYo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2125 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Correspondent, I uploaded my Review of The Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF6) into my home page: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JedRothwell The filename is iccf6rev.htm. This is similar to the document I posted on Vortex on November 7. I cleaned it up, fixed some typos, and added a few details. I also uploaded our press release about the CETI RIFEX demo cell, and reorganized the page. I note that CETI's home page has some information on RIFEX and an announcement that more information will be posted "next week." (It doesn't say which week that's next to.) I have a pointer to the CETI page, which is http://www.onramp.net/~ceti, or maybe http://www.cleanenergy.com/ceti, depending on which reference you look at. Here is the biggest change to the review: O-014 S. Pons, "The ICARUS 9 Calorimeter: Summary of Three Years Designing, Testing and Operation of this Device at the IMRA Europe Science Center" We will describe this paper in detail in issue 10. It describes a cell that was held at boiling for long periods, producing 200% excess at hundreds of watts. Cathodes are either 2.5 cm long (0.075 cc, 0.9 g) or 10 cm (0.3 cc, 3.6 g). In a 3-month run this cell produced 294 megajoules from one cathode. The calorimeter is rather complex. It is static design, requiring three calibration curves from three thermocouples to measure low, medium, and boiling level power levels. Pons showed extensive data from a huge number of different types calibration runs. Several people said they thought this calorimeter is a little too complicated, and inappropriate for this power and temperature domain. It was suggested that a Seebeck thermoelectric envelope design would be better. If you spot any typos or factual errors in the new version please contact me. - Jed Rothwell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 25 07:54:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA29079; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 07:48:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 07:48:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:48:34 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199611251548.KAA29949@spectre.mitre.org> To: rgeorge@hooked.net CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <199611232004.MAA20301@mom.hooked.net> (rgeorge@hooked.net) Subject: Re: How about this for off topic Resent-Message-ID: <"TGDpA.0.F67.O_Rco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2336 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: rgeorge said: > >From today's Washington Post electronic edition. > "An Israeli military court has convicted four soldiers of negligently > shooting to death an 18-year-old Palestinian in the West Bank. The > sentence? One hour in jail and a fine of one Israeli agora, less than > one-third of a U.S. cent." > Once in awhile some act really gets to me and about all I can do is > try to see that the act is witnessed by people so that maybe the > villans will think twice about doing it again. What happens if you are on sentry duty, challenge someone, and he doesn't respond. You shoot, if those are your orders. What if it was the Officer of the Day, checking the alertness of the sentries? You will quickly be court-martialled, found guilty, and in the US, probably fined one dollar. This is because military justice works (and must work if you want to have a functional army) on different principles than civilian systems. The Officer of the Day above was responsible for your conduct, and if he survives, he will be court-martialled, and possibly found guilty. If so he will be punished. So usually a sentence like this indicates: 1) Those found guilty were following orders in a situation where thinking first is not an option. You would like to have soldiers who can figure it out while in the process of aiming, but that is asking for the superhuman. You don't want soldiers who spend time thinking over every order they are given. 2) That the officer or officers who gave the order are being investigated. They were the ones with both the responsibility and the time to think. 3) Even if the officers are exonerated, these convictions will be a blight on THEIR careers, but not on those who were at the bottom of the chain of command. To make this relevant to vortex, compare with scientific inquiry. If you want discoveries, not orthodox button pushing you have got to have a process where those who experiment are not punished if their experiments "fail." Further discussion to e-mail. 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 Nov 25 12:07:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA03302; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 11:53:08 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 11:53:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961125150514.00687d7c@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 15:05:39 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Simple(and small) is beautiful Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"gJpD52.0.Tp.YaVco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2337 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:09 PM 11/21/96 -0500, you wrote: >I agree with Colin Quinney that simple devices are what we needed. >Simplicity more often means fundamental and robust process. > To me, simplest device would be one with no moving parts, no burning, >no fancy manufacturing process, Yes, but look what's been happening to AquaFuel...a simple process, I thought...until I started to think about actually building it. Horace may have found something simpler or 'elegant'. >this limits down to circuits and magnets. >How about Smith coil? This is a caduceus (double) winding. Anyone with >information regarding Smith This coil, as I understand, was a kind of caduceus coil that Smith designed. (while in trance or under alien influence. I don't necessarily believe in 'aliens' but I do concede that there is a possibility of a 'form' of intelligence that can manifest itself and that derives from a type of 'morphogenetic' field.) To understand the Smith coil you may have to study Hooper's works. Hooper and Smith influenced each other to some extent, I believe. I have not read any of Smith's work about this coil, however; only Hooper's . I believe you are correct about studying the Smith type of coil to achieve Over Unity, but not directly. These caduceus type of coils may not generate any fields that are different than anything else. What they do allow for, however, is a cancellation of the standard electromagnetic fields, so that 'another' field, the Hooper Effect, which may *always* be present, can then be studied with low-level measuring instruments without interference from the EM fields. Hooper claimed that this effect, the 'Motional Electric Field', was indistinguishable from gravitation. The point being, is that if you generate a gravitational field (using Smith or any type coils), you are generating a non-conservation field which may be tapped for Over Unity. So your intuition may be correct. >or Russell's work in this area I am unfamiliar with Russel's work but Vortex is the best Mail List to be on to see the re-birth of Alchemy (but not my field). (like web >sites)? With my modest means, I need a simple and small project to begin >expereimenting with. Welcome to the "modest-means' club. Same boat for me. Check Bill Beaty's Web Site. Lots of links to Projects (I think) > I heard a lot of talks about space energy. Jeane Manning's book The >Coming Energy Revolution, Brain Oleary's Miracle in The Void are excellent, >if you haven't read them already. But I never saw a actual working >device. OK, maybe its my fault, for I didn't really search hard for them >in the past. I have to make a living for the family. again, see B.Beaty Web Site. follow links. >But if any of this new energy stuff is true, which I tend to >believe(They can't be all liers), then I will kick >myself for the rest of my life if I do not put myself into the front >line. I want to serve human and earth more than anything else. I believe >many vorterxian have this energy revolution as one of >their main goal in life, what James Redfield calls Birth Vision in his >book Tenth Insight. Right now I am looking for the close encounter of first >kind. (Yes space brothers, you are welcome to my neighborhood too) Doing >is Being. Do it or see it myself. I've studied that stuff myself, but I would *never* admit it on this particular list. I would be flamed, or worse, ignored. Many here have studied these topics but we keep mum about it. Circumspect. > >BTW, I am a solid state physicist in training. I did most of my research >work on X-ray scattering study of crystals and superconductivity. Congratulations, Superconductivity is *the* field to be in if you are interested in the Over Unity of Anti-Gravity. Look at the Vortex Archives. This is real and is happening now. The birth of several new sciences can be followed right here on this list. John Schnurer is the leading proponent about gravity control on this list, and one of the 'tops' in the world. There are several other experts in this field on this List. I am not. >There is nothing but reality I have to disagree with that one, even as a metaphor, *and* even after spending several years studying the 'Course in Miracles". .....Just look around......What "the Course" taught me was that there is a purpose to synchronicity, and that it can be influenced with repetitive, focused visualization. (that is the only reason that I am responding to your post. It was accidently re-posted by John Schnurer while he was fumbling with his E-mail program. There is a synchronicity here. (Tenth Insight.) So what's the connection ? BTW, if we mix our spiritual belief foundations with our 'observations' in print as you did, for many to read, people may not listen to us anymore. Very frustrating, but true. Faraday had that problem. He started talking mysticism while he was doing electro-gravity experiments and was effectively censored. Too bad. 150 years of research into electro-gravity shot because of one mistake. > >Xiaobo Kan > Keep the Science, Colin Quinney From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 25 12:57:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA10431; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 12:21:39 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 12:21:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3299FA0A.1FC5@cais.com> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 14:56:58 -0500 From: Danny Hamilton Reply-To: hamltndt@cais.cais.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ppb? ppm? ppt? References: <961125053020_72240.1256_EHB100-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"EcRbS1.0.oY2.h-Vco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2338 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > snip > Who knows? Perhaps a stew of primordial plasm forms in the lattice and new > elements form in their natural isotopic ratios. Since the phenomenon cannot be > predicted or explained by any standard theory, the standard theories cannot > dictate how it must work. snip > > - Jed Jed, Have you considered the implications of observed transformations relative to the distribution of elements throughout the universe? If transformations are possible within a lattice, are there other situations that might facilate transformations? Is it possible to theorize a slow evolution of elements rather than their creation the melting pot of a sun? Danny From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 25 13:43:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA21815; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 13:15:43 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 13:15:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961125162856.00760780@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 16:30:51 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Simple(and small) is beautiful Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"xF4Ga3.0.lK5.xnWco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2339 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >I've studied that stuff myself, but I would *never* admit it on this >particular list. I would be flamed, or worse, ignored. Many here have >studied these topics but we keep mum about it. Circumspect. oops......Shoulda checked my "to" on 'that' post. (geez, and I thought John Shnurer was fumble fingered!) C.Q. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 25 15:54:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA03358; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 15:49:03 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 15:49:03 -0800 (PST) To: 72240.1256@compuserve.com Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-Id: Organization: Chemistry Department From: filimonov@chem.bsu.minsk.by (Filimonov) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 96 22:47:57 -0900 (YST) Subject: Re:ppb?ppm?ppt? X-Mailer: BML [MS/DOS Beauty Mail v.1.25] Resent-Message-ID: <"v3cn01.0.Mq.j1Zco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2340 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 25 Nov 96 00:30:20 EST Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote: >Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the silver is found deep in >the cathode, where no silver contamination *ever goes*, even when you >deliberately introduce massive amounts of silver into the cell. And nothing >ever goes down there without leaving traces at the surface. ... >You have no basis whatsoever for thinking that. It could not possibly be 95% >or 5%, or even 0.5% crud. There is no known mechanism for getting the crud >under the surface without leaving most of it on top, and *none is found on >top*. How can you blithely make this assertion when you know it is physically >impossible?!? ... >There is only one phenomenon commonly associated with metal lattices that can >cause this material to appear under the surface: a nuclear reaction. It's incorrect. Appearance of impurity deeply under the surface without its mass presense "on top" means only that the rate of impurity diffusion inside solid is much more than the rate of transport of the same from impurity source to noted surface. Impossible? Not more than occuring of nuclear fusion on the surface of plastic beads in water. Thinking of CF and transmutation as "anomalous" phenomena that need *shielding, squeezing and other eeezing* to proceed, one can't note any similarity among extra-fast ColdFusion and extra-fast DifFusion. But this similariry does exist, and its features are following: External one: both occur under hydrogen transport in solids. Internal one: both are *normal* activation phenomena, but in *abnormal* thermodynamical circumstances that provide non-conventional type of energy fluctuations distribution between atoms with unusually thick high-energy "tail". Yes, Synergetic Activation. About anomalous diffusion - see: Latyshev V.V., Gur'yanov V.G., Asliddinova M.Yu. et al. "Hydrogen-Stimulated Penetration of Impurities through Membranes [made] of Palladium Alloys", Russ. Zhurnal Fizicheskoy Khimii, V.65 (1991) 1419-1421. This paper reports increase of impurities (oxygen, nitrogen and hydrocarbons!) transport rate by two decimal degrees of magnitude under hydrogen transport as related to absent of the latter. Data were obtained by mass spectrometry. Hydrogen flow "rocks and shakes" palladium lattice and create virtual "chinks" that made impurities more mobile than in quiet solid. It washes out atoms and other defects so it may occur that there were no one at the surface but all of them at... the opposite one. Don't be confused that above mentioned paper concerns gasseous impurities. It doesn't matter. We in our electrolysis experiments create conditions in which metal cathodes recrystallize under hydrogen transfer [without melting and dissolving, at 90 degs. Celsius] to form single crystals in a few hours. So, not only atomic or molecular impurities but also extended defects such as grain boundaties and dislocations can move much faster under hydrogen "whip". Care is necessary. Blindly rejection of transmutation isn't better and isn't worse than blindly appropriation of the same. Yours true cold-fusioneer, Ben Filimonov. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 25 18:26:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA11978; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 18:06:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 18:06:24 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <329A50A7.15FB7483@math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 18:06:31 -0800 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: ppb? ppm? ppt? References: <961124211055_72240.1256_EHB36-2@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"aJ5WT2.0.-w2.V2bco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2341 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > To: Vortex > > A couple of petulant messages I posted here finally appeared a week after I > it is only parts > per billion if you assume the instruments cannot tell the > difference between water and silver. It makes no sense to > compare the silver to all other atoms > in the cell. That is the meaning of "ppb": parts per billion of total atoms in the system. The point is, silver atoms are present at ppb in the system as a whole (refer to Miley's paper). If they then concentrate on the beads, they become parts per thousand or greater relative to the amount of metal on the bead surface. I'm using ppb in the totally conventional sense when discussing contaminants in a system. As for your assertion that there was no silver in the system, that directly contradicts Miley's paper. There was silver all over the place---in the fresh beads, in the electrolyte, etc. Miley quanitfies it at being around 10x below what is needed to account for his results, but that is not a comforting margin given the complexity of tracking impurities. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 25 19:49:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA03044; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 19:38:36 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 19:38:36 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ppb? ppm? ppt? Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 03:38:47 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <329d8899.51287454@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <01BBDAEA.F2B6F6A0@sparc1.nhelab.iae.or.jp> In-Reply-To: <01BBDAEA.F2B6F6A0@sparc1.nhelab.iae.or.jp> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.334 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"D_pP83.0.Sl.wOcco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2343 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 16:08:44 +-900, Kennel wrote: [snip] >Well, why should the transmutation effect yield the same reaction = product >as the Big Bang? These don't seem to be related processes. So it is = not >absolutely impossible, but "very weak" seems appropriate. =20 [snip] Is evidence for the big bang really any stronger than that for CF? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 25 20:00:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA02999; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 19:38:25 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 19:38:25 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa Reactor- metals and gases Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 03:38:37 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <329b65d9.42390173@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.334 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"vrSIP3.0.jk.mOcco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2342 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 24 Nov 1996 23:18:25 -0600 (CST), John Logajan wrote: >Robin van Spaandonk writes: >> I believe that due to the double charge on a helium nucleus, helium is= in >> fact a "smaller" atom than hydrogen. > >But helium is a jealous keeper of its electrons while hydrogen is more >promiscious. Strip (share) an electron from a hydrogen atom and it >becomes very small indeed! [snip] Since this thread started talking about helium leaking through pyrex, we are talking about molecular hydrogen gas (or it probably would be by the time it reached the glass). I don't think this reacts very well with = glass. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 25 20:13:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA07357; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 19:54:11 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 19:54:11 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 22:52:22 -0500 Message-ID: <961125225222_354648603@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: CldFusion@aol.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: hugo Resent-Message-ID: <"GqBpw2.0.oo1.Tdcco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2344 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hugo where are you?...You have been quiet!!....Did aliens from space capture you? Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 25 20:39:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA14065; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 20:19:48 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 20:19:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611260419.UAA22967@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 20:19:15 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Big Bang and Stellar nucleosynthesis - opps Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"Z1_573.0.gR3.Y_cco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2345 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: So why are astomnomers now finding an anomalous high amount of infrared radiation in the universe with the new IR observatory. Could it be that cold fusion which has as its major signature IR radiation might just be occurring everywhere suitable reactants are available. Why not in some early stage of the big bang or for that matter in stars where the major portion of the volume is in a state unsuited for "hot fusion" but perfectly suited to cold fusion. Lets get real here and admit that we haven't and aren't about to unravel all the mysteries of the universe in less than 100 years of recent scientific exploration. Of course that would make it hard to get an "A" on an exam or a cookie cutter Phd. where regurgitating answers is the primary means of judging ones proficiency. Russ George From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 25 20:53:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA17129; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 20:31:57 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 20:31:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961126043225.0066d7ac@sparc1> X-Sender: kennel@sparc1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 13:32:25 +0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: ppb? ppm? ppt? Resent-Message-ID: <"t9cEv.0.TB4.uAdco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2346 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A >>Is evidence for the big bang really any stronger than that for CF?<< The point is, that identifying cold fusion with the same process which created the universe (i.e., created natural abundances) is a very large conceptual step. I think it very presumptuous to think that CETI has paralleled the same process that created the universe (big bang or whatever your favorite theory is) by measuring crud in an electrolytic cell. Best regards, Elliot From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Nov 25 23:23:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA26252; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 23:22:29 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 23:22:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 23:22:41 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ppb? ppm? ppt? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961126043225.0066d7ac@sparc1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"2CV7N3.0.4Q6.qgfco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2347 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Elliot Kennel wrote: > >>Is evidence for the big bang really any stronger than that for CF?<< > The point is, that identifying cold fusion with the same process which > created the universe (i.e., created natural abundances) is a very large > conceptual step. Won't any major physics discovery probably apply in many other distant fields? If CF says that something is funny with our understanding of particle physics, then it implies that there may be something wrong with cosmology theories too. Of course maybe CF applies only to a small environmental niche, only to nucleii in solid metals at particular temperatures. But I think the probability is higher that once CF transmutations are explained, the new knowledge will require that serious changes be made in many other parts of physics. Some skeptics say that if CF is real, we would have to rewrite all of physics. Some believers say the same thing, but with a bit more excitement! I guess it depends on whether one wants physics to be a nearly completed book, or a nearly empty one with plenty of opportunity to fill new pages and rewrite old chapters. .....................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 Nov 25 23:59:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA01016; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 23:58:12 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 23:58:12 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961126075924.0066f150@sparc1> X-Sender: kennel@sparc1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 16:59:24 +0900 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: Feynman on Integrity Resent-Message-ID: <"nc72a.0.hF.JCgco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2348 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Recently I looked up a quotation from Richard Feynman from his 1974 commencement address in which he said a few well-chosen words on scientific integrity and what it means. This might be useful to those who are eager to express opinions on cold fusion. Empirically, it seems to me that 95% of the world would rather use proof by shouting (either pro or con; it doesn't matter) to resolve the scientific issues, rather than research. Anyway, I hope it will be of interest to a few folks out there... "[There is] an idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition. In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another." (Richard Feynman, adapted from a Caltech commencement address given in 1974, from the book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!") Best regards, Elliot Kennel Sapporo From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 02:54:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA18332; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 02:52:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 02:52:50 -0800 (PST) Date: 26 Nov 96 05:51:14 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: A few thoughts Message-ID: <961126105113_100433.1541_BHG116-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"w7Hk_.0.LU4.1mico"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2349 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I've been watching these discussions of the Miley paper with a degree of bemusement. Here are a few thoughts. As someone who has been reluctant to accept *any* of the nuclear reactions apparently detected by CF people, I've pretty much changed my mind. Why? Well, it's a bit like reading Close's Too Hot To Handle. It wasn't until I'd read that and seen a fellow of his calibre having to tie himself in logical knots and accusations of dishonesty that I began to appreciate the reality of CF (the thermal anomaly). Similarly, I see people chipping at the Miley paper. But none of them have built an explanation of the entirety of the results, let alone those of Ohmori, Mizuno and the rest. We have ten times the initial silver appearing under the nickel, we apparently have as much as half the nickel hiding shyly (in the electrolyte?!) while every other cation is multiplied by God-knows-what factor and dumped onto the bead - and so very smoothly onto the bead, I note. And everyone seems a bit enthusiastic in their ignoring of the test runs made with bare conducting beads. And what about the way the distribution of the 'new' elements matches not only the reports from other 'transmutation' labs, but also the distribution of the elements from nuclear fission? But NONE of this is very relevant. After all, with the hoped-for sixty or more CETI cells (hopefully) going into the field, quite a few people will (hopefully) be reporting their findings. So all this becomes both premature and largely irrelevant because Miley will either be confirmed in spades or relegated to the darkest depths of path.science. Probably both. The science is interesting, and I'm as sure as I can be that this is not nuclear physics - the reasons are much too good for it not being nuclear physics. It could only be some kind of supra-nuclear physics, perhaps something close to a Bose-Einstein condensate's super-atom wave function collapsing. Yawn, so what? Everyone here knows full well, if that is the case, then nobody will care apart from us true believers. Yes, it is an unpopular thought but the fact is that the valuable thing in the short term is the energy. That can be sold and be of value to the purchaser. Science cannot. If indeed the reports of transmutation of radioactive nuclides into stable ones come through, then that too can be sold. Sheesh, we could have the situation where CF saves the fission power industry. I think CETI are selling these cells because they think they can get real cash for them, and get real cash from those beads which are better at doing heat, and that they can do business with their supposed nuclear remediation process. The 'transmutation' cells are just of scientific interest as yet, so they have no commercial value of themselves. They may also feel that confirmation of Miley's findings may give their other products more credibility - and I suppose they could be right. The dread sci.physics.fusion is something I rarely see unless I'm taking care of someone else's mailbox. I've been doing that just recently, and had a good laugh in the process. I see Steve Jones is asking for a free cell to test nuclear remediation, with a delicious implication which amounts to saying that if he can't have one nobody will believe it is real! But don't we all do that to a degree? Some of us are sold on light-nuclei fusion. Some of us on various other notions and theories, and damned few actually want to do the kind of straight engineering replication which the French nuclear boys did and did only because someone fought tooth and nail to make them redo F&P without "flat wings". Even Close points out that Fleischmann once did a paper which *his peer electrochemists* could not replicate for five years. Yet we have so-called 'good science' being done, where people are failing to get the results and not even replicating. First replicate, *then* try new ideas. But how in the name of all that is holy do we expect the shrinking band of funded scientists to make real progress now? They have signally failed to do that - just about all the real progress has come from the backwoodsmen. And the funded labs have little hope of future funding if they continue to fail to replicate. Let's face it, the 'positive feedback' of temperature and the CF effect has been known all these years, yet people insist on doing isothermal calorimetry in cold water! Can anyone explain that? Can they show me why it is such a clever idea? Can any of them explain why a non-scientist like Rothwell can listen to their results, walk through their labs, and produce a letter which nobody so far has done anything with but either praise, or be able to criticise only on the grounds of its manner and style? And those who are unhappy with its style might consider that a nasty letter now might be better than a close-down soon. But if (or rather, when) a useful commercial product is sold - or even, though more slowly, when an energy anomaly demonstrator is sold - then people will work on them. People with the burning determination which characterised the nuclear physicists of the 1930s. People with the same commercial determination of those who spent years transforming the Bell transistor into pocket radios. Had solid-state electronics been left to the scientists, could we go out and buy a 100+MHz personal computer for the cost of a few weeks' groceries? Sorry, but no. To solve the puzzle of the energy source of CF will take a *lot* of real talent, and that will come only when there are enough people working on it. And that will come with commercialisation. Of course I wish all success to the CF scientists, but I think they are dashing themselves against the rocks of the certainty of the science community, a community which sees them as fools or liars. [end rant] Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 03:08:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA19472; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 03:06:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 03:06:50 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ppb? ppm? ppt? Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:07:07 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <329bcc9b.30384926@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <961125053020_72240.1256_EHB100-1@CompuServe.COM> <3299FA0A.1FC5@cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3299FA0A.1FC5@cais.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.334 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"J1Atl1.0.Am4.9zico"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2350 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 14:56:58 -0500, Danny Hamilton wrote: >Jed Rothwell wrote: >>=20 >snip >> Who knows? Perhaps a stew of primordial plasm forms in the lattice and= new >> elements form in their natural isotopic ratios. Since the phenomenon = cannot be >> predicted or explained by any standard theory, the standard theories = cannot >> dictate how it must work. >snip >>=20 >> - Jed > >Jed, > Have you considered the implications of observed transformations >relative to the distribution of elements throughout the universe? If >transformations are possible within a lattice, are there other >situations that might facilate transformations? Is it possible to >theorize a slow evolution of elements rather than their creation the >melting pot of a sun? =20 > >Danny > > Now ask yourself why the core of the Earth is Fe-Ni? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 03:08:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA19570; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 03:07:03 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 03:07:03 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Satellite power source Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:07:18 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32a28848.12891897@mail.netspace.net.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.334 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"PDvpR3.0.cn4.Mzico"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2352 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Radioactive elements are currently used in satellites to produce power through thermoelectric conversion which is very inefficient. It occurs to me that a solution of a radioactive salt might produce a Brown's gas mixture very efficiently. I.e. the high energy radiation from the salt would split lots of water molecules before it was slowed down to normal thermal levels. The Brown's gas could then be separated into hydrogen and oxygen by condensing the oxygen to a liquid in a radiator on the shadow side of the satellite. The LOX could be regassified in a solar absorber on the sunny side of the satellite, and the two gasses reunited = in a conventional hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell, the water from which could go right back into the radioactive salt solution. I suspect that the salt solution would be almost 100% efficient in converting the radiation energy into chemical energy, and current fuel cells can be up to 90% efficient. Furthermore the expanding oxygen could = be put through a small turbine that would provide not only enough power to = do all the pumping, but should have quite a bit left over to run a small electric generator. (You get pretty good Carnot efficiency, when one side is at a temperature of hundreds of degrees, and the other at the temperature of liquid oxygen :). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 03:08:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA19516; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 03:06:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 03:06:56 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Simple(and small) is beautiful Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:07:12 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <329cccb1.30407313@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <3.0.32.19961125162856.00760780@inforamp.net> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19961125162856.00760780@inforamp.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.334 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"xzg563.0.sm4.Fzico"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2351 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 16:30:51 -0500, Quinney wrote: >>I've studied that stuff myself, but I would *never* admit it on this >>particular list. I would be flamed, or worse, ignored. Many here have >>studied these topics but we keep mum about it. Circumspect. > >oops......Shoulda checked my "to" on 'that' post. (geez, and I thought = John >Shnurer was fumble fingered!) > >C.Q. > > I would hope that being curious wouldn't get one ignored on this list. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 03:50:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA23527; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 03:49:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 03:49:18 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ppb? ppm? ppt? Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:49:37 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32a3d54e.32612767@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <1.5.4.32.19961126043225.0066d7ac@sparc1> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961126043225.0066d7ac@sparc1> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.334 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"B4BS12.0.Wl5.zajco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2353 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 26 Nov 1996 13:32:25 +0900, Elliot Kennel wrote: >>>Is evidence for the big bang really any stronger than that for CF?<< >The point is, that identifying cold fusion with the same process which >created the universe (i.e., created natural abundances) is a very large >conceptual step. I think it very presumptuous to think that CETI has >paralleled the same process that created the universe (big bang or = whatever >your favorite theory is) by measuring crud in an electrolytic cell.=20 [snip] If the theory I have outlined on my web page is anywhere close to = correct,=20 then nuclei could be "swimming" in a thin soup of nuclear force under the right conditions. This should give them an opportunity to rearrange such = as to achieve an overall energy minimum. As these conditions shouldn't be all that rare in the universe, I don't find it at all presumptuous, but rather more to be expected. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 06:35:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA15023; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:32:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 06:32:50 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611261432.GAA14980@mail.eskimo.com> From: Ron McFee Subject: Bloody Waste of Resources. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 25 Nov 96 18:33:57 MST Cc: mcfee@lanl.gov Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Resent-Message-ID: <"QVtfC2.0.Zg3.H-lco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2354 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greetings fellow Vortejanos Last week I ran into George Miley at the Denver APS Plasma Physics meeting. I spoke with him for several minuets about his claimed nuclear transmutations. He seemed almost convinced. However I remain quite sceptical along with Elliot Kennel, Ben Filiomonov, and others. I did ask him if he had looked for 4He and 3He production. He said that he did not have that capability. I have stated here before that it is highly improbably that transmutations of high Z material such as nickel and palladium are occurring, especially if the reactants are non-radioactive. It is quite unscientific for people to naively assume that it is without extensive verification. As for the presence of silver and copper well inside the nickel, Tom Claytor has stated that in his experiments up to 25% or more of the beads lose more that 50% of the nickel which is presumably redeposited on others. The silver probably came from trace amounts that were originally present in the anode which is probably platinum which is more inert and stays put. Electrolytic cells seem to have the tendency to concentrate more reactive materials such as copper and silver under the proper conditions. As I recall electrolysis is the principal means of purifying both copper and silver by plating the material onto cathodes. In my opinion all the activity that will be directed to looking for transmutations of nickel is going to be a bloody waste of resources. The proper priorities should be to establish the anomalous energy generation and quantifying the heat production with both light and heavy water. When very **LARGE** amounts of energy are being produced then the systems should be well sealed, with evolved gases being recombined internally, and unrecombined gases should be sniffed for 4He and 3He. The heavy water cells should also be examined for tritium and neutron production. The ratio of tritium to neutrons should be around ten to the eighth power to one. Which was the observed number by numerous groups over seven years ago. I am quite encouraged by CETI's decision to make kits available and hope that we (Tom Claytor and Ed Storms) will be on the receiving end. In the meantime I will keep a modest amount of open mindedness concerning nickel transmutation, but only if the transmutationist among you consider that the energy production just might be coming from real fusions of hydrogen isotopes. Regards, Ron From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 07:34:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA05691; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 07:32:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 07:32:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 07:01:13 -0800 Message-Id: <199611261501.HAA16939@dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Wondering about it To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"ZWy_N1.0.pO1.5smco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2356 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: November 26, 1996 Tuesday One day back in 1994, musing about CF experiments, I realized that, hey!, millions of catalytic mufflers with Pt and Pd (and other catalysts) are being used and they have high surface areas being used effectively. Perhaps one new one can be chopped apart and its innards can be used in an experiment. This idea has been put aside for now. However, another idea and question connected with transmutations came to mind with the catalytic mufflers after the ICCF-5. On a macro scale, what are the recyclers of the used catalytic mufflers harvesting? Just the usual metals that went in to make the catalytic cells, or what else beyond normal 'contaminants'? I agree a single muffler analysis would be 'dirt', as an individual at the NHE lab reacted immediately without questioning, but on a macro scale? I think it would be interesting to find out. So far, I have spent a short time probing about to find a re-cycler/refiner to give that type of information. Not too much cooperation so far. Perhaps others on the vortex could find out. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 07:35:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA05503; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 07:31:34 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 07:31:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 10:30:01 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Feynman on Integrity In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961126075924.0066f150@sparc1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"UD-vi3.0.vL1.Lrmco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2355 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: That will be Milk AND Lemon, please ..... good show Elliot, Dick too! I am sure John Wheeler would approve ... but he does not use E mail... he said to me " I am too old for it" ..... but did mail me his latest monograph, after telling me he was not qualified to judge if the work I was doing at the time was valid or not. FYI, the work in question, which I still do, involves noise in electronic systems, this noise is my constant friend [job security], enemy and companion. Often a variation of 4kBT is used to calculate the thermal noise in an electronic system. My work involves an 'improvement' on the 'wall' imposed by such calculation. There is another term in the equation... it is not employed, hence all such calculations are skewed. Fortunately for what I do, low noise, the 'skew' can be, if correctly applied, to allow a lower electronic noise to obtain. John 'fumble fingers' Schnurer JHS On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Elliot Kennel wrote: > Recently I looked up a quotation from Richard Feynman from his 1974 > commencement address in which he said a few well-chosen words on scientific > integrity and what it means. This might be useful to those who are eager to > express opinions on cold fusion. Empirically, it seems to me that 95% of > the world would rather use proof by shouting (either pro or con; it doesn't > matter) to resolve the scientific issues, rather than research. Anyway, I > hope it will be of interest to a few folks out there... > > "[There is] an idea that we all hope you have learned in studying > science in school--we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that > you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is > interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's > a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that > corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. > For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything > that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about > it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you > thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they > worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. > Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you > know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, > or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and > advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that > disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more > subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an > elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that > those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the > theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in > addition. > In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to > judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to > judgement in one particular direction or another." > > (Richard Feynman, adapted from a Caltech commencement address given > in 1974, from the book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!") > > > Best regards, > Elliot Kennel > Sapporo > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 07:44:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA08695; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 07:42:28 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 07:42:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 22:56:45 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961126225451.24d7bf28@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 From: Mpower Subject: CF, transmutation and implementation Resent-Message-ID: <"Z3fzP1.0.k72.Y_mco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2357 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have followed the arguments pro and con cold fusion for some time, and I find it rather amazing that so many people have such a difficult time accepting the concept of cold fusion and transmutation in the same circumstances. I suppose they believe that cold fusion between free protons or deuterium nucliii and other particles does not qualify for the term 'transmutation'. In my universe, if you fuse a hydrogen nucleus and any other nucleus you care to name, into the the same nucleus, I would want to describe the end result as the transmutation of one element into another. As an aside, I think the greatest task ahead is no longer proving CF, but rather developing the machinery to harness it.. For those of you who wish to realize a profit from your effort, the peole here in Asia have far more money to invest, for machinery which works as advertised, without regard for the theory behind it. ********************************************************** * http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 ******** ********************************************************** From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 08:17:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA16801; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 08:14:33 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 08:14:33 -0800 (PST) Date: 26 Nov 96 10:39:06 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Bloody Waste of Resources. Message-ID: <961126153906_100433.1541_BHG136-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"qavgX3.0.K64.dTnco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2358 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Ron, > In my opinion all the activity that will be directed to looking > for transmutations of nickel is going to be a bloody waste of > resources. The proper priorities should be to establish the > anomalous energy generation and quantifying the heat production > with both light and heavy water. When very **LARGE** amounts of > energy are being produced then the systems should be well sealed, > with evolved gases being recombined internally, and unrecombined > gases should be sniffed for 4He and 3He. Yes, possibly. Or possibly as a part of the larger scenario. By 'large amounts' of energy, we are including small power for long periods. But, rather than make assumptions that the beads are doing nothing exciting, a full assay of the cell contents should also be done. Chemically. Anyway, if 240 experiments are done with the four samples of sixty cells, there is room for everybody, eh? Sealed? Well, don't forget your recombiner... By the way, the lack of sensor points in the CETI cell should be no very big deal. One can always turn a flow system into a static calorimeter. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 08:17:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA16948; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 08:15:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 08:15:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 08:15:16 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty Reply-To: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Off topic but weird: Methane Hydrate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"tBvrk2.0.g84.6Unco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2359 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Scudder,Henry J wrote: > William > There was a program in the last couple of years on TV with > the same hypothesis for the disappeance of ships and planes in the > Bermuda Triangle. It was either Discovery Channel, The Learning > Channel, or a National Geographic Special, or Fox So "Discover" scooped me? Rats! But then I was inspired by (stole it from!) Corliss. If anyone is interested in Corliss' "Anomalies Compendium" project, I highly recommed his paperback called SCIENCE FRONTIERS. This is a compilation of several years worth of the little bimonthly anomalies newsletter Corliss sends out to the buyers of his hardcover publications. It's the cream of his recent anomalies reports, with lots of little Corliss commentary thrown in. It can be had online here In a similar vein: I can't see any reason why the *original* Lake Nyos phenomenon itself doesn't happen in the deep ocean. If CO2-saturated water builds up as a pool in a low spot in the ocean floor, at some point the increasing spontaneous effervescence might trigger a catastrophic "firestorm" (foamstorm?) in the pool, resulting in an ascending mega- plume of CO2 below your ship. Death by soda-pop. However, if this occurred in miles-deep water, the cloud of CO2 bubbles might re-dissolve as the gas encountered miles of unsaturated water. Gas wells with high percentage of helium are not that rare. Maybe some victims of the Bermuda Triangle talk in high, funny voices as their ships sink? ;) Jim Choate on SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTATION list says that a popular pastime is to drop a big block of dry ice in their swimming pool. The ascending bubble plume gives reduced bouyancy and sinks (as well as chills) swimmers who pass through it. If a significant quantity of Vortex-L users ever get to a symposium simultaneously, I hope that it is now nearly inevitible that the hotel pool end up with an ongoing simulation of Methane Hydrate plumes. ((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (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 Nov 26 09:26:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA04267; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 09:22:10 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 09:22:10 -0800 (PST) Date: 26 Nov 96 12:12:00 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: CF, transmutation and implementation Message-ID: <961126171159_100433.1541_BHG72-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"4ezUz2.0.a21.0Toco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2360 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: M Power comments: > In my universe, if you fuse a hydrogen nucleus and any other > nucleus you care to name, into the the same nucleus, I would want > to describe the end result as the transmutation of one element > into another. And he is precisely correct. > As an aside, I think the greatest task ahead is no longer proving > CF, but rather developing the machinery to harness it.. Hurrah for that! > For those of you who wish to realize a profit from your effort, > the peole here in Asia have far more money to invest, for > machinery which works as advertised, without regard for the theory > behind it. Well, perhaps. But you'd be surprised how many people in the US and UK, and probably in Europe generally, are not slavishly wedded to theory. So, let's have the machines ... please. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 09:48:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA06172; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 09:29:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 09:29:26 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611261729.JAA22582@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, 26 Nov 1996 09:29:02 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Thoughts on CETI Strategy Resent-Message-ID: <"S2DTS.0.CW1.qZoco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2361 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:14 PM 11/21/96 -0500, you wrote: >And if the transmutation processes can quench the radioactivity of the >nuclear waste and make plutonium decide to be something else, that would be a >tremendous boost. > >Mike Carrell > > Yes, transmutation is very much a double edged sword in this regard, speaking as one who has been rabidly anti-nuclear since 1972 when I woke up and saw big bro's big lie. The ability to transmute the wastes does nearly rationalize its use. Almost...but there are other considerations... Cautionary note: plutonium is mighty queer stuff, not really matter as we think of it, its energetics so dominant. How it will react in the transmutation pathways is anybody's guess. I would tackle anything in dilute forms in any conventional space, given the right bench top equipment, but not plutonium nor enriched uranium. I would want some super thick heavy shielding and some very thick walls of concrete between me and even a very minute amount of it, just to turn on Barker's electrostatic machine. Better yet, I am going to wait until somebody else does it. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 10:31:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA17076; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 10:09:32 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 10:09:32 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611261809.KAA27759@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, 26 Nov 1996 10:09:07 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Bloody Waste of Resources. Resent-Message-ID: <"FTkyQ3.0.dA4.Q9pco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2362 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:33 PM 11/25/96 MST, you wrote: >Greetings fellow Vortejanos > >Last week I ran into George Miley at the Denver APS Plasma Physics meeting. >I spoke with him for several minuets about his claimed nuclear >transmutations. He seemed almost convinced. However I remain quite >sceptical along with Elliot Kennel, Ben Filiomonov, and others. I did > >I am quite encouraged by CETI's decision to make kits available and hope >that we (Tom Claytor and Ed Storms) will be on the receiving end. In the >meantime I will keep a modest amount of open mindedness concerning nickel >transmutation, but only if the transmutationist among you consider that the >energy production just might be coming from real fusions of hydrogen isotopes. > >Regards, Ron > > The thing for you guys to jump on is THE OBVIOUS. Forget nickel. Forget Palladium. Forget ion transport. Forget crud. Forget transmutation. Forget fusion. Forget all concepts. Your concepts are in your way. Become stupid and JUMP ON THE DAMN RADIONUCLEIDE. Run it as per Miley's instructions through the cell. I have been preaching for two years that THE DEFINITIVE EASY CLASSIC PROOF is watching the radioactive element become something non-radioactive. You cannot miss the event. You cannot confuse it. You cannot dispute it. Oh, the first time you won't believe your senses or your intellect, so you will do it another half dozen times. Then you will know. Once you know that for certain, ignore the critics and proceed straight away to engineering a useful solution in the new field of FT - fusion transmutation - or maybe NR - nucleus re-clustering. When you realize that it is a lot more fun to hang out with the quacks, ie, seriously examining the work of people like Walter Russell, Roberto Monti, etc., who offer post nuclear big bang frameworks, you will become as an alchemist and then you will figure out ways to point your reaction to desired results, ie, selecting what you want to make, whether energy or material. This IS the philosophic gold... ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 10:59:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA19796; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 10:20:46 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 10:20:46 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 10:21:01 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: Satellite power source Resent-Message-ID: <"6Uq2h2.0.Ar4.xJpco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2363 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandon wrote: >It occurs to me that a solution of a radioactive salt might produce a >Brown's gas mixture very efficiently. I.e. the high energy radiation from >the salt would split lots of water molecules before it was slowed down to >normal thermal levels. ... >I suspect that the salt solution would be almost 100% efficient in >converting the radiation energy into chemical energy, and current fuel >cells can be up to 90% efficient. A creative idea, but an old one, called radiolysis, that's been well worked over. The high energy particles indeed split water molecules into H, O, OH, etc., but most of these recombine back to H2O before they cool down. The net yield of H2 and O2 is only 5% or so. The same sort of things happen in other target compounds, too, as far as I know. 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 Tue Nov 26 16:06:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA20554; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 15:57:31 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 15:57:31 -0800 (PST) To: kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-Id: Organization: Chemistry Department From: filimonov@chem.bsu.minsk.by (Filimonov) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 96 22:43:05 -0900 (YST) Subject: Re:ppb?ppm?ppt? X-Mailer: BML [MS/DOS Beauty Mail v.1.25] Resent-Message-ID: <"ryIcB2.0.115.cFuco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2365 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At Tue, 26 Nov 1996 13:32:25 +0900 Elliot Kennel wrote: >>>Is evidence for the big bang really any stronger than that for CF?<< >The point is, that identifying cold fusion with the same process which >created the universe (i.e., created natural abundances) is a very large >conceptual step. I think it very presumptuous to think that CETI has >paralleled the same process that created the universe (big bang or whatever >your favorite theory is) by measuring crud in an electrolytic cell. > >Best regards, >Elliot Elliot, Being rather lazy, we humans expect God to be devoted to labor idiotically. Look, is it necessary for him to develop something new for every crud? If it would be so, the Creation take not seven days but much more, and Universe won't exist till now. More seriously, see Re: Big Bang and Stellar nucleosynthesis. Ben Filimonov From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 16:07:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA20487; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 15:57:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 15:57:22 -0800 (PST) To: rgeorge@hooked.net Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-Id: Organization: Chemistry Department From: filimonov@chem.bsu.minsk.by (Filimonov) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 96 22:58:46 -0900 (YST) Subject: Re:Big Bang and Stellar nucleosinthesis X-Mailer: BML [MS/DOS Beauty Mail v.1.25] Resent-Message-ID: <"OzPGs.0.q_4.JFuco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2364 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At Mon, 25 Nov 1996 20:19:15 +0000 "Russ George" wrote: >>Could it be that cold fusion which has as its major signature IR radiation might just be occurring everywhere suitable reactants are available.<< ...And suitable conditions. But for specific conditions of CF, the latter would occur every time and everywhere, and cold and hot fusioneers would exchange their positions in contemporary science. As for reactants, their set may define the composition of final product but barely possibility-impossibility of the process itself. >>Why not in some early stage of the big bang or for that matter in stars where the major portion of the volume is in a state unsuited for "hot fusion" but perfectly suited to cold fusion.<< Great! As for stars, it probably is in such a way. Remind that calculations of solar energy produced show that hot fusion isn't enough to cover more than 10 to 25 per cent of it. Solar "core" being under high enough temperature and pressure is hot fusion area but solar "mantle" being under high temperature and pressure gradients is surely ... *relatively* cold fusion area. But if so, our planet system would be formed by mainly CF, and what deviations of isotope composition one would expect from CF (transmutation) experiments as related to natural abundances? It's probable that difference of these two cases is the fact that in the nature one has *mother Universe soup* with all initial components, interstitial products, diffusional separation, density separation, etc., but in PPC or other artificial medium one has definite and restricted set of components and limited time for interaction. I have a book published in Russia by its author, one Bardadymov, at 1990. Its title is "Natural Nuclear Sinthesis". The author (who isn't professional physicist or chemist) wrote that natural elements and isotopes (non-radioactive ones!) were formed not after instantaneous action as Big Bang but are transformed from one to another constantly and quietly in natural environment. Quite surprising that the author was frightened by CF announcement and guessed that the latter contradicts to his model and rather can't exist. Ben Filimonov From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 17:10:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA07888 for billb@eskimo.com; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 17:10:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 17:10:07 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: daved@nimbus.anu.edu.au Tue Nov 26 17:09:44 1996 Received: from nimbus.anu.edu.au (nimbus.anu.edu.au [150.203.126.21]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA07824 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 17:09:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (from daved@localhost) by nimbus.anu.edu.au (8.8.3/8.8.0) id MAA01288; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:08:47 +1100 (EST) Old-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:08:47 +1100 (EST) From: Dave DAVIES Message-Id: <199611270108.MAA01288@nimbus.anu.edu.au> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Stick to the science Cc: daved@nimbus.anu.edu.au X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: > From: Elliot Kennel > ... > >>Is evidence for the big bang really any stronger than that for CF?<< > > Is there any evidence for a Big Bang that can be called scientific? Many of us would say not. It is religion not science. People seem to have a strong desire for a beginning and many scientists who see science as a new religion want to start the scientific record with the phrase "In the beginning...". Best to stick to the experimental procedures/results and see if this transmutation can really be demonstrated in the lab rather than getting tangled up in quasi-religious speculation as some are tending toward here. If transmutation can be demonstrated BB will be just one of the orthodoxies challenged. dave From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 17:15:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA05333; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 16:56:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 16:56:06 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961127005521.0066f24c@sparc1> X-Sender: kennel@sparc1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:55:21 +0900 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Resent-Message-ID: <"Z_zMe1.0.BJ1.a6vco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Unidentified subject! Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2366 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >>Become stupid and JUMP ON THE (deleted) RADIONUCLEIDE.<< Actually, most of the scientists are already stupid, to hear the non-experimenters tell about it. However, most of us are aware that this is a very attractive possibility, and conceptually it probably makes as much sense to think that a heavy unstable atom would be at least as likely to transmute as the nearly-ideal, highly stable nickel. Nevertheless, experiments are always simple to those not actually doing the experiment, but usually more complicated to those carrying them out. I would be interested in doing such an experiment if the opportunity becomes available. But should we make the beads ourselves or have the inventors (CETI) supply them? I would think that a serious attempt to verify the results should use the same protocol and same materials as the inventor. Therefore, I think it behooves us to wait until such time as CETI believes that others can replicate their results, and then follow their advice as closely as possible. In the meantime, one question I have is, how do you measure the radioactivity? U-238 as well as Pu are alpha emitters. Therefore, the sample must be up-close to the detector, because a sheet of paper is enough to stop the alphas. Similarly, even a few microns of chemically deposited crud will stop the alphas. But making a complete inventory or the radionuclides seems difficult to me (i.e., I don't know how to do it, except by NAA, in which case the use of radioactive element is not any different than Ni or Pd). Just how is it that you would verify a positive result? I believe that radionuclide reduction is a **VERY** attractive application for this work, and theoretically it is possible according to at least a few theoreticians for whom I have the greatest respect. As an experimenter, I'm very willing to undertake an experiment to prove the existence of such an effect. For the moment, however, I'm not sure how to do it other than by a combination of surface analysis and neutron activation, which is the same technique used for non-radioactive elements (and for which we are already in the queue, BTW). Is there helpful advice you can provide (other than angry epithets)? Best regards, Elliot Kennel Sapporo From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 17:38:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA09650; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 17:17:45 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 17:17:45 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611270059.QAA23077@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: filimonov@chem.bsu.minsk.by (Filimonov) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 17:00:04 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re:Big Bang and Stellar nucleosinthesis Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"umXKR2.0.fM2.rQvco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2367 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have been studying the effects of cold fusion reactions as generated in both high density solid lattices and high density and shock front conditions formed by accoustic conditions for a long time now. I have never quite understood how "mainstream" physicists can have nuclear reactions restricted to such small parts of the universe as cores of stars, super nova, and the big bang. With all the mystery of the universe before us it seems obvious to me that mother nature has found myriad ways to produce these reactions which move things toward stability and provide heat energy in the bargain. Indeed having once been involved in bioscience I am very respectful of the bacteria and organisms in general as chemists. There have been countless generations of them and much time for trial and error experiments which might result in usable cold nuclear energy. So I extend my theories to cover life as well as a likely place to find these cold nuclear reactions. After all living processes form wonderfully complex molecules and lattices where hydrogen isotopes can be found very nicely contained and tickled. I'm not proposing that the big bang, super nova, and solar models for nucleosynthesis don't contribute to the soup jsut that they must not be the principal contributors. The problem with "mainstream" physicists is that most are hoping they won't have to continue to learn. After all learning means one is making mistakes and heaven forbid that the experts should be seen to be falible (sp.) Russ George Woody Guthrie had one of my favorite quotes, "If you steal from one person that's called plagarism, I steal from everybody... that's called research." From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 19:34:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA04662; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 18:50:27 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 18:50:27 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611270242.SAA12136@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, 26 Nov 1996 18:48:38 +0800 To: Barry Merriman From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: transmuting Cc: vortex-L@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"CerB91.0.b81.nnwco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2368 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:24 PM 11/26/96 -0800, you wrote: >did you have the meeting on waste transmutation you had planned on ? > > >-- >Barry Merriman >Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program >Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math >email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry > > Yes. The door is open to discussions, which will culminate circa Dec 3-6. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 19:36:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA05609; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 18:54:38 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 18:54:38 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611270245.SAA12397@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, 26 Nov 1996 18:51:43 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re:Big Bang and Stellar nucleosinthesis Resent-Message-ID: <"pNFpo1.0.YN1.grwco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2369 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:58 PM 11/26/96 -0900, you wrote: >I have a book published in Russia by its author, one Bardadymov, at 1990. >Its title is "Natural Nuclear Sinthesis". The author (who isn't >professional physicist or chemist) wrote that natural elements and >isotopes (non-radioactive ones!) were formed not after instantaneous >action as Big Bang but are transformed from one to another constantly and >quietly in natural environment. Quite surprising that the author was >frightened by CF announcement and guessed that the latter contradicts to >his model and rather can't exist. > >Ben Filimonov > > Very interesting. Is it available in english? If not, it would be worthwhile for the Russians to translate it and promote sale of it over the internet. Such books I believe now have a market. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 19:47:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA08001; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:07:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:07:01 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Satellite power source Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 03:06:20 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <329baefb.25170465@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.334 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"Cklhb1.0.wy1.51xco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2370 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 26 Nov 1996 10:21:01 -0800, Michael J. Schaffer wrote: [snip] >A creative idea, but an old one, called radiolysis, that's been well = worked >over. The high energy particles indeed split water molecules into H, O, >OH, etc., but most of these recombine back to H2O before they cool down. >The net yield of H2 and O2 is only 5% or so. The same sort of things >happen in other target compounds, too, as far as I know. [snip] I don't suppose you know whether or not this has been tried in an = electric field do you? Say with a voltage gradient of 10-20 volt/mm? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 19:53:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA10100; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:17:59 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:17:59 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611270309.TAA14512@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, 26 Nov 1996 19:15:30 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Unidentified subject! Resent-Message-ID: <"6DTB9.0.hT2.QBxco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2371 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:55 AM 11/27/96 +0900, you wrote: > I would be interested in doing such an experiment if the opportunity >becomes available. But should we make the beads ourselves or have the >inventors (CETI) supply them? I would think that a serious attempt to >verify the results should use the same protocol and same materials as the >inventor. Therefore, I think it behooves us to wait until such time as CETI >believes that others can replicate their results, and then follow their >advice as closely as possible. > In the meantime, one question I have is, how do you measure the >radioactivity? U-238 as well as Pu are alpha emitters. Therefore, the >sample must be up-close to the detector, because a sheet of paper is enough >to stop the alphas. Similarly, even a few microns of chemically deposited >crud will stop the alphas. But making a complete inventory or the >radionuclides seems difficult to me (i.e., I don't know how to do it, except >by NAA, in which case the use of radioactive element is not any different >than Ni or Pd). Just how is it that you would verify a positive result? > I believe that radionuclide reduction is a **VERY** attractive >application for this work, and theoretically it is possible according to at >least a few theoreticians for whom I have the greatest respect. As an >experimenter, I'm very willing to undertake an experiment to prove the >existence of such an effect. For the moment, however, I'm not sure how to >do it other than by a combination of surface analysis and neutron >activation, which is the same technique used for non-radioactive elements >(and for which we are already in the queue, BTW). > Is there helpful advice you can provide (other than angry epithets)? > >Best regards, >Elliot Kennel >Sapporo > > I used trace amounts of radium. Nothing thin blocked its signal much. Plastic, paper, glass, dusted generously with lead dioxide, buried in carbon, sulfur, calcium, signal still came through quite well. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 20:50:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA22316; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 20:18:02 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 20:18:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 23:15:10 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Simple CETI In-Reply-To: <961126153906_100433.1541_BHG136-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"2EHMn3.0.VS5.t3yco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2372 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: One simple suggestion: After a given run a full set of beads is turned over to standard environmental analysis lab for qualitative and quantitive separation procedure. The separated samples are then turned over to standard radioactive isotope handling and counting facility. As I recall the Q and Q each costs about 50 dollars per element. I do not have a figure for cost of counting services, but do not believe it to be any more than double the environmental test. This is not cheap, but is generally considered fairly reliable in USA if the analysis houses are checked for customer references. On 26 Nov 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Ron, > > > In my opinion all the activity that will be directed to looking > > for transmutations of nickel is going to be a bloody waste of > > resources. The proper priorities should be to establish the > > anomalous energy generation and quantifying the heat production > > with both light and heavy water. When very **LARGE** amounts of > > energy are being produced then the systems should be well sealed, > > with evolved gases being recombined internally, and unrecombined > > gases should be sniffed for 4He and 3He. > > Yes, possibly. Or possibly as a part of the larger scenario. By 'large > amounts' of energy, we are including small power for long periods. But, rather > than make assumptions that the beads are doing nothing exciting, a full assay of > the cell contents should also be done. Chemically. > > Anyway, if 240 experiments are done with the four samples of sixty cells, there > is room for everybody, eh? > > Sealed? Well, don't forget your recombiner... > > By the way, the lack of sensor points in the CETI cell should be no very big > deal. One can always turn a flow system into a static calorimeter. > > Chris > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Nov 26 22:27:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA18316; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 22:20:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 22:20:18 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Unidentified subject! Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 06:20:08 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <329db380.26327591@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <1.5.4.32.19961127005521.0066f24c@sparc1> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961127005521.0066f24c@sparc1> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.334 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"1-cH22.0.4U4.Wszco"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2373 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:55:21 +0900, Elliot Kennel wrote: [snip] > Is there helpful advice you can provide (other than angry = epithets)? [snip] I'm not sure how helpful it's going to be, but I would like to offer the following. It seems to me that if one follows Chris's approach one might get a reasonably useful result. I.e. dissolve everything after the event = in acid, (as would be required for a thorough chemical analysis), then dry = the resultant solution till salt crystals formed. The radioactivity of the = salt could then be measured. This would need to be done several times, both on= =20 beads that had been "treated", and on fresh beads. A comparison of the two sets would then constitute the experimental evidence. One would of course also need to check carefully throughout the experiment for escaping radioactive gasses. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 27 04:28:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA06751; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 04:27:10 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 04:27:10 -0800 (PST) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 07:26:46 -0500 Message-ID: <961127072644_2049049752@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ppb? ppm? ppt? Resent-Message-ID: <"d093l.0.Jf1.SE3do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2374 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 96-11-26 06:08:48 EST, Robin wrote: << Now ask yourself why the core of the Earth is Fe-Ni? Regards, >> This sunk in very slowly. But Fe is the minimum energy nucleus. And the notion that heavy elements are made only in the cores of suns which explode, scatter their cores throughout the universe to condense again into convenient planets always seemed a bit far-fetched to me. But not much father than the rest of current cosmology. The notion of elemental "evolution" by low energy transmutation is a staggering one. Miley's paper for ICCF-6 shows the transmuted elements falling into four groups, suggesting that some complexes are formed which fission into two groups of light and two groups of heavy elements. I'm not sure how many have seen this paper, since it was not published in IE. I'm not sure if Blue has seen it. But if you can get clusters of heavy elements out of Ni.........!!!!! Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 27 07:05:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA01263; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 07:02:06 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 07:02:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 07:01:33 -0800 Message-Id: <199611271501.HAA17325@dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Visit CETI website To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"7q4L03.0.dJ.iV5do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2375 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Nov 27, 1996 wed. Just made a late visit to CETI's webpage. New items noted since last year. They have added a press release on the RIFEX Basic Research Kit. Also details to order On-Line or Mail for their three categories of membership along with the kits ($3,750, $7,500, $15,000). Order forms with questionnaire are availble to be printed out. Delivery of kits at the On-Site Trauning Seminar, U. of Ill., Dec. 10, '96. I wonder if there will be other seminars for late joiners. Aside from asking about facilities available (EDX, SIMS, NAA, SEM, Auger[aes]), there are no warnings about qualification limitations on obtaining the kits. Refusal to sell kits to applicants may be done on an individual basis --- who knows. Lastly, aside from those looking for freebie kits, how many on the Vortex is actually getting the RIFEX kits? Perhaps we could chip in to get a kit for an agreed to tester. I'd be willing to chip in. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 27 07:53:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA07430; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 07:27:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 07:27:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 07:25:31 -0800 Message-Id: <199611271525.HAA18890@dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Where is the rest of it? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"QBXaZ3.0.yp1.Kt5do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2376 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Nov. 27, '96 Wed. Tom Claytor has a report listed on Logajan's webpage: 'Plasma Discharges on Palladium (LANL)'. This report has ten sections listed. Only two can be seen. The rest eight are blanked out. You can read only an abstract and introduction. Why? Its access is stated to be available in another abstract. Is this pre-publication censorship? I got more out of Ed Storms presentation at the ICCF-6 (given on behalf of Tom Claytor who was not funded. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 27 08:57:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA17823; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 08:36:36 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 08:36:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: "aki@ix.netcom.com" , Vortex-L Subject: RE: Visit CETI website Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 08:23:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"WeUeX.0.MM4.Hu6do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2377 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: aki I too would be willing to chip in several $100's Hank Scudder ---------- From: aki@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Visit CETI website Date: Wednesday, November 27, 1996 7:01AM Nov 27, 1996 wed. Just made a late visit to CETI's webpage. New items noted since last year. They have added a press release on the RIFEX Basic Research Kit. Also details to order On-Line or Mail for their three categories of membership along with the kits ($3,750, $7,500, $15,000). Order forms with questionnaire are availble to be printed out. Delivery of kits at the On-Site Trauning Seminar, U. of Ill., Dec. 10, '96. I wonder if there will be other seminars for late joiners. Aside from asking about facilities available (EDX, SIMS, NAA, SEM, Auger[aes]), there are no warnings about qualification limitations on obtaining the kits. Refusal to sell kits to applicants may be done on an individual basis --- who knows. Lastly, aside from those looking for freebie kits, how many on the Vortex is actually getting the RIFEX kits? Perhaps we could chip in to get a kit for an agreed to tester. I'd be willing to chip in. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 27 09:18:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA23249; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 08:57:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 08:57:22 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 08:27:07 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: Satellite power source Resent-Message-ID: <"Xj4CL3.0.6h5.nB7do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2378 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Schaffer replied: >>A creative idea, but an old one, called radiolysis, that's been well worked >>over. The high energy particles indeed split water molecules into H, O, >>OH, etc., but most of these recombine back to H2O before they cool down. >>The net yield of H2 and O2 is only 5% or so. The same sort of things >>happen in other target compounds, too, as far as I know. van Spaandon responded: >I don't suppose you know whether or not this has been tried in an electric >field do you? Say with a voltage gradient of 10-20 volt/mm? I don't know if this has ever been tried. The extent of my knowledge is from a scientist colleague who studied radiolysis about 20 years ago with the specific intent to produce hydrogen from water with useful energy. He wasn't the only one working the radiolysis field. 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 Nov 27 09:42:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA26505; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:14:44 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:14:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611271714.JAA26375@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: 101256@wxvax9.esa.lanl.gov X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:11:50 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Thomas N. Claytor" Subject: Re: Where is the rest of it? Resent-Message-ID: <"zg5FX1.0.0U6.3S7do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2379 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To all, I just looked at the page and had no problem reading all the sections, there is a link to the abstract submitted for ICCF6 but that paper is not yet finished, due to other commitments. We expect to post it on or about Dec 20 th. The ICCF6 paper is similar to the LENR-2 talk but will include a few more details about the anomalous ionization. As far as I know, -AK- you are the only one who has complained about not being able to read the paper. Tom. At 07:25 AM 11/27/96 -0800, you wrote: >Nov. 27, '96 Wed. > >Tom Claytor has a report listed on Logajan's webpage: 'Plasma >Discharges on Palladium (LANL)'. This report has ten sections listed. >Only two can be seen. The rest eight are blanked out. You can read only >an abstract and introduction. Why? Its access is stated to be available >in another abstract. Is this pre-publication censorship? I got more out >of Ed Storms presentation at the ICCF-6 (given on behalf of Tom Claytor >who was not funded. > >-AK- > > > Thomas N. Claytor Claytor_t_n@lanl.gov Los Alamos National Laboratory ESA-MT, MS C914 Los Alamos NM, 87545 505-667-6216 voice 505-665-7176 fax From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 27 10:29:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA03087; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:39:40 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:39:40 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:39:14 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: Unidentified subject! Resent-Message-ID: <"gQkzA1.0.8m.Mp7do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2380 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael Mandeville replied to Elliot Kennel: >I used trace amounts of radium. Nothing thin blocked its signal much. >Plastic, paper, glass, dusted generously with lead dioxide, buried in >carbon, sulfur, calcium, signal still came through quite well. A sample of Ra is mostly Ra-226, which decays by alpha accompanied by gamma emission with t1/2 (half life) 1600 y. Its decay chain leads to stable Pb-206 via 5 alpha and 4 beta steps, most of which are accompanied by gamma emission. A sample of natural Ra contains all its decaying daughter products as well, unless the gaseous Rn-222 is able to escape. Most of the emitted gammas are due to the 8 unstable daughter product decays, not the original Ra-226. The gammas are the penetrating radiation you measure. Ra-226 decays to Rn-222. If you treat the Ra by a high temperature process, you probably drive much of the accumulated Rn out of the sample. You might also drive out some of the semi-volatile daughter, Po-214 and Po-210 (bp 960C). Ra (bp 1740C) itself might be vaporized by a very high temperature treatment. Loss of Rn and/or Po isotopes would reduce the measureable gamma activity of the sample. However, the mother Ra-226, if not lost, would over time reestablish the decay chain at nearly the original rates. Loss of some of the mother Ra-226 would permanently reduce the measured radioactivity. Furthermore, if the physical structure of the Ra sample were altered in a way that permitted rapid escape of the gaseous Rn daughter, say by making the sample a porous oxide, then the subsequent daughter decays would not accumulate in the treated sample, which would show reduced gamma emission. However, if such were the case, the total radioactivity would not have been reduced, since the daughters would still decay in the atmosphere or wherever they came to rest. Other naturally occurring heavy isotopes behave similarly to Ra-226. Claims to have altered Ra radioactivity must be substantiated by quantitative measurement of all participating radioactive isotopes both before and after. Gamma spectroscopy is probably the cheapest technique that can measure most of the necessary isotopes. 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 Nov 27 10:38:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA04585; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:46:04 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:46:04 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611271745.JAA32705@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, 27 Nov 1996 09:44:38 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: RADIONUCLEIDE RECLUSTERING EXPERIMENT VIA CETI PATH Resent-Message-ID: <"fCyTJ.0.S71.Qv7do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2381 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:20 AM 11/27/96 GMT, you wrote: >On Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:55:21 +0900, Elliot Kennel wrote: >[snip] >> Is there helpful advice you can provide (other than angry epithets)? >[snip] >I'm not sure how helpful it's going to be, but I would like to offer the >following. It seems to me that if one follows Chris's approach one might >get a reasonably useful result. I.e. dissolve everything after the event in >acid, (as would be required for a thorough chemical analysis), then dry the >resultant solution till salt crystals formed. The radioactivity of the salt >could then be measured. This would need to be done several times, both on >beads that had been "treated", and on fresh beads. >A comparison of the two sets would then constitute the experimental >evidence. One would of course also need to check carefully throughout the >experiment for escaping radioactive gasses. > > > > >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk Run the chemical analysis as the final stage to quantify actual shifts. Run the cell as suggested by Miley in manner to "recluster" radionucleide. Keep the system sealed and have a set thorough method to look for the radionucleide with highly sensitive scintillator. If you can't find it, you won't find radon either. If cell requires venting to run, rig a vent through a long hose which opens out onto the head of a scintillator. The scintillator head at the end of the hose will natually detect any radon. Probably not necessary with the CETI cell, given the low temp, but any solid ions will settle out in the hose and can be trapped by flushing hose into a garbage can, then allowed to evaporate, then can monitor the surfaces for any radioactivity. Give yourself three days to keep looking for the radionucleide., then give up and run the chemical procedure. And do it two more times so you have three experimental runs. ( BTW americium gives a pretty hot signal and very small quantity can be found cheaply in smoke detector. Should be able to get a pretty good spec of what is in the smoke detector chip and needs no permit to acquire ) ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 27 11:29:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA16902; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:44:05 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:44:05 -0800 (PST) X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199611271842.KAA10060@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, 27 Nov 1996 10:42:34 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Unidentified subject! Resent-Message-ID: <"QPXBv1.0.y74.pl8do"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2382 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:39 AM 11/27/96 -0800, you wrote: > > >Claims to have altered Ra radioactivity must be substantiated by >quantitative measurement of all participating radioactive isotopes both >before and after. Gamma spectroscopy is probably the cheapest technique >that can measure most of the necessary isotopes. > >Michael J. Schaffer >General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA >Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 > > > Thanks for the info. BUT, if you keep the products in a sealed container and lose the radioactivity, you have proven it. The quantitative measurement via lab methods is NOT necessary to the demonstration of principle. Do not make knowledge more difficult than it needs to be. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 27 12:51:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA05512; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:13:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:13:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:12:42 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Recombination in transmutation experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"4k1Ej3.0.2M1.Q3Ado"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2383 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Recombination problems, both the difficulty of achieving closed cell recombination and problems of determining the amount of partial recombination in open cells, may not be such big problems now that the emphasis is on studying transmutation instead of heat production. I would like to suggest what I hope is a possible technique for making a simple, small, inexpensive, safe and reliable recombiner for use with transmutation experiments. Another advantage of the approach is the ability to make very small cells with included recombiners. I don't know if this is a new idea, but maybe it is worth discussion now that the experimental focus has changed. The idea is to recombine using a continual repetitive high voltage spark discharge between small pointed (preferably platinum) electrodes, or a pointed electrode and the electrolyte. The discharge would occur in a gas space at the top of the glass containment vessel. To prevent explosion the gas space in the vessel would be filled with a noble gas prior to the sealing of the vessel. A sufficient quantity of noble gas would reduce the partial pressure of the evolving H2 and O2 enough to prevent explosion, provided the spark would be repetitively generated whenever the H2 and O2 were being generated. Safe operation would require running the spark during and maybe for a while after electrolysis current were applied. For safety, such a sealed vessel should of course contain a weak area, like a thin point or scored diaphragm, for emergency presssure relief. The containment vessel or the experiment should be be enclosed in a thick outer box of Lexan or similar material, with air space to absorb the explosion, for protection from glass chards. High pressures would not be expected in most transmutation experiments, except accidentally, as water boiling is not expected. The spark could be generated from various HV supplies available, or home brewed using auto spark coils driven with 555 based oscillators (e.g. see Gordon McComb's Gadgeteers Goldmine, TAB Books, 1-800-262-4729.) The energy dissapated in the spark is not important to transmutation experiments not including calorimetry. It would of course be good to provide sufficient cooling to handle the spark wattage plus the recombination heat. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 27 13:01:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA07804; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:22:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:22:22 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: "Schaffer@gav.gat.com" , Vortex-L Subject: RE: Re:important post Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:19:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"scD0N3.0.pv1.xBAdo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2384 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael This is one of the most important posts I have seen! Those people claiming a reduction in radioactivity need to read it. Why not send it to CETI directly, and Hal Fox, as well as to Vortex-L -Hank Scudder ---------- From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re:important post Date: Wednesday, November 27, 1996 9:39AM Michael Mandeville replied to Elliot Kennel: >I used trace amounts of radium. Nothing thin blocked its signal much. >Plastic, paper, glass, dusted generously with lead dioxide, buried in >carbon, sulfur, calcium, signal still came through quite well. A sample of Ra is mostly Ra-226, which decays by alpha accompanied by gamma emission with t1/2 (half life) 1600 y. Its decay chain leads to stable Pb-206 via 5 alpha and 4 beta steps, most of which are accompanied by gamma emission. A sample of natural Ra contains all its decaying daughter products as well, unless the gaseous Rn-222 is able to escape. Most of the emitted gammas are due to the 8 unstable daughter product decays, not the original Ra-226. The gammas are the penetrating radiation you measure. Ra-226 decays to Rn-222. If you treat the Ra by a high temperature process, you probably drive much of the accumulated Rn out of the sample. You might also drive out some of the semi-volatile daughter, Po-214 and Po-210 (bp 960C). Ra (bp 1740C) itself might be vaporized by a very high temperature treatment. Loss of Rn and/or Po isotopes would reduce the measureable gamma activity of the sample. However, the mother Ra-226, if not lost, would over time reestablish the decay chain at nearly the original rates. Loss of some of the mother Ra-226 would permanently reduce the measured radioactivity. Furthermore, if the physical structure of the Ra sample were altered in a way that permitted rapid escape of the gaseous Rn daughter, say by making the sample a porous oxide, then the subsequent daughter decays would not accumulate in the treated sample, which would show reduced gamma emission. However, if such were the case, the total radioactivity would not have been reduced, since the daughters would still decay in the atmosphere or wherever they came to rest. Other naturally occurring heavy isotopes behave similarly to Ra-226. Claims to have altered Ra radioactivity must be substantiated by quantitative measurement of all participating radioactive isotopes both before and after. Gamma spectroscopy is probably the cheapest technique that can measure most of the necessary isotopes. 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 Nov 27 13:28:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA10940; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:36:38 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:36:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961127204218.006c2da0@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="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:42:18 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Bill Fogal: New Transistor, Superconductivity News Article Resent-Message-ID: <"YcZdp2.0.og2.IPAdo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2385 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortexians, There's a new transistor in town, developed by Bill Fogal. The article= below provides a pretty good discussion on it. It is said to make for= totally clean transmission of video over twisted pair wires. If that is= true (and any of you who would like to can travel to Georgia and see for= yourselves) that would mean that baud rate in modem communications would no= longer be a consideration. Communication speeds would go through the roof.= =20 If any of you would like to contact Bill Fogal, I am providing his phone= number here, with permission. While I have not tried to obtain permission= to reprint the SN article, I think they would consider it good advertising. While not brand spankin' new, this technology is now beginning to broach the= barriers of acceptance, and might soon become a real part of our world. = However, it is important to increase the knowledge of it for that to= happen. If this article comes through with the formatting all botched up, I'll= resend it with changes. --Gary Hawkins=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Bill Fogal's phone number: =20 706-868-0844 (Georgia) Patent numbers: =20 5,196,809 =20 5,311,139 Superconductivity News June 28, 1994, Volume 6, Number 43 ISSN 0897-2427 If you obtain this issue of Superconductivity News, you'll find it also= contains these: World's Most Powerful MRI at Columbia-Presbyterian Manex/Kobe/Japan Magnet/Bruker: 17.6 Tesla NMR 1994 DOE Technology Transfer Flourine Insertion into Sr2CuO3 at Ambient Pressure NASA's JPL: JJ's Help Resonance and Dispersion Calendar of Events We at Superconductivity News do not want to go on record as saying Fogal's= claims are impossible. We certainly have not seen one of his devices and= even if we had we would not be able to test its performance. While we are= very skeptical, one in the press must retain neutrality when reporting such= matters. Furthermore, had we been publishing SN in the early 1970s we= imagine we might have greeted Brian Josephson's claims at tunneling with= the same skepticism. There is one thing that does trouble us, however.= Fogal presented the first paper describing his invention on May 13,1994. at= "The International Symposium on New Energy" in Denver, Colorado. His= choice of which symposium to make public the scope of his claims is= curious. The "New' Energy" folks include those committed to such widely= poo-pooed subjects such as cold fusion and overunity devices. Overunity for= the uninitiated is the latest term for what used to be called perpetual= motion machines. Fogal explained that he was invited to talk at the= conference and that the timing was good. The paper attracted enough= attention that Internet newsgroups have begun discussing the stow.= Reportedly, CNN also taped an interview with Fogal but decided not to air= it until verification of his claims by a third party. Device testing by a= reputable third party is expected shortly. A New Transistor Design Does It Really Work? Is It Real or Hogwash?=20 =09 Claims of Properties Similar to Superconductors Made.=20 If Real, It Means Superconductivity Is Doomed If Real, It Means Nothing Less Than the=20 End of Energy-based Economies and Infrastructures William Jay Fogal, president of Quick Chek Industries (Martinez, GA) has= invented and patented an electronic device for which he has made very broad= claims. Others learning about the device have further extrapolated the= claims to the point that if real, the device means the end of power= utilities, the rendering useless of the entire electrical power grid, the= demise of manufacturers of electrical generators and electrical cable, and= a dramatic reduction in the activities of hundreds of thousands of= ancillary service providers. Most industries will have to change or die.= The infrastructure alterations will be the most profound the world has ever= witnessed making the industrial revolution and the development of the= electric motor and internal combustion engines a mere prelude to the real= symphony that lies ahead. Closer to home it means the end of the superconductivity industry as we know= it and even closer to home it would force this newsletter into an entirely= different direction. Cold fusion.. phooey, this concept is as close to perpetual motion as one= get without violating the laws of thermodynamics. That is of course if it= is real. The odds are stacked against it, but the staff of= Superconductivity News feel it is important to report the story as it now= stands. Fogal is not claiming he has invented a room temperature superconductor.= What he has invented is either completely fatuous or it is astounding. In= that it strikes at the very core, theoretical underpinnings of= electromechanics. Fogal told SN that his device grew out of his efforts to fix a broken car= radio in the mid 197Os. As he got past the wiring and the circuits and into= the semiconductors actually running the radio, he made changes that greatly= improved the audio quality. He then let his ideas lay idle for more than a= decade before finally returning to the research in the late 1980s. Fogal says his charged barrier semiconductor device allows electrons to flow= without resistance (i.e., as in superconductors) at room temperature. He= claims the device demonstrates a very high AC voltage and AC current gain.= His charged barrier device is on a bipolar design that can be incorporated= in (MOS) metal oxide semiconductor designs, as well as multiple gate= devices. It operates on a hall effect electromagnetic field internal= device. The hall effect magnetic field forces electron flow and angular= spin of the elections in the same direction to the top of the conduction= bands in the crystal lattice on semiconductor devices, unlike (SOT) silicon= on insulator devices that force electron flow to the surface of the= semiconductor lattice. Unlike superconductors which generate an external field, my semiconductor= creates a self-regulating magnetic field internal to the device," Fogal= said. =20 Fogal's Description of His Device Charged barrier semiconductor devices incorporate base plate member of a= semiconductor crystal. Also incorporated with the base plate member is a= dielectric material and a second base plate member. The combination of the= two base plate members constitutes an electrolytic capacitor. The first base plate member will create a transverse electric field that is= known' as a hall effect in the base plate member of the semiconductor= crystal. The ratio of the transverse electric field strength to the product= of the current and the magnetic field strength is called the hall= coefficient, and its magnitude is inversely proportional to the carrier= concentration on the base plate member. The product of the hall coefficient= and the conductivity is proportional to the mobility of the carriers when= one type of carrier is dominant. Since the base plate member is tied= directly to the emitter junction of the semiconductor, the hall coefficient= comes into play with the creation of a one pole electromagnet in the base= plate member. The hall effect of the electrolytic capacitor, in relation to the position= on the crystal lattice, will force electron angular spin in the same= direction and electron flow to the top of the conduction bands in the= lattice. The magnetic flux and the density of the carriers on the= electrolytic capacitor plate are in direct proportion to the magnetic flux= and carrier concentration on the emitter junction on the semiconductor= crystal. [missing text] It is hoped the device can characterize individual conditions and treat= specific ailments. Psychological Disorders: The activation studies of the brain will help= characterize disorder such as schizophrenia or depression. The Hatch 4.5= tesla will show the severity of the problem and help confirm diagnosis and= proper treatment. The medical advances promised by the new MRI scanner can be traced to the= power of the magnet. It offers the following technological advances: Speed: By providing pictures at a split second vs. the current standard of= 10-15 minutes per frame, physicians will be able to see brain functions as= they occur and the exam can be conducted more quickly. Better resolution: The clarity of the pictures and definition of the brain= will be enhanced three- or four-fold, providing more detail and reducing= the guesswork. Resolution will be about 0.1 mm compared to the standard of= 0.3 0.4 mm- Critical to this enhanced resolution is the excellent= homogeneity of the magnet field, rated at 0.25ppm in the 40 cm sphere. Less Expensive: Since the examination am be done quickly and provides a more= accurate diagnosis, less time is spent in testing and evaluating the= results. This should result in a savings to the patient. The system is being installed in a 5,000 sq. ft. area which accommodates the= shield-encased magnet, patient examining rooms, computer viewing room,= reception area and waiting room, control room and equipment storage. Funding for the one-of-a-kind Hatch 4.5 tesla MRI was provided by the Hatch= Family Foundation, Merck Foundation, and Phillips Medical Systems, Inc.= Contributions also were provided by the departments of medicine. radiology,= and neurology at the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons and= University benefactors. Columbia University received a $5.0 million grant from the National Cancer= Institute to evaluate the use of spectroscopy in analyzing the biochemical= composition of human tissue, particularly the brain, heart, and kidney. A top priority for the new magnet is the continuation of a sodium imaging= program at Colombia University begun on a 1.5 tesla Mm to evaluate the= grade of tumor malignancy and measure the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Wang NMR According to Bert Wang of Wang NMK, Inc.(Livermore, CA) the project took two= years to complete. Thirty-six 6,000 ft. long spools of niobium titanium wire costing $300,000= $400,000 were wound into the magnet. The size of the magnet limits= operational flexibility. Each quench to room temperature costs $35= thousand in liquid helium," Wang told SN, Wang NMR specializes in difficult to construct one-of-a-kind superconducting= magnets. Four separate magnet projects are currently underway. The 10= year old company has 20 employees. [missing text] Since the angular spin and the flow of the electrons are in the same= direction due to the influence of the electromagnetic field, the electron= lattice interaction factor does not come into play. The electron wave= density is greater and the mobility of the electron flow is faster. The= device does not exhibit frequency loss in the wave. The base or gate of the semiconductor is more sensitive to input signal.= These devices will typically turn on with an input to the junction in the= area of 0.2 MV to 0.4 Mv with an output at the collector junction of 450 MV= at 133.5 UA of current. Electron Wave Function In Charged Barrier Technology Think of the conduction bands in a crystal lattice as a highway. Electrons= in the free state will move along this highway. The only difference is the= electron angular spin can be in different directions. With the electrons= spinning in different directions, the electrons would travel on different= lanes of the highway and collisions can occur. The scattering and the= collision of the electrons can cause friction and resistance to the flow.= The resistance to the flow and the friction can cause semiconductors to run= hot. In semiconductor devices, this is called lattice scattering or= electron lattice interaction. If we could make the electrons move in one direction, and also spin in the= same direction, then we could have more traffic electrons (on the highway)= without having the resistance or the collisions. We could put a barrier= between the lanes on the highway. But, the electrons could still spin in= different directions. But, what if we could charge this barrier?! Turn= this barrier into an electromagnetic field! An electromagnetic field in one= direction. A one pole electromagnet! A hall effect magnetic field. This one pole electromagnetic field would make almost all of the electrons= spin in the same direction. Because the electrons are a negative charge= and the electromagnetic field has a negative charge, the electrons travel= in unison and then we could have more electrons on the highway, and the= electron travel could he faster. The orientation of the spin of the electrons in the crystal lattice, due to= the electromagnetic field, has a direct impact on the formation of the= wave. If the orientation of the spin of the electrons are in unison, there= will he no loss in the wave nature, and the density of the wave will he= greater, and the frequency of the wave will be complete. If the spin of the electrons in the lattice are indifferent directions, the= wave nature will he affected and there will be a loss in the density of the= wave. And, there will be a gap in the frequency of the wave. =20 Patent Issued Fogal filed an application for a US patent covering the design on March 1,= 1991 and awarded No. 5,196,809, titled `High gain, low distortion, faster= switching transistor," om March 23, 1993. The patent includes figures,= diagrams, and several data plots, e.g. output signal vs. input signal (vac)= for the Fogal device vs. a standard [missing text] Received a second patent, No. 5,311,139 covering a fuse testing device that= has nothing to do with the semiconductor. Another US patent application= covering improvements to the semiconductor was filed in January of this= year. The patent abstract and claim 1 follow. =20 Patent Abstract A transistor in which the emitter terminal is coupled to ground through a= filter capacitor. The filter capacitor has a capacitance of from about 0.2= uf to about 22 uf and can be connected either by itself or in parallel with= a resistor, depending upon the circuit in which it is used. The= incorporation of a filter greatly of such a capacitance level provides= greatly improved gain and less distortion of the input signal, to permit a= high output to be achieved in fewer amplifier stages and with less current= draw and heating than in conventional transistor amplifier stage circuits.