From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 1 07:50:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA16433; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 07:49:05 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 07:49:05 -0800 (PST) From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 10:48:37 -0500 Message-ID: <961201104834_606176494@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: vertical tube "o/u" Resent-Message-ID: <"JdLcU1.0.g04.mZQeo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2405 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: With respect to cooling towers using natural convection: I believe that that is an old practice in the arabian desert nations. Properly constructed, they achieve coolth and some moisture condensation in a passive way. Don't remember the details, but have seen it written up and pictured. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 1 07:58:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA18218; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 07:57:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 07:57:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <32A1AAED.4B3A@interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 10:57:33 -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: vertical tube "o/u" References: <32a6d629.9181618@mail.netspace.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"yFNiz1.0.aS4.XhQeo"@mail> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2406 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > (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. > Good point, Robin! Maybe, with careful "shower-head" design at the tower top, and a non-splash catcher at the bottom, the mist entrainment could be controlled? Another idea - let the salt water run down thin wires or fibers with no splash. Another idea - maybe the engineers have solved this! Just put a new shower-head in our bath ---------- Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 1 17:59:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA01144; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:49:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:49:02 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961202014829.0066a51c@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: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 10:48:29 +0900 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: Quantifying radioactivity Resent-Message-ID: <"JRVC72.0.mH.7MZeo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2407 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: 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. I don't think any data has been published on what experiments have been actually run, what type of radiation has been measured or what type of detector has been used. As you imply, it may be possible to make a reasonable measurement with a high purity germanium detector or lithium drifted silicon detector, but at this point that is only wishful thinking, as there are no claims to have made such measurements. Cheaper detectors would probably not be able to obtain convincing signatures, and might be subverted by some of the mechanisms we've discussed. My main point is that I think it behooves us to await published data before jumping on the bandwagon. Best regards, Elliot Kennel Sapporo From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 1 23:24:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA03090; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:22:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:22:25 -0800 Message-ID: <32A28327.13B6@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 23:20:07 -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: vertical tube "o/u" References: <961201104834_606176494@emout03.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"FrB6J.0.Am.mEeeo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2409 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dec. 1, '96 RMCarrell@aol.com wrote: > > With respect to cooling towers using natural convection: > > I believe that that is an old practice in the arabian desert nations. > Properly constructed, they achieve coolth and some moisture > condensation in a passive way. Don't remember the details, but have > seen it written up and pictured. The arabian tower cooling design was a Scientific American article in recent years' issue --- I don't remember the exact one. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 1 23:48:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA08132; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:46:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:46:43 -0800 Message-ID: <32A28909.4640@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 23:45:13 -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: radium chloride References: <199611300235.SAA23316@claim.goldrush.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ZNzNo1.0.--1.Ybeeo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2410 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dec. 1, '96 wesly crosiar wrote: > 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. Some radiation dectectors (geiger, scintillatometers) included a sample radiation button standard with which to calibrate the detectors. I do not know if they contain radium but suspect they do in earlier vacuum tube detection models. Aside from radium watch dials, look for radium paint used in early military compasses, Army and Navy (or anything that needs night indication in combat conditions). Some of the paint knock the radiation meter needle off scale when held close. There was a true story of the ladies working in a watch factories working to paint the radium watch dials. They all contracted fatal mouth cancer from their habit of wetting the brushes in their mouth as they painted the dials. Radiation was treated more caually in earlier days. I shudder to think what happened to those workers that painted the military equiptments. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 2 08:07:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA02976; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 08:01:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 08:01:00 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:59:25 -0500 Message-ID: <961202105925_1353354380@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: tower Resent-Message-ID: <"h7sUc.0.0k.tqleo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2411 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I worked for a number of years at a power plant with two 1000 foot stacks. For a look at them see. http://www.gpu.com/system_info/sites_conemaugh.html These stacks have been, with the addition of an SO2 scrubber, abandonded in place. In the day the sun heats the concrete up. At night cooler air rises up the stack as the air is heated by the warm concrete. In the day, after a cool night, air drops down the stack and comes out a door on the bottom. This downdraft came a real surprise to us as when the stack was in operation air always rose up in the space between the hot metal flue and concrete caseing. (down draft discovered by Jerry Gall 412-235-4448) In operation with 250 deg F air the suction on such a stack can be as high as 5 inches of water guage. Out of service, the pressure produced by the heat exchange to a from the concrete is, I estimate, less that an inch of water guage. This is not enough usefull pressure to produce any work. Considering the cost of such a 1000 foot stack, any energy that could be extracted from the cooling and heating of the concrete is just not worth it. I was there, in the stack many times, and this is the real skinney. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 2 10:40:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA10885; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:24:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:24:21 -0800 Message-Id: <199612021824.KAA10806@mx1.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: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 12:21:52 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Thomas N. Claytor" Subject: Re: Claytor tritium cost Resent-Message-ID: <"TMyb03.0.zf2.Kxneo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2413 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo, The numbers are really off but it doesn't change the basic result (it's not competitive with anything). In general, we use at most, 4 W average for 100 hours (the peak power is higher but most of the time is off). Our tritium won't be competitive until we can raise the yield. This varies wildly (at least four orders of magnitude) with the material used so it's conceivable that we could match APT costs. However with the small (or zero) amount of funding for this, it's not very likely it will happen soon. It's not my intention to produce tritium for anything. My position is that this is an interesting effect that supports cold fusion or LENR's in general and should be studied as one of the more solid paths to the final end result of knowledge of this whole process for energy/isotope production. However, if we could produce copious amounts of tritium by these methods, most opposition to this line of research would collapse. The cheapest tritium can be found in Canada; if the Canadians were allowed to sell their surplus tritium to us then the problem of tritium supply would be solved. However they are prevented from doing this by treaty (since they are an avowed non nuclear state). There are a few other options that are also less expensive than APT but have other undesirable qualities, similar to the Canadian solution. Tom. At 12:12 PM 12/2/96 -0500, you wrote: > I have looked over T. Claytor's paper in Infinite Energy #7 again. The >first time I read it the evidence of tritium production seemed to be very >conclusive. I now made an estimate of the cost of the tritium produced. >My numbers may be off by a couple orders of magnitude but I don't think it >makes any difference. > The tritium produced was about 10 nc or about > > 300 * 13 E6 = 4 E9 > >the energy used was about > >10 kw * 100 hr = 1000 kw-h > >which would cost about $100. So the cost of a tritium atom is about >2.5 E-8 dollars. Estimating about 1 E30 tritium atoms needed for a nuclear >device the cost would be > >2.5E-8 * 1 E30 = 2.5 E 22 dollars > > I have read some critics of the new tritium breeding reactor claiming the >cost at about 3 billion dollars was excessive when a cheaper alternative >was available. The Claytor system does not appear at present to be a >viable alternative. > >Lawrence E. Wharton >NASA/GSFC code 913 >Greenbelt MD 20771 >(301) 286-3486 > > > 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 Mon Dec 2 11:01:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA14687; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:39:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:39:37 -0800 Message-ID: <32A32255.1557@interlaced.net> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 13:39:17 -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: tower References: <961202105925_1353354380@emout09.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"sBZNT1.0.xa3.c9oeo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2414 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > > I worked for a number of years at a power plant with two 1000 foot stacks. (snip) > Considering the cost of > such a 1000 foot stack, any energy that could be extracted from the cooling > and heating of the concrete is just not worth it. Hi Frank! Roger on the "not worth it". If you want power from 1000 ft.(WOW)reenforced concrete towers, put some WIND TURBINES on them and stand back! I would guess (again, speaking from a position of ignorance) that the evaporative cooling convection towers are of much different design than a smoke stack. Let's hope they provide a financial payoff. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 2 13:10:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA14454; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 12:59:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 12:59:08 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9612021454.ZM27444@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 14:54:58 -0600 In-Reply-To: "Francis J. Stenger" "Re: tower" (Dec 2, 1:39pm) References: <961202105925_1353354380@emout09.mail.aol.com> <32A32255.1557@interlaced.net> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Convection Tower Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"Z5c5L1.0.iX3.PCqeo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2415 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Not to beat a dead horse, but could the tower effect be amplified by using an inverted cone to compress/concentrate/accelerate the sinking air? I would have to dust of the scratch pad, but I would think, lets just say, a 3:1 reduction in volume over 1000ft could add up to a nice focused energy source. Any aeronautical engineers on vortex? As for WIND TURBINES, latest idea is to put the blades *inside* a pivotable hollow tube tower to maximize the wind energy, redirect the axial loads, and minimize curent fatigue/cycle life problems. Also, this proposed approach suposedly minimizes the atmospheric impact large wind plants have on local weather patterns. The idea was to replace power line towers with these new wind tubes and create a collective power grid that is spread out over a larger area. I want to say there was an article in Popular Science about this aproach in the last year, but I don't remember when, and I don't recall what stage of development it was in (if any). -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSG From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 2 13:56:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA26151; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:50:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:50:10 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0b36.32.19961129191042.006c15c0@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0b36 (32) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 16:17:26 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Recombination in transmutation experiments Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"wRdoI.0.KO6.Fyqeo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2416 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:12 AM 11/27/96 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: >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. Actually, there is no recombination problem involved with heat producing systems if v(t) * i(t) is used and appropriate controls are undertaken as discussed in "FOUR DEFINITIONS OF POWER RATIO USED TO DESCRIBE EXCESS ENTHALPY IN SOLID-STATE LOADING SYSTEMS", M. Swartz, Journal of New Energy, 2, (1996). Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 2 14:46:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA05908; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 14:40:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 14:40:57 -0800 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 17:14:55 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: 4 equ. In-Reply-To: <3.0b36.32.19961129191042.006c15c0@world.std.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"iqZ62.0.ES1.threo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2417 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Waht are the four required. J x xy On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Mitchell Swartz wrote: > At 11:12 AM 11/27/96 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: > >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. > > > Actually, there is no recombination problem involved with > heat producing systems if v(t) * i(t) is used and > appropriate controls are undertaken as discussed in > "FOUR DEFINITIONS OF POWER RATIO USED TO DESCRIBE EXCESS > ENTHALPY IN SOLID-STATE LOADING SYSTEMS", > M. Swartz, Journal of New Energy, 2, (1996). > > > > Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 2 20:41:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA19264; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 20:37:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 20:37:52 -0800 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 18:09:39 -0800 Message-Id: <199612030209.SAA13421@dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: O/U of Earth To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"91H_32.0.gi4.Twweo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2418 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: December 2, 1996 Monday Got to wondering about the 'anolomous' emissions from earth. Looking back at Earth from space and taking heat measurements of this sphere what would be indicated? More heat being radiated out than being received from the sun? And where would that excess heat come from? Fission, hot fusion, or "CF" effects in the bowels of the earth while we merrily prance about on the surface relatively free from mutating radiation? -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 2 23:08:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA19515; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 23:04:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 23:04:40 -0800 Message-ID: <32A3D05C.4C0@zenergy.com> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 00:01:48 -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: Galtech Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"4TZ-r2.0.fm4.44zeo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2419 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com 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 Tue Dec 3 00:44:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA13660; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:29:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:29:09 -0800 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:14:39 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Quantifying radioactivity In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961202014829.0066a51c@sparc1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"fabfI1.0.KL3.opaeo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2408 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Elliot, One simple way you might do this is to find one of the XRF lead paint remediation testing companies. Ask them to come in with the source tool, a hand held thing. Have them shoot the desk top, the air and the beads. compare the charts. The newer tools interface with coputer, and print out. Some of the older tools read XRF spectra directly on a screen bult in and some have built it or external little printer. just a thought. JHS On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Elliot Kennel wrote: > > Scott Little wrote: 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. > > I don't think any data has been published on what experiments have been > actually run, what type of radiation has been measured or what type of > detector has been used. As you imply, it may be possible to make a > reasonable measurement with a high purity germanium detector or lithium > drifted silicon detector, but at this point that is only wishful thinking, > as there are no claims to have made such measurements. Cheaper detectors > would probably not be able to obtain convincing signatures, and might be > subverted by some of the mechanisms we've discussed. My main point is that I > think it behooves us to await published data before jumping on the bandwagon. > > Best regards, > Elliot Kennel > Sapporo > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 3 06:18:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA25913; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 06:12:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 06:12:29 -0800 Date: 03 Dec 96 09:09:13 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Galtech Message-ID: <961203140913_76570.2270_FHU44-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"LSu4S1.0.KK6.8L3fo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2420 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Reed, Glad you had a nice visit at Galtech. Would you care to elaborate on "encouraging results"? Why "encouraging"? Who came to this conclusion and WHY? Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 3 09:52:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA00857; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 09:39:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 09:39:09 -0800 Date: 03 Dec 96 12:27:41 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Carbon Arc in Air Message-ID: <961203172741_76570.2270_FHU33-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"FBhEC2.0.uC.sM6fo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2421 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To Vortexians: From: Eugene F. Mallove, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher INFINITE ENERGY Magazine Cold Fusion Technology P.O. Box 2816 Concord, New Hampshire 03302-2816 Phone: 603-228-4516; Fax: 603-224-5975 This note concerns what I believe to be an extremely urgent scientific matter: Confirmation (or rejection) of carbon-arc-in-air transmutation to Fe claims. This parallels the *underwater* carbon arc papers of the Bockris group (Nov. 1994 Fusion Technology), Ohsawa in the 1960s, and Singh et al (Nov. 1994 Fusion Technology), but is obviously a simpler test because it is in air. If it can be confirmed and then assessed as to reliability of the production of Fe, we have an astonishingly simple test that almost anyone could confirm for themselves -- another great virtue. A description of the carbon-arc-in-air: >From The Philosopher's Stone: Michio Kushi's Guide to Alchemy, Transmutation, and the New Science,, One Peaceful World Press, 1994. I include all the non-biological protocols, but the one of interest here is METHOD 3 (the others may be of interest too): ************************************************** Experiments Following is a brief outline of experiments conducted in Japan and France. Some of these experiments are physical transmutations and others are biological transmutations. These are only examples, and complete information will be-come available in the near future. 1. The Transmutation from Na (Sodium) to K (Potassium). The applied formula: 11Na23 + 8016 >> 19K39 George Ohsawa and Masashiro Torii, Professor of the Musashino Institute of Technology, with several scientists, have achieved this transmutation of the atom from Na to K by the following method, first achieved on June 21, 1964. In this experiment, one electric discharge vacuum tube with two poles was used. The length of the vacuum tube was 20 cm and the diameter 2 cm. Electric poles of several different metals were tested. The power of electricity used in this experiment was 60 watts. First, 2.3 mg of Na was inserted and sealed in the vacuum tube, and electricity was started running through the tube. About thirty minutes later, 1.6 mg of O was introduced, and a second later, Na changed into K. This result was examined carefully by authoritative testing agencies, and the same experiments were performed repeatedly, yielding the same results. 2. The Production of Fe (Iron) from C (Carbon) and O (Oxygen). The applied formula: 2 6C12 + 2 8Ol6 >> (2 14Si28 28Ni56) >> 26Fe56 [Note: there is nomenclature apparently missing between the Si and the Ni.] George Ohsawa and his associates in Japan succeeded in their experiments with several methods to produce Fe from C and O. Later French scientists tested similar methods and confirmed the success of the transmutation. After creating the method to achieve the most efficient possible transmutation, they filed patents accordingly. The following examples show only a few methods to accomplish the transmutation from C and O to Fe. Method 1: Transmutation in Air (A): Two graphite crucibles (approximately 2.5 x 5 to 6 inches) cover each other top and bottom. The upper crucible has a 10 mm hole, surrounded by a ceramic ring. The ceramic ring acts as an insulator. Into this hole, a carbon rod (0.25 inches in diameter) is inserted until it reaches to the carbon powder (2 to 3 grams) placed at the inside bottom of the lower crucible. The lower crucible has one or two small holes at the lower part of its side wall for air circulation. An iron base placed under the lower crucible acts as one electrode pole. The carbon rod acts as another electrode pole. As the carbon rod approaches the carbon powder, an electric arc arises. Continuing the operation for 20 to 30 minutes, the carbon powder changes to Fe. In this experiment, the applied electricity is about 35 to 50 volts, and 8 to 18 amps, either A.C. or D.C. Method 2: Transmutation in Water: Using two carbon rods (0.25 inches in diameter), create an electric arc between them, by striking them on one another in water. This operation is performed for 1 to 5 seconds. Then, brown-black metallic powder falls down to the bottom of the water, which contains Fe. The applied electricity is the same as in Method 1. Method 3: Transmutation in Air (B.): Carbon powder is placed on a copper plate, approximately 12 inches long, 6 inches wide, and 0.5 inches thick. This plate works as an electrical ground. A carbon rod (identical to the carbon rods used in Methods 1 and 2) used as another electrical pole, strikes repeatedly the carbon powder on the plate, producing an electric arc. The carbon powder changes into Fe. The applied electricity is the same as in the above methods. During the process of transmutation, Ni (nickel) is temporarily produced. But it disappears very soon, for it is an isotope with a radioactive nature. The life of an Ni isotope is considered approximately 1/lOOOth of a second. In these experiments, the degree of transmutation from C and O to Fe is approximately 5 percent to 20 percent immediately, with a larger percentage of transmutation occurring gradually in the air, which has the effect of cooling the metal lic powder to below room temperature. The Fe which is produced by this transmutation is stainless. It does not rust easily. It has also much less reaction to heat than ordinary iron, due to its composition of 2 Si (silicon) as the formula indicates. This iron was name G.O.S. (George Ohsawa Steel), given the initials of George Ohsawa by the scientists who worked with this transmutation. All results of the transmutation of Fe have been carefully examined and analyzed by several methods including: magnetic inspection, spectroscopic analysis, chemical analysis, and examination by reagent, confirmed by authoritative testing agencies. The various researchers who worked on the above (and the biological trasnsmutations:) George Ohsawa-Philosopher, writer, honorary professor at Nippon University, honorary citizen of Paris, founder and president of Institut des Hautes Etudes Dialectiques et Scientifiques, Tokyo. Masashiro Torii-Doctor of chemistry, professor at Musashino Institute of Technology, Tokyo. Shizuko Washio-Doctor of biology, professor at Atomi University, Tokyo. Sanehide Komaki-Doctor of agriculture, professor at Mukogawa University, Kyoto. Chikao Narita-Doctor of medicine, president of Tokyo Shibaura Hospital, Tokyo. Yuzuru Sasaki-Research member of Institute des Hautes Etudes Dialectiques et Scientifiques, Tokyo. Noburu Yamamoto-Research member of Institut des Hautes Etudes Dialectiques et Scientifiques, Tokyo. **************************************** The second source of a carbon arc in air experiment is from ICCF6: Kenjin Sasaki from Tokyo, an agronomy consultant from Tokyo distributed a very interesting protocol which is like METHOD #3. He gave me photos of the process and the results, which would seem possible for any high-school group to verify. I will be publishing these photos and protocols in Infinite Energy #10, asking readers to try it. In the inimitable "Japanese English" - only slightly fixed, Sasaki's instructions: ************** 1. Ready for Job 2. Tool Graphite crucible (four nines purity) Carbon rod Copper plate (for cooling) Tray for water cooling Electric welder (100 V, 10 A) or Auto Battery and clip leads 3. Materials Carbon powder (high purity) Cooling water 4. Order of Experiment A Put 2 to 3 grams of carbon powder in graphite crucible B Strike electric discharge arc with the electrode, about 1 minute, done about 3 to 4 times only (i.e. no more than four times) -- [implies pausing between 1-minute arcs] 5. Inspection A. Spread remaining carbon powder on paper B. Slide magnet under that paper. You can see locus of the magnet -- it shows the iron bits [!!!! - my comment, EFM] C. Take these [magnetically separated] materials and examine with a magnifying glass. You will find [among them] a brilliant alloy [!!!!, yes, I have photos of this alloy! - my comment, EFM] 6. Reappearance This experiment is very easy for young student, literary person, bank man, woman, etc. Kenjin Sasaki 942 Hikida, Akiruno-City Tokyo 197, Japan Phone: 81-425-59-5371 fax: 81-425-59-4927 ********************************** If I have the time in the next few weeks and wherewithal, I would like to try this myself, but I will likely not have the time. I am told by Chris Akbar in Boston (with the Kushi Foundation) that she has tried the experiment and it worked for her. She said it is important to keep the amperage between 8 and 10 amps. She used an automobile battery charger. I do not think it is really necessary to have a static tray of cooling water under a graphite plate or crucible. I imagine that doing the experiment on a thick graphite plate would work as well. Best wishes, Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 3 11:45:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA25632; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 11:38:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 11:38:27 -0800 Date: 03 Dec 96 14:33:51 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Mallove on Short Wave Radio Message-ID: <961203193350_76570.2270_FHU55-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"N2Jnd.0.oF6.n68fo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2423 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Vortexians: Tonight at 9:03 pm Eastern US time, short wave freq. 3.215 MhZ, I will be beaming worldwide (2.5 Megawatts out of Nashville, Tennessee) on the Dr. Norman Resnick radio show. Talking about CF and New Energy - what else! Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 3 11:45:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA25493; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 11:38:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 11:38:00 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199612031936.LAA20858@big.aa.net> X-Sender: mwm@aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 11:35:37 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: O/U of Earth Resent-Message-ID: <"UWtSa1.0.9E6.M68fo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2422 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 06:09 PM 12/2/96 -0800, you wrote: >December 2, 1996 Monday > >Got to wondering about the 'anolomous' emissions from earth. > >Looking back at Earth from space and taking heat measurements of this >sphere what would be indicated? More heat being radiated out than being >received from the sun? And where would that excess heat come from? >Fission, hot fusion, or "CF" effects in the bowels of the earth while >we merrily prance about on the surface relatively free from mutating >radiation? > >-AK- > > very good question. the old theory was that radioactivity heats the core of the earth. i have not thought so for a long time. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 3 14:27:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA04174; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 14:11:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 14:11:41 -0800 Message-ID: <32A495D0.5C28@zenergy.com> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 14:04:17 -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: Galtech References: <961203140913_76570.2270_FHU44-2@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"AWqpe3.0.M01.PMAfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2425 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Eugene Mallove wrote: > > Reed, > > Glad you had a nice visit at Galtech. > > Would you care to elaborate on "encouraging results"? Why "encouraging"? Who > came to this conclusion and WHY? > > Gene Mallove 3 reasons: 1. Galtech does not have the 'inventor's disease'. They were very open about their results and testing methods. They encouraged our assistance and suggestions. Before going public with results, they just want to be absolutely certain the tests are accurate. 2. As stated on my previous posting, the inventor says that only 1/3rd of their technology is contained in their present prototype. In other words, there are significant improvements to be made. 3. They tested an earlier version of the motor which contained about 2/3rd's of their technology and their $40k Tek scope showed a 50% energy gain. The prototype they are currently building will contain much of which made the original prototype successful. I haven't seen o/u results yet, but in another 60-90 days we will find out if their stock is undervalued. - 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 Tue Dec 3 14:29:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA03253; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 14:10:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 14:10:09 -0800 Message-Id: <199612032104.NAA17260@mail.eskimo.com> Date: 03 Dec 1996 14:28 EST Sender: "gene (g.) batten" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "gene (g.) batten" Subject: Re: Galtech Resent-Message-ID: <"Qbd373.0.vn.sKAfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2424 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In message "Galtech", you write: > Reed, > > Glad you had a nice visit at Galtech. > > Would you care to elaborate on "encouraging results"? Why "encouraging"? Who > came to this conclusion and WHY? > > Gene Mallove > There have been several posting recently about Galtech. For those of us who are not familiar with Galtech and their technology, could someone please add a little info or point to an appropriate Web site? Thanks, Gene Batten mdleb@nortel.ca From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 3 18:19:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA26246; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 18:16:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 18:16:26 -0800 From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: O/U of Earth Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 02:15:21 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32a5f308.33549899@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199612030209.SAA13421@dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <199612030209.SAA13421@dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.335 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"6uRgS2.0.tP6.rxDfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2426 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 2 Dec 1996 18:09:39 -0800, Akira Kawasaki wrote: >December 2, 1996 Monday > >Got to wondering about the 'anolomous' emissions from earth. > >Looking back at Earth from space and taking heat measurements of this >sphere what would be indicated? More heat being radiated out than being >received from the sun? And where would that excess heat come from? >Fission, hot fusion, or "CF" effects in the bowels of the earth while >we merrily prance about on the surface relatively free from mutating >radiation? > >-AK- > > Till now favourites have been: 1) Gravitational collapse from the primordial cloud. 2) Radioactive decay. I don't think we really know enough to say which contributes what part. 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 Tue Dec 3 18:20:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA26342; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 18:16:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 18:16:54 -0800 From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Nuclear electron coupling? Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 02:15:24 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32a4d7a9.13441892@mail.netspace.net.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.335 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"j1Qx33.0.QR6.KyDfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2427 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I just stumbled across this, and had to tell someone. When a nucleus absorbs a baryon, the increase in energy may result in a rapidly rotating nucleus. It turns out that the frequency of rotation is of the same order of size as the Compton frequency of the electron (or a simple harmonic thereof). Perhaps if the situation is right, this could provide a direct resonant link between the energy of the excited nucleus, and electrons. This in turn may provide a mechanism whereby the nucleus can de-excite, by passing energy at the speed of light to whole masses of electrons concurrently, resulting in nuclear energy appearing as chemical energy, with nothing in between. Alternatively, one might like to think of it as the nucleus dumping energy into the ZPE, which ends up being absorbed by electrons. The energy goes from source to sink, with resonance being the bridging mechanism. Now will one of the real physicists on this list please set me straight? 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 Tue Dec 3 20:53:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA03422; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 20:45:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 20:45:59 -0800 Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 20:19:52 -0800 Message-Id: <199612040419.UAA26211@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Mallove on Short Wave Radio To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"GBN8r.0.Jr.38Gfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2428 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dec. 3, '96 Tues You wrote: >Tonight at 9:03 pm Eastern US time, short wave freq. 3.215 MhZ, I will >be beaming worldwide (2.5 Megawatts out of Nashville, Tennessee) on >the Dr. Norman Resnick radio show. Talking about CF and New Energy - >what else! Caught it! Recorded it! With all the characteristics of short wave broadcasts of some background static, wavey fading sounds, and uncertain signal strenths. And this was received on the west coast. It was all right, good actually --- mostly primary background stuff of which vortexians are familiar but still new to the majority. Everything counts. Good positive response by callers (one caller off the air told Resnick that Mallove was trash but this was not a problem with him). Pons & Fleischmann's discovery was credited, Huizenga and DOE were raked over the coals again (The perpetual villains--well deserved). Other O/U phenomena was brought up by callers along with Mallove. Net content exclusive of commercials ran about 45 minutes followed by some religious programming. IE magazine and subscription was identified, CETI kits was mentioned, Randall Mills' Hydro-Catalysis work and NASA replication was referenced for a caller from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The failures of the major media coverage was discussed, distinction between fraud and true CF was clarified, and safe and clean nuclear energy beyond chenmistry was stressed. Continued funded work in India, Japan, Russia, Italy were mentioned against the sad funding status in the U.S. The next date for another broadcast interview was setup on air for December 11th Wednesday, same time (9:06 PM EST). This is at 3.215 MHZ. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 3 21:56:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA15404; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 21:52:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 21:52:52 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961204055255.00667bc0@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, 04 Dec 1996 14:52:55 +0900 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: NASA efforts Resent-Message-ID: <"pSLbA1.0.Vm3.p6Hfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2429 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gene mentioned (via Akira) that NASA is involved in some sort of replication attempt of someone's experiments. Is this true? I had heard that Griggs had made such a statement to bolster his own claims, but that NASA spokespeople had denied it. Any additional info? Best regards, Elliot Kennel Sapporo From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 01:48:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA28214; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 01:47:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 01:47:43 -0800 Date: 04 Dec 96 03:53:28 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: NASA efforts Message-ID: <961204085327_100433.1541_BHG88-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"xFBCK1.0.mu6.-YKfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2430 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Elliot, > Gene mentioned (via Akira) that NASA is involved in some sort of > replication attempt of someone's experiments. You'll laugh, but NASA are indeed supporting (and have recently very greatly increased the grant of) Dr Ning Li of U Alabama at Huntsville to do gravity modification using spinning HTSC discs. At the same time one of our associates has replicated the original Finnish work and claims several percent of gravity modification. I have his patent application, and we hope to check his findings shortly. The theory papers (Phys Rev, Found Phys Letts) are a lot better than the Finnish experimental papers, and I happen to have a friend at NASA who is working with Dr Li. As to the Griggs work at NASA, my friend has had much less luck. The tests ARE going on, and I have seen the development contract, but they won't tell my friend what is happening - they just grin a "wouldn't you like to know" grin. At the same time, we are setting up a Griggs device in NH, and the British MoD are buying some - they are interested in the o-u claim, but also in using the machine because it can make 'instant' steam from filthy water using rotary power. That is because they want to use it in combat areas for decontaminating NBC-suited forces personnel as well as their vehicles. Of course, the devices need to be modified to perform well with 50Hz input to the ac motor drive. I trust this helps. What is your interest? Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 05:23:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA02146; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 05:22:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 05:22:24 -0800 Date: 04 Dec 96 08:20:35 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: NASA efforts Message-ID: <961204132035_76570.2270_FHU61-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"l04JU.0.RX.FiNfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2431 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Elliot, NASA certainly replicated Mills -- as seen in IE#9. NASA also is working on Dr. Ning Li's antigravity HTSC work. We may have more info too on that becuase the experiments have just been spun up -- literally. One US researcher has already replicated the Finnish antigravity work and has filed a patent. This is serious stuff, not a pipe dream. So, maybe TWO gigantic miracles in our lifetime -- CF and antigrav! Best wishes, Gene PS. An experiment you ARE IN A POSITION TO DO: the carbon arc in air test I posted on Vortex. Are you going to do it? FORGET THEORY -- DO IT! From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 05:24:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA02378; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 05:23:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 05:23:51 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0b36.32.19961204082256.00c12b24@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0b36 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 08:22:59 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: NASA efforts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"B15mA3.0.ya.cjNfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2432 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:52 PM 12/4/96 +0900, you wrote: > Gene mentioned (via Akira) that NASA is involved in some sort of >replication attempt of someone's experiments. Is this true? I had heard >that Griggs had made such a statement to bolster his own claims, but that >NASA spokespeople had denied it. Any additional info? > >Best regards, >Elliot Kennel >Sapporo > > Elliot: As covered more fully in the Cold Fusion Times (issue 4-3) and with part of this review visibly accessible at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html, this is the story. NASA confirmed Cold Fusion in light water/nickel systems. This was done in CLEVELAND, OHIO by NASA and a consulting company (NYMA, Inc.). They have confirmed the cold fusion excess heat effect using light (ordinary) water with nickel and a Randall Mills-type setup. Such light water/nickel systems involve a variety of configurations, including those advocated by Dr. Mills using potassium carbonate electrolyte between an platinum anode and a nickel cathode. Drs. Niedra [NYMA] and Myers, Fralick and Baldwin [NASA] have prepared a technical memorandum (#107167) entitled "Replication of the Apparent excess Heat effect in a Light Water - Potassium Carbonate - Nickel electrolytic Cell". The report presents data which has confirmed excess enthalpies in the range of 6 to 68% for an electrolytic system fashioned after the Mills nickel prototypic cell. Hope that helps. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 05:41:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA05511; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 05:40:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 05:40:36 -0800 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 05:39:23 -0800 Message-Id: <199612041339.FAA10319@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: O/U of Earth To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"24ZRV3.0.1M1.JzNfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2433 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: December 4, '96 Thanks Robin, You wrote: >Till now favourites have been: >1) Gravitational collapse from the primordial cloud. Say, What? You lost me. There was some gravity explanation of the moon IO spouting volcano plumes but I haven't heard of 'gravitational collapse' being used to explain conditions on earth. >2) Radioactive decay. Just being facetious but I do not hear of natives running for their lives from radiation but from flowing lavas or boulder missiles when a volcanoe blows here and there, even underseas. And the lava flows from the mantel, closer to the core. Hardly hear of increased surrounding radiation levels. Recently, we had Mt. St. Helena blowing, there was one in populus Japan, and a big one in the Philipines. And we have all those undersea fissure vents blowing superheated water. Perhaps low level radioactivities in the sum is enough to heat the earth. But considering the rarity of radioactive isotopes on earth after billions of years, is there enough left to continue heating the earth? Cold fusion effects seem to be more reasonable. More so as time goes on and we have all that water to burn. Doesn't hurt to have both fission and fusion existing in the earth at the same time. Mallove mentioned to me that the larger planets have massive O/U being explained away by astronomers as some sort of gravitational effect. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 06:03:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA09536; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 06:01:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 06:01:55 -0800 Date: 04 Dec 96 08:58:52 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: My Licence Plate Message-ID: <961204135851_76570.2270_FHU44-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"xdN9o.0.jK2.GHOfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2434 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: My new New Hampshire plates for my very old truck (1984 Bronco, 96k miles -- an "OJ car") read: INFNRG I retired my old Volvo DL 1982, which I had driven almost one-way to the Moon in mileage. Weep :( --- I thought it would make it to the time when I could replace its engine with a CF machine. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 06:27:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA13378; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 06:25:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 06:25:29 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0b36.32.19961204092407.00c0b1c0@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0b36 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 09:24:11 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: NASA efforts (corrected repost) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"MU4T82.0.rG3.NdOfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2435 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: My apology to the group for putting a comma "," at the end of the URL of the previous message. That will prevent "click-access" to the web site for those that want it. This is a respost, corrected. Mitchell Swartz ========================================================== At 02:52 PM 12/4/96 +0900, you wrote: > Gene mentioned (via Akira) that NASA is involved in some sort of >replication attempt of someone's experiments. Is this true? I had heard >that Griggs had made such a statement to bolster his own claims, but that >NASA spokespeople had denied it. Any additional info? > >Best regards, >Elliot Kennel >Sapporo > > Elliot: As covered more fully in the Cold Fusion Times (issue 4-3) and with part of this review visibly accessible at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html This is the story. NASA confirmed Cold Fusion in light water/nickel systems. This was done in CLEVELAND, OHIO by NASA and a consulting company (NYMA, Inc.). They have confirmed the cold fusion excess heat effect using light (ordinary) water with nickel and a Randall Mills-type setup. Such light water/nickel systems involve a variety of configurations, including those advocated by Dr. Mills using potassium carbonate electrolyte between an platinum anode and a nickel cathode. Drs. Niedra [NYMA] and Myers, Fralick and Baldwin [NASA] have prepared a technical memorandum (#107167) entitled "Replication of the Apparent excess Heat effect in a Light Water - Potassium Carbonate - Nickel electrolytic Cell". The report presents data which has confirmed excess enthalpies in the range of 6 to 68% for an electrolytic system fashioned after the Mills nickel prototypic cell. Hope that helps. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 07:08:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA21091; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 07:04:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 07:04:52 -0800 Message-Id: <199612041504.HAA20964@mx1.eskimo.com> Date: 04 Dec 1996 08:26 EST Sender: "gene (g.) batten" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "gene (g.) batten" Subject: Re: Galtech Resent-Message-ID: <"N7FUf3.0.R95.ICPfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2436 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In message "Galtech", you write: > Reed, > > Glad you had a nice visit at Galtech. > > Would you care to elaborate on "encouraging results"? Why "encouraging"? Who > came to this conclusion and WHY? > > Gene Mallove > There have been several posting recently about Galtech. For those of us who are not familiar with Galtech and their technology, could someone please add a little info or point to an appropriate Web site? Thanks, Gene Batten mdleb@nortel.ca From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 08:27:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA05623; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 08:24:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 08:24:17 -0800 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:21:23 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612041621.KAA06715@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: NASA efforts Resent-Message-ID: <"1GTaa2.0.nN1.lMQfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2437 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Once again, I would like to point out that the NASA replication of Mills' experiment was only a replication of the APPARENT excess heat effect...they even say so in the title. The apparent excess heat values they observed never exceeded the total electrical input power. In other words, the apparent excess heat values they observed could have been caused by recombination within the cell. In the report they present arguments about how unlikely they think it is that recombination within the cell is the cause of the apparent excess heat but, unfortunately, they did not measure the gas evolution from their Mills-style CF cell. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 08:49:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA09801; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 08:43:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 08:43:40 -0800 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:42:48 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612041642.KAA08609@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: O/U of Earth Resent-Message-ID: <"LlTat2.0.wO2.veQfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2438 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Where is the evidence that the Earth is O/U? If you take the mean output of the sun (3.92x10^26 watts) and figure out how many watts hit the Earth (1.79*10^17 watts), then use the Stephan-Boltzman radiation law to see what steady-state temperature the Earth would have to be in order to radiate that much power into cold, dark outer space, you find that the mean temperature of the Earth should be 7.4C (45F) which seems reasonable....remember, our atmosphere does complicated things which tend to make it warm on the surface and cold at high altitudes... Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 09:09:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA14715; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:06:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:06:02 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0b36.32.19961204120027.006c5e18@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0b36 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 12:00:31 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: NASA efforts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Td2a9.0.mb3.tzQfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2439 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: With all due respect to Scott Little, there does appear to be a misinterpretation of the paper by him. These individuals did get excess heat, and in the range of 6 to 68% for an electrolytic system fashioned after the Mills nickel prototypic cell. I personally spoke to the author of the paper about this before reported on this matter. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) ------------- At 10:21 AM 12/4/96 -0600, Scott Little wrote: >Once again, I would like to point out that the NASA replication of Mills' >experiment was only a replication of the APPARENT excess heat effect...they >even say so in the title. > >The apparent excess heat values they observed never exceeded the total >electrical input power. In other words, the apparent excess heat values >they observed could have been caused by recombination within the cell. In >the report they present arguments about how unlikely they think it is that >recombination within the cell is the cause of the apparent excess heat but, >unfortunately, they did not measure the gas evolution from their Mills-style >CF cell. > > >Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. >Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA >512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 09:23:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA16713; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:15:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:15:51 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:11:05 -0500 Message-ID: <961204121103_1253169537@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, GeorgeHM@aol.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, Puthoff@aol.com, 101544.702@compuserve.com, RVargo1062@aol.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, tlpst15+@pitt.edu, reed@zenergy.com, jseese@gpu.com Subject: story Resent-Message-ID: <"yxAce3.0.054.47Rfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2440 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dr. R. Yost, Editor of the Electric Spacecraft Journal, is going to press in the next addition with a feature article on my work on symmetry, gravity and Bose condensates. I'm looking forward to reading it. .............................................................................. ............ Congressman Murtha, one of my associates, has written a letter of recommendation directly to the president of Concurrent Technologies Co. stating that he has a personal interest in my employment at that (his) company. CTC employes several hundred engineers and scientists and is about to embark (I believe) in a partnership with Lockheed Energy System for the development of several new energy systems. I'm finding that these is a time for both good and bad luck. My luck is getting better. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 09:41:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA19839; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:32:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:32:11 -0800 Message-Id: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> Cc: Vortex-L Subject: RE: Carbon Arc in Air Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:28:00 -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: <"j8hYO3.0.nr4.NMRfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2442 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gene, Vortex The Carbon arc in air produces an extremely bright light. Anyone doing this test should use a welding helmet to protect their eyes. This arc light is what is used in theatre spotlights, searchlights etc. Hank Scudder ---------- Sasaki's instructions: ************** 1. Ready for Job 2. Tool Graphite crucible (four nines purity) Carbon rod Copper plate (for cooling) Tray for water cooling Electric welder (100 V, 10 A) or Auto Battery and clip leads 3. Materials Carbon powder (high purity) Cooling water 4. Order of Experiment A Put 2 to 3 grams of carbon powder in graphite crucible B Strike electric discharge arc with the electrode, about 1 minute, done about 3 to 4 times only (i.e. no more than four times) -- [implies pausing between 1-minute arcs] 5. Inspection A. Spread remaining carbon powder on paper B. Slide magnet under that paper. You can see locus of the magnet -- it shows the iron bits [!!!! - my comment, EFM] C. Take these [magnetically separated] materials and examine with a magnifying glass. You will find [among them] a brilliant alloy [!!!!, yes, I have photos of this alloy! - my comment, EFM] 6. Reappearance This experiment is very easy for young student, literary person, bank man, woman, etc. Kenjin Sasaki 942 Hikida, Akiruno-City Tokyo 197, Japan Phone: 81-425-59-5371 fax: 81-425-59-4927 ********************************** If I have the time in the next few weeks and wherewithal, I would like to try this myself, but I will likely not have the time. I am told by Chris Akbar in Boston (with the Kushi Foundation) that she has tried the experiment and it worked for her. She said it is important to keep the amperage between 8 and 10 amps. She used an automobile battery charger. I do not think it is really necessary to have a static tray of cooling water under a graphite plate or crucible. I imagine that doing the experiment on a thick graphite plate would work as well. Best wishes, Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 09:42:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA19705; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:31:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:31:37 -0800 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:28:57 -0600 Message-Id: <9612041728.AA01290@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: Mallove on Short Wave Radio Resent-Message-ID: <"bPMGb.0.lp4.rLRfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2441 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 08:19 PM 12/3/96 -0800, you wrote: >Caught it! Recorded it! With all the characteristics of short wave >broadcasts of some background static, wavey fading sounds, and >uncertain signal strenths. And this was received on the west coast. I guess I was too close for good reception. I heard most of it but had lots of 60Hz impulse noise at that freq (not worth trying to record). I wished it was longer than a one hour show. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 09:44:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA20442; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:35:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:35:52 -0800 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:28:54 -0600 Message-Id: <9612041728.AA01287@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: O/U of Earth Resent-Message-ID: <"LmQhV3.0.D_4.rPRfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2443 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:15 AM 12/4/96 GMT, you wrote: >On Mon, 2 Dec 1996 18:09:39 -0800, Akira Kawasaki wrote: >> And where would that excess heat come from? >Till now favourites have been: >1) Gravitational collapse from the primordial cloud. >2) Radioactive decay. >I don't think we really know enough to say which contributes what part. The current thinking seems to be tending view internal heating as a result of a magnetic eddy currents produced by the different rotational rates of the Earth's core compared to the outer parts of the Earth. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 10:35:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA31494; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:31:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:31:24 -0800 Message-ID: <32A5C2CC.C5B@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 10:28:28 -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: O/U of Earth References: <199612041642.KAA08609@natashya.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"LhX28.0.sh7.uDSfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2444 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dec. 4, 1996 Scott Little wrote: > > Where is the evidence that the Earth is O/U? Where is the evidence that the Earth is NOT O/U? I'd like some space missions to point back to earth each time and take some actual heat measurements then rationalize it. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 10:49:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA00465; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:40:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:40:53 -0800 Message-ID: <32A5C151.1E82@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 10:22:09 -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: Mallove on Short Wave Radio References: <9612041728.AA01290@dsm7.dsmnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ASFhp2.0.07.pMSfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2446 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dec. 4, '96 Dean T. Miller wrote: > I guess I was too close for good reception. I heard most of it but >had lots of 60Hz impulse noise at that freq (not worth trying to >record). Try again Dec. 11th. Turn off most lights, especially flourescents and those with solid state dimmer controls (these give off nasty 60 cyclt spikes). Minimize electric motor operations. Just use incandescent lights. And if you have a good ground, connect your radio to that. Everything an amateur ham operator does for good reception is applicable. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 10:54:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA00327; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:40:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:40:13 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961204182505.002a8c54@atlantic.net> X-Sender: johmann@atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 13:25:05 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Kurt Johmann Subject: Re: O/U of Earth Resent-Message-ID: <"ZP-I61.0.-4.AMSfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2445 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: >Where is the evidence that the Earth is O/U? > >If you take the mean output of the sun (3.92x10^26 watts) and figure out >how many watts hit the Earth (1.79*10^17 watts), then use the >Stephan-Boltzman radiation law to see what steady-state temperature the >Earth would have to be in order to radiate that much power into cold, >dark outer space, you find that the mean temperature of the Earth should >be 7.4C (45F) which seems reasonable....remember, our atmosphere does >complicated things which tend to make it warm on the surface and cold at >high altitudes... Nice calculation. But I'm afraid the problem is the molten interior of the Earth, which is obviously far above 45F. If there were no internal heating then the core should be at 45F too, right? But it isn't. Also, volcanos point to ongoing internal heat generation, because if the high core temperature were only a leftover artifact from the Earth's formation 4.5 billion years ago, then there would only be a smooth temperature gradient from core to surface: there would be no volcanos, internal convection currents, etc. Kurt Johmann -- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 11:00:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA01323; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:45:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:45:05 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:45:03 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: NASA efforts Resent-Message-ID: <"3ATo81.0.aK.kQSfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2447 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > With all due respect to Scott Little, there does appear to >be a misinterpretation of the paper by him. > >These individuals did get excess heat, and in the range of 6 to 68% >for an electrolytic system fashioned after the Mills nickel prototypic cell. > > I personally spoke to the author of the paper about this before >reported on this matter. > > Hope that helps. > Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) [snip] The article states in conclusion: "Following the principle of simplest explanation that fits the data on hand, recombination becomes the explanation of choice. But even perfect recombination can not account for all the apparent excess heat in those Mills cells usually operated in pulsed current mode ... These cases at least leave the door open to more interresting possibilities. Considering the potential value of a new energy source, it seems worth while to restudy the Mills type cell in configurations allowing an accurate account for recombination and water loss ... Insufficient funds prevented us from proceeding with a more careful study ...". In my opinion a hopeful, but not conclusive result. Its the old recombination accounting problem again. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 12:03:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA15215; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:56:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:56:01 -0800 Message-ID: <32A5D745.61B1@zenergy.com> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 12:55:49 -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: Galtech References: <199612032104.NAA17260@mail.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"0JvMj.0.Tj3.ETTfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2448 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: gene (g.) batten wrote: > > In message "Galtech", you write: > > > Reed, > > > > Glad you had a nice visit at Galtech. > > > > Would you care to elaborate on "encouraging results"? Why "encouraging"? Who > > came to this conclusion and WHY? > > > > Gene Mallove > > > > There have been several posting recently about Galtech. For those of us > who are not familiar with Galtech and their technology, could someone > please add a little info or point to an appropriate Web site? > > Thanks, > > Gene Batten > mdleb@nortel.ca Galtech is a small public company in Mesa Arizona which is developing new semiconductor technologies. As a sideline, one of their engineers came up with the concept of compressed magnetism passing over a coil. They have filed for a patent on their motor (sorry, I don't have the #) and they estimate the motor is 200-300% efficient. Its a rotating type 'magic motor' about 24" wide and 8" high, spinning at 2-3k RPM. - 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 Wed Dec 4 13:12:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA24028; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:51:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:51:31 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:03:35 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: O/U of Earth Resent-Message-ID: <"v4ljK3.0.Kt5.FHUfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2449 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Kurt Jomann wrote: > >Also, volcanos point to ongoing internal heat generation, because if the >high core temperature were only a leftover artifact from the Earth's >formation 4.5 billion years ago, then there would only be a smooth >temperature gradient from core to surface: there would be no volcanos, >internal convection currents, etc. Any time you have a temperature gradient that is hotter below (in a gravitational field) and a material that expands with temperature you get fluid eddies. This applies to a pan of water on the stove or to the earth with a hot interior. 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 Dec 4 13:19:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA24891; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:56:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:56:26 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:55:53 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: O/U of Earth Resent-Message-ID: <"7jwAq3.0.p46.tLUfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2450 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dean Miller wrote: >The current thinking seems to be tending view internal heating as a result >of a magnetic eddy currents produced by the different rotational rates of >the Earth's core compared to the outer parts of the Earth. I think you got it backwards. Current thinking is that thermal gradients drive fluid eddies which, when coupled to rotation and taking account of finite electrical resistivity, drive an 'dynamo' that generates the elecric currents that make the earth's magnetic field. The theory also has to account for the quasi-periodic reversal of the geo magnetic field. The problem is surprisingly difficult to compute numerically. You have to use fine spatial resolution to get the eddies sufficiently correct, and you have to compute for long times to see the reversals. However, the reversals occur in very short times relative to the inter-reversal steady intervals (this from geomagnetic evidence), so you need fine time resolution, too. Right now, only super computers have enough combined memory and speed to do the computation well enough to approximate the geomagnetic record. 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 Dec 4 15:03:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA12513; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 14:41:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 14:41:13 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961204160145.00722644@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 16:02:09 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: NASA efforts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"JmztS2.0.933.7uVfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2451 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 03:53 AM 12/4/96 EST, Chris Tinsley wrote: > >You'll laugh, but NASA are indeed supporting (and have recently very greatly >increased the grant of) Dr Ning Li of U Alabama at Huntsville to do gravity >modification using spinning HTSC discs. At the same time one of our associates >has replicated the original Finnish work and claims several percent of gravity >modification. I have his patent application, and we hope to check his findings >shortly. The theory papers (Phys Rev, Found Phys Letts) are a lot better than >the Finnish experimental papers, and I happen to have a friend at NASA who is >working with Dr Li. > >Chris > Dear Chris, Vortexians: I'll bet that nobody is laughing. In fact we are very hungry for more information. Here is a tribute to everyone on this list that shares information so readily. I've followed the arguments about sharing or not sharing. Sometimes it is not a simple subject. I have seen an incredible amount of information on O/U and Transmutation, and that's a good thing.....but I've seen very little so far, on this list re. gravity modification theories. I personally, would like to see a discussion about experiments and theory right here. Can someone invite Dr Li and Dr Podkletnov (and Chris's friend at NASA) to Vortex ? Maybe we could get something *really* going right here....and eventually, as someone recently (and wisely) put it, "something simple...and robust"... As a basement tinkerer, here are the questions that first come to me: 1] What is the 'current' theory explaining gravity modification ? 2] Under 'that' theory, is it possible to achieve gravity modification using 'non'-superconductors ? 3] Can gravity modification be achieved in a high school physics type of lab, using "high-temp." superconductors ? 4] Which issue of Phys Rev, Found Phys Letts is it... and who is the author ? 5] How soon will we be able to read the Patent or the Pat. App. ? 6] "we hope to check his findings" will you Chris, be posting your findings to Vortex ? Thanks.. Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 15:18:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA15516; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 14:53:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 14:53:35 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:38:59 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: An Atomic Expansion Hypothesis Resent-Message-ID: <"OWj-J1.0.Ho3.h3Wfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2452 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: AN ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND ASSUMPTIONS The Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH) is the idea that atomic expansion, the increase in the size of an ionized atom or molecule, like H+, which occurs when they take on an orbital electron, can perform work on the surroundings of the ion, and that the amount of energy released can be greater than the initial ionization enegy, provided the ion is in a sufficiently confined space when the expansion occurs. This is an idea that I think leads to various possible experiments and, if correct, may provide a basis for the design of over unity devices. If correct, the idea also explains various observed results. This hypothesis is another expression of the idea that the excess heat from cold fusion devices does not come from fusion, or transmutaion, but from extraction of energy from the zero point energy (ZPE) sea. This is not to say that transmutaion or conventional fusion does not occur, only that the heat producing source of cold fuion (CF) devices is primarily ZPE. It is an assumption of this hypothesis that ZPE energy is what keeps atoms from collapsing, is part of the glue that holds atoms together without radiation. Atoms, more particularly orbitals, though quantized in energy, can be deformed, both in shape and electron probablity distribution. These deformations can occur as a result of external stress on the orbitals due to collisions or pressure, or because of electomagnetic fields. The deformations are capable of storing energy, converting kinetic energy into potential energy, and back. With the exception of the occasional resulting photon emissions, such collisions are perfectly elastic, which is why the gas laws and thermodynamics work so well. It is true that collision and pressure deformations of orbitals are also electromagnetic in origin, but differ in that the fields are highly localized and mostly cancel at a distance. THE PROPOSED MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING HEAT IN A LATTICE 1) An ion, e.g. H+ or He++, is injected into a metal lattice. This can be accomplished via high energy beam or via electrolysis. 2) As the ion comes to a halt in the lattic, any kinetic energy intially imparted to the ion is given up to the lattice. 3) The ion takes up an electron from an adjacent atom or conduction band. If from an adjecent atom, that atom may momentarily shrink (or lose a bond and expand), but will quickly return to size by obtaining an electron from a conduction band. The net result is an electron from a conduction band is taken up by the ion. 4) An orbital is formed about the ion, increasing the size of the ion. 5) As the electron occupies the orbital, quantized EM energy, equivalent to the original ionization energy, is released - heating the local enviroment. 6) As the small ion and acquired electron(s) expands from nuclear dimensions to atomic dimensions, at some point force is applied in all directions to the lattice provided the interstitial sites do not accomodate the size of the de-ionized product. Further expansion of the de-ionized product to it's final size results in work being performed on the lattice. The energy thus produced has no antecedent. It is derived solely from the force that keeps atoms from collapsing. However, unlike a collision, no initial compressive kinetic energy was supplied. The energy is supplied form the ZPE sea. EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING HEAT IN SELECTED GASSES As proposed earlier on the vortex list: 1) Hydrogen is ionized to create H+ in a mixture of H2 and He. This might be accomlished in an arc or via a point or wire discharge. 2) The H+ ion comes into contact with a He atom, stripping an electron from the He atom producing a H atom and He+ ion 4) An orbital is formed about the H+ ion, suddely increasing increasing the size of the ion. The expansion, fueld from the ZPE sea, imparts "free" energy to the atoms in the form of potential then kinetic energy as the collison progresses. 5) As the electron occupies the H orbital, quantized EM energy, equivalent to the original ionization energy less the He ionizing energy, is released - heating the local enviroment. 6) The inital momentums and energies of the H and He nuclei gets applied to the shells, distorting them, and are returned to the environment via the normal elastic collision mechanism. 7) Eventually the He+ is reconstituted to He and a photon is released, gaining back the complete energy of ionization of the H atom inititally. The net energy gained is the energy of expansion of the H+ orbital in close proximity the to the He+ ion - thus imparting additional kinetic energy to both. WHAT DOES THIS EXPLAIN? The AEH provides possible explanation for the varied effectiveness of the alpha, beta, and gamma phases of CF loading. I suggest that in the initial loading phase the hydrogen is alternately in H and H+ form, but primarily in H+ form. It is primarily ionically bound to the lattice, especially when in motion. An H atom fits inside a lattice cell, but not through the triangular portals betweeen cells. In the beta pase, many of the cells would be occupied by H atoms, and in such a state diffusion between cells would require displcement of H atoms, the diffusion paths would all be blocked, and the diffusion would require the ionization of an impeding H or its tunneling out of the way. Some degree of H confinement upon reconversion from an H+ to H would be occuring, thus some small excess energy might be produced in beta phase. In gamma phase H loading would be to the point that additional loading would force the formation of H2 molecues in the interstitial sites. In looking at the geometry of the lattice and H2 molecules it appears such a formation is possible with only a deformation of the lattice of about 5- 10 percent. This would imply extreme confinement and local pressure, which would dramatically increase the work done by the ZPE sea in supporting the H2 formation, or "inflation". The small expansion requirement is due to the low per atom volume of H2 vs. H. The AEH model may explain why various discharge tubes, especially those containing H2 or He appear to produce excess energy. The ions are injected into the metal lattice where they are confined prior to atomic expansion. The source of the energy may be primarily in the electrodes, especially cathodes, but to some degree may occur in the gas as well. The AEH may explain the mechanism by which cavitation devices produce excess heat - namely taht some of the H2O is ionized in the cavitation bubbles and the collapsing bubble results in the ions being injected in the the high pressure water wall where the ions reconstitue and expand, adding pressure, thus energy to the collasing pressure wall. SO WHAT ABOUT DESIGN CRITERIA? This model results in some concrete design suggestions: 1) Produce ions (especially H+ or H++) in as large a quantity and as efficiently as possible. 2) Accelerate or transport the ions into a confining and preferably conducting medium where they are deionized under pressure. 3) Utilize the increased pressure and heat in the confining medium. 4) Make the confining medium as gas recycling as possible. SOME APPLICATION AND EXPERIMENTATION THOUGHTS 1) Mercury, though not as confining as a lattice, may make a good medium for ion injection as it would expell the gasses quickly. Mercury also conducts electricity well. Other metals could be used at higher temperatures, however, electron emission from hot cathodes would not be good as it would increase the power demand. The increased power would have to be utilized to result in more ionizations. The simplest possible test device may be a small sealed glass tube of H2 with a point anode and mercury cathode at the bottom. 2) Hot anodes are fine as they will increase ionization and kinetic energy of the gas. An arc created by an isolation transformer may make a very good anode. 3) It may be possible to use water as a cathode. The atomic expansion may assist in boiling the water at the surface. The water could provide it's own H2 from the evolved steam in an arc anode. Might be good to use a helium atmosphere to get safe recombination. An electrolyte would, of course, increase the cathode conductivity. 4) Electrolysis (or arcs) under water may produce usable energy if done under extreme pressure. Simply use the evolved high pressure gas to move pisitons. Additional process stages could be added for recombination and heat recovery. Some of the energy of compression, by the AEH model, would come from the ZPE sea. 5) As suggested earlier, a closed tube with an electrically excited mixture of H2 and a noble gas may produce some over unity results. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 15:40:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA22155; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 15:31:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 15:31:34 -0800 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:38:01 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: Akira Kawasaki cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mallove on Short Wave Radio In-Reply-To: <32A5C151.1E82@earthlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"xFBjq1.0.3Q5.HdWfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2453 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Connect ground to good water pipe [cold water] .... cnnnect antenna to finger dial stop on old rotary telephone ..... big stuff! Do not do this during lightning storm. On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Akira Kawasaki wrote: > Dec. 4, '96 > > Dean T. Miller wrote: > > > I guess I was too close for good reception. I heard most of it but >had lots of 60Hz impulse noise at that freq (not worth trying to >record). > > Try again Dec. 11th. Turn off most lights, especially flourescents and > those with solid state dimmer controls (these give off nasty 60 cyclt > spikes). Minimize electric motor operations. Just use incandescent > lights. And if you have a good ground, connect your radio to that. > Everything an amateur ham operator does for good reception is > applicable. > > -AK- > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 15:55:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA25767; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 15:47:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 15:47:21 -0800 Date: 04 Dec 96 18:41:53 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: NASA efforts Message-ID: <961204234153_100433.1541_BHG71-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"wfnfb1.0.NI6.5sWfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2454 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Colin, > 1] What is the 'current' theory explaining gravity modification ? You could try reading: Refs: 1. N Li & D G Torr, Effects of gravitomagnetic field on pure superconductors, Phys Rev D, v43, number 2, 15 Jan 1991, p 457. 2. Same authors, Gravitational effects on the magnetic attenuation of superconductors, Phys Rev B, v46, number 9, 1 Sept 1992-I 3. Same authors, Gravito-electric coupling via superconductivity, Foundations of Phys Letts, v6 no 4,1993 > 2] Under 'that' theory, is it possible to achieve gravity > modification using 'non'-superconductors ? No. > 3] Can gravity modification be achieved in a high school physics > type of lab, using "high-temp." superconductors ? I believe that will be possible, as soon as the information is in useable form. > 4] Which issue of Phys Rev, Found Phys Letts is it... and who is > the author ? See above. > How soon will we be able to read the Patent or the Pat. App. ? Maybe not before the patent is approved. That is quite a normal situation. > 6] "we hope to check his findings" will you Chris, be posting > your findings to Vortex ? Very possibly, if the experimenter wishes me to do so. But the actual checking might be by others of 'us'. > Can someone invite Dr Li and Dr Podkletnov (and Chris's friend at > NASA) to Vortex ? I'm quite sure Dr Li would not wish to do that (not her style), Podkletnov is not easily reached, and I think my friend in NASA would prefer to keep his name out of the picture just now. I would just say this. If all is well, then experimental demonstration kits (like the Meissner effect kits) will be available on sale, and that would be done just as soon as it is humanly possible for it to happen. Chris "History takes longer to live than it does in books." From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 16:19:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA28824; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:01:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:01:33 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0b36.32.19961204183321.006c34a0@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0b36 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 18:33:24 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: calibrated contamination, was: ppb? ppm? ppt? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"hBQ-n3.0.C27.R3Xfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2455 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:18 AM 11/25/96 +-900, Elliot Kennel wrote: >Jed wrote: >>>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? There ought be a calibration for the accumulation, and electrodeposition, of materials. Also, Elliot is correct. Even a stray human hair, which accumulates aluminum, sulfur vanadium, can add trace elements. I am presently working on a calibration model for this, but need some additional info which it is hoped Dr. Miley will supply shortly in response to a private letter. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 16:20:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA01008; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:17:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:17:21 -0800 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 19:14:31 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Gravity Society In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19961204160145.00722644@inforamp.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"8ESnm2.0.YF.FIXfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2456 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo, This is a brief release from Grav Sco., whose mission is to do exactly what you say. I will answer as many questions as I am honestly amble to, and permitted to: Please see notes in body of letter: On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Quinney wrote: > At 03:53 AM 12/4/96 EST, Chris Tinsley wrote: > > > >You'll laugh, but NASA are indeed supporting (and have recently very greatly > >increased the grant of) Dr Ning Li of U Alabama at Huntsville to do gravity > >modification using spinning HTSC discs. At the same time one of our > associates > >has replicated the original Finnish work and claims several percent of > gravity > >modification. I have his patent application, and we hope to check his > findings > >shortly. The theory papers (Phys Rev, Found Phys Letts) are a lot better > than > >the Finnish experimental papers, and I happen to have a friend at NASA who is > >working with Dr Li. > > > >Chris > > > Dear Chris, Vortexians: > > I'll bet that nobody is laughing. In fact we are very hungry for more > information. > Here is a tribute to everyone on this list that shares information so > readily. I've followed the arguments about sharing or not sharing. > Sometimes it is not a simple subject. I have seen an incredible amount of > information on O/U and Transmutation, and that's a good thing.....but I've > seen very little so far, on this list re. gravity modification theories. > I personally, would like to see a discussion about experiments and theory > right here. a] will post open literature theory papers. Take a few hours, stand by. Can someone invite Dr Li and Dr Podkletnov (and Chris's friend > at NASA) to Vortex ? Maybe we could get something *really* going right > here....and eventually, as someone recently (and wisely) put it, > "something simple...and robust"... > > As a basement tinkerer, here are the questions that first come to me: > > 1] What is the 'current' theory explaining gravity modification ? > Opinion: I do not agree with all aspects of current theory. will post those closest that are in open literature. 2] Under 'that' theory, is it possible to achieve gravity modification > using 'non'-superconductors ? A: Not specifying any given theory, yes possible. Will be trying to indtroduce kits. > 3] Can gravity modification be achieved in a high school physics type of > lab, using "high-temp." superconductors ? A: Yes. Again, kits. > 4] Which issue of Phys Rev, Found Phys Letts is it... and who is the author ? Stand by for post. A lot of this infor originally was posted by Rpbt. Stirniman [sp?] > 5] How soon will we be able to read the Patent or the Pat. App. ? a: Pending legal council > 6] "we hope to check his findings" will you Chris, be posting your > findings to Vortex ? A: Up to Chris. Grav Soc. will post its findings. > > Thanks.. > > Colin Quinney. > > Gravity Society, USA JHS From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 17:34:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA14689 for billb@eskimo.com; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:34:02 -0800 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:34:02 -0800 X-Envelope-From: mwm@aa.net Wed Dec 4 17:33:51 1996 Received: from big.aa.net (root@big.aa.net [204.157.220.2]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA14628 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:33:44 -0800 Received: from Default (cust198.max1.seattle.aa.net [205.199.141.198]) by big.aa.net (8.8.3/8.7.5) with SMTP id RAA13996 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:33:32 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199612050133.RAA13996@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: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 17:33:06 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Carbon Arc in Air X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Regarding the experiments listed below, are there any vortexians who are in a position to quickly run any of these experiments plus, using N.O.R.M. from the oil fields (principally sandy iron rust laced with trace amounts of radium), powdered pitchblende, and other natural sources of radionucleides? At 12:27 PM 12/3/96 EST, you wrote: >To Vortexians: > >From: Eugene F. Mallove, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher >INFINITE ENERGY Magazine >Cold Fusion Technology >P.O. Box 2816 >Concord, New Hampshire 03302-2816 >Phone: 603-228-4516; Fax: 603-224-5975 > > >This note concerns what I believe to be an extremely urgent scientific matter: >Confirmation (or rejection) of carbon-arc-in-air transmutation to Fe claims. >This parallels the *underwater* carbon arc papers of the Bockris group (Nov. >1994 Fusion Technology), Ohsawa in the 1960s, and Singh et al (Nov. 1994 Fusion >Technology), but is obviously a simpler test because it is in air. If it can be >confirmed and then assessed as to reliability of the production of Fe, we have >an astonishingly simple test that almost anyone could confirm for themselves -- >another great virtue. > >A description of the carbon-arc-in-air: > >>From The Philosopher's Stone: Michio Kushi's Guide to Alchemy, Transmutation, >and the New Science,, One Peaceful World Press, 1994. I include all the >non-biological protocols, but the one of interest here is METHOD 3 (the others >may be of interest too): > >************************************************** >Experiments > >Following is a brief outline of experiments conducted in Japan and France. Some >of these experiments are physical transmutations and others are biological >transmutations. These are only examples, and complete information will be-come >available in the near future. > > >2. The Production of Fe (Iron) from C (Carbon) and O (Oxygen). > >The applied formula: > >2 6C12 + 2 8Ol6 >> (2 14Si28 28Ni56) >> 26Fe56 > [Note: there is nomenclature apparently missing between the Si and the Ni.] > >George Ohsawa and his associates in Japan succeeded in their experiments with >several methods to produce Fe from C and O. Later French scientists tested >similar methods and confirmed the success of the transmutation. After creating >the method to achieve the most efficient possible transmutation, they filed >patents accordingly. The following examples show only a few methods to >accomplish the transmutation from C and O to Fe. > >Method 1: Transmutation in Air (A): >Two graphite crucibles (approximately 2.5 x 5 to 6 inches) cover each other top >and bottom. The upper crucible has a 10 mm hole, surrounded by a ceramic ring. >The ceramic ring acts as an insulator. Into this hole, a carbon rod (0.25 inches >in diameter) is inserted until it reaches to the carbon powder (2 to 3 grams) >placed at the inside bottom of the lower crucible. The lower crucible has one or >two small holes at the lower part of its side wall for air circulation. An iron >base placed under the lower crucible acts as one electrode pole. The carbon rod >acts as another electrode pole. As the carbon rod approaches the carbon powder, >an electric arc arises. Continuing the operation for 20 to 30 minutes, the >carbon powder changes to Fe. > In this experiment, the applied electricity is about 35 to 50 volts, and 8 >to 18 amps, either A.C. or D.C. > >Method 2: Transmutation in Water: > Using two carbon rods (0.25 inches in diameter), create an electric arc >between them, by striking them on one another in water. This operation is >performed for 1 to 5 seconds. Then, brown-black metallic powder falls down to >the bottom of the water, which contains Fe. > >The applied electricity is the same as in Method 1. > >Method 3: Transmutation in Air (B.): > Carbon powder is placed on a copper plate, approximately 12 inches long, 6 >inches wide, and 0.5 inches thick. This plate works as an electrical ground. A >carbon rod (identical to the carbon rods used in Methods 1 and 2) used as >another electrical pole, strikes repeatedly the carbon powder on the plate, >producing an electric arc. The carbon powder changes into Fe. > The applied electricity is the same as in the above methods. > > During the process of transmutation, Ni (nickel) is temporarily produced. But >it disappears very soon, for it is an isotope with a radioactive nature. The >life of an Ni isotope is considered approximately 1/lOOOth of a second. > In these experiments, the degree of transmutation from C and O to Fe is >approximately 5 percent to 20 percent immediately, with a larger percentage of >transmutation occurring gradually in the air, which has the effect of cooling >the metal > lic powder to below room temperature. The Fe which is produced by this >transmutation is stainless. It does not rust easily. It has also much less >reaction to heat than ordinary iron, due to its composition of 2 Si (silicon) as >the formula indicates. This iron was name G.O.S. (George Ohsawa Steel), given >the initials of George Ohsawa by the scientists who worked with this >transmutation. > All results of the transmutation of Fe have been carefully examined and >analyzed by several methods including: magnetic inspection, spectroscopic >analysis, chemical analysis, and examination by reagent, confirmed by >authoritative testing agencies. > > >The various researchers who worked on the above (and the biological >trasnsmutations:) > >George Ohsawa-Philosopher, writer, honorary professor at Nippon University, >honorary citizen of Paris, founder and president of Institut des Hautes Etudes >Dialectiques et Scientifiques, Tokyo. > >Masashiro Torii-Doctor of chemistry, professor at Musashino Institute of >Technology, Tokyo. > >Shizuko Washio-Doctor of biology, professor at Atomi University, Tokyo. > >Sanehide Komaki-Doctor of agriculture, professor at Mukogawa University, Kyoto. > >Chikao Narita-Doctor of medicine, president of Tokyo Shibaura Hospital, Tokyo. > >Yuzuru Sasaki-Research member of Institute des Hautes Etudes Dialectiques et >Scientifiques, Tokyo. > >Noburu Yamamoto-Research member of Institut des Hautes Etudes Dialectiques et >Scientifiques, Tokyo. > > >**************************************** > >The second source of a carbon arc in air experiment is from ICCF6: > >Kenjin Sasaki from Tokyo, an agronomy consultant from Tokyo distributed a very >interesting protocol which is like METHOD #3. He gave me photos of the process >and the results, which would seem possible for any high-school group to verify. >I will be publishing these photos and protocols in Infinite Energy #10, asking >readers to try it. In the inimitable "Japanese English" - only slightly fixed, >Sasaki's instructions: > >************** > >1. Ready for Job > >2. Tool Graphite crucible (four nines purity) > Carbon rod > Copper plate (for cooling) > Tray for water cooling > Electric welder (100 V, 10 A) > or Auto Battery and clip leads > >3. Materials Carbon powder (high purity) > Cooling water > >4. Order of Experiment > >A Put 2 to 3 grams of carbon powder in graphite crucible > >B Strike electric discharge arc with the electrode, about 1 minute, done about 3 >to 4 times only (i.e. no more than four times) -- [implies pausing between >1-minute arcs] > >5. Inspection > >A. Spread remaining carbon powder on paper > >B. Slide magnet under that paper. You can see locus of the magnet -- it shows >the iron bits [!!!! - my comment, EFM] > >C. Take these [magnetically separated] materials and examine with a magnifying >glass. You will find [among them] a brilliant alloy [!!!!, yes, I have photos of >this alloy! - my comment, EFM] > >6. Reappearance > >This experiment is very easy for young student, literary person, bank man, >woman, etc. > >Kenjin Sasaki >942 Hikida, Akiruno-City >Tokyo 197, Japan >Phone: 81-425-59-5371 >fax: 81-425-59-4927 > >********************************** > >If I have the time in the next few weeks and wherewithal, I would like to try >this myself, but I will likely not have the time. I am told by Chris Akbar in >Boston (with the Kushi Foundation) that she has tried the experiment and it >worked for her. She said it is important to keep the amperage between 8 and 10 >amps. She used an automobile battery charger. > >I do not think it is really necessary to have a static tray of cooling water >under a graphite plate or crucible. I imagine that doing the experiment on a >thick graphite plate would work as well. > > > Best wishes, > > > Gene Mallove > > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 18:26:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA21894; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:12:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:12:34 -0800 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 19:20:53 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612050120.TAA03314@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: NASA efforts Resent-Message-ID: <"MH6uP3.0.uL5.G-Yfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2457 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:45 AM 12/4/96 -0800, Horace wrote: >The article states in conclusion: "Following the principle of simplest >explanation that fits the data on hand, recombination becomes the >explanation of choice. Thank you Horace for digging that up. >But even perfect recombination can not account for >all the apparent excess heat in those Mills cells usually operated in >pulsed current mode... Here, it appears that the NASA guys are talking about other cells than the one they experimented with. Mitchell, if the NASA paper doesn't tell the whole story of their experimentation, can you fill in the rest for us? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 18:31:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA24169; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:20:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:20:01 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199612050133.RAA13969@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, 04 Dec 1996 17:32:55 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Carbon Arc in Air Resent-Message-ID: <"V4ghA.0.Pv5.E5Zfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2458 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:27 PM 12/3/96 EST, you wrote: >To Vortexians: > >From: Eugene F. Mallove, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher >INFINITE ENERGY Magazine >Cold Fusion Technology >P.O. Box 2816 >Concord, New Hampshire 03302-2816 >Phone: 603-228-4516; Fax: 603-224-5975 > > >This note concerns what I believe to be an extremely urgent scientific matter: >Confirmation (or rejection) of carbon-arc-in-air transmutation to Fe claims. >This parallels the *underwater* carbon arc papers of the Bockris group (Nov. >1994 Fusion Technology), Ohsawa in the 1960s, and Singh et al (Nov. 1994 Fusion >Technology), but is obviously a simpler test because it is in air. If it can be >confirmed and then assessed as to reliability of the production of Fe, we have >an astonishingly simple test that almost anyone could confirm for themselves -- >another great virtue. > righto! these arcs seem the easiest and least messsy set-up. do this and then add powdered pitchblende and see what happens to the uranium. i suspect the highly powdered mediums will work the best. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 18:56:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA31265; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:40:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:40:07 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199612050215.SAA19033@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, 04 Dec 1996 18:15:17 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: unsubscribed for 24 hrs Resent-Message-ID: <"MM7m02.0.Ge7.5OZfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2459 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A hmm, the fickle finger of fate is alive and well. the one day I am too busy to check in early in the morning it turns out I have been unsubscribed since last nite at 6:30 pm. did anybody send any thing last nite or today on transmutation and radioactivity which they would like me to read? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 19:39:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA12098; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 19:36:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 19:36:22 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0b36.32.19961204214935.006c6d10@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0b36 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 21:49:38 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: NASA efforts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Hjm312.0.oy2.qCafo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2460 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:20 PM 12/4/96 -0600, Scott Little wrote: >At 09:45 AM 12/4/96 -0800, Horace wrote: > >>"The article states in conclusion: "Following the principle of simplest >>explanation that fits the data on hand, recombination becomes the >>explanation of choice. >>But even perfect recombination can not account for >>all the apparent excess heat in those Mills cells usually operated in >>pulsed current mode..." > >Here, it appears that the NASA guys are talking about other cells than the >one they experimented with. >Mitchell, if the NASA paper doesn't tell the whole story of their >experimentation, can you fill in the rest for us? > > Scott, You previously stated: "The apparent excess heat values they observed never exceeded the total electrical input power." [<199612041621.KAA06715@natashya.eden.com> Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc.] But the report actually said their data confirmed excess enthalpies in the range of 6 to 68%. Therefore, given the previous dysinformation you apparently posted, perhaps you might please begin by explaining exactly why you claim they "are talking about other cells than the one they experimented with"? Thanks in advance. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 20:18:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA20025; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 20:15:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 20:15:22 -0800 Date: 04 Dec 96 23:10:36 EST From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: NASA efforts Message-ID: <961205041035_76216.2421_HHB51-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ctYOf.0.ju4.Onafo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2461 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley wrote: > > 2] Under 'that' theory, is it possible to achieve gravity > > modification using 'non'-superconductors ? >No. Hmm... There was something in one of those papers about slight traces of superconductivity in normal metals. Maybe that's a clue about something. It might point towards the possibility of the mysterious force appearing from room-temperature materials. How about those Hooper (or Wallace?) experiments? There are probably many important differences between a large current flowing without resistance through crystals at very low temperature, and a large current flowing through (metal) crystals with resistance at room temperature. But those are similar conditions too - large net currents in a small space with lots of magnetic field bucking going on. Might be good to try setting up one of those Hooper-style hairpin coil or basket-weave arrays, spinning it, and subjecting it to high frequency EM while it's conducting a lot of current on its own. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 4 23:01:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA25701; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:47:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:47:51 -0800 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 23:47:48 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612050547.XAA25552@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: NASA efforts Resent-Message-ID: <"FFlil1.0.QH6.K0dfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2462 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:49 PM 12/4/96 -0500, Mitchell wrote: >you might please begin by explaining exactly why you claim they >"are talking about other cells than the one they experimented with"? OK, the NASA guys first make this statement about the apparent excess heat in their own cell: >>Following the principle of simplest >>explanation that fits the data on hand, recombination becomes the >>explanation of choice. Here they are saying that recombination IS sufficient to account for the excess heat values they observed. This is identical to saying "we never saw heat output that exceeded the total electrical input". They then go on to state: >>But even perfect recombination can not account for >>all the apparent excess heat in those Mills cells usually operated in >>pulsed current mode..." The word "those" implies cells other than the one they constructed. Also, I don't believe that the NASA guys ever used pulsed current in their experiments (Horace, can you confirm that?). I'd guess that they're talking about claims that Mills himself has made for his own cells. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 00:38:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA04881; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 00:24:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 00:24:59 -0800 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 01:15:01 -0600 Message-Id: <9612050715.AA24344@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: O/U of Earth Resent-Message-ID: <"_3CN7.0.AC1.PRefo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2463 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Michael, Not too sure what this has to do with Vortex-L -- maybe it's the fluid dynamics. At 10:55 AM 12/4/96 -0800, you wrote: > >I think you got it backwards. Current thinking is that thermal gradients >drive fluid eddies which, when coupled to rotation and taking account of >finite electrical resistivity, drive an 'dynamo' that generates the elecric >currents that make the earth's magnetic field. I was talking about the rotation rate of the solid (supposedly) inner core of the Earth. It is rotating about 1 degree per year faster than the outer core, mantle and crust of the Earth. This has nothing to do with the convection currents in the fluid outer core and mantle (and aesthenosphere). >The theory also has to account for the quasi-periodic reversal of the geo >magnetic field. The problem is surprisingly difficult to compute >numerically. You have to use fine spatial resolution to get the eddies >sufficiently correct, and you have to compute for long times to see the >reversals. However, the reversals occur in very short times relative to >the inter-reversal steady intervals (this from geomagnetic evidence), so >you need fine time resolution, too. Yes, but I don't think anyone has accounted for the 6 degrees/day change in magnetic field direction that is turning up om other parts of the world (in the large lava fields). The field in Oregon shows an apparent continuous change at that rate for at least 10 days. I recall reading (somewhere) that the Deccan field in India shows a similar change. >Right now, only super computers have >enough combined memory and speed to do the computation well enough to >approximate the geomagnetic record. True, with a lot of fudging. Even though a few solutions to the convection 'domain' problem have been found, the solutions don't seem to match surface conditions very well. For example, one solution says there should be hundreds of tectonic plates, not the 20-30 or so we find. The solutions also don't really match the long term magnetic fields, nor explain the secular movement of the north magnetic pole. The only surface feature matched is the supposed reveral of the magnetic fields as found in the sea floor spreading zones -- if the sea floor data is smoothed enough and enough gotchas are ignored. I guess what I trying to say is that the guys developing the computer models, while they are doing good work, are assuming that the magnetic variations take place over much longer time periods than some of the evidence indicates. Dean From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 00:54:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA12696; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 00:52:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 00:52:44 -0800 Date: 05 Dec 96 03:49:12 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Galtech Message-ID: <961205084911_100060.173_JHB84-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"1DmEb.0.963.Qrefo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2464 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> They have filed for a patent on their motor (sorry, I don't have the #) and they estimate the motor is 200-300% efficient. Its a rotating type 'magic motor' about 24" wide and 8" high, spinning at 2-3k RPM. - Reed -- Zenergy Corporation << Re: Galtech - I tried a patent search for their application and found nothing this year under the name "Galtech" Is/are there any other key word/s to use ? Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 01:12:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA16820; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 01:08:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 01:08:57 -0800 From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: My Licence Plate Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 09:08:25 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32ad7095.17992104@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <961204135851_76570.2270_FHU44-2@CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <961204135851_76570.2270_FHU44-2@CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.335 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"6R5Wg3.0.W64.c4ffo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2465 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 04 Dec 96 08:58:52 EST, Eugene Mallove wrote: [snip] >I retired my old Volvo DL 1982, which I had driven almost one-way to the Moon in >mileage. Weep :( --- I thought it would make it to the time when I could >replace its engine with a CF machine. > >Gene Mallove > > I'm still driving a 1970 datsun (they don't rust much in Australia), and I'm still hoping :) 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 Thu Dec 5 01:13:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA16873; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 01:09:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 01:09:04 -0800 Message-Id: <9612050819.AA26677@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 01:34:04 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us (David Doty) Subject: Re: NASA efforts Resent-Message-ID: <"BXxUn.0.W74.k4ffo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2466 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Where can I purches a platinum anode? Since my potassium bicarbonate electrolyte has 3% Pd do I need a Pd anode? Where can I get a copy of the following artical? >Drs. Niedra [NYMA] and Myers, Fralick and Baldwin [NASA] have prepared >a technical memorandum (#107167) entitled "Replication of the Apparent >excess Heat effect in a Light Water - Potassium Carbonate - Nickel >electrolytic Cell". ******************************************* * David Doty * * Custodian at Ackerman Junior High * * http://198.237.196.249/ams/ * * Canby School District 86 * * http://198.236.18.249/ = * * 45=BA 15' N, 122=BA 41' W = * * home (503) 266-3969 = * * 340 S Locust Canby, OR. 97013 * * CEF "Good New Club" after school Bible Teacher * * Looking for Science Projects for students to do. * * http://www.wwln.com/fido/899499297.html * ******************************************** From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 01:13:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA17078; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 01:09:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 01:09:49 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 23:41:49 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: NASA efforts Resent-Message-ID: <"erXUS3.0.lA4.R5ffo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2467 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:47 PM 12/4/96, Scott Little wrote: [snip] >They then go on to state: > >>>But even perfect recombination can not account for >>>all the apparent excess heat in those Mills cells usually operated in >>>pulsed current mode..." > >The word "those" implies cells other than the one they constructed. Also, I >don't believe that the NASA guys ever used pulsed current in their >experiments (Horace, can you confirm that?). I'd guess that they're talking >about claims that Mills himself has made for his own cells. Sorry - I should have quoted the whole thing. The article states in conclusion: "Following the principle of simplest explanation that fits the data on hand, recombination becomes the explanation of choice. But even perfect recombination can not account for all the apparent excess heat in those Mills cells usually operated in pulsed current mode *and reported to produce a thermal output solidly exceeding the VI power input to the cell.* These cases at least leave the door open to more interresting possibilities. Considering the potential value of a new energy source, it seems worth while to restudy the Mills type cell in configurations allowing an accurate account for recombination and water loss ... Insufficient funds prevented us from proceeding with a more careful study ...". However, even this is not clear! Reported by whom? It does appear that the sentence actually means reported by others, as only a single pulsed current test (Test 5) was run in this study. It *is* stated in the article that the recombination would have to reach 55% in the 10 amp run (Test 2, COP 1.34) and all the way to unity for the 5 A study (Test 1, COP 1.68) to account for the excess heat. Total recombination is pretty diificult to believe. However, they do say Jones, et al have shown that this is possible in cells with Ni and Pt electrodes. The data clearly justifies more study. It is not like the COP range of 1.06 to 1.68 is a random sample from identical tests. These are from runs with different input currents, the lowest current run (5 A) giving the highest COP (1.68), the highest current (40 A) the lowest COP (1.06), as is typical for CF. The pulsed current test produced a COP of only 1.31, so the plain 5 A test is the most impressive. Despite the lack of definitive results (my definition being: no Nobel prize, no definitive results) the US Government, DOE and NASA, should be demanding further proposals and significantly funding the research. This is too significant a finding to sweep under the rug. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 02:05:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA29147; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 02:03:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 02:03:48 -0800 Date: 05 Dec 96 05:02:14 EST From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Underwater carbon arcs Message-ID: <961205100213_76216.2421_HHB32-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"alNaD.0.E77.2uffo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2468 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts, Vortex - I tried arcing some carbon rods underwater with an old 10A Sears battery charger tonight (Wednesday night). The charger would barely work and didn't seem to want to put out much power, but I did get a bright sizzling spark running for a few minutes, with the stream of presumably water-gas bubbles being produced. I used short pieces of 3/8" graphite stirring rod with #10 multistrand wire wrapped directly onto them. No steel parts like the battery clips were dipped in the plastic water bucket. I didn't see any distinctly brown products, but there was a little bit of black debris. The electrodes were pitted with many small craters where the sparks were arcing, and there was a small accumulation of scum floating on the surface. A check with a magnet showed that there were distinct signs of magnetic materials among the scum and dark colored bits. Some of these small grains would gather up into little trains of particles and chase the magnet around quite vigorously as I waved it near, but never touching, the surface of the water. What does it mean? It means your results tell you nothing if you don't work very clean, duplicate things well, and measure everything carefully before and after. Our water here has a good bit of iron disolved in it, and it would not be surprising if some of it gets caught up on little globs of carbon and whatever in the intense heat and magnetism of those sparks. I bet it wouldn't take much material to form a coating on small particles which would make the entire particle behave very magnetically. Someone's going to have to do this right and get a large sample out of a measured volume of tested water, then chemically show it to be solid iron in quantities far in excess of that which could be explained by contamination of either the rods or the water or both. (Hmm, where have I heard this before...) BTW, you know that irritating sour smell power tools and other brushed electric motors make? Burnt graphite. Not just ozone, I know that smell. This is powerful and very sour. That, along with the probablity of ozone, CO, and other toxic as well as flammable gasses require that this be done in a well ventilated area. Not a problem here with the tradewinds blasting like they have been these last few days. Would someone with some actual competence and the proper equipment please try this? Thanks. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 02:06:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA29248; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 02:04:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 02:04:27 -0800 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:00:42 +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: Galtech Resent-Message-ID: <"wBFsN3.0.w87.guffo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2469 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Norman writes : >Re: Galtech - I tried a patent search for their application and found >nothing this year under the name "Galtech" > >Is/are there any other key word/s to use ? > >Norman The name is GALTEK not GALTECH JeanDeLagarde From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 07:53:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA00858; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:48:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:48:19 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9612050944.ZM13293@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:44:28 -0600 In-Reply-To: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> "GALTECH NOT GALTEK!" (Dec 5, 9:23am) References: <961205150435_76570.2270_FHU40-1@CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: GALTECH NOT GALTEK! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"z-2ak1.0.CD.1xkfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2473 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: OK. I've searched for Galtek, Galtech, and other variations and I can not locate their stock. Where are they listed, and what is their listing abreviation. Thanks! -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSG From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 08:07:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA05985; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 08:05:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 08:05:43 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9612050910.ZM13107@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:10:45 -0600 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Galtek Stock Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"g-7QR3.0.KT1.LBlfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2474 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Where is Galtek listed? WWW stock search is not turning up anything. Thanks! -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSG From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 08:42:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA13277; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 08:37:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 08:37:58 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:34:32 -0500 Message-ID: <961205113432_1353883205@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: Galtek Stock Resent-Message-ID: <"MNA18.0.JF3.Zflfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2475 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Galtek symbol GTSM on the OTC exchange. Frank Z --------------------- Forwarded message: From: johnste@ecg.csg.mot.com (John Steck) Resent-from: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-to: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Date: 96-12-05 11:08:06 EST Where is Galtek listed? WWW stock search is not turning up anything. Thanks! -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSG From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 08:59:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA17007; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 08:53:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 08:53:33 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 08:52:38 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: NASA efforts Resent-Message-ID: <"s3Yz6.0.b94.Culfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2476 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I re-read the NASA report last night. As others on Vortex have already commented, the authors make a point that they did NOT measure electrolysis gas and therefore can not rule out recombination as a possible explanation of the apparent excess heat seen in the 'raw data'. The authors fit a smooth curve through their RAW excess power (Px) points. This curve can be reworked slightly and then approximated as Px = 4.6 V, where V is the cell voltage. Since V did not vary strongly with current, the raw excess power is almost a constant value, independent of both current and voltage. This behavior has been reported previously in Ni-H2O cells. I offer a hypothesis. The number 4.6 in my equation appears as an electric current, but microscopically it can be a reaction rate. (Electrochemists and some plasma physicists quote reaction rates in Amps... 4.6 A = 2.9*10^19 electron transfers per second.) A constant recombination rate is consistent with a rate-limited catalytic surface, in this case one that saturates at about 3*10^19 /s. >From brief discussions I have read in CF papers about the operation of recombiners in closed cells, the presence of a small fortuitous recombination in a cell does not seem unreasonable. When I was running a Patterson cell, I always measured the off gas; recombination was small, but present, on the order of 1 or 2 mA/cm^2. The NASA cell was big and its geometry different, so 4.6 A of recombination might be realistic. 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 Dec 5 09:17:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA21492; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:15:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:15:18 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:15:27 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com (Michael J. Schaffer) Subject: Re: O/U of Earth Resent-Message-ID: <"wRjjh3.0.iF5.aCmfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2477 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dean Miller wrote: > >I was talking about the rotation rate of the solid (supposedly) inner core >of the Earth. It is rotating about 1 degree per year faster than the outer >core, mantle and crust of the Earth. This has nothing to do with the >convection currents in the fluid outer core and mantle (and aesthenosphere). I wish I had paid more attention when this result was published, because there was a conventional explanation of why this counterintuitive situation should indeed exist. >Yes, but I don't think anyone has accounted for the 6 degrees/day change in >magnetic field direction that is turning up om other parts of the world >(in the large lava fields). The field in Oregon shows an apparent >continuous change at that rate for at least 10 days. What happens after 10 days? Ionospheric storms generate electric currents large enough to perturb the geomagnetic field, but I don't know the numbers. 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 Dec 5 09:33:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA25079; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:30:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:30:20 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 08:31:20 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: NASA efforts Resent-Message-ID: <"KQDLT1.0.f76.fQmfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2478 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 1:34 AM 12/5/96, David Doty wrote: >Where can I purches a platinum anode? I called quite a few suppliers when I was looking. The very best I found (courtesy of Scott Little) was Omega Engineering, Stamford CT, 1-800-826-6342. I ordered SPPL-015 wire at $2.10 per inch. (Note - they may have a minimum order amount - ask!) The 015 means .015 inch diameter wire. They also sell .003, .005, and .010 wire, order numbers being SPPL-003, etc. Prices vary based on market. > >Since my potassium bicarbonate electrolyte has 3% Pd do I need a Pd anode? > The Pd will plate out on your cathode - this shouldn't affect your anode (but it isn't "clean" unless your are investigating the effects of plating over the cathode surface while in operation - something I personally think is interresting and has many creative and somewhat illegal variations.) However, Pt is good for the anode because it won't dissolve into the electrolyte and plate out on your cathode like other metals. >Where can I get a copy of the following artical? > >>Drs. Niedra [NYMA] and Myers, Fralick and Baldwin [NASA] have prepared >>a technical memorandum (#107167) entitled "Replication of the Apparent >>excess Heat effect in a Light Water - Potassium Carbonate - Nickel >>electrolytic Cell". I'll send you a copy at the home address below: >* 340 S Locust Canby, OR. 97013 * Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 09:39:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA25534; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:32:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:32:19 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961205124246.0074ae94@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 12:43:19 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: NASA efforts (gravity) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"_pgGD2.0.hE6.WSmfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2479 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:10 PM 12/4/96 EST, Rick Monteverde wrote: >Hmm... There was something in one of those papers about slight traces of >superconductivity in normal metals. Maybe that's a clue about something. > >It might point towards the possibility of the mysterious force appearing from >room-temperature materials. How about those Hooper (or Wallace?) experiments? >There are probably many important differences between a large current flowing >without resistance through crystals at very low temperature, and a large >current flowing through (metal) crystals with resistance at room temperature. >But those are similar conditions too - large net currents in a small space with >lots of magnetic field bucking going on. Might be good to try setting up one of >those Hooper-style hairpin coil or basket-weave arrays, spinning it, and >subjecting it to high frequency EM while it's conducting a lot of current on >its own. > Yes, and the 'field' was reported by Edwards and Hooper to be at right angles to the current flow. But was this 'field' a result of a magnetic bucking coil, or was it the result of flowing conduction electrons? Hooper claimed that the bucking coil was necessary *only* so that the normal electromagnetic field could be cancelled out. This allowed his low level measurement techniques to proceed without being swamped by interference from the coil's normal EM. The superconductor gravity modification devices also have a type of bucking field, so it might be easy to assume that the current theories of 'their' operation might depend on that process. It would seem fairly straight forward to devise an experiment to determine this; however, I am negligent in recalling the actual theories of the superconductor/gravity operation, since I have not read all the literature, much of it is over my head but I try to struggle through it anyway,..and I came to Vortex too late to catch the whole previous thread (September?). I plan on downloading Vortex Archives soon, so that I can bring myself up to speed. BTW, I must thank Chris Tinsley for those references yesterday. Thanks Chris. I have also recently downloaded Robert Stirniman's "gravity"list of references from the Internet and printed it. 142 pages. Haven't read it all yet. It might be a very good idea to spin the coil ...but if Hooper's theory is correct, the coil configuration would probably have to be wound so that the relative velocity of the conduction electrons increases directly and 'in-line' with the radial velocity...If however, the effect was reported to be stronger with alternating current rather than direct current, then perhaps we should also be looking at a 'field' that varies with conduction electron *acceleration* rather than just velocity. In that case, to increase the effect even more, the coil configuration would probably have to be wound so that the conduction electrons experienced an additional 'in-line' centrifugal acceleration. (a caduceus spiral?) I am musing here, but I think that Hooper did report that AC worked better, but he did not attempt to spin his device. I think that these are fundamental issues that I would like to determine before studying advanced superconductor/gravitational theories.... (K.I.S.S.) So far as I know, Hooper was the only researcher who used standard copper wire at room temperatures. I believe he did his first experiments in 1968. Perhaps they need to be replicated. Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 09:54:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA29169; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:46:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:46:11 -0800 Date: 05 Dec 96 12:43:28 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo" Subject: NASA Gravity Message-ID: <961205174328_76016.2701_JHC90-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"cZTOk2.0.a77.Yfmfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2482 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Schnurer asked earlier if we could get Dr.s Podkletnov and Li on the list. I forwarded the request to someone who has contact with Dr. Li. The response was that Dr. Li is extremely busy at the moment (good news!!) and isn't even able to read her email. She might be able to join us at a later date. I do not know about Dr. Podkletnov. Terry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 10:41:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA06303; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:33:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:33:25 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:31:52 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Galtech Resent-Message-ID: <"r00Lv3.0.KY1.oLnfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2483 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >Re: Galtech - I tried a patent search for their application and found >nothing this year under the name "Galtech" > >Is/are there any other key word/s to use ? > >Norman I tried seven free online stock quote services and the only one recognizing or reporting good OTC data (at least for GTSM) was: http://quote.yahoo.com/ The stock symbol is GTSM. It was up for a few days, but as of 12:48 EST was back down into the dumps at 7/8, according to Yahoo's service. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 11:01:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA09889; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:54:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:54:30 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:56:05 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: NASA efforts Resent-Message-ID: <"0ADYc.0.MQ2.afnfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2484 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:43 PM 12/5/96, Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip] >That is my reading of the report. Recombination cannot be ruled out >conclusively, and it is a know problem with these bulk Ni systems. It is a >darn shame they didn't use a gas flowmeter. They might also have recombined >the effluent gas externally and measured the resulting water, but I do not >think that would be accurate enough, because there are usually large losses. I >guess you get unrecombined gas and evaporation. > [snip] >- Jed This is why I think using Pt electrodes and an RF HV discharge in a noble gas mixed with the evolved gas is such a good idea for recombination. Such a degasser/recombiner could also be put into a calorimetry loop: -->--P1---T1--JH--T2--CF--T3--RC--T4-->-- | | | | ----------<------PR---T5----CC------<---- P1 - Pump Ti - Temperature measuring point in electrolyte flow JH - Joule Heater CF - Cold Fusion Cell RC - degasser/recombiner CC - cooling coil PR - pressure relief containment (e.g. a ballon, bellows, etc.) The loop could be purged of air using the electrolyte, and the degasser then loaded with a head of He. The calibration phase would measure the basline heat output of the RC when no electrolysis is occuring. The system could be sealed, thus eliminating water loss and recombination as issues. The He is to reduce the partial pressure of the H to a non-explosive point. Maybe such a recombiner and pressure relief loop would not have been such a bad thing to have had on the Three Mile Island plant! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 11:22:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA15003; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:18:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:18:16 -0800 Message-ID: <32A71F50.5BD8@interlaced.net> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 14:15:28 -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: NASA efforts References: <961205145943_76570.2270_FHU46-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"8MVwJ.0.9g3.q_nfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2485 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Eugene Mallove wrote: > (snip) > The government can sweep -- and has swept -- anything of great importance under > the rug. Just look at the piece of trash that the DOE panel on cold fusion came > up with in 1989! Don't expect ANYTHING from Uncle Sam but more trouble, more > $200,000/year hot fusion salaries -- e.g. Ronald Parker at MIT (as documented in > the Chronicle of Higher Education). Gene, there is much truth in what you say about NASA and DOE. I know more about NASA than DOE, but, the following probably holds for DOE too. As I mentioned to Scott some time ago, NASA is full of bright young technical people and some imaginative old "war horses" who try to do their best while living under a smothering blanket of bureaucracy, created in a large part by the congress we elect to represent us! It's you voters (as a class, Gene, not you specifically!) who bitch at your representative if the SCREWBALL TOOL AND DIE SHOP - just outside of town, - doesn't get their share of the NASA contract money pie. NASA has a high FINANCIAL profile and every contractor in the country goes gunning for their work. Over the years, this pressure has led to most NASA work being done on outside contract. This requires that many of those brilliant young NASA minds spend most of their time wading through a pile of bureaucratic crap up to their ass - trying to keep the money flowing out to all you voters thru your favorite local contractors. I'm just trying to put in a word for the troops near the action at NASA. Many great little projects get started at the bottom using what, in private industry, would be petty cash. The trouble is, if and when the "little project" starts to need more funding, it starts to run up the ladder until it runs into the first layer of bureaucratic road blocks. To get through, it has to fit the tight mold clamped on from above. We can't expect a lot of actions from NASA that it has been politically disenfranchised from doing! I get the impression that the CF tests at NASA (I have no specific knowledge) were one of these little "bootleg" jobs and that the troops are covering their collective ass with a gobble-de-gook shield against the B U R E A U C R A C Y. This NASA job was done by peoble who ARE FASCINATED by the idea of CF. Forget the system! These people are our friends! Don't come down on them too hard for being afraid for their careers! So they aint entrepreneurs - so what - that's what you guys are! Entrepreneurs are needed for this kind of stuff - not government agencies. But, these agencies have a lot of "good guys" in them - note what they do when something good leaks from a crack - but don't expect many of them to buck the system very far! Just an old disgruntled "troop" from NASA, Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 11:44:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA18650; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:39:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:39:02 -0800 From: RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com (Chuck Davis) Date: 05 Dec 96 11:34:10 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Message-ID: Subject: Water Feul Cell a Fraud.... 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: <"i2UOo1.0.7Z4.JJofo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2486 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: hwicks@hertsh.win-uk.net (Harold Wicks) Tue, 03 Dec 1996 12:16:02 GMT News item : Stanley Meyer Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen Sunday Times Innovation 1 Dec. 96 (http://www.sunday-times.co.uk) End of road for car that ran on Water American court finds inventor of water-powered car is guilty of fraud. Report by Tony Edwards It appears to be the end of the road for maverick inventor Stanley Meyer an= d his water-powered car after a recent American court verdict. The car was a wonderful, if unlikely, dream while it lasted, offering a pollution-free future powered by a limitless source of energy. But the dream was shattered when Meyer was found guilty of fraud after his Water Fuel Cell was tested before an Ohio judge. It is rare for an inventor to be prosecuted for an invention that does not work, but Meyer's problem was that he had been selling "dealerships", offering investors the "right to do business'' in Water Fuel Cell tech- nology in anticipation of the day when water would power anything From domestic boilers to cars and aircraft. But recently two suspicious investors could not wait for that day to dawn and sued Meyer to get their money back. Meyer defended, maintaining his long-held claim that the Water Fuel Cell wa= s a truly revolutionary invention that could split water into its two constituent gases of hydrogen and oxygen far more efficiently than conventional electrolysis. The secret, he said, was to "resonate" electricity at a very high voltage through water and so "fracture" the hydrogen/oxygen molecular bond. This, he claimed, opened the way for a car which would "run on wat- er", powered simply by a car battery. The car would even run for ever since= the energy needed to continue the "fracturing" was so low that the bat- tery could be recharged: from the engine's dynamo. Meyer claimed to have adapted a 1.6-litre Volkswagen Dune Buggy to run on water. He replaced the sparkplugs with "injectors" which, he said, sprayed water as a fine mist in a "resonant cavity" where it was bombarded by a succession of high-voltage electrical pulses. He claimed this instantly converted the water into a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen that could be combusted in the cylinders, driving the pistons just as in an ordinary petrol engine. One of the experts due toexamine the car was Michael Laughton, professor of electrical engineering at Queen Mary and Westfield University, London, but he was not allowed to see it. "Although Meyer had known about our visit weeks in advance, when we arrived he made some lame excuse about why the car wasn't working, so it was impossible to evaluate it," said Laughton. However, the one thing Meyer had built that appeared to work was his Water Fuel Cell, and it was this device that the Ohio judge called as evidence in= the recent lawsuit. The cell had been the centrepiece of Meyer's sales pitches. It was a transparent cylinder of water inside which was a core of stainless steel electrodes. When plugged into an electrical supply,the cell bubbled away merrily, producing apparently copious amounts of gas that Meyer ignited through a welding torch.To the layman it was an impressive performance and hundreds of small investors signed up, but it did not impress three expert witnesses in court. They decided that there was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and= that it was simply using conventional electrolysis. Meyer was found guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered to repay the investors their $25,000 (=A315,000). ( Any views ? ) -- -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------= \-- RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre mind= s. -Albert Einstein- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 07:23:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA00911; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:19:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:19:07 -0800 Date: 05 Dec 96 10:04:35 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: GALTECH NOT GALTEK! Message-ID: <961205150435_76570.2270_FHU40-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"riqHe1.0.8E.gVkfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2470 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The name is GALTECH --- NOT GALTEK!!! I have a color brochure from the company, which makes this very clear. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 07:30:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA01926; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:22:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:22:21 -0800 Message-Id: <199612051502.AA19616@gateway1.srs.gov> Alternate-Recipient: prohibited Disclose-Recipients: prohibited Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 09:42:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Kirk L Shanahan Subject: Re: NASA efforts To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Posting-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 09:43:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal A1-Type: MAIL Hop-Count: 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"vPk003.0.uT.hYkfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2471 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little ( little@eden.com ) wrote: >At 09:49 PM 12/4/96 -0500, Mitchell wrote: > >>you might please begin by explaining exactly why you claim they >>"are talking about other cells than the one they experimented with"? > >OK, the NASA guys first make this statement about the apparent excess heat >in their own cell: > >>>Following the principle of simplest >>>explanation that fits the data on hand, recombination becomes the >>>explanation of choice. > >Here they are saying that recombination IS sufficient to account for the >excess heat values they observed. This is identical to saying "we never saw >heat output that exceeded the total electrical input". > >They then go on to state: > >>>But even perfect recombination can not account for >>>all the apparent excess heat in those Mills cells usually operated in >>>pulsed current mode..." > >The word "those" implies cells other than the one they constructed. Also, I >don't believe that the NASA guys ever used pulsed current in their >experiments (Horace, can you confirm that?). I'd guess that they're talking >about claims that Mills himself has made for his own cells. They did use pulsed current in one run. 1Hz, 10% duty cycle, their figure shows a peak current level of 30A (i.e. 30A for 6sec, then 0A for 54 sec). They did see excess heat over input power. Unfortunately it wasn't large enough to be unambiguous. In the paragraph preceeding the one Horace quoted they state: "Our inadequate water accounting data are at least marginally consistant with the recombination explanation of the source of the excess heat...". They make a few more statements, then comes Horace's quote. My interpretation is that they see power gains of 1.06 to 1.68, but cannot exclude recombination as the cause. They later remark they could do no more due to lack of funding. My interpretation is that they believe the "other" work is real, but couldn't support it with their's, and would like more funding. I would guess they passed this report around looking for a funding source. Also note that the use of percetages here may be misleading in that the 68% excess, or power gain of 1.68, was on the smallest input power. The data they provide in Table I are: W(in) W(excess) App. Power Gain ---- --------- --------------- 10.6 7.20 1.68 25.5 8.57 1.34 59.5 11.4 1.19 134.5 8.41 1.06 8.58 2.66 1.31 <--- pulsed experiment Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}} From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 07:41:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA03788; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:29:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:29:25 -0800 Date: 05 Dec 96 09:59:43 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: NASA efforts Message-ID: <961205145943_76570.2270_FHU46-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"rL2WU1.0.