= Additionally, the transistor can be provided in a unitary structure by= incorporating the filter=20capacitor directly on the transistor chip, and= can also be provided by incorporating the transistor and a resistor within= the casing of a filter capacitor. =20 Claim I a) a substrate; b) one of a NPN and a PNP transistor integrally formed on the substrate,= the transistor having a base, a collector, and an emitter; c) a parallel resistor and filter capacitor network coupled with the= emitter and mounted on the transistor, to form an integral part of the= integrated circuit, the filter capacitor including an outer casing; and d) bass, collector, and emitter terminals on the substrate and coupled with= the base, the collector, and the emitter, respectively, to permit the= integrated circuit to be connected with an electronic circuit, wherein the= integrated circuit is contained within the filter capacitor outer casing. = =20 Prototypes Fabricated Fogal told us that he has made six prototypes of his device. Prototype= radios and computer modems have been fabricated employing the device for= demonstration purposes. Fogal emphasizes the noise reduction aspects of his= semiconductor. Through the help of a colleague, Allan Ames of Advanced Scientific= Applications (Houston, TX), one of Fogal's semiconductors will be tested by= scientists at the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the University of= Houston. This is being arranged through Wei-Kan Chu. SN discussed the= situation with Chu and he confirmed that testing will be done after the= documents he had received were reviewed. SN's editor-in-chief reviewed= what the device might mean with Chu. Clearly Chu had not had the= opportunity to give the matter much thought. Thomas E. Bearden (Huntsville, AL) believes Fogal's semiconductor represents= a true overunity electrical device. "Electromagnetics is over 100 years= old; many of its assumptions are flat wrong," Bearden told us. [missing text] way heat pumps function, but says it takes it one step beyond. A Fogal= semiconductor simply stops electrons from flowing and passes the pure= potential energy from the now-free electrons with the circuit blocking the= drift current. Unlike superconductors, pairs of electrons are not needed to= pass the current along without resistance. Bearden added that, based on= endurance load tests on the Fogal semiconductor, they are led to the firm= conclusion that the chip actually stops the longitudinal flow of electrons,= strips them of their energy, and passes the pure energy along without= resistance. In this regard he says it behaves like a heat pump but goes one= step beyond to pull energy from the vacuum. SN Analysis and Comment=20 It is important to note that the device does not violate the rules of= thermodynamics involving the conservation of energy. It does not make= energy from nothing. One end of a Fogal circuit would provide electricity= for work such as running a light bulb or a computer, and the other end will= draw energy from the environment and get quite cold in the process. The= best aspect of this story is that either a Fogal semiconductor works or it= doesn't. There is nothing sophisticated in its construction and there are= no mysterious materials fabrication steps involved. There should not be any= gray or cloudy areas. Testing should be straightforward. =20 Q: What are the odds of its being real? A: If it is real, you will hear more about it soon enough. If it isn't,= think how much fun you have had reading this article. Q: Are there any intrinsic limitations if the device is real? A: None we can foresee. Q: What does it mean to me? A: It is a black or white situation. If the device is real and Beardon's= extrapolation is accurate it means=20 =B7 the end of the superconductivity industry as we know it within a few= years. =B7 the immediate obsolescence of all engine, machinery, and electronics= equipment designs. =B7 the beginning of a long-term scaleback by electrical utilities. =B7 a massive reorganization of industry and commerce. =B7 bankruptcy for millions of businesses that are unable to adapt. =B7 widespread unemployment forcing retraining on a scale never before= witnessed. =B7 hyperinflation in economies that do not prepare for the changes. =B7 the price of precious metals and real estate rising rapidly. =B7 a potential shift in the world balance of power. =B7 Of course, it might not be real... and nothing will happen. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 27 15:28:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA07099; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 14:50:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 14:50:21 -0800 (PST) Date: 27 Nov 96 17:45:45 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Bill Fogal: New Transistor, Superconduc Message-ID: <961127224544_100433.1541_BHG77-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"RNpJV2.0.pk1.eMCdo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2386 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: But hasn't that article been around for years now? I distinctly recall parts of it from (I think) 1994. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 27 17:25:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA07369; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:52:56 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:52:56 -0800 (PST) Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <329CE1E2.FF6D5DF@math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:50:42 -0800 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: important post References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ChIX3.0.2p1.c9Edo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2387 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scudder,Henry J wrote: > > Michael > This is one of the most important posts I have seen! > Those people claiming a reduction in radioactivity need to read it. It was a good post---but I hope anyone doing radiation reduction already knows it---if they don't, not much chance of their work being valid. -- Barry Merriman Research Scientist, UCSD Fusion Energy Research Program Asst. Prof., UCLA Dept. of Math email: barry@math.ucla.edu homepage: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~barry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 27 18:34:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA24564; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:12:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:12:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <329CF301.E4C@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:03:46 -0800 From: Akira Kawasaki Reply-To: rskt60a@earthlink.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Where is the rest of it? References: <199611271714.JAA26375@mail.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"5QhY91.0.g_5.CIFdo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2388 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Thomas N. Claytor wrote: > > As far as I know, -AK- you are the only one who has complained about >not being able to read the paper. > Thanks for the reply. I have tried another web provider (Earthlink) and Netscape 3.0. It worked out okey. My regular provider (Netcom) seems to have glitches and website limitations. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 27 20:35:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA22706; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 20:24:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 20:24:26 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ppb? ppm? ppt? Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 04:23:33 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32a50622.18291640@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <961127072644_2049049752@emout19.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <961127072644_2049049752@emout19.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.334 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"k0rdw.0.XY5.rFHdo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2389 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 27 Nov 1996 07:26:46 -0500, RMCarrell@aol.com wrote: [snip] >But if you can get clusters of heavy elements out of Ni.........!!!!! Yes, but only when you still have light elements to use as "fuel". > >Mike Carrell > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 27 22:16:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA16899; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 22:14:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 22:14:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <329D3C1F.6EFD@rt66.com> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:15:43 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fznidarsic@aol.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Russia Yusmar study Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ayqDQ1.0.z74.xsIdo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2390 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, Yeah, I wasn't able to download all of the report emailed to me, either-- email the author to get a copy via snail mail, and tell him about your research: Valery Sukhanov sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su Also, Yuri Bazhutov and A. Filimonov. To get their emailed reports, I clicked on the button on the announcement about the report, and Netscape Navigator 3.0 switched me to a page for saving the report to my hard drive. Then I could easily read it from my hard drive. I had to change the font from Roman to Ariel, for the type to be readable. Good luck, Rich From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Nov 27 22:30:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA19305; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 22:26:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 22:26:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <329D3F10.747@rt66.com> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:28:16 -0800 From: Richard Thomas Murray Reply-To: rmforall@rt66.com Organization: Room For All X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blue@pilot.msu.edu, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Critical appraisal on Vortex-L Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"3O78H.0.Zj4.f2Jdo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2391 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Richard A. Blue, Thank you for your vigorous criticisms of Miley's CETI bead transmutation report. I just forwarded a number of recent critical posts from Vortex-L that to a degree raise the same issues you did. I think there is a physical reality to these transmutation reports, especially after seeing Ohmori's photo of a roughly one-micron dark spot on his gold cathode, one of many tens of thousands present after electrolysis. It looked like the metal had melted and immediately frozen into a hollow cone of foam, rather like an ear in shape. SIMS revealed these spots to be the location of anomalous elements and isotopes. Mizuno and Dash in their experiments analyzed similar spots. Do you have any contact with the any of the groups which are going to test the CETI kits after Dec. 10? Richard Murray, M.A. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 28 08:45:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA19691; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 08:35:58 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 08:35:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961128114945.006a69ec@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 11:50:12 -0500 To: wl0170@cnsvax.albany.edu From: Quinney Subject: Re: Simple(and small) is beautiful Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"xLOGQ3.0.Wp4.izRdo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2392 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:40 PM 11/26/96 -0500, you wrote: > >I am new to vortex. Could you tell me a little more about Horace's idea >when you have time?>> Best Regards.>>Xiaobo. > > Heck.. no, I mean I can try... but it's mostly Horaces idea, so I may not get it all. I will copy him in Vortex in case I get it wrong..(which I probably will)...ok ? I believe he was talking about feeding CO2 and H2O vapor into an electric arc using hollow metal electrodes . (I understand that there has *also* been an overunity reaction that has been reported with electric arcs... even in air.) The CO2 + H2O should break down to their constituent gases due to the electricity, (similar to AquaFuel), then almost immediately recombine a short distance away from the arc, due to the high temperatures, and the presence of the oxidizer. The gases will or can be recycled. We didn't discuss pollution from transmutation or electrode metal products that would inevitably show up, so the gases would probably have to be purged after an hour or so..and I think that THAT process is something that also needs to be looked at from the Correas' Reactor point of view. I seem to recall Doug Meritt mentioning that this is a problem with the current designs. If the Correa's have solved it, or if someone out there on vortex has a solution, they could possibly kill two birds here. But Horace then went beyond all that, and suggested that the PAGD reaction could be combined with the above process so that a PAGD reaction could occur using CO2 + H2O gases??... but at what pressures?? My brain, however, exploded at that point and I had to come up for air. (too much CO2) Colin (Fumble Fingers II ) Quinney. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 28 15:59:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA01302; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 15:58:30 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 15:58:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 15:58:22 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty Reply-To: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: neotech@world.std.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bill Fogal: HOW ITS DONE In-Reply-To: <961127224544_100433.1541_BHG77-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Q6zN51.0.GK.bSYdo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2393 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 27 Nov 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > But hasn't that article been around for years now? I distinctly recall > parts of it from (I think) 1994. Yeah, and I found a curious message from back then. I've never tried the suggested test. I wonder what he means by "multi-layer caps are not usable"? I think that tantalum electrolytics are sintered blocks rather than layers, so maybe tantalum caps are required. .....................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 Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories From: snet@world.std.com (Glenda M Stocks) Subject: FOGAL`S PATENT Message-ID: Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 17:34:07 GMT Lines: 76 25 Aug 94 19:02:02 By: Walter Bartoo To: Glenda Stocks Re: Fogal's patent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AREA:ORVOTRON_PRI > (From): BJORN@QUARK.LU.SE > (To) : ALL > System: SNET > Conf. : 0019 - PHYSICS > I have read through William J. Fogal's patent no 5196809 "High Gain, > Low Distortion Faster switching Transistor". What he claims is more > or > less that you can greatly improve the performance of a common-emitter > amplifier by parallelling the emitter-resistance with a "0.2uF to > 22uF > filter capacitor". He states that the gain increases with a 22uF > capacitor @1kHz (according to his measurements), which it does and > should since the gain of this circuit is given by -Rc/Re where Re is > the resistor // the capacitor and Xc decreases with increasing > frequency. However, he claims that the distortion and noise will > decrease dramatically when you use a "filter capacitor" instead of an > ordinary capacitor. Well, I've tried this simple circuit by first > using ordinary plastic and electrolytic caps (Al wet, Al dry and Ta) > and then by using what I thought was filter caps: 22uF bipolar for > loudspeaker-filters and 22uF low-impedance for switched power-supply > (ordinary low-imp, and sanyo's organic electrolyt) BUT (suprise > surprise) the result with these where identical with those of the > other caps, so my question is: > What is a "filter capacitor"?! > Regards >BJORN BILL RAMSAY HERE. RE; FOGAL DEVICE. The crucial aspect in providing for the effect is to locate the capacitor, whatever it is, as physically close to the Xstr. substrate as possible. The closer, the more profound the effect. Only certain types of Caps by their basic nature are most suitable. For example surface mount tantalums of very small size are best used. Such as 4.7mfd, 6vdc or less. Of course it is imperative to also use surface mount Xstrs. of the general purpose type equiv. to American 2N2222, ECG123AP, etc..(NPN). If technically feasable it is even desireable to CAREFULLY remove some of the epoxy on the device and cement the Cap. in place. Multi-layer Caps. are NOT useable. Hope this is helpful and that you have good experimental success. One last note----DO NOT exceed about .5 volts input since device saturates and starts behaving like a conventional Xstr. 470 ohms is a good value to use in parellel with cap.. Also (Hmmm. More than one last note.) The effect will only be noted with a fairly decent sine-wave input. The DC gain WILL remain the same. Otherwise, bias just like any NPN Xstr. 3 - 4 Volts is enough for collector, have fun. Do you know Dan Winter? If so will you be seeing him on his upcoming tour? And, if you're who I think you are, are you having any luck with Callahan's detector? Chow. Bill. > PS. If anyone's interested in the patent document, I could scan it > and > post it here as GIF-pictures (11 pages). DS * Origin: ** Spirit BBS - Orvotron ** (114:704/0) GLENDA STOCKS | FidoNet 1:330/201.0 SearchNet HeadQuarters | InterNet GS@rochgte.fidonet.org Snet Mailing List info, SEND | Data: 508-586-6977 / 617-961-4865 info snet-l TO | Download SEARCHNT.ZIP For Info! majordomo@world.std.com | Voicemail: +1-617-341-6114 Searchnet.zec@channel1.com | FidoNet CHANNELS, & I_UFO moderator * RM 1.3 00257 * I don't have a ride, so I'll walk... *POOF* From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Nov 28 17:39:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA13891; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 17:37:53 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 17:37:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961129013828.0066a420@sparc1> X-Sender: kennel@sparc1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 10:38:28 +0900 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: Radium Experiment Resent-Message-ID: <"iTFTO1.0.vO3.mvZdo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2394 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael Mandeville replied to Elliot Kennel: >I used trace amounts of radium. Nothing thin blocked its signal much. >Plastic, paper, glass, dusted generously with lead dioxide, buried in >carbon, sulfur, calcium, signal still came through quite well. You used radium to do what? What did you measure and how did you measure it? How does this help others to verify the CETI claim of diminished radioactivity from U and Pu? Have you written this up in a form that somebody can duplicate your work? Best regards, Elliot Kennel Sapporo Japan From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 29 05:59:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA14762; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 05:55:01 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 05:55:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 05:54:37 -0800 Message-Id: <199611291354.FAA26041@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Douglas Morrison ? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"K9kFg3.0.ac3.qikdo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2395 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: November 29, 1996 Friday Douglas Morrison attended the ICCF-6 and sat in the front row of the hall while the presentations were being made. His line of questions to the presenters, I thought, was rather constructive to the presentations. From what I have gathered of his attitude toward CF in the past, he seems to have had mellowed out. Perhaps this mellowing is in direct inverse proportion to the seeming slowing of the field. Did Morrison ever post his report on the ICCF-6 anywhere? -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 29 06:27:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA18447; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 06:26:50 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 06:26:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 08:26:43 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199611291426.IAA08191@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: quantifying radioactivity Resent-Message-ID: <"9JZt42.0.9W4.fAldo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2396 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Elliot Kennel wrote: > In the meantime, one question I have is, how do you measure the >radioactivity? U-238 as well as Pu are alpha emitters. Therefore, the >sample must be up-close to the detector, because a sheet of paper is enough >to stop the alphas. Mike Schaffer wrote: >The gammas are the penetrating radiation you measure. Right, and U-238 and Pu isotopes generally have characteristic gamma emissions which enable you to positively identify the isotope and quantify it in a sample of known geometry. Does anyone know what isotope of Pu has been experimented with in the CETI cell (or whether or not ANY Pu has been experimented with?). I am quite familiar with the gamma/x-ray emissions of Pu-238 as it was a popular XRF excitation source at one time. Schaffer also wrote: >Ra-226 decays to Rn-222. If you treat the Ra by a high temperature >process, you probably drive much of the accumulated Rn out of the sample. >You might also drive out some of the semi-volatile daughter, Po-214 and >Po-210 (bp 960C). I, too, am concerned about transport of radioactive material in these experiments. Is there any detailed information about the CETI "radioreduction" experiments? Did they incorporate radioisotopes into the bead coatings, place a detector outside the cell, operate the system for a while and observe a dramatic reduction in count rate? If so, maybe the experiment just spreads the radioisotopes uniformly throughout the electrolyte circuit...a simple dilution. Isn't is just amazing how agile the mind is at filling in imaginary details on a sketchy framework?...and how telling such details are of that mind's preconceived notions. - 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 Nov 29 07:46:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA29227; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 07:44:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 07:44:18 -0800 (PST) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 10:43:48 -0500 Message-ID: <961129104347_2049327659@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: galtek Resent-Message-ID: <"ZQ6g82.0.a87.HJmdo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2397 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: to thouse of you who wanted to purchase Galtek its now down from $4 a share to $7/8 a share an all time low. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 29 11:25:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA12936; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 11:17:35 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 11:17:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 11:17:09 -0800 Message-Id: <199611291917.LAA20977@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> From: rwall@ix.netcom.com (Richard Wayne Wall) Subject: Re: galtek To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"O01Ih3.0.y93.ERpdo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2398 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You wrote: > >to thouse of you who wanted to purchase Galtek its now down from $4 a share >to $7/8 a share an all time low. > >Frank Z > > Frank, Unfortunately, you were caught in a "short squeeze" in your Galtek purchase. Caveat Emptor. RWW From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 29 15:09:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA25090; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:07:32 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:07:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:07:17 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: vertical tube "o/u" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"S-JxK3.0.y76.posdo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2399 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Here's an unconventional "conventional" energy generating device. Full article is on: Towers could pull clean water and power out of thin air http://www.uniontrib.com/science_city/environment/environment960926a.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 Carlson's idea: Build huge, hollow towers in which water would be pumped to the top, then sprayed over the opening. The water droplets would cool the air, causing it to fall toward the tower bottom at speeds approaching 50 mph. At or near the bottom of the towers, turbines would be stationed. The air would pass through these turbines, which, in turn, would be connected to electrical generators. Convection -- the movement of air created by heat transferring from one place to another -- would help keep the system running. As cool air blew out of the bottom of the towers, hot air would be sucked in at the top. Presuming 100 percent efficiency, Carlson estimated that the energy produced would be six times greater than the energy used. The Israelis envision building 3,300-foot-high towers in the Negev Desert supplied by water drawn from the Red Sea. Each tower would be twice the height of New York City's World Trade Center and capable of producing 40 billion to 80 billion kilowatt-hours of electric energy per year at roughly 2 cents per kilowatt-hour. By comparison, SDG&E's average cost of generating a kilowatt-hour from all sources of power is 4.76 cents. It is 6 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity generated by the utility's two fossil-fuel buring plants. Technion engineers, headed by former Israeli energy minister Dan Zavslasky, have built a 100-foot-tall working model, but further progress has been stymied by a host of obstacles, the largest being funding. In the last few years, Carlson has labored to develop a new aspect of aero-electric power: its theoretical ability to convert arid desert to crop-producing farmland. The idea, he says, stems from the fact that cool air produced by aero-electric towers is also moisture-laden. If the land around a 3,000-foot tower were used as farmland, he says, this air released at night would spread out over an area as large as six miles in diameter. The moisture would then condense on the plants, providing them with water. Copyright 1996 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 29 18:01:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA00723; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 17:59:38 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 17:59:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 20:59:34 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199611300159.UAA14198@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: (message from William Beaty on Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:07:17 -0800 (PST)) Subject: Re: vertical tube "o/u" Resent-Message-ID: <"b743R1.0.CB.9Kvdo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2400 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A William Beaty (billb@eskimo.com) quoted: > Carlson's idea: Build huge, hollow towers in which water would be > pumped to the top, then sprayed over the opening. The water droplets > would cool the air, causing it to fall toward the tower bottom at > speeds approaching 50 mph. Is this for real? It wokrs much better the other way around. Evaporate water at teh base fo the tower, allow the (lighter) water vapor to rise up the tower, driving turbine if you wish. Condense the water vapor out--it gets cold 3000 feet up, even over the deserts--and run water powered turbines on the way down. A useful way to generate electricity from solar energy, and fresh water from brackish, but hardly news. Maybe the reporter got the facts backward. 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 Nov 29 18:15:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA02266; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 18:12:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 18:12:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 18:11:12 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Current rules & instructions Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"5ytbE.0.KZ.9Wvdo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2401 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: KEEP A COPY OF THIS MESSAGE IN A SAFE PLACE. IT CONTAINS INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THE VORTEX-L DISCUSSION GROUP. Also see instructions for digest, the Unsubscriber, changing your email addr, etc. ***************************************************************************** WELCOME TO VORTEX-L ***************************************************************************** The Vortex-L list was created for discussions of professional research into fluid vortex/cavitation devices which exhibit anomalous energy effects (ie: the inventions of Schaffer, Huffman, Griggs, and Potapov among others.) Skeptics beware, the topics also wander to any anomalous physics such as "Cold Fusion," reports of excess energy in "free energy" devices, gravity generation and detection, and all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims. Please see the rules below. This is a public, lightly-moderated list. Interested parties are welcome to subscribe. There is no charge, but donations towards expenses are accepted (see rules below for suggested donation) Admin addr: vortex-L-request@eskimo.com Mail addr: vortex-L@eskimo.com Webpage: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html Moderator: billb@eskimo.com William J. Beaty 7040 22nd Ave NW Seattle, WA 98117 206-781-3320 USA ************************************************************************* Vortex-L subscription instructions: To subscribe, send a *blank* message to: vortex-L-request@eskimo.com Put the single word "subscribe" in the subject line of the header. No quotes around "subscribe," of course. You will get an automatic greeting message in response. Once subscribed, send your email to vortex-L@eskimo.com. To unsubscribe, send a blank message to vortex-L-request@eskimo.com with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line. Vortex-L digest mode: If you prefer "digest" mode messages, collections of messages up to 40K total or every 2 days, then subscribe to the vortex-digest instead of to vortex-L. Send a blank message to: vortex-digest-request@eskimo.com Put the single word "subscribe" in the subject line of the header. Vortex-L and Vortex-digest are two separate lists. It is possible to subscribe to one or the other, or both. Address Changes: If your email address changes, you can email billb@eskimo.com to fix things. Or, you can simply send a "subscribe" command while using your new account. When your old account is turned off, the vortex-L bounce detector will unsubscribe it. If you still have access to the older account address, you can unsubscribe yourself using that address. ************************************************************************* WARNING: Vortex-L software contains a mechanism which might automatically unsubscribe you. This will happen if your email address starts bouncing all vortex-L email for several days. This is done in order to stop possible email-loops, and to prevent the eskimo.com software from being overwhelmed by email-bounce warning messages. When the Unsubscriber takes you off, it sends you a message explaining its action. Unfortunately this message will usually bounce also. From your viewpoint the message traffic from Vortex-L will suddenly cease. If the email server on your internet service has a habit of overloading or crashing for several days at at time, you will probably encounter the Unsubscriber. If vortex-L traffic seems to suddenly stop, or if your messages to the group are returned with warnings that you are not subscribed, simply resubscribe to Vortex-L. ************************************************************************** Vortex-L Rules: 1. If VORTEX-L proves very useful or interesting to you, please consider making a $10US/yr donation to help cover operating expenses. If you cannot afford this, please feel free to participate anyway. If you would like to give more, please do! Direct your check to the moderator, address above. 2. This is not the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup; ridicule, debunkery, and namecalling between believers and skeptics are forbidden. The tone should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate. Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in disgust. But if your mind is open and you wish to test "crazy" claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away, hop on board! (For a good analysis of the negative aspects of debunkery, see ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY by D. Drasin) 3. Small email files please. The limit is set to 40K right now, those exceeding the limit will be forwarded to Bill Beaty. If you wish to start extremely off-topic discussions, please feel free to exchange initial messages on vortex-L, but MOVE THE DISCUSSION TO PRIVATE MAIL IMMEDIATELY. Some members are on limited service, or have to pay for received email. Diagrams and graphics can be mailed to me or John Logajan and posted on our webpages for viewing. 4. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: when you reply to a message DON'T include the ENTIRE message in your reply. Always edit it a bit and dele te something. The more you delete, the less traffic overload. The entire message should really only be included if: (A) you are replying to a message that is many days old, or (B) you are doing a point-by-point reply to many parts of a message. Many vortex users must pay by the kilobyte for receiving message traffic, and large amounts of redundant messages are irritating and expensive. So, when including a quoted message in your reply, ALWAYS DELETE SOMETHING, the more the better. 5. "Junkmail" email advertizing will not be tolerated. While not illegal yet, widecasting of junk-email ads to listservers is against the Unwritten Rules of the Internet. Anyone who spams vortex-L with junkmail will be referred to the Internet Vigilante Justice team. ;) Occasional on-topic advertizing by long-time vortex-L users is acceptable. - Bill B. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Nov 29 18:39:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA07375; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 18:36:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 18:36:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 18:35:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611300235.SAA23316@claim.goldrush.com> X-Sender: crosiar@GOLDRUSH.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: wesly crosiar Subject: radium chloride Resent-Message-ID: <"rAqaJ.0.5p1.Xsvdo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2402 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: TO ALL: DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY RADIUM CHLORIDE THEY ARE WILLING TO SELL ME? ALSO: DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW MANY MICROCURIE, THE RADIUM IS THAT WAS USED TO PAINT WATCHDIALS. crosiar@GOLDRUSH.COM THANKS WES WESLEY CROSIAR PO BOX 268 SAN ANDREAS, CA. 95249 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 30 10:13:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA28494 for billb@eskimo.com; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 10:12:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 10:12:59 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: reed@zenergy.com Sat Nov 30 10:12:57 1996 Received: from inficad.net (root@inficad.net [208.198.100.2]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA28470 for ; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 10:12:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from zenergy.zenergy.com (ip182.ts3.phx.inficad.com [207.19.74.182]) by inficad.net (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA18927 for ; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 12:06:16 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <32A079DD.775B@zenergy.com> Old-Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 11:15:57 -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: galtek References: <961129104347_2049327659@emout02.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > > to thouse of you who wanted to purchase Galtek its now down from $4 a share > to $7/8 a share an all time low. > > Frank Z My partner, who is a Cambridge educated mechanical engineer and has tested numerous energy machines, tested the Galtech motor, then built a simple dynamometer which was used by the inventor to test the motor again a few weeks later. Both tests resulted in encouraging results, but not over-unity. To give Galtech credit, the inventor said the version of the motor that was tested only included about 1/3rd of their technology. They are presently building a new prototype which should encompass most of their technology and they expect it to produce 2:1 o/u results. We plan to begin testing with Galtech again in January when the new prototype is completed. - Reed -- Zenergy Corporation 390 South Robins Way, Chandler Arizona 85225, USA Phone: 602.814.7865 Fax: 602.821.0967 Email: info@zenergy.com, Home page: http://zenergy.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Nov 30 12:17:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA03072; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 12:13:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 12:13:33 -0800 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 12:12:39 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vertical tube "o/u" In-Reply-To: <199611300159.UAA14198@spectre.mitre.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"r_B-X3.0.wl.iL9eo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2403 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > Carlson's idea: Build huge, hollow towers in which water would be > > pumped to the top, then sprayed over the opening. The water droplets > > would cool the air, causing it to fall toward the tower bottom at > > speeds approaching 50 mph. > > Is this for real? It wokrs much better the other way around. Take a look at the complete article, it was about five times longer than my excerpt. The original invention was from the '70's. The concensus was that the ambient-driven evap cooling version gave better results than solar-driven evaporation version. .....................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 Nov 30 17:08:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA19306; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 17:03:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 17:03:42 -0800 (PST) From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vertical tube "o/u" Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 01:03:34 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32a6d629.9181618@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.335 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"Aoit-3.0.Wj4.ibDeo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2404 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:07:17 -0800 (PST), William Beaty wrote: [snip] > In the last few years, Carlson has labored to develop a new aspect of > aero-electric power: its theoretical ability to convert arid desert = to > crop-producing farmland. > =20 > The idea, he says, stems from the fact that cool air produced by > aero-electric towers is also moisture-laden. If the land around a > 3,000-foot tower were used as farmland, he says, this air released at > night would spread out over an area as large as six miles in = diameter. > The moisture would then condense on the plants, providing them with > water. [snip] I suspect that if the air is cooled with salt water, some salt water will remain suspended in it as a fine mist. This will in the long term deposit a layer of salt on the crop land making it unusable. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://netspace.net.au/~rvanspaa for how CF depends on=20 temperature. "....,then he should stop, and he will catch up..." -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*