-w.Jfkfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2472 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horrace wrote: "the US Government, DOE and NASA, should be demanding further proposals and significantly funding the research. This is too significant a finding to sweep under the rug." The government can sweep -- and has swept -- anything of great importance under the rug. Just look at the piece of trash that the DOE panel on cold fusion came up with in 1989! Don't expect ANYTHING from Uncle Sam but more trouble, more $200,000/year hot fusion salaries -- e.g. Ronald Parker at MIT (as documented in the Chronicle of Higher Education). The DOE is a corrupt and incompetent organization that deserves to be abolished permanently. It has sucked our money into a vast and continuing deception -- the hot fusion program. Now it wants more billions for the lunacy of the National Ignition Facility to do thermonuclear weapons simiulations -- barely any pretence about application to civilian power. Its own scientists at LANL have confirmed tritium production from CF systems -- and still it does nothing. What more evidence of criminality and corruption do you want? Note well: there *are* some good hot fusion folks, and you know who you are -- those who have kept a reasonably open mind about cold fusion. You may become the heros in an otherwise sordid tale of hot vs. cold fusion. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 09:50:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA28825; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:44:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:44:55 -0800 Date: 05 Dec 96 12:42:47 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Subject: Galtek Stock Message-ID: <961205174246_72240.1256_EHB118-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"-bZ8c2.0.B27.Jemfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2480 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; "John Steck" >INTERNET:johnste@ecg.csg.mot.com Galtech Semiconductor Materials Corp. 45 West University Drive, Suite C Mesa, AZ 85201 Tel: 602-835-5388 Traded on the OTC exchange, symbol: GTSM - Jed P.S. I do not think much of their over-unity claims. I saw a video presentation by one of their engineers. It sounded like nonsense to me. Not a single hard number was presented. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 09:51:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA28912; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:45:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:45:07 -0800 Date: 05 Dec 96 12:43:00 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Subject: NASA efforts Message-ID: <961205174259_72240.1256_EHB118-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"UeFfx2.0.b37.Vemfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2481 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:mica@world.std.com I agree with comments here by Heffner, Schaffer, Shanahan et al. As Kirk put it: My interpretation is that they believe the "other" work is real, but couldn't support it with their's, and would like more funding. I would guess they passed this report around looking for a funding source. That is my reading of the report. Recombination cannot be ruled out conclusively, and it is a know problem with these bulk Ni systems. It is a darn shame they didn't use a gas flowmeter. They might also have recombined the effluent gas externally and measured the resulting water, but I do not think that would be accurate enough, because there are usually large losses. I guess you get unrecombined gas and evaporation. Mitch Swartz talked to these people, so he may know something the rest of us do not. Has there been additional work? Are we misinterpreting the paper? Tell us, Mitch. I'd love to hear good news about this paper. I was disappointed by it. You can look me up in the Vortex archives months ago, where I registered my disappointment. I think I quoted that part about recombination being the "explanation of choice." - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 12:52:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA25746; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 12:17:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 12:17:41 -0800 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:14:08 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo" Subject: Re: NASA Gravity In-Reply-To: <961205174328_76016.2701_JHC90-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"CbuKp3.0.5I6.Ytofo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2487 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo, To set the record straight: 1] I did not and have not asked Li and EE. Pk to joint vortex. 2] I did comment on someone else's contribution to that effect. 3] I am a participant in the Gravity Society. GS is/was formde to try to get to and promote real fact. 4] I am not sure EE Pk even uses E mail. 5] I do know if is VERY hard to get to Li via E mail. 6] Several groups, some well funded, some not funded, and some in between are trying to replicate EE Pk's work. 7] I can tell you from direct, hands on personal experience that, at this time, the duplication or replication of EE Pk's work is, at the very best a non trivial exercise. Gravity Society USA On 5 Dec 1996, Terry Blanton wrote: > John Schnurer asked earlier if we could get Dr.s Podkletnov and Li on the list. > I forwarded the request to someone who has contact with Dr. Li. The response > was that Dr. Li is extremely busy at the moment (good news!!) and isn't even > able to read her email. She might be able to join us at a later date. > > I do not know about Dr. Podkletnov. > > Terry > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 13:46:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA07843; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 13:40:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 13:40:57 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961205165503.006a3a34@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 16:55:29 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Gravity Society Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"pijXg1.0.Mw1.c5qfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2488 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 07:14 PM 12/4/96 -0500, JHS wrote: > > > > a] will post open literature theory papers. Take a few hours, >stand by. Standing by. >> >> 1] What is the 'current' theory explaining gravity modification ? >> > Opinion: I do not agree with all aspects of current theory. >will post those closest that are in open literature. > Please keep it simple. (for me) > > >2] Under 'that' theory, is it possible to achieve gravity modification >> using 'non'-superconductors ? > > A: Not specifying any given theory, yes possible. Will be >trying to indtroduce kits. > > Gravity Society, USA.../ JHS > > Now THAT sounds exciting. Looking forward to information. Thanks... Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 14:44:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA20679; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:40:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:40:39 -0800 Date: 05 Dec 96 17:37:39 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Water Feul Cell a Fraud.... Message-ID: <961205223738_100433.1541_BHG74-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"X1qap3.0.-25.bzqfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2489 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I don't know if this will arrive, my last bounced. No big deal, maybe it means that the system is discriminating enough to bounce less vital posts to Vortex. Just to mention that the Sunday Times article is based on information supplied by a member of this group, who may choose to comment further. You know, they think people like us are batty, but I was watching the top BBC science series Horizon, which was on the ultimate fizzix - time travel. They had some Oxford physicist, and it really was incredible. You maybe know the "Young's Slit" experiment, where it can be shown that even single photons cause diffraction patterns? He said that this was conclusive proof of billions of alternate universes, each different, each produced by quantum uncertainty, because the interference pattern was caused by photons from alternate universes! The man is apparently incapable of distinguishing between reality and our artificial models of reality. And the guy is being paid good money to warp young minds with this garbage. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 15:06:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA23208; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:55:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:55:17 -0800 From: "John Kent" To: Subject: Re: Water Feul Cell a Fraud.... Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 21:48:08 -0000 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: 8bit Message-Id: <22545923901462@andover.co.uk> Resent-Message-ID: <"PXOdt1.0.Ug5.IBrfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2490 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ---------- From: Chuck Davis To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Water Feul Cell a Fraud.... Date: Thursday, December 05, 1996 7:34 PM hwicks@hertsh.win-uk.net (Harold Wicks) Tue, 03 Dec 1996 12:16:02 GMT News item : Stanley Meyer Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen Sunday Times Innovation 1 Dec. 96 (http://www.sunday-times.co.uk) End of road for car that ran on Water American court finds inventor of water-powered car is guilty of fraud. Report by Tony Edwards It appears to be the end of the road for maverick inventor Stanley Meyer and his water-powered car after a recent American court verdict. The car was a wonderful, if unlikely, dream while it lasted, offering a pollution-free future powered by a limitless source of energy. But the dream was shattered when Meyer was found guilty of fraud after his Water Fuel Cell was tested before an Ohio judge. It is rare for an inventor to be prosecuted for an invention that does not work, but Meyer's problem was that he had been selling "dealerships", offering investors the "right to do business'' in Water Fuel Cell tech- nology in anticipation of the day when water would power anything From domestic boilers to cars and aircraft. But recently two suspicious investors could not wait for that day to dawn and sued Meyer to get their money back. Meyer defended, maintaining his long-held claim that the Water Fuel Cell was a truly revolutionary invention that could split water into its two constituent gases of hydrogen and oxygen far more efficiently than conventional electrolysis. The secret, he said, was to "resonate" electricity at a very high voltage through water and so "fracture" the hydrogen/oxygen molecular bond. This, he claimed, opened the way for a car which would "run on wat- er", powered simply by a car battery. The car would even run for ever since the energy needed to continue the "fracturing" was so low that the bat- tery could be recharged: from the engine's dynamo. Meyer claimed to have adapted a 1.6-litre Volkswagen Dune Buggy to run on water. He replaced the sparkplugs with "injectors" which, he said, sprayed water as a fine mist in a "resonant cavity" where it was bombarded by a succession of high-voltage electrical pulses. He claimed this instantly converted the water into a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen that could be combusted in the cylinders, driving the pistons just as in an ordinary petrol engine. One of the experts due toexamine the car was Michael Laughton, professor of electrical engineering at Queen Mary and Westfield University, London, but he was not allowed to see it. "Although Meyer had known about our visit weeks in advance, when we arrived he made some lame excuse about why the car wasn't working, so it was impossible to evaluate it," said Laughton. However, the one thing Meyer had built that appeared to work was his Water Fuel Cell, and it was this device that the Ohio judge called as evidence in the recent lawsuit. The cell had been the centrepiece of Meyer's sales pitches. It was a transparent cylinder of water inside which was a core of stainless steel electrodes. When plugged into an electrical supply,the cell bubbled away merrily, producing apparently copious amounts of gas that Meyer ignited through a welding torch.To the layman it was an impressive performance and hundreds of small investors signed up, but it did not impress three expert witnesses in court. They decided that there was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis. Meyer was found guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered to repay the investors their $25,000 (£15,000). ( Any views ? ) -- -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--Chuck Davis -------\-----/---\---/-\---/---\-----/-----\-------/-------\-- RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com \ / \_/ `-' \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. -Albert Einstein- ---------- Hi Chuck, It was obvious from patents that the device could not work as described. However look at that phrase "idealised capacitor again". Meyers never was and therefore the capacitor could never charge up. I know because I am about to assemble cell number 5. I still do not know if any effect is there but I cannot drop it until I have produced a workable setup. Meyers never had that ever. Comments please...... jk From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 15:19:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA27253; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:16:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:16:06 -0800 From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: NASA efforts Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 23:14:35 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32b7adb4.33641859@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: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-0M9m2.0.bf6.pUrfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2491 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 4 Dec 1996 23:41:49 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >to 1.68 is a random sample from identical tests. These are from runs with >different input currents, the lowest current run (5 A) giving the highest >COP (1.68), the highest current (40 A) the lowest COP (1.06), as is typical >for CF. The pulsed current test produced a COP of only 1.31, so the plain >5 A test is the most impressive. This gives the impression that there is an upper limit to the rate at which the cathode will absorb hydrogen, and anything created above that limit simply consumes extra current and produces more bubbles. > >Despite the lack of definitive results (my definition being: no Nobel >prize, no definitive results) the US Government, DOE and NASA, should be >demanding further proposals and significantly funding the research. This >is too significant a finding to sweep under the rug. > A-greed:> 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 Thu Dec 5 15:21:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA27913; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:17:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:17:58 -0800 Message-ID: <32A757E8.546C@interlaced.net> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 18:16:56 -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: Water Feul Cell a Fraud.... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <"_Vsfb.0.sp6.ZWrfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2492 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chuck Davis wrote: > (snip) > Meyer was found guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered to repay > the investors their $25,000 (£15,000). > > ( Any views ? ) > Yes! As we run into the anomalous wind, we should wear our face shields to protect from flying bullsh__! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 15:33:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA29828; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:28:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:28:11 -0800 Date: 05 Dec 96 17:53:16 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: NASA Gravity Message-ID: <961205225315_76016.2701_JHC142-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"_Im0m.0.yH7.8grfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2493 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John Schnurer said: >>1] I did not and have not asked Li and EE. Pk to joint vortex.<< Oh, sorry John, I thought it was you. That's what I get for trusting my feeble memory instead of the archives. To whomever mentioned it, I thought it to be a great idea! Wish Dr. Li had the time (I have a million questions about her papers); but, I wouldn't want to interrupt her cooking. Terry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 16:15:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA05063; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:04:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:04:15 -0800 Date: 05 Dec 96 17:19:01 EST From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: RE: Underwater carbon arcs Message-ID: <961205221900_76216.2421_HHB79-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"YcXtc2.0.pE1.zBsfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2494 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mark Hugo wrote: > Rick: Doesn't your local grocery store have distilled > water? That would help eliminate the Fe in water as a > problem. Where did you get the carbon or graphite rods? > Are they clean, or low level in Fe? MDH Sure they do. Next time, I'll use a very clean container and the distilled water. Our water here is mineralized, and even some of the locally distilled water makes me suspicious. I've tried several times to get some aluminum anodized from the battery charger for an ongoing art project. Even working with very clean hardware and acid washed aluminum, I can't seem to get more than a slight layer of brown scum (gee, where's the brown scum when you *want* it?) on the aluminum. Something's poisoning and dirtying the anodizing reaction, which needs a very clean environment. Electrolyte mix and temperature were both on spec. On the arc rig, I used graphite rod from a jewelry findings supplier. These are used to stir and tend crucible melts. I don't know what their impurity levels are, they're very clean-looking, but they're just industrial rods. Scrapings I tested from the un-pitted areas of the rod had no visible magnetic particles in them. Scrapings from the spark-damaged areas did. Not many, but they were very distinct when they were there, and they were only from the pitted areas. Other particles tested were already in the water from the sparks and reactions. This was just a quick and dirty attempt to see if the charger would even support a spark off those rods underwater. I was very suprised that it even worked at all. But now that I know it does, I'll try it again at some point with all clean stuff. Water and a clean glass container are no problem. But if anyone has a suggestion about how to get pure carbon rods or other suggestions, please post. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 16:22:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA05449; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:06:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:06:43 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0b36.32.19961205185743.006d4fb0@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0b36 (32) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 18:57:47 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: NASA efforts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"8KVjj.0.0L1.GEsfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2495 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 08:31 AM 12/5/96 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: >At 1:34 AM 12/5/96, David Doty wrote: >> >>Since my potassium bicarbonate electrolyte has 3% Pd do I need a Pd anode? >> > >The Pd will plate out on your cathode - this shouldn't affect your anode >(but it isn't "clean" unless your are investigating the effects of plating >over the cathode surface while in operation - something I personally think >is interresting and has many creative and somewhat illegal variations.) >However, Pt is good for the anode because it won't dissolve into the >electrolyte and plate out on your cathode like other metals. > Platinum is good for the anode. However, platinum in the anode can, under some conditions, enter the electrolyte, and will then deposit on the cathode. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 16:25:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA05760; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:07:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:07:54 -0800 Date: 05 Dec 96 17:12:45 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Off-topic posting Message-ID: <961205221244_72240.1256_EHB103-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"aTuQH1.0.pP1.OFsfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2496 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex This is way off topic and off-other-things too. The AP reports: Hundreds of Thais had vasectomies today to honor their king's 50th anniversary on the throne. King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who is the world's longest-reigning monarch, is revered by the Thais as a symbol of stability . . . His 69th birthday is the last major event of a Golden Jubilee year that has seen a frenzy of reverence by his subjects. The Population and Community Development Association today bestowed mass sterility in a daylong, carnival-like event. O-kaay, back to your regularly scheduled programming. - Jed (who is really in favor of population control . . . whatever it takes) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 16:27:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA05869; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:08:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:08:24 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0b36.32.19961205185737.006c1f98@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0b36 (32) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 18:57:41 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: NASA efforts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"hRinQ1.0.YR1.rFsfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2497 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 1:34 AM 12/5/96, David Doty wrote: >>Since my potassium bicarbonate electrolyte has 3% Pd do I need a Pd anode? Why does your K bicarbonate have palladium in it? Mitchell Swartz. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 16:50:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA11232; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:36:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:36:36 -0800 Message-ID: <32A76A67.5473@interlaced.net> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 19:35:51 -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: Underwater carbon arcs References: <961205221900_76216.2421_HHB79-2@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"KVjq7.0.Il2.Igsfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2498 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick Monteverde wrote: > (SNIP) But if > anyone has a suggestion about how to get pure carbon rods or other suggestions, > please post. > Hey Rick, I wonder what the quality is of the central carbon electrode in the old style carbon-zinc dry cells? Anyone know? Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 18:31:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA01023; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:28:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:28:31 -0800 Message-Id: <199612060150.RAA10423@mail.eskimo.com> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 96 17:48:26 PST From: "Mark Jurich" To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Patterson US Patent 5580838 (issued 12/3/96) ... Resent-Message-ID: <"XeLiI1.0.cF.DJufo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2500 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Title : Uniformly plated microsphere catalyst Inventor : Patterson, James A. , FL Patent Issue Date : 1996 12 03 Available On : MicroPatent(R), http://www.micropat.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 18:39:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA02376; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:33:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:33:25 -0800 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 21:31:18 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: "Francis J. Stenger" cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Underwater carbon arcs In-Reply-To: <32A76A67.5473@interlaced.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"UHlNq.0.1b.oNufo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2501 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: a] most lighting type carbon electrodes [rods] have either [or both' strontuim and iron in them to make the light whiter. Some have other metals. b] most carbon 'gouges' or rods acquired from welding supply could have anything .... they don't care c] carbons from so called 'dry cell' betteries cna have amounts of zonc and or manganese .... componenets of the batteries. The only 'pure' carbon rods come from chemical supply or carbon producers. ..... and you have to sak. JHS From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 18:55:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA06208; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:47:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:47:52 -0800 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:43:54 -0800 Message-Id: <199612060243.SAA05155@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Proposed test- Reduction of radioactivity in CETI cell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"sd4ca3.0.fW1.Lbufo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2502 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dec. 5, 1996 Thurs. This is a repost (one of two) from spf (a steve jones post) In article <57gp62$1kr@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes: > jonesse@plasma wrote: >> : So if the test is to proceed, we will have to convince someone >>with a cell: to let us borrow it for the proposed tests. > > Hopefully the particle accelerator guys won't demand delivery of >entire particle accelerators as a condition of doing independent >confirmation of new discoveries made in other labs. :-) > - 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 - Accelerators cost hundreds of millions of dollars typically, so the comparison is not apt. The problem with the CETI cell is that it probably just moves radioactivity in the cell to the cathode, so that an APPARENT reduction in radioactivity is readily achieved. I don't wish to shell out $3,500 just to show such a prosaic result, thank you. --Steven Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 19:25:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA08915; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 19:01:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 19:01:22 -0800 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:54:31 -0800 Message-Id: <199612060254.SAA05961@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Proposed test- Reduction of radioactivity in CETI cell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"5bhsj3.0.4B2._nufo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2504 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dec. 5, 1996 Thurs. This is the second repost from the spf (steve jones again) In article <32A58B6E.41C6@sdrc.com>, Jim Batka writes: > --Steven Jones > This is definitely off topic for this thread, but I figured I'm most > likely to get a response from Steve this way. > I've recently resumed reading this group from about a 2 year hiatus. > Previously Steve Jones had been conducting cold fusion experiments of > his own (I believe they were of the muon catalyzed kind). He was > also looking into the sonoluminescence phenonmenon. > > If Steve doesn't respond to this, does anyone know where the results > of these investigations might be found? I'm very curious about his > findings in these areas. Hello, Jim. Yes, we are conducting experiments regarding sonoluminescence (SL). Mostly, we are looking at SL phenomena in mercury, although we did do an expt. using D2O with dissolved D2 gas -- a single-bubble SL expt. We have looked for neutron production, for D2 in D20 and D2 in Hg both, but have found no indications of d-d fusion. We are sensitive at about 1 neutron per _hour_. > I seem to recall that the moun catalyzed fusion was proven but was > much further away from breakeven than current hot fusion experiments. > The sonoluminescence seemed to be caused by symmetrical implosion of > vapor bubbles caused by sonic disturbances and possessed spectrums > consistent with very high instantaneous temperatures (1000s of F). MU-c-f is the only bona fide form of cold fusion. At LAMPF in 1982, we already achieved several times more energy out from catalyzed d-t fusion than the total energy of the muon driver. Thus, we exceeded "scientific breakeven" in the conventional sense. But this ignores the substantial energy which must be invested in order to produce muons. The most optimistic estimates place mu-cat-fusion a factor of about 20 away from commercial breakeven -- and I don't see a way to bridge this gap. :-( Oh one other thing, there had been talk of spherical hot fusion device using electro potentials for nuclei containment (spheromak or somesuch). > Are any of its results available online? > Thanks to Rob Heeter for the Hot Fusion FAQ and his web site both of which I've recently browsed recently for a refresher of the current status. > Thanks, > -- > Jim Batka Email: jim.batka@sdrc.com > The Universe *does* revolve around Engineers, since we get > to pick the coordinate system. You might ask Bob Heeter directly about the "spherical hot fusion" devices. Best Wishes, Steven Jones From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 20:47:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA26567; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:29:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:29:22 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:32:03 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Underwater carbon arcs Resent-Message-ID: <"A--Br3.0.yU6.W4wfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2505 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Rick Monteverde wrote: >> >(SNIP) > But if >> anyone has a suggestion about how to get pure carbon rods or other >>suggestions, >> please post. >> >Hey Rick, I wonder what the quality is of the central carbon electrode >in the old style carbon-zinc dry cells? Anyone know? > >Frank Stenger I missed the orginal question somehow. Here are some places to try that I found very helpful: Graphite Electrode Sales 205-871-2189 Graphite Sales Inc. 800-321-4147 Graphite Engineering and Sales 800-472-3483 A biggie is: US Graphite 800-315-9499 Don't know about dry cells but took plenty of them apart for the carbon when I was a kid. A friend and I made a searchlight from 1 foot dia surplus parabolic mirrors. Enjoyed suddenly shining the light in windows of nice looking babe down the street. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 20:48:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA26705; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:29:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:29:47 -0800 Date: 05 Dec 96 22:38:44 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Proposed test- Reduction of radioactivit Message-ID: <961206033843_72240.1256_EHB69-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"vJlZB.0.2X6.v4wfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2506 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Akira Kawasaki posted comments made by Steve Jones on s.p.f.: The problem with the CETI cell is that it probably just moves radioactivity in the cell to the cathode . . . This is pure speculation. Jones has no idea what the cell does or how the remediation experiment works. Details have not been released. As long as we are speculating, let me speculate that someone like Miley would not make the kind of elementary blunders Jones describes. . . . so that an APPARENT reduction in radioactivity is readily achieved. I don't wish to shell out $3,500 just to show such a prosaic result, thank you. He has convinced himself already, based on nothing more than his own haphazard guess. This reminds me of scene in "Duck Soup" in which Groucho works himself into a tizzy by imagining how the other fellow will act. I think this kind of thing should be left in s.p.f. or in Marx Brothers movies. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 22:18:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA15549; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 22:13:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 22:13:35 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961206012827.006c5514@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 01:28:52 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: NASA efforts (gravity) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"HSLMh2.0.do3.Ccxfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2507 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To Vortex and Rick Monteverde: My post yesterday (" I think that Hooper did report that AC worked better, ") was wrong. I checked the paper, and it was actually the other way around. Hooper reported that the Gravity-like field increased 'linearly' with the AC Current, but increased with the 'square' of the DC Current. This constitutes 2 mysteries: 1.] Why does that effect (AC vss DC), actually occur ? Hooper had no explanation for it. Neither do I. 2.] and why did my 'feeble memory' forget this.. (Ha... Terry now takes 2nd place.) Colin FM Quinney. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 22:28:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA21007; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 17:33:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 17:33:40 -0800 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:58:01 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: NASA Gravity In-Reply-To: <961205225315_76016.2701_JHC142-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"WZrYp3.0.085.nVtfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2499 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Terry, and, all Vo., U Tenn. Knoxville has a www site [but I am no web literate] with, I think, about 100 to 200 plus papaers on grav, including Li. Look it up. Al Sanders runs it. No chicken jokes allowed. J On 5 Dec 1996, Terry Blanton wrote: > John Schnurer said: > > >>1] I did not and have not asked Li and EE. Pk to joint vortex.<< > > Oh, sorry John, I thought it was you. That's what I get for trusting my feeble > memory instead of the archives. To whomever mentioned it, I thought it to be a > great idea! Wish Dr. Li had the time (I have a million questions about her > papers); but, I wouldn't want to interrupt her cooking. > > Terry > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 5 23:25:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA26751; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:21:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:21:40 -0800 Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Patterson US Patent 5580838 (issued 12/3/96) ... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 01:20:54 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <199612060150.RAA10423@mail.eskimo.com> from "Mark Jurich" at Dec 5, 96 05:48:26 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: <"TOpiD2.0.pX6.2cyfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2508 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mark Jurich wrote: > Title : Uniformly plated microsphere catalyst > Inventor : Patterson, James A. , FL > Patent Issue Date : 1996 12 03 > Available On : MicroPatent(R), http://www.micropat.com I've put it up on my web page, full ascii text and scans of the two figures. -- - 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 Dec 5 23:28:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA27304; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:25:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:25:35 -0800 Message-ID: <32A7D8D9.12F4@gorge.net> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 00:27:05 -0800 From: tom@gorge.net (Tom Miller) Reply-To: tom@gorge.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Water Feul Cell a Fraud.... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Q1CHX2.0.Qg6.jfyfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2509 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: It is important to remember that just because something is found to be true in a court of law, doesn't mean it is true in any objective sense, only the legal sense. (Consider OJ Simpson, menendez, etc.) If I remember correctly, Meyer's patent claim was only that his cell porduced hydrogen/oxygen (Brown's gas) from water at a low power. Just because some "experts" said it used only conventional electrolysis, means little. Lawyers always seem to be able to find an "expert" who will say anything. It seems to me that the important question is this: Was Meyer able, as claimed, to run his volkswagen van on a series of his cells? Carl Cella has made an even larger claim for conventional electrolysis cells of his design. Has anyone ever tried either of these designs, as originally designed, to power an automobile? This is very important from a practical viewpoint. Tom Miller From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 00:01:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA30975; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 00:00:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 00:00:10 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:00:59 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Patterson US Patent 5580838 (issued 12/3/96) ... Resent-Message-ID: <"okwiw.0.uZ7.8Azfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2510 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >I've put it up on my web page, full ascii text and scans >of the two figures. > > >-- > - 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 - Thankyou thankyou thankyou John Logajan! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 00:20:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA01475; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 00:17:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 00:17:33 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:18:31 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Resent-Message-ID: <"LGdDm.0.wM.RQzfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2511 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I sent a post of an old version of this (THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS) yesterday and an improved spellchecked version today. I have not seen today's come back from vortex. I am curious as to why there have been no responses. Has no one seen this or is it so stupid nobody wants to say anything about it? Or maybe some combination of the above? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 00:41:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA02788; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 00:26:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 00:26:41 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961206083200.007519e0@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 00:32:00 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: vertical tube "o/u" Resent-Message-ID: <"uT2SH1.0.Qh._Yzfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2512 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:48 AM 12/1/96 -0500, you wrote: >With respect to cooling towers using natural convection: > >I believe that that is an old practice in the arabian desert nations. >Properly constructed, they achieve coolth and some moisture condensation in a >passive way. Don't remember the details, but have seen it written up and >pictured. > >Mike Carrell > > >From the book, "Roads To Freedom", by T. Capano Something like 2,500 years before the time of Christ the Greeks used to condensate water from the air. They used piles of loose limestone rocks shaped in a pyramid to capture and condense clean drinking water, utilizing the temperature and humidity differences between night and day. As sun-warmed air filtered through the cool interior of the pyramid, its moisture condensed, trickling down to the pyramid's base where it was collected in a drain line. Based on the size of the clay pipes leading from the thirteen pyramids built around the ancient city of Theodosia, one archeologist calculated a flow of 14,400 gallons of water a day per pyramid! More recently, however, another group of researchers came up with only 520 gallons per day per pyramid. Even at the lesser rate (one of these parties had a rather large "black hole" in their calculations!), 520 gallons of water per day from air is mighty impressive. [skipping one paragraph] Mice in the Sahara desert utilize the same condesation concept by piling small heaps of rock in front of their burrows at night so they can lick condensed moisture off the stones in the morning. Desert beetles simplify the concept even further by standing on their heads in the cold sand dunes early in the morning. Mist condenses on their back legs and runs down their bodies into their mouths. Underground water in the Sahara plateaus also seems to be collected from condensation, since it cannot be accounted for by rainfall. Gary Hawkins ------------------------------------------------------------------ Horizon Technology Tomorrow's Technology Today http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/ Seattle, WA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 01:02:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA05165; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 00:43:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 00:43:44 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:45:19 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Resent-Message-ID: <"HIAbD3.0.dG1._ozfo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2513 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND ASSUMPTIONS The Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH) is the idea that atomic expansion (AE), the increase in the size of an ionized atom or molecule, like H+, which occurs when they take on an orbital electron, can perform work on the surroundings of the ion, and that the amount of energy released can be greater than the initial ionization energy, provided the ion is in a sufficiently confined space when the expansion occurs. This is an idea that I think leads to various possible experiments and, if correct, may provide a basis for the design of over unity devices. If correct, the idea also explains various previously observed results. This hypothesis is another expression of the idea that the excess heat from cold fusion devices does not come from fusion, or transmutation, but from extraction of energy from the zero point energy (ZPE) sea. This is not to say that transmutation or conventional fusion does not occur in cold fusion experiments, only that the heat producing source of cold fusion (CF) devices is primarily ZPE. It is an assumption of this hypothesis that ZPE energy is what keeps atoms from collapsing and is part of the glue that holds atoms together without radiation. Atoms, more particularly orbitals, though quantized in energy, can be deformed, both in shape and electron probability distribution. These deformations can occur as a result of external stress on the orbitals due to collisions or pressure, or because of electromagnetic fields. The deformations are capable of storing energy, converting kinetic energy into potential energy, and back. With the exception of the occasional resulting photon emissions, such collisions are perfectly elastic, which is why the gas laws and thermodynamics work so well. It is true that collision and pressure deformations of orbitals are also electromagnetic in origin, but differ in that the fields are highly localized and mostly cancel at a distance, and in the fact that the field distortions convert kinetic energy into potential energy at a high energy density. THE PROPOSED MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING HEAT IN A METAL LATTICE 1) An ion, e.g. H+ or He++, is injected into a metal lattice. This can be accomplished via high energy ion acceleration or via electrolysis. 2) As the ion comes to a halt in the lattice, any kinetic energy initially imparted to the ion is given up to the lattice. 3) The ion takes up an electron from an adjacent atom or conduction band. If from an adjacent atom, that atom may momentarily shrink (or lose a bond and expand), but will quickly return to size by obtaining an electron from a conduction band. The net result is an electron from the locality is taken up by the ion. 4) An orbital is formed about the ion, increasing the size of the ion. 5) As the electron occupies the orbital, quantized EM energy (e.g. a photon), equivalent to the original ionization energy, is released - heating the local environment. 6) As the small ion and acquired electron(s) expands from nuclear dimensions to atomic dimensions, at some point force is applied in all directions to the lattice provided the interstitial sites do not accommodate the size of the de-ionized product. Further expansion of the de-ionized product to it's final size results in work being performed on the lattice. The energy thus produced has no antecedent. It is derived solely from the force that keeps atoms from collapsing. However, unlike a collision, no initial compressive kinetic energy was supplied. The energy is supplied from the ZPE sea. ENERGY DERIVED FROM ATOMIC EXPANSION IN LIQUID OR GAS PHASES Energy might be similarly obtained in a gas or liquid phase, though not with the efficiency of a metal lattice. A conducting liquid, like mercury, would behave similarly to the metal lattice, but the force resisting the AE would be almost entirely inertial, thus much smaller than the resisting force of a molecular bond. The force resisting the AE would still be exerted over a slightly sub-atomic distance, so the excess energy produced per atomic expansion would almost entirely be proportional to the AE resisting force. Similar arguments can be made for the collision of an ion with a non-ion in a gas. The main difference here is the lack of an electron source to bring the net charge to zero, and thus the cost of extracting the electron from the neutral atom to fill the ion's orbital. A negative balance in ionization potentials (e.g. H+ hits He) must be overcome using the kinetic energy of the collision. Similar arguments can also be made for gas/metal interfaces where low energy ions strike metal electrodes, but do not penetrate. Here again, the AE is only inertially confined, and results in the ion product being accelerated upon its rebound from the plate. EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING HEAT IN A GAS 1) Hydrogen is ionized to create H+ in a mixture of H2 and Rn (radon gas). This might be accomplished in an arc, a point or wire discharge, or via RF, x-ray, or other indirect excitement. 2) The H+ ion comes into contact with a Rn atom, stripping an electron from the Rn atom producing a H atom and Rn+ ion. In the event one of the other noble gasses is used in place of Rn, some of the H+ kinetic energy is required to strip the electron, and the post collision Rn may still ultimately retain the electron even though a momentary H orbital forms during the collision. 3) An orbital is formed about the H+ ion, suddenly increasing the size of the ion. The expansion, fueled bye ZPE, imparts "free" energy to the atoms in the form of potential, then kinetic, energy as the collision progresses. 4) As the electron occupies the H orbital, quantized EM energy (e.g. one or more photons), equivalent to the original ionization energy less the Rn ionizing energy, is released - heating the local environment. 5) The initial momentums and energies of the H and Rn nuclei gets applied to the shells, distorting them, and are returned to the environment via the normal elastic collision mechanism. 6) Eventually the Rn+ is reconstituted to Rn and a photon is released, gaining back the complete energy of ionization of the H atom initially. The net energy gained is the energy of expansion (AE energy) of the H+ orbital in close proximity to the Rn+ ion - thus imparting additional kinetic energy to both. WHAT DOES THE AEH EXPLAIN? The AEH provides a possible explanation for the varied effectiveness of the alpha, beta, and gamma phases of CF loading. I suggest that in the initial loading phase the adsorbed hydrogen is alternately in H and H+ form, but primarily in H+ form. It is primarily ionically bound to the lattice, especially when in motion. An H atom fits inside a lattice cell, but not through the triangular portals between cells. In the beta phase, many of the cells are occupied by H atoms, and in such a state diffusion between cells requires displacement of some H atoms, the diffusion paths tend to be blocked, and the continued diffusion requires the ionization of a path blocking H or its tunneling out of the way. Some degree of H confinement upon the reconversion from an H+ to H would be occurring, thus some small AE excess energy might be produced in beta phase. In the gamma phase H loading would be to the point that additional loading would force the formation of H2 molecules in the interstitial sites. In looking at the geometry of the Ni lattice and H2 molecules it appears such a formation is possible with only a deformation of the lattice of about 5 to 10 percent. This would imply extreme confinement and local pressure, which would dramatically increase the work done by ZPE in supporting the H2 formation, or "expansion". The small volume expansion requirement is due to the low per atom volume of H2 vs. H. Some numbers regarding H2 molecules and the face centered cubic geometry of the Ni lattice: H atomic radius: .79 =C5 H covalent radius .32 =C5 H2 bond length .7414 =C5 Ni atomic radius 1.62 =C5 Ni covalent radius 1.15 =C5 Ni bond length 2.4916 =C5 =46rom this I calculate the face hole will pass a sphere of radius 0.2885 = =C5 and the tetrahedral space will accommodate a sphere of radius 0.6118 =C5. However, an H2 molecule can be placed across one axis of the tetrahedron with each atom partway through a face hole. In fact, the H2 atom could pass through the face holes with only an expansion of the bond length of 2*(.3200 -.2885) =3D .063 =C5. This is an increase in bond length of about = 2.5 percent. Less expansion is sufficient to fit the H2 into the tetrahedron. The AEH model may explain why various discharge tubes, especially those containing H2 or He appear to produce excess energy. The ions are injected into the metal lattice where they are confined prior to atomic expansion. A repetitive ion oscillation may produce a kind of synchronized shock wave in the metal surface causing it to rebound and add energy to the impinging and reflecting particles at the surface. The source of the AE energy may be primarily in the electrodes, especially cathodes, but to some degree may occur in the gas as well, or at the electrode surface due to AE surface effect expansion. The AEH may explain the mechanism by which cavitation devices produce excess heat - namely that some of the H2O is ionized in the cavitation bubbles and the collapsing bubble results in the ions being injected into the the high pressure water wall where the ions reconstitute and expand, undergo AE, adding pressure, thus kinetic energy to the collapsing pressure wall. The AEH may explain the over unity performance of an arc in producing water gas in that collision of H+ with C, or CO or CO2 could potentially create AE energy. Here are some ionization potentials of interest: H 13.598 C 11.260 CO 14.014 CO2 13.773 Note that no kinetic energy is required to trigger the AE reaction between H+ and C and that little is required for CO or CO2. Note that the AE reaction might possibly push the chemical equilibrium in the arc toward the production of CO by supplying the excess energy required to split the second O from the CO2. Two things are bothersome about this concept though. One is that if the AE effect exists it should have been observed in chemistry long ago. Another is that, unlike the case where H+ and a noble gas is used, a bond can form between the H and the reactant, so the kinetic energy would end up in molecular vibration, or in reducing the probability of such a bond The main difficulty, though, is that the shared orbital, the bond, creates an attractive force instead of a repulsive force. AE excess energy is based upon repulsion, not attraction. Perhaps one difficulty answers the other. In any event, He++ would make a more logical AE generator than H+ in this application. SO WHAT ABOUT DESIGN CRITERIA? This model results in some concrete design suggestions: 1) Produce ions (especially H+ or H++) in as large a quantity and as efficiently as possible. 2) Accelerate or transport the ions into a confining and preferably conducting medium where they are deionized under pressure. 3) Utilize the increased pressure and heat in the confining medium. 4) Make the confining medium as gas recycling as possible, preferably extracting energy from the higher pressure and temperature post-AE gas before repeating the cycle. SOME APPLICATION AND EXPERIMENTATION THOUGHTS 1) Mercury, though not as confining as a lattice, may make a good medium for ion injection as it would expel the gasses quickly. Mercury also conducts electricity well. Other metals could be used at higher temperatures, however, electron emission from hot cathodes would not be good as it would increase the power demand. The increased power would have to be utilized to result in more ionizations. The simplest possible test device may be a small sealed glass tube of H2 with a point anode at the top and mercury cathode at the bottom, activated with high frequency high voltage pulsed DC current. An improvement might be to use two anode electrodes, isolated from the cathode, with a lower voltage discharge between the anodes to do the ionization. 2) Hot anodes are fine as they will increase ionization and kinetic energy of the gas. An arc created by an isolation transformer may make a very good anode. 3) It may be possible to use water as a cathode. The atomic expansion may assist in boiling the water at the surface. The water could provide it's own H2 from the evolved steam which migrates to an arc anode. Might be good to use a helium atmosphere to get safe recombination. An electrolyte would, of course, increase the cathode conductivity. 4) Electrolysis (or arcs) under water may produce usable energy if done under extreme pressure. Simply use the evolved high pressure gas to move pistons. Additional process stages could be added for recombination and heat recovery. Some of the energy of compression, by the AEH model, would come from the ZPE sea. 5) As suggested earlier, a closed tube with an electrically excited mixture of H2 and a noble gas, especially radon, may produce some over unity results. 6) The process of producing water gas, i.e. burning carbon in an arc under water to produce CO and H2, may be improved by avoiding the use carbon rods altogether. This might be done by recycling the CO2 and H2O (as steam) into an arc and driving its equilibrium to a mixture of H2O, CO2, CO, and H2 in the arc. The AE energy would assist in driving the reaction in reverse in the arc and would be the energy derived from the recycling process. This process might be assisted by adding He to the atmosphere as the He has a much higher ionization potential (24.587 volts) than CO or CO2, and will not bond with it. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 01:28:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA12285; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 01:22:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 01:22:32 -0800 Date: 06 Dec 96 04:19:25 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Water Feul Cell a Fraud.... Message-ID: <961206091924_100060.173_JHB119-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"gYIyJ.0.q_2.MN-fo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2514 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Tom Miller writes: >> It seems to me that the important question is this: Was Meyer able, as claimed, to run his volkswagen van on a series of his cells? << The big problem with Meyer is that he has never allowed an independent testing of his water fuel cell. He showers you with paper purporting to quote independent testing, but where I have followed up and contacted the supposed tester it has either been a case of "not proven" or straightforward misinformation. I was able to question him in person a couple of weeks ago when he had been invited to present his technology to the great and the good here in England - just after he had been found guilty of fraud and failed to admit to it. He tried to say that the court was phoney and that the test on his cell was faulty. (actually what happened was that his demo cell was brought to the court in a side room and some saline was added to test the statement that the current was limited to a few milliamps by his circuitry. The ammeter shot up to a high reading and the court was convinced that his patent statement was invalid.) However, during my oral examination, which was recorded for posterity, I asked him whether he would submit his cell or any other of his devices to a British lab. for independent testing. His response was to refuse, quoting section 101 of the US patent regulations which refers to secrecy in the national interest preventing him from disclosure. He has been asked to provide proof of any order preventing him from disclosing his technology, but since his patents, well over 30 since '85, have been published in full, there is no longer any possibility of any secrecy anyway, so what gives? As far as I know he has yet to provide documentary proof of any restriction on disclosure. He has been given many $k by hundreds of US investors who have been given "distributorships" for his products which are always just about to be produced by some multi-national outfit. Upon checking with those companies it transpires that they are all awaiting the results of some other pre-production tests by another outfit. And so it goes on and on and on. It is quite likely that there will be a class action brought against him for fraud, so he will either have to put up or shut up. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 01:29:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA12333; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 01:22:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 01:22:59 -0800 Date: 06 Dec 96 04:19:31 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: GALTECH NOT GALTEK! Message-ID: <961206091931_100060.173_JHB119-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"F_-Im2.0.d03.oN-fo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2515 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gene, Good yomtov! This Galtech(k) story has got to be sorted out. The consensus seems to be with a "k" and no "c". Even so various searches seem to be abortive. I suppose they really exist If they're quoted on the OTC they might not show on a standard search. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 01:39:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA07433; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:53:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:53:08 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 17:50:59 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Resent-Message-ID: <"sEJKn2.0.xp1.Hgufo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2503 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND ASSUMPTIONS The Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH) is the idea that atomic expansion (AE), the increase in the size of an ionized atom or molecule, like H+, which occurs when they take on an orbital electron, can perform work on the surroundings of the ion, and that the amount of energy released can be greater than the initial ionization energy, provided the ion is in a sufficiently confined space when the expansion occurs. This is an idea that I think leads to various possible experiments and, if correct, may provide a basis for the design of over unity devices. If correct, the idea also explains various observed results. This hypothesis is another expression of the idea that the excess heat from cold fusion devices does not come from fusion, or transmutation, but from extraction of energy from the zero point energy (ZPE) sea. This is not to say that transmutation or conventional fusion does not occur in cold fusion experiments, only that the heat producing source of cold fusion (CF) devices is primarily ZPE. It is an assumption of this hypothesis that ZPE energy is what keeps atoms from collapsing and is part of the glue that holds atoms together without radiation. Atoms, more particularly orbitals, though quantized in energy, can be deformed, both in shape and electron probability distribution. These deformations can occur as a result of external stress on the orbitals due to collisions or pressure, or because of electromagnetic fields. The deformations are capable of storing energy, converting kinetic energy into potential energy, and back. With the exception of the occasional resulting photon emissions, such collisions are perfectly elastic, which is why the gas laws and thermodynamics work so well. It is true that collision and pressure deformations of orbitals are also electromagnetic in origin, but differ in that the fields are highly localized and mostly cancel at a distance, and in the fact that the field distortions convert kinetic energy into potential energy at a high energy density. THE PROPOSED MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING HEAT IN A METAL LATTICE 1) An ion, e.g. H+ or He++, is injected into a metal lattice. This can be accomplished via high energy ion acceleration or via electrolysis. 2) As the ion comes to a halt in the lattice, any kinetic energy initially imparted to the ion is given up to the lattice. 3) The ion takes up an electron from an adjacent atom or conduction band. If from an adjacent atom, that atom may momentarily shrink (or lose a bond and expand), but will quickly return to size by obtaining an electron from a conduction band. The net result is an electron from the locality is taken up by the ion. 4) An orbital is formed about the ion, increasing the size of the ion. 5) As the electron occupies the orbital, quantized EM energy (e.g. a photon), equivalent to the original ionization energy, is released - heating the local environment. 6) As the small ion and acquired electron(s) expands from nuclear dimensions to atomic dimensions, at some point force is applied in all directions to the lattice provided the interstitial sites do not accommodate the size of the de-ionized product. Further expansion of the de-ionized product to it's final size results in work being performed on the lattice. The energy thus produced has no antecedent. It is derived solely from the force that keeps atoms from collapsing. However, unlike a collision, no initial compressive kinetic energy was supplied. The energy is supplied from the ZPE sea. ENERGY DERIVED FROM ATOMIC EXPANSION IN LIQUID OR GAS PHASES Energy might be similarly obtained in a gas or liquid phase, though not with the efficiency of a metal lattice. A conducting liquid, like mercury, would behave similarly to the metal lattice, but the the force resisting the AE would be almost entirely inertial, thus much smaller than the resisting force of a molecular bond. The force resisting the AE would still be exerted over slightly sub-atomic distance, so the excess energy produced per atomic expansion would almost entirely be proportional to the AE resisting force. Similar arguments can be made for the collision of an ion with a non-ion in a gas. The main difference here is the lack of an electron source to bring the net charge to zero, and thus the cost of extracting the electron from the neutral atom to fill the ion's orbital. A negative balance in ionization potentials (e.g. H+ hits He) must be overcome come using the kinetic energy of the collision. Similar arguments can also be made for gas/metal interfaces where low energy ions strike metal electrodes, but do not penetrate. Here again, the AE is only inertially confined, and results in the ion product being accelerated on the rebound from the plate. EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING HEAT IN A GAS 1) Hydrogen is ionized to create H+ in a mixture of H2 and Rn. This might be accomplished in an arc, a point or wire discharge, or via RF, x-ray, or other indirect excitement. 2) The H+ ion comes into contact with a Rn atom, stripping an electron from the He atom producing a H atom and Rn+ ion. In the event one of the other noble gasses is used some of the H+ kinetic energy is required to strip the electron, and the post collison Rn may still ultimately retain the electron even though a momentary H orbital forms during the collision. 3) An orbital is formed about the H+ ion, suddenly increasing the size of the ion. The expansion, fueled from the ZPE sea, imparts "free" energy to the atoms in the form of potential then kinetic energy as the collision progresses. 4) As the electron occupies the H orbital, quantized EM energy (e.g. one or more photons), equivalent to the original ionization energy less the Rn ionizing energy, is released - heating the local environment. 5) The initial momentums and energies of the H and Rn nuclei gets applied to the shells, distorting them, and are returned to the environment via the normal elastic collision mechanism. 6) Eventually the Rn+ is reconstituted to Rn and a photon is released, gaining back the complete energy of ionization of the H atom initially. The net energy gained is the energy of expansion (AE energy) of the H+ orbital in close proximity to the Rn+ ion - thus imparting additional kinetic energy to both. WHAT DOES THE AEH EXPLAIN? The AEH provides a possible explanation for the varied effectiveness of the alpha, beta, and gamma phases of CF loading. I suggest that in the initial loading phase the hydrogen is alternately in H and H+ form, but primarily in H+ form. It is primarily ionically bound to the lattice, especially when in motion. An H atom fits inside a lattice cell, but not through the triangular portals between cells. In the beta phase, many of the cells are occupied by H atoms, and in such a state diffusion between cells requires displacement of some H atoms, the diffusion paths tend to be blocked, and the continued diffusion requires the ionization of impeding H or its tunneling out of the way. Some degree of H confinement upon reconversion from an H+ to H would be occurring, thus some small excess energy might be produced in beta phase. In gamma phase H loading would be to the point that additional loading would force the formation of H2 molecules in the interstitial sites. In looking at the geometry of the Ni lattice and H2 molecules it appears such a formation is possible with only a deformation of the lattice of about 5 to 10 percent. This would imply extreme confinement and local pressure, which would dramatically increase the work done by the ZPE sea in supporting the H2 formation, or "expansion". The small volume expansion requirement is due to the low per atom volume of H2 vs. H. The AEH model may explain why various discharge tubes, especially those containing H2 or He appear to produce excess energy. The ions are injected into the metal lattice where they are confined prior to atomic expansion. A repetitive ion oscillation may produce a kind of shock wave in the metal causing it to rebound and add energy to the reflecting particles at the surface. The source of the energy may be primarily in the electrodes, especially cathodes, but to some degree may occur in the gas as well, or at the electrode surface due to AE surface effect expansion. The AEH may explain the mechanism by which cavitation devices produce excess heat - namely that some of the H2O is ionized in the cavitation bubbles and the collapsing bubble results in the ions being injected in the the high pressure water wall where the ions reconstitute and expand, adding pressure, thus energy to the collapsing pressure wall. The AEH may explain the over unity performance of an arc on producing water gas in that collision of H+ with C, or CO or CO2 could potentially create AE energy. Here are some ionization potentials of interest: H 13.598 C 11.260 CO 14.014 CO2 13.773 Note that no kinetic energy is required to trigger the AE reaction between H+ and C and that little is required for CO or CO2. Note that the AE reaction might possibly push the chemical equilibrium in the arc toward the production of CO by supplying the excess energy required to split the second O from the CO2. Two things are bothersome about this concept though. One is that if the AE effect exists it should have been observed in chemistry long ago. Another is that, unlike the case where H+ and a noble gas is used, a bond can form between the H and the reactant, so the kinetic energy would end up in molecular vibration, or in reducing the probability of such a bond The main difficulty is that the shared orbital, the bond, creates an attractive force instead of a repulsive force. SO WHAT ABOUT DESIGN CRITERIA? This model results in some concrete design suggestions: 1) Produce ions (especially H+ or H++) in as large a quantity and as efficiently as possible. 2) Accelerate or transport the ions into a confining and preferably conducting medium where they are deionized under pressure. 3) Utilize the increased pressure and heat in the confining medium. 4) Make the confining medium as gas recycling as possible. SOME APPLICATION AND EXPERIMENTATION THOUGHTS 1) Mercury, though not as confining as a lattice, may make a good medium for ion injection as it would expel the gasses quickly. Mercury also conducts electricity well. Other metals could be used at higher temperatures, however, electron emission from hot cathodes would not be good as it would increase the power demand. The increased power would have to be utilized to result in more ionizations. The simplest possible test device may be a small sealed glass tube of H2 with a point anode at the top and mercury cathode at the bottom, activated with high frequency high voltage pulsed DC current. 2) Hot anodes are fine as they will increase ionization and kinetic energy of the gas. An arc created by an isolation transformer may make a very good anode. 3) It may be possible to use water as a cathode. The atomic expansion may assist in boiling the water at the surface. The water could provide it's own H2 from the evolved steam which migrates to an arc anode. Might be good to use a helium atmosphere to get safe recombination. An electrolyte would, of course, increase the cathode conductivity. 4) Electrolysis (or arcs) under water may produce usable energy if done under extreme pressure. Simply use the evolved high pressure gas to move pistons. Additional process stages could be added for recombination and heat recovery. Some of the energy of compression, by the AEH model, would come from the ZPE sea. 5) As suggested earlier, a closed tube with an electrically excited mixture of H2 and a noble gas, especially radon, may produce some over unity results. 6) The process of producing water gas, i.e. burning carbon in an arc under water to produce CO and H2, may be improved by avoiding the use carbon altogether. This might be done by recycling the CO2 and H2O (as steam) into an arc and driving its equilibrium to a mixture of H2O, CO2, CO, and H2 in the arc. The AE energy would assist in driving the reaction in reverse in the arc and would be the energy derived from the recycling process. This process might be assisted by adding He to the atmosphere as the He has a much higher ionization potential (24.587 volts) than CO or CO2. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 01:48:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA15496; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 01:42:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 01:42:48 -0800 Message-Id: <9612060940.AA22881@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 02:55:14 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: dotyd@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us (David Doty) Subject: ?GMX Magnetic hardwater treatment Resent-Message-ID: <"8KuBO2.0.-n3.Mg-fo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2516 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear vortex-l, Does anyone know what type of magnets GMX is using to treat hard water? Who sells them cheeper than GMX's high priced adds on ART BELL radio talk show? ******************************************* * David Doty * * Custodian at Ackerman Junior High * * http://198.237.196.249/ams/ * * Canby School District 86 * * http://198.236.18.249/ = * * 45=BA 15' N, 122=BA 41' W = * * home (503) 266-3969 = * * 340 S Locust Canby, OR. 97013 * * CEF "Good New Club" after school Bible Teacher * * Looking for Science Projects for students to do. * * http://www.wwln.com/fido/899499297.html * ******************************************** From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 04:10:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA31527; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 04:08:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 04:08:49 -0800 Date: 06 Dec 96 07:03:15 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Proposed test- Reduction of radioactivit Message-ID: <961206120315_100433.1541_BHG76-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"3gKmo1.0.Wi7.Fp0go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2517 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed, [quoting Jones] > . . . so that an APPARENT reduction in radioactivity is readily > achieved. I don't wish to shell out $3,500 just to show such a > prosaic result, thank you. Since when were CETI marketing their 'radioactivity reduction' kits? Where does Jones get the $3,500 figure from? Thin air? Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 04:34:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA00349; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 04:33:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 04:33:15 -0800 From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 07:31:55 -0500 Message-ID: <961206073154_1387588271@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Galtek Stock Resent-Message-ID: <"bRhM71.0.J5.AA1go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2518 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have also seen the video from Galtech and was very underwhelmed; apparently it was footage to be used in a TV documentary, not as a direct presentation by Galtech. Various interesting things were shown, none of which has any relationship to o/u performance. The rotor floats on magnetic bearings and coasts a long time without drag. The neodymium magnets can drag an aluminum block by induced eddy currents. In a conversation with Russ chapman, he indicated that they want to minimize the explosure of the motor technology until they have more measurements and are on solid ground. Seems like a good policy. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 04:48:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA02096; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 04:45:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 04:45:36 -0800 Date: 06 Dec 96 07:43:09 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Latest Yusmar Leaflet Message-ID: <961206124309_76570.2270_FHU36-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"AxE1m1.0.fW.jL1go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2519 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Technical leaflet of the Yusmar Company Kishinev Moldova QUANTUM HEAT POWER STATIONS. The QHPSs are aimed for supply with electrical energy, heat and hot water of works, buildings, homes, cottages, dachas, remote military objectives , means of transportation, banques and other items. The station works at low water pressure and temperatures up to + 70 deg C. The working principle of the stations is the transformation of the energy of the movement of water in electrical and thermal energy with high coefficients of performance. .............................................................. Type Electrical power Thermal power Dimensions Weight Price kW kW mm kg US $ QHPS-1 65 30 2600 X 1100 47,200 2700 X 2800 QHPS-2 75 45 2600 X 1100 54,900 2700 X 2800 QHPS-3 100 90 2600 X 1200 57,000 2700 X 2800 QHPS-4 200 130 2800 X 2700 83,000 2700 X 3800 QHPS-5 800 260 2800 X 9100 180,000 2700 X 3800 QHPS-6 1000 360 2800 X 11200 250,000 2700 X 3800 QHPS-7 2000 900 2800 X 17800 350,000 2700 X 3800 ....................................................................... For the electrical part; voltage 400 V, frquency of three-phasic current 50 Hz. Generators synchronous, manufactured according to GOST 15150-69. For the thermal part: "YUSMAR" thermogenerators with COP not less than 100%. Time of delivery: not more than 6 months. The products are patented in Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and in other 42 countries. Peter Gluck says that during his recent stay in Kishinev he saw some five of these units ordered. There is supposed to be some kind of public demo in March, to which several of us might be invited. Frankly, if these are real, why can't we have one soon here in the US, where acceptance and market potential wouold be gigantic? I am deeply skeptical, but I will wait and see...I don't happen to have a spare $47.2 K for the gamble :) Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 06:42:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA04102; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 06:26:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 06:26:57 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 05:28:32 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Latest Yusmar Leaflet Resent-Message-ID: <"WDhFu2.0.001.lq2go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2520 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 7:43 AM 12/6/96, Eugene Mallove wrote: [snip] > .............................................................. > Type Electrical power Thermal power Dimensions Weight Price > kW kW mm kg US $ > > QHPS-1 65 30 2600 X 1100 47,200 > 2700 X > 2800 > [snip] > >Gene Mallove > > Columns 2 and 3 titles are switched? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 06:51:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA05752; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 06:39:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 06:39:17 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9612060834.ZM18976@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 08:34:22 -0600 In-Reply-To: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) "Re: Patterson US Patent 5580838 (issued 12/3/96) ..." (Dec 6, 1:24am) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Patterson US Patent 5580838 (issued 12/3/96) ... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"aOa-_3.0.nP1.K03go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2521 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Dec 6, 1:24am, John Logajan wrote: > Subject: Re: Patterson US Patent 5580838 (issued 12/3/96) ... > Mark Jurich wrote: > > Title : Uniformly plated microsphere catalyst > > Inventor : Patterson, James A. , FL > > Patent Issue Date : 1996 12 03 > > Available On : MicroPatent(R), http://www.micropat.com > > I've put it up on my web page, full ascii text and scans > of the two figures. > > > -- > - 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 - > >-- End of excerpt from John Logajan Thanks John! Answers many questions I've had! -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSG From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 07:57:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA07259; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 07:32:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 07:32:15 -0800 Date: 06 Dec 96 08:41:44 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Proposed test- Reduction of radioactivit Message-ID: <961206134144_76570.2270_FHU67-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"7uAqm2.0.En1.zn3go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2522 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris, The thin air comes right out of the space between Jones' ears. And to think that this man is so much praised by the mainstream physicists for his "careful work" in "disposing" of cold fusion! Shows how intellectually bankrupt they are. Jones is one of the most maddening and repulsive characters in the entire cold fusion affair. He is a soft-spoken, lying buffoon. I was much too kind to him in Fire from Ice (I) -- the eventual update will not be so kind! Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 08:33:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA11397; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 07:56:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 07:56:45 -0800 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 10:54:25 -0500 Message-ID: <961206105424_1085814699@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Latest Yusmar Leaflet Resent-Message-ID: <"6Jjzy2.0._n2.y84go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2523 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gene, Am I reading your table correctly? The first column, say elect pwr 65KW, second column thermal pwr 30KW, etc., does not look like o/u or COP >1. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 08:34:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA12376; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 08:02:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 08:02:11 -0800 Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 16:55:22 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <32a833e1.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Re: Patterson US Patent 5580838 (issued 12/3/96) ... Resent-Message-ID: <"Nt3bE.0.813.1E4go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2524 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 6 Dec 1996 06:39:17 -0800, vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: Vortexans, a Latin proverb says "Bis dat qui cito dat". Our John knows this well and his WEB page is very important for the CF movement. I am accessing it every day. Thanks, John! 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 Dec 6 08:39:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA12706; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 08:04:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 08:04:29 -0800 Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 17:09:36 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <32a83735.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Re: Latest Yusmar Leaflet Resent-Message-ID: <"OGONz1.0.P63.BG4go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2525 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 6 Dec 1996 06:26:57 -0800, vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > > QHPS-1 65 30 2600 X 1100 47,200 > >Gene Mallove > Columns 2 and 3 titles are switched? > > > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > No, the columns are OK. The data as well. And so are the QHPS's. 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 Dec 6 08:55:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA13532; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 08:08:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 08:08:26 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 07:00:44 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Proposed test- Reduction of radioactivit Resent-Message-ID: <"rl2Xi3.0.4J3.rJ4go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2526 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Chris, > >The thin air comes right out of the space between Jones' ears. And to >think that >this man is so much praised by the mainstream physicists for his "careful work" >in "disposing" of cold fusion! Shows how intellectually bankrupt they are. >Jones >is one of the most maddening and repulsive characters in the entire cold fusion >affair. He is a soft-spoken, lying buffoon. I was much too kind to him in Fire >from Ice (I) -- the eventual update will not be so kind! > >Gene Mallove It should also be said that Steve Jones is doing good and charitable work in making solar cooking available to disadvantaged nations. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 10:28:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA01603; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 10:12:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 10:12:39 -0800 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 12:56:00 -0500 Message-ID: <961206125558_607338205@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Heffner's Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH) Resent-Message-ID: <"s_j_v2.0.zO.M86go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2529 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I was again intrigued to see Horace's posting of the AEH concept. Our views on what is happening in at least some "cold fusion" experiments is quite parallel. That is, that the excess heat energy is due largely to the conversion of zero-point energy to heat during H+ type infiltration into metals, the heat from fusion by and large being a corollary secondary effect. Our own modeling, although differing in certain details from Horace's, essentially paints the same picture. In this picture one needs only to realize that quantum ground state electron orbitals are determined on the basis of equilibrium interchange with the ZPE (ZPE absorption balanced by acceleration radiation). Therefore environments which perturb the ground-state orbitals are candidates for ZPE energy conversion. It is only a matter of materials and engineering to find the viable processes, as is the case with thermonuclear fusion. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 10:57:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA03630; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 10:24:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 10:24:34 -0800 Date: 06 Dec 96 12:49:39 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Like Thomas Jefferson Message-ID: <961206174939_72240.1256_EHB54-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"vqx5X3.0.Uu.VJ6go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2530 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Gene lashed out at Steve Jones, and Horace Heffner (rightly) came to Steve's defense: It should also be said that Steve Jones is doing good and charitable work in making solar cooking available to disadvantaged nations. Yes, well, . . . Solar cooking is important. I expect it saves hundreds of lives ever year, and makes life easier for thousands of people. I am a big fan of this sort of thing. Before I got involved in cold fusion I was a Major Annual Donor to Oxfam America. (That's what they called me.) So, while I applaud Steve Jones, I must point out that if he and his establishment colleagues had not blocked cold fusion six years ago, by now it might be saving *thousands of lives every week*. There is a moral dimension to this debate which we sometimes forget. Lack of energy and fossil fuel pollution together kill approximately 50,000 to 80,000 people every week, worldwide. Most of the victims are children. Scientists like Jones who fight to prevent new technology are inadvertently perpetrating a world-wide holocaust. So are people who merely ignore the problem, but scientists are supposed to champion new ideas, innovation, and the exploration of the unknown. When a postman or a bricklayer ignores cold fusion, he is merely doing his job and minding his own business. When a scientist ignores it, attacks it, or ridicules it, he is betraying his profession and humanity. Many scientists do good and evil at that same time. Everyone does; it is the human condition. Thomas Jefferson was a famous example. He championed the cause of anti-slavery, and promised to free his own slaves, but he never did. You wonder how such an outwardly moral man could have been such a cruel hypocrite. Slavery seems barbaric to us, from our enlightened 20th century perspective. Ah, but how will people in the 22nd century feel about us? They will look back at millions of dead, sick and maimed children, knowing they were victims of our backwards science, our neglect and stupidity. They will feel the same revulsion we feel towards slavery, concentration camps, or 19th century child labor in mines. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 11:04:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA32514; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 10:03:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 10:03:27 -0800 Date: 06 Dec 96 12:24:21 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: vertical tube "o/u" Message-ID: <961206172420_76016.2701_JHC64-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"3IhEb1.0.wx7.i_5go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2527 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gary Hawkins said: >>Based on the size of the clay pipes leading from the thirteen pyramids built around the ancient city of Theodosia, one archeologist calculated a flow of 14,400 gallons of water a day per pyramid! << Yep, and the Freemen and Maud'dib filled the cisterns of Arakis in much the same way! *and* Colin FM Quinney said: >>2.] and why did my 'feeble memory' forget this.. (Ha... Terry now takes 2nd place.)<< Hah! Not for long! Terry (TGIF!) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 12:28:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA01366; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 12:24:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 12:24:29 -0800 Date: 06 Dec 96 15:06:56 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Latest Yusmar Leaflet Message-ID: <961206200655_76570.2270_FHU53-5@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"NrrTb3.0.FL.y38go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2531 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hal, You greatly misunderstand -- but it is easy to see how that can happen, the Potapov claims are so shocking! Potapov is claiming that the electrical power is *output* as stated and the thermal power is FREE! Gee, I wish I could have one of them devices for Hanukkah -- then we'd really have a "miracle" in *our* time! Gene From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 14:22:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA03865; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 13:53:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 13:53:03 -0800 From: "Jay Olson" Organization: University of Idaho To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 13:21:04 PST8PDT Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Message-ID: <719EF66B11@hickory.csrv.uidaho.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"GKrn93.0.Iy.-M9go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2533 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Fascinating theory, Horace! I'm new to vortex though and I'm not quite clear on zero point energy. If we are getting zero point energy transformed to heat energy, by thermodynamics that zero point energy is lost to the heat. Where does this seemingly inexaustable source of zero point energy come from? I appreciated your detailed discussion on your theory and so far have found it to be the most informative one recieved through vortex. Could you elaborate a little more on the source of zero point energy? I would greatly appreciate it. Jay Olson From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 14:27:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA05873; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 14:00:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 14:00:20 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 11:46:03 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Latest Yusmar Leaflet Resent-Message-ID: <"q_XcW1.0._Q1.lT9go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2534 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >On Fri, 6 Dec 1996 06:26:57 -0800, vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: >> > QHPS-1 65 30 2600 X 1100 47,200 >> >Gene Mallove >> Columns 2 and 3 titles are switched? >> >> >> Regards, >> PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >> Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 >> > No, the columns are OK. The data as well. And so are the QHPS's. > 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 I don't get it. A submersible heating element can do better than that. What am I missing? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 15:07:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA14842; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 14:43:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 14:43:09 -0800 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 17:34:18 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex Subject: Grav papers, a Subject of mutual interest (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"J9P-A3.0.qd3.x5Ago"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2535 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: John, We use www-internal.ornl.gov. The "internal" looks suspicious, but the information looks like something that the public could easily have access to. Try it! JHS From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 18:08:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA13116; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 17:27:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 17:27:44 -0800 Date: 06 Dec 96 19:33:49 EST From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Proposed test- Reduction of radioactivit Message-ID: <961207003348_76216.2421_HHB37-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"o_UZZ.0.rC3.EWCgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2536 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gene Mallove wrote: > "Jones has blood on his hands." I've seen you and Jed take this tack many times before. I'm an advocate of CF and the need for our civilization to make an urgent and full-fledged examination and eventual development of its possibilities. I agree that if it turns out to be a beneficial and viable replacement for fossil and other polluting fuels, then millions will be saved from death and suffering. And in that case it would be true that continued suppression of the effort would tend to allow that suffering to take place instead of saving people from it. But claims such as you have made in the above quote are logically flawed, not to mention repugnant. It's the same as the Democrats screaming this year that the evil Republicans wanted to starve children to death and kill off the elderly by cutting school lunch programs and Medicaid. Newt and the Republicans are not murderous ogres with a desire to cause harm to our children and elderly, and the "cuts" the Democrats cried about weren't even cuts. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing that kind of phony argument. Making this sort of statement discredits you and the cause you speak for. I know you've been hit on before over this, but you choose to continue doing it. That kind of talk is inflammatory and based on false assumptions. Do you have any evidence that Jones is a truly malicious person who hopes to keep a good think out of humanity's hands so that he can revel in the suffering of innocents? If you do, post it so we can know who the enemy really is. If not, I would invite you, Jed, and whoever else thinks about using this type of argument to refrain from it from now on. References to saving lives otherwise lost if the technology is delayed is appropriate. Appealing to people not to impede progress for that reason is fine. Impugning the character of those who do inadvertently, as you did say, impede progress by attempting to splatter them with the blood of the hypothetically un-saved is, IMO, truly bad form. There is a fundamental difference between error and evil. Blurring that line in order to hurt an opponent only harms your own cause. Bottom line is, it's a public relations blunder to color yourself as an irrational maniac by using such statements. I support your efforts Gene, and share in your enthusiasm for the possibilities of this new technology. I know it's heartbreaking to see the profound stupidity and annoying personality of people like Jones standing in the way of progress. But let's not echo their mistakes and impede progress ourselves by letting our dark side influence our mouths to shoot ourselves in the foot. It's a tough world, and maybe sometimes it seems we're forced to take the low road. But at the very least, I don't think we should allow ourselves to be seen doing it in public. Respectfully, - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 20:39:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA16975; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 20:34:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 20:34:21 -0800 Date: 06 Dec 96 23:30:01 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Further Jones comment Message-ID: <961207043001_76570.2270_FHU65-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"I_d5Y.0.894.BFFgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2539 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: One more point in repsonse to Rick Monteverde. I am not saying that Jones is a deliberate baby-killer. That would be "Murder One" as they say. He is not guilty of that. I consider him to be guilty of reckless manslaughter, which is bad enough. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 20:45:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA15355; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 20:26:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 20:26:56 -0800 Date: 06 Dec 96 23:24:27 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Proposed test- Reduction of radioactivit Message-ID: <961207042426_76570.2270_FHU65-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"zBGkT.0.nl3.E8Fgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2538 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick Monteverde made some very fine points, and I take him seriously. He is a very good man. However, he is wrong about Steve Jones. Rick writes: "There is a fundamental difference between error and evil." Yes, indeed, there is. And Jones is a prime example of evil, not error. It is crystal clear that Jones has conspired over and over again to play this thing just like Douglas Morrison -- KNOWINGLY misrepresenting facts (e.g. the difference between Pd and Ni cathodes) in a war against scientific evidence. I will not run the encylopaedia on Jones in this forum, but I will finish him off in the future update to Fire From Ice. I am sure Jed will too, in whatever he writes for posterity. Another word about Rick's concerns about self-inflicted damage: Because of what people like Jones have done -- and new evidence of Jones's perfidy came into my possession, coincidentally, only today, in the matter of serious violation of ethics in publication -- we are so far down compared to where we have to go that it almost doesn't matter what we do! But telling the truth about Jones the evil, deliberate, hypocritical deceiver, is not wrong. Jones is not stupid. He is very smart. He knows *exactly* what he is doing. Sincerely, Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 20:49:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA18658; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 20:40:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 20:40:24 -0800 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 19:55:50 -0500 Message-ID: <961206195548_573491359@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Resent-Message-ID: <"0RkjQ2.0.BZ4.qKFgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2540 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jay Olsen asked: <> It is the electromagnetic equivalent of the squeal that results when you place a microphone near a speaker, i.e., a feedback system in which quantum-jiggled charged particles throughout the universe radiate, and the radiation causes any individual particle to jiggle. This results in an equilibrium EM noise background with a frequency-cubed dependence. For details see my paper: H. E. Puthoff, "On the source of vacuum electromagnetic zero-point energy," Phys. Rev. A, vol 40, p. 4857 (1989); Errata and Comments, Phys. Rev. A, vol. 44, pp. 3382 and 3385 (1991). Also a succinct summary of above "Where does the zero-point energy come from?" in New Scientist, p. 36 (2 Dec 1989). Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 6 22:20:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA03213; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 22:00:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 22:00:16 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 00:01:23 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: We mean it: people are evil Message-ID: <961207050123_72240.1256_EHB95-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ToffB1.0.7o.kVGgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2541 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A To: Vortex Rick Monteverde wrote a thoughtful objection to Gene and me. He thinks our attack on Steve Jones and others is uncalled for. I do not want to clutter up this forum with too much off-topic politics, but on the other hand I do believe that this particular political conundrum is important to our science, so I'd like to clarify my point of view and then I promise to shut up. Rick characterizes our statements as "logically flawed, not to mention repugnant. It's the same as the Democrats screaming this year that the evil Republicans wanted to starve children to death . . ." The implication here is that we are engaging in political hyperbole, and we do not really mean it. Ah, but we *do* mean it. If the 20th century has taught us anything, it is that modern man is capable of unspeakable evil. The Republicans are not monsters, but there are barbarians who *do* starve children to death, deliberately. In my continuing look at the dark underbelly of science history, I may do an article on the 20th century medical history of pellagra here in the deep south. Until the 1950s, health officials, orphanage owners, welfare & school officials *did starve children to death* in Georgia, Alabama and other southern states, in order to save the cost of vitamins, milk and vegetables. Around 1915 doctors discovered that pellagra is caused by a vitamin deficiency. They spent 20 years battling with government and local medical authorities here trying to make them believe it. Long after the findings were accepted, they were still widely ignored. Rick writes: Frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing that kind of phony argument. My point is that in the real world, with some people, in some circumstances, it is *not* a phony argument. People commit crimes. Not just street hoodlums. I recall the words of the judge who sentenced medical company officials after a trial for faulty IUDs. Testimony & documents revealed that the officials had known for years that their product was hazardous, and that it caused permanent damage, infertility, and death. The judge said that if a rapist had caused that kind of bodily damage to even one woman, he would be jailed for life. These corporate executives *knowingly and willingly* did that to thousands of women. They did it for money. Some people will do anything for money. The question is, of course: Has Steve Jones done something evil? Is he deliberately blocking progress for his own nefarious purposes? Or is he acting like an honest scientist who sincerely believes we are wrong, and who does not want to see resources wasted on useless experiments? Is he defending his turf, or is he defending rigor and professionalism in science? Well . . . it is a judgement call. We cannot devise an experiment to read a man's heart. No calculus can reveal a person's motivations. When I look at Jones' actions, I see a pattern of what I judge to be deliberate, repeated distortions, lies, political tricks, and machinations. I conclude he is one of these rotten people who makes life so miserable. Perhaps I am blinded by my own prejudices. Perhaps Rick looks at Jones' postings and sees legitimate, thoughtful scientific objections. Each person must examine the evidence and decide for himself. But I must caution the reader not to fall into the late 20th century Dr. Pangloss trap; a.k.a. the "I'm okay, you're okay" syndrome. There is a trend nowadays to deny that evil exists. We like to paper over human nature, and make believe that everyone is a nice guy who sincerely does what he thinks is right, as if we live in Disneyland instead of the real world. (Pangloss and Disney tie together beautifully: Disney has come out with an animated "Candide" of all things! What will they tackle next? De Sade?) Rick makes the point clearly: That kind of talk is inflammatory and based on false assumptions. Do you have any evidence that Jones is a truly malicious person who hopes to keep a good think out of humanity's hands so that he can revel in the suffering of innocents? If you do, post it so we can know who the enemy really is. A bit too clearly, because, as I said, you can never really understand a person's motivations. The only evidence I can show is a pattern of behavior that *I judge* to be malicious. I think he tried to steal CF from Pons and Fleischmann. I think his statements about the work of Miles are malicious and calculated to destroy reputations and hide the truth. I think he deliberately set up an absurd experiment to discredit the Ni work, at power levels a thousand times lower than any other Ni experiment, where everyone knows calorimetry is not linear. Whenever reporters call Jones, he repeats his infuriating nonsense about "recombination," even though he knows it is wrong. Impugning the character of those who do inadvertently, as you did say, impede progress by attempting to splatter them with the blood of the hypothetically un-saved is, IMO, truly bad form. I do not think that Jones inadvertently impedes progress. I think it is deliberate and calculating. However, I am sure he does not see of his actions in those terms. He thinks he is playing the game, defending real science, and having things his own way. I am certain he thinks that cold fusion is pernicious nonsense -- nobody could fake his level of contempt. He thinks that we are publishing fake results and doing crappy science in order to take away *his* grants and invade *his* turf. Well, I cannot blame a man for playing hardball and fighting back to preserve his livelihood, but I do blame Jones and his ilk for two things: 1. Not examining the evidence. For a scientist, this is dereliction of duty. It is analogous to a doctor who does not bother to give a patient a simple blood test that might reveal a common, easily cured disease. 2. Dirty tactics. Using lies and political machinations; talking about recombination to reporters. I expect Jones thinks he is using a convenient fib to get rid of stupid non-science. Why bother with rigorous, careful, scientific arguments when all you want to do is sweep away nonsense? Just think up some impressive sounding mumbo-jumbo for the reporters and have done with it. That is what led Hoffman to write a book asserting that the Canadians sell us used CANDU heavy water. Hoffman did not believe that. Jones and the people at EPRI did not believe that. (Or if they did, they are grossly ignorant about their own industry -- equivalent to a computer scientist who thinks hard disks run on gasoline.) When they saw that nonsense, and all the other absurdities in the book, they shrugged their shoulders and endorsed it anyway. They figured it does not matter what kind of lie you make up in order to defeat another lie. Bottom line is, it's a public relations blunder to color yourself as an irrational maniac by using such statements. I disagree. I think that we must speak the truth. Posterity will say that Jones, Huizenga and the DoE were irrational maniacs who thought the Canadians sell used heavy water etc. I know it's heartbreaking to see the profound stupidity and annoying personality of people like Jones standing in the way of progress. It isn't just stupidity and annoying personality. Human nature can be infinitely worse that. Some of those people would stop at nothing to prevent our success. But let's not echo their mistakes and impede progress ourselves by letting our dark side influence our mouths to shoot ourselves in the foot. I disagree. I think it is my moral responsibility to point out evil when I see it. I think it would be immoral for me to stand aside in silence while Jones attacks the reputations of good scientists and good friends of mine like Miles. It is Jones' dark side at issue, not mine. I have done nothing wrong, he has. I do not make these accusations lightly, for no purpose. There *is* a dark side, and if we do not publicly fight it, the bad guys win. As Martin Luther King put it: "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people." (As I said, I'll grant this is not the place to publicly fight it! Just this once . . . ) It's a tough world, and maybe sometimes it seems we're forced to take the low road. It is not the low road for me. I do not feel bad about exposing Jones any more than I regret exposing Meyer, and Potapov. I am *proud* of my role in these affairs. Horwood did the heavy work on Meyer, but I helped a little. Meyer and Jones should be ashamed of themselves, not me! Well, I may be proud I helped ax that con-man Meyer, but this discussion group is not the place to crow about it. It is good to point out evil, but not here, because this is a science discussion group, not a morality play. So I shall refrain from talking about politics. I wanted to express a frank opinion, and point out where my moral philosophy differs from Rick's. Of course, he is right in many ways; Gene and I do go overboard, but life has taught us bitter lessons. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 00:15:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA24614; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 00:13:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 00:13:39 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 23:14:50 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Resent-Message-ID: <"XdSoj.0.U06.oSIgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2542 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A >At 05:50 PM 12/5/96 -0800, you wrote: >> THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS [snip] > >this is interesting stuff. where did you get it? >____________________________________ >MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing >Michael Mandeville, publisher >mwm@aa.net >http://www.aa.net/~mwm Thanks, I wrote it. Sorry I didn't make that clear. It was partly written in preparation to answering Colin Quinney's questions about my idea for recycling H2O AND CO2 via arc and use in PAGD, etc., a response which I still plan to write. I'm pretty slow at bigger responses - sorry. I hope to respond to Jay Olson's kind remarks as as well, but that will take a bit of time also. I wrote the first draft of the AEH that was posted here off the top of my head that morning. It is a natural extension of "The Sub-orbital Hypothesis of Cold Fusion" that I posted on vortex earlier. I was busy with other things, but thought it was some good ideas that might be lost, so I wrote until my wife came home for lunch and submitted what I had, spelling errors and all. The ideas had been floating around my head for a while and it all spilled out in a couple hours. Didn't know if there would be time to work on it again soon. I have since improved the draft some, and added some numbers and improved ideas. I also have added some references mostly courtesy of Dr. Hal Puthoff, who I think is THE expert in the field of ZPE. I am still working on the paper. I hope the it generates some synergy, and I hope to do some testing. I expect to post it on s.p.f. eventually and watch Dick Blue knash his teeth a bit, if he still has them. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 00:30:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA26511; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 00:27:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 00:27:13 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961207034250.006a3240@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 03:43:15 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Heffner's Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"vBAQJ3.0.9U6.WfIgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2543 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:56 PM 12/6/96 -0500, Hal Puthoff wrote: >I was again intrigued to see Horace's posting of the AEH concept. Our views >on what is happening in at least some "cold fusion" experiments is quite >parallel. That is, that the excess heat energy is due largely to the >conversion of zero-point energy to heat during H+ type infiltration into >metals, the heat from fusion by and large being a corollary secondary effect. > Our own modeling, although differing in certain details from Horace's, >essentially paints the same picture. In this picture one needs only to >realize that quantum ground state electron orbitals are determined on the >basis of equilibrium interchange with the ZPE (ZPE absorption balanced by >acceleration radiation). Therefore environments which perturb the >ground-state orbitals are candidates for ZPE energy conversion. It is only a >matter of materials and engineering to find the viable processes, as is the >case with thermonuclear fusion. > >Hal Puthoff > Hal; During the conversion of zero-point energy to heat, could there be a gravitational disturbance ? Has anyone measured this, or looked ? Could this effect be useable ? Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 00:45:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA29016; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 00:43:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 00:43:57 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 03:42:23 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: We mean it: people are evil Message-ID: <961207084222_100060.173_JHB91-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"j295n3.0.E57.CvIgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2544 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Jed, you said: >> I wanted to express a frank opinion, and point out where my moral philosophy differs from Rick's. Of course, he is right in many ways; Gene and I do go overboard, but life has taught us bitter lessons. - Jed << You are absolutely right IMHO, but please remember that not all of us are privy to the background evidence which motivates you and Gene, and some of us tend to regard the "overboard" language with a degree of horror, not to mention legality! Its a bit like using CAPS in lower case type. BTW - I'm grateful for your help with the Meyer case - you should see the crap by the barrel-load that he is shovelling down the wires, to mix my metaphors slightly. Regards, Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 01:23:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA01531; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 01:21:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 01:21:39 -0800 Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 10:36:55 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <32a92cac.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Re: Latest Yusmar Leaflet Resent-Message-ID: <"o_Tdn1.0.rN.YSJgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2545 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 6 Dec 1996 07:56:45 -0800, vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > Gene, > > Am I reading your table correctly? The first column, say elect pwr 65KW, > second column thermal pwr 30KW, etc., does not look like o/u or COP >1. > > Hal Puthoff Hal, Both columns are kW *produced*, the kW electricity consumed are not figured here. For one of the QHPS-3 units working in Chernetsk the data are the following: electricity consumed: 68 kW electricity produced :90 kW heat produced: 130 kW This is the first generator working in self-sustaining regime. This has lasted for two weeks and was continuing at the time of my visit at Yuri but before this improvements and research was made for increasing the electrical output from approx 60 kW to the present value. This means that originally, before the improvement some 8 kW electricity were consumed to get a total of 190 kW energy . It is quite a good o/u value and is an explanation for the commercial success of the QHPS's. 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 Dec 7 03:21:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA11350; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 03:20:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 03:20:34 -0800 Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 12:56:16 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <32a94d56.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: pewter@itim.org.soroscj.ro Subject: Re: Latest Yusmar Leaflet Resent-Message-ID: <"F5eKm.0.Fn2.0CLgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2546 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 6 Dec 1996 14:00:19 -0800, vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > I don't get it. A submersible heating element can do better than that. > What am I missing? > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 Horace, As I wrote to Hal, both columns are re. produced energy. See please the message at vortex. 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 Dec 7 03:40:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA12544; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 03:39:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 03:39:12 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 06:36:22 EST From: Wolfram Bahmann <100276.261@compuserve.com> To: "\"Peter Glueck\"" Cc: vortex Subject: Re: Self-sustaining YUSMAR. Message-ID: <961207113621_100276.261_JHF74-4@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ZKIBM.0.w33.VTLgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2547 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter wrote: > Dear Wolfram, > It is my pleasure to inform you that Dr. Yuri S. Potapov > from Kishinev, Moldova has eventually realized a self-sustaining > source of energy. His Quantum Power Heat Station type 3 from > Chernetsk, Ukraine is delivering 90 kW electricity and 130 kW > heat (as 70 C water) and consumes 68 kW current, that is gives > 22 kW current and 130 kW heat just for free! Historical event; > this regime is maintained for more than 2 weeks. I am organizing > a visit at the site for the early spring 1997 for a final proof. > Please let me know if you want join us. Or do you want an earlier > visit being here in Europe? > What are your news? > Best regards, > Peter Glueck Dear Peter, many thanks for this interesting information. What does 'eventually' mean in the context of self sustaining in your description ? Does the apparaturs/system work in a closed loop without being fed with electricity from outside. If not - how exact is the measurement of the inout/output energy ? .. and there remains the questions What principle of operation is applied to make the machine run ? ... and did you already see it running ? ... and who else independently ? Please excuse my caution, but I remember the reports from the demonstration experiments in Los Alamos and the trials in Pennsylvania. I suppose that similar questions will/would be put by other colleagues from the Vortex-group. If the weak points can be solved, of course would I be interested to join a visiting group; presumed finding funds for travelling. Best regards, Wolfram Bahmann Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc. - EURO. SECR. Feyermuehler Str.12 D-53894 MECHERNICH Germany fax: Int+49/ 2443-8221 e-mail: 100276.261@compuserve.com URL http://energie.keng.de/~pace From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 04:00:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA05090; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 12:38:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 12:38:31 -0800 Date: 06 Dec 96 15:03:01 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@CompuServe.COM> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Proposed test- Reduction of radioactivit Message-ID: <961206200301_76570.2270_FHU53-4@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"exczE3.0.MF1.5H8go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2532 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace, You wrote: "It should also be said that Steve Jones is doing good and charitable work in making solar cooking available to disadvantaged nations." But think of the millions dead already and soon to be because of the delay in getting CF energy developed! As one of the prime obstructors/obfuscatrors. Jones has blood on his hands. There is no doubt about it. Solar cookers? Please! Gene From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 04:14:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA14328; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 04:12:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 04:12:40 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 07:10:12 EST From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Further Jones comment Message-ID: <961207121012_76216.2421_HHB32-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"U9wP21.0.kV3.tyLgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2548 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gene - > One more point in repsonse to Rick Monteverde. I am not > saying that Jones is a deliberate baby-killer. That would > be "Murder One" as they say. He is not guilty of that. I > consider him to be guilty of reckless manslaughter, > which is bad enough. Negligent homicide sounds more like what you were describing. Allowing or letting a situation continue which you have the power to stop, which you also know is certain to cause someone's death. Lawyers out there need not split hairs with me on the definition here, but that's the gist of it. Look, you and Jed and others are down there in the trenches fighting this thing, and I'm *sure* there's plenty of nasty business going on down there that's not visible from up here in the cyber-cheapseats. Of course there is. That's how selfish, willful, greedy, foolish people work. World's full of 'em. I want to be very clear where I'm coming from on this, on the nature of my specific complaint. When a man is said in public to have blood on his hands, you are publically saying that he is guilty of a specific thing - the intentional killing, whether by indifferent negligence or direct action, of another human being. Period. That's what it means when you say that. > But telling the truth about Jones the evil, deliberate, > hypocritical deceiver, is not wrong. Of course it isn't! Tell it on the mountain, brother. Just tell the truth. This is about *appearances* from where I sit, and there are a lot of other people sitting up here where I do, where we don't see all those things you do up close and personal. You (Jed, and others) need to be painting the picture for us so we get it all the way out where we are. It *is* politics. It *is* PR. Maybe it's not those things to you down where you have these things happening in your faces, but by the time it filters out to where most of us are, it is. I don't run CF experiments. I don't analyze everyone's data in a rigorous way. I don't spend hours verifying actions, claims, data, calling people, etc. etc. I don't know or talk to anyone in person involved in any way with CF. I do breathe air, use energy, pay taxes, know what a truly sorry state the world is in, and worry. All I know is what I've read here, the papers, magazines - I.E. and occasional articles in other publications, books, and so forth about CF. But I count for practically nothing, my opinions and my one measly vote. I *do* talk to people about CF, including some who have on accasion read posts online (spf) by Jed and others. Some of them think you're all nuts, both sides. Not just because of what DB or SJ or others say about CF or you, or because they don't believe in CF, but for what some of you on both sides say about your opponents. I'm telling you there is a line that gets crossed, and people react to it a certain way. If this looks like I'm coming off as too judgmental about your actions, cast that out for a moment and look again at the phrase I started this paragraph with. That's all my complaint is about. I know you're basically right. It's just that in that one sense you're not telling it right, IMO. And it seems that way to others, too. I know you have good reasons to feel that Jones has blood on his hands. But I still think you're wrong to think that people are impressed with your cause by saying that. It offends. More follows in a post to Jed. > "...it almost doesn't matter what we do!" You are on dangerous ground there. Things should never be so desperate that you should be motivated towards casting aside your humanity. People who survived the concentration camps have taught us that even when things are so bad that *everything* is taken away from us, up to and including our very lives, there are still some very precious things which are always ours to keep - or give up as well if indeed we so choose. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 04:27:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA14356; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 04:12:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 04:12:56 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 07:10:17 EST From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: We mean it: people are evil Message-ID: <961207121017_76216.2421_HHB32-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"yZkKi1.0.EW3.7zLgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2549 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jed - > The implication here is that we are engaging in political > hyperbole, and we do not really mean it. Ah, but we *do* > mean it. Oh, I'm sure you mean it, but it's still political hyperbole of a sort that doesn't sit well with me (which doesn't matter) nor probably, IMO, a lot of other people you are engaged in trying to impress (should be very important to you). SJ and his ilk are evil? Tell us about it. And you do. But tell us what to think or what you about him in those specific terms, and say "he has blood on his hands", and you've crossed a line in a PR sense that to my lights causes you damage. That's the extent of my complaint. It starts and stops right there. I don't look "at Jones' postings and [see] legitimate, thoughtful scientific objections." I looked at the post by him quoted here and saw in it evidence of just the kind of intellectual dishonesty you guys are talking about. Of course I'm not against you tearing into them for their dishonesty, greed, stupidity, criminality, and whatever else you can show them to be by exposing their actions which demonstrate those vices. Please continue to do just that with all possible vigor. >>> "I disagree. I think that we must speak the truth." And I disagree with that, in part. Do tell the truth about their improper actions or crimes. But it *can* be a public relations error to tell the truth about what you're thinking about your opponents. It sounds small, bitter, etc., and it turns people's sentiments against you. I once lost a job years ago because I said what I thought, how I really felt at the moment, about a man who clearly made up false pretenses for a phony grievence against me, then made direct terroristic threats of violence against me as well. I was home free. I had completely won hearts and minds with my side of the story. Then my big mouth opened again and out spilled my innermost thoughts about this gentleman, and it scared the wrong person a little bit. You have to know how this works, it's human nature. Don't play to its weak side. > I am *proud* of my role in these affairs. Horwood did > the heavy work on Meyer, but I helped a little. Meyer > and Jones should be ashamed of themselves, not me! Again, you're drifting a bit from the focus of my complaint. It doesn't involve that. You are right about those things, and I agree with what you've done in exposing them. Now for instance, Meyer has damaged the advancement of new energy sources by his ill-motivated actions. The day that dawns on a world powered by new clean energy source will come a day later than it could have because of it. And children will die in agony because of that lost day. Is there blood on Meyer's hands? Jed, if there is, then there's blood on every one of our hands for every instant in which we failed to act impeccably while enmeshed in this complex web of cause and effect we call the material world. I have not always acted impeccably in my life, and through some unseen connections of cause and effect, the world is just a little bit worse off for it, and somewhere a person has died or will die because of it. Blood on my hands? In a certain sense, yes. Will you win any friends if you are against me, for political or whatever reasons, by claiming that I have blood on my hands? No. At least I don't think so. That's my point. I don't want to be overly critical of you and Gene's good efforts. They truly are very valuable to all of us. My criticism is meant to be constructive. If you ultimately disagree with my point of view, fine. I can leave off at that, and not fill up this venue with extra hashing over it. I've pretty much said my piece now, and you and others can consider it for what it's worth. I continue to support your efforts regardless. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 04:31:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA15348; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 04:29:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 04:29:46 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 07:27:58 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Proposed test- Reduction of radioact Message-ID: <961207122757_100433.1541_BHG68-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"DXEtN1.0.kl3.vCMgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2550 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick, Well, maybe I'm the last person you would expect to chip in here. I'm sorry, but in the end I have to agree with Jed and Gene. Maybe I would not express the same views with quite the same language, but mine are essentially the same. I won't keep going over the same ground and the same arguments. But do you recall that on the Compuserve Science forum it was stated to general applause that two of the theory papers on gravity modification referred to the discredited Tohuko effect, whereby spinning masses lose weight? (By the way, I don't know if the original claim was wrong, or the debunk was wrong.) You know and I know that these references don't exist. You asked for them and he couldn't give them. I asked for them, and got no reply. That was pure invention, on the basis that it doesn't matter what you say so long as it is in a good cause. But I'm sure he believes that the gravity modification is pure nonsense. That's one level - and I would call it doublethink rather than wickedness. I suspect that Meyer is a doublethinker - he knows his stuff is nonsense, yet he believes it. So that allows a person to lie if he believes it is somehow right to lie. Then we have people like Blue and Huizenga. Personally, I suspect that Blue is quite honest. He believes what he is told to believe, and the moment whoever it is he listens to tells him CF is real he will at that instant believe it. With Huizenga or Morrison, I think that they do know on one level that something odd is going on, but believe they must at all costs defend the faith. More doublethink. Then you have the people who should know better but cannot be bothered or who prefer to jog along and not buck the trend. Frankly, all those medics who chopped people's stomachs out for twelve years after Marshall proved categorically that antibiotics would cure almost all stomach ulcers were criminally negligent. They killed people, they let people go on suffering unnecessarily, they performed operations which left the sufferers with mutilated stomachs. That was negligence raised to the level of evil. And I'll bet that there were doctors actively defending the status quo and persuading their fellow doctors that Marshall was a brash know-nothing. For them, hanging is not enough - literally and precisely they were guilty of mutilation and murder. And I'm afraid I believe that Jones does know better, and that his actions have bad motives. As Jed says, we all tend to subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as evil. We will say that A is a wonderful person, but B's apparent evil is just folly or some chemical derangement. This is wrong. The mob in Northern Ireland which has in recent weeks been 'picketing' a church (read: attacking the cars of worshippers with iron bars as they try to go to services, throwing petrol bombs), and fire-bombing four infant schools, is made up of evil people. Evil people exist, and some of them are pleasant professionals who would never hurt a fly. Any scientist or professional who obstructs progress which would save lives or prevent suffering, primarily for his own purposes, is simply evil. The best figures on micro-particulate vehicle emissions seem to make it clear that they cause 10,000 premature deaths each year in the UK. A new study in the US puts the figure there at 60,000. The misery and suffering in the developing world from polluted water and other energy-related problems has been put at thousands of deaths every *week*. Anyone who knowingly uses specious argument in an effort to discredit CF or other science of potential benefit is evil. It is really that simple. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 05:20:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA23498; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 18:27:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 18:27:37 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199612070215.SAA17854@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, 06 Dec 1996 18:15:30 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Resent-Message-ID: <"4lwDS2.0.-k5.MODgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2537 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:50 PM 12/5/96 -0800, you wrote: > THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS > >STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND ASSUMPTIONS > >The Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH) is the idea that atomic expansion > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > this is interesting stuff. where did you get it? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 05:26:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA19881; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 05:23:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 05:23:51 -0800 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:18:30 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199612071418.PAA22599@sunny.bahnhof.se> X-Sender: grappo@bahnhof.se (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: gudmund rapp Subject: Re: Proposed test- Reduction of radioactivit Resent-Message-ID: <"lzdZz3.0.Ys4.a_Mgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2551 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 19.33 1996-12-06 EST, you wrote: >Gene Mallove wrote: > > > "Jones has blood on his hands." > >I've seen you and Jed take this tack many times before. I'm an advocate of CF >and the need for our civilization to make an urgent and full-fledged >examination and eventual development of its possibilities. I agree that if it >turns out to be a beneficial and viable replacement for fossil and other >polluting fuels, then millions will be saved from death and suffering. And in >that case it would be true that continued suppression of the effort would tend >to allow that suffering to take place instead of saving people from it. > >But claims such as you have made in the above quote are logically flawed, not >to mention repugnant. It's the same as the Democrats screaming this year that >the evil Republicans wanted to starve children to death and kill off the >elderly by cutting school lunch programs and Medicaid. Newt and the Republicans >are not murderous ogres with a desire to cause harm to our children and >elderly, and the "cuts" the Democrats cried about weren't even cuts. Frankly, >I'm sick and tired of hearing that kind of phony argument. > >Making this sort of statement discredits you and the cause you speak for. I >know you've been hit on before over this, but you choose to continue doing it. >That kind of talk is inflammatory and based on false assumptions. Do you have >any evidence that Jones is a truly malicious person who hopes to keep a good >think out of humanity's hands so that he can revel in the suffering of >innocents? If you do, post it so we can know who the enemy really is. If not, I >would invite you, Jed, and whoever else thinks about using this type of >argument to refrain from it from now on. References to saving lives otherwise >lost if the technology is delayed is appropriate. Appealing to people not to >impede progress for that reason is fine. Impugning the character of those who >do inadvertently, as you did say, impede progress by attempting to splatter >them with the blood of the hypothetically un-saved is, IMO, truly bad form. >There is a fundamental difference between error and evil. Blurring that line in >order to hurt an opponent only harms your own cause. > >Bottom line is, it's a public relations blunder to color yourself as an >irrational maniac by using such statements. I support your efforts Gene, and >share in your enthusiasm for the possibilities of this new technology. I know >it's heartbreaking to see the profound stupidity and annoying personality of >people like Jones standing in the way of progress. But let's not echo their >mistakes and impede progress ourselves by letting our dark side influence our >mouths to shoot ourselves in the foot. It's a tough world, and maybe sometimes >it seems we're forced to take the low road. But at the very least, I don't >think we should allow ourselves to be seen doing it in public. > >Respectfully, > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > I wholeheartedly agree: In my opinion, man does not possess a free will; at any given time she thinks, speaks and acts in the "best way" she is able to. She cannot do otherwise due to her conditioning (programming) from birth and onwards. See further my h omepage titled "Self-knowledge - Man know thyself": http://www.bahnhof.se/~grappo/index.html. It contains an essay discussing the "I" and the "free" will. It is mainly based on my on observations of myself and others (particularly my wife) in our relations to each other.It is trying to sugest why at all levels and in all cases relations can be ver y difficult. But beware, like CF, it is completely contrary to the established opinion. Have a nice weekend. Best regards Gudmund Rapp Gudmund Rapp Phone: +4687178913 Vinterbrinksvagen 7 Email: grappo@bahnhof.se 133 32 Saltsjobaden Sweden Web "Self-knowledge": http://www.bahnhof.se/~grappo/index.html From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 06:57:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA29911; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 06:54:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 06:54:47 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 09:52:02 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: We mean it: people are evil Message-ID: <961207145202_100433.1541_BHG54-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"mPQiO2.0.CJ7.sKOgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2552 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick, Thanks for your further postings. Actually, I agree in one sense - that some of our statements might be impolitic, and perhaps some of them are motivated by anger. But I was thinking about Dean Jonathon Swift (1667-1745). As well as writing such satires as Gulliver's Travels, he also railed against the evil he saw in English society, specifically their treatment of the Irish. His epitaph was (for Peter Glueck) "Ubi saeva indignatio ulterius cor lacerare nequit," and for the rest of us, "Where fierce indignation can no longer tear his heart." He made a 'modest proposal', suggesting that the Irish should eat their own babies as means of defeating both famine and overpopulation: "I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well-nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked or boiled, and I make no doubt that it will equally serve as in a fricassee, or a ragout." Savage? Certainly. Ill-advised? Possibly. But I would rather be Swiftian, even if it backfires. At least you die honest. Those landowners were good and moral men by their own lights - but they were evil men in fact. They knew what was happening, they chose to do nothing. Enough. But while I have my book of quotations open, perhaps a little more Swift might be worth passing around. "And he gave it for his opinion, that whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service for his country than the whole race of politicians put together." "He had been eight years upon a project for extracting sun-beams out of cucumbers, which were to be put into vials hermetically sealed, and let out to warm the air in raw inclement summers." "Last week I saw a woman flayed, and you will hardly believe, how much it altered her person for the worse." "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." "They never would hear, But turn the deaf ear, As a matter they had no concern in." "Philosophy! the lumber of the schools." "In church your grandsire cut his throat, To do the job too long he tarry'd. He should have had my hearty vote, To cut his throat before he marry'd." And, finally: "Those unhappy people were proposing schemes for persuading monarchs to choose favourites upon the score of their wisdom, capacity and virtue; of teaching ministers to consult the public good; of rewarding merit, great abilities and eminent services; of instructing princes to know their true interest by placing it on the same foundation with that of their people: of choosing for employment persons qualified to exercise them; with many other wild impossible chimeras, that never before entered into the heart of man to conceive, and confirmed in me the old observation, that there is nothing so extravagant and irrational which some philosophers have not maintained for truth." Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 07:29:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA00775; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 07:25:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 07:25:51 -0800 Message-ID: <32A99AD0.24C@rt66.com> Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 08:26:56 -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: vortex-l@eskimo.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, g-miley@uiuc.edu, 72240.1246@compuserve.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, 100433.1541@compuserve.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp, dnovak@uriacc.uri.edu, 74750.1231@compuserve.com Subject: Miley Preprints Critique Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"0pBFI2.0.xB.znOgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2553 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: <32A994C8.3B85@rt66.com> Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 08:01:12 -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: vortex-l@eskimo.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, g-miley@uiuc.edu, 72240.1256@compuserve.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, 100433.1541@compuserve.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp, dnovak@uriacc.uri.edu, 74750.1231@compuserve.com, ggmurray@uriacc.uri.edu, jmyeo@juno.com, key@rt66.com, catala@mariner.rutgers.edu, 72507.3443@compuserve.com, rollo@artvark.com, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, science-now@aaas.org, letters@csicop.org, editors@sciam.com, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, sarfatti@well.com, david@ibg.uu.se, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, karim.alim@mci.com, jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu, mike_mckubre@qm.sir.com, mizuno@athena.hune.hokudai.ac.jp, sukhanov@srdlan.npi.msu.su, mica@world.std.com, puthoff@aol.com, conte@teseo.it, mhugo@eprinet.epri.com, ine@padrak.com, rgeorge@hooked.net, 100276.261@compuserve.com, little@eden.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, jonesse@physcl.byu.ed, britz@kemi.aau.dk, 76216.2421@compuserve.com, CldFusion@aol.com, design73@aol.com, filimonov@chem.bsu.minsky.by, jlagarde@ecg.csg.mot.com, wspage@ncs.dnd.ca, jlagarde@cyberaccess.fr, fznidarsic@aol.com, bsullivan@sky.net, rbrtbass@ix.netcom.com, zumm@flashnet.net, rvanspaa@netspace.net.au, wireless@rmii.com, ross@pacificnet.net, mwm@aa.net, dacha@shentel.net, msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.edu.au, jechampion@aol.com, jlogajan@skypoint.com, bockris@chemvx.tamu.edu, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, bhorst@loc100.tandem.com, wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, cc840@freenet.carleton.ca, ceti@onramp.net, reeber@aro.ncren.net, dennis@wazoo.com Subject: Miley Preprints Critique Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Richard T. Murray, M.A. Room For All 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 505-983-8250 rmforall@rt66.com Dec. 6, 1996 "An Critique of George H. Miley's Recent Preprints" Having heard his articulate report and charmed by his quietly professional, professorial manner at the Second International Conference on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, next to but not directly contaminating the campus of Texas A&M University, College Station, Sept. 13 and 14, 1996, I was excited to get Miley's 37-page preprint, "Nuclear Transmutations in Thin-Film Nickel Coatings Undergoing Electrolysis," on October 5. [George H. Miley, Fusion Studies Laboratory, U. of Illinois, 103 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801-2984, 217-333-3772, g-miley@uiuc.edu] I examined it thoroughly for 4 days, and wrote a long post for Vortex-L discussion group, proposing that the SIMS instrument, with its 8-Kev positive oxygen ion beam, might itself be producing nuclear reactions in the nickel film. I was excited to hear that up to 60 nuclear transmutation kits were sold for $ 3,750 each by CETI on Nov. 11 at the American Nuclear Society conference in Wash.,D.C. [Clean Energy Technology, Inc., One Lincoln Center, 5400 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 950, Dallas, TX 75240, 214-982-8340, ceti@onramp.net, http://www.onramp.net/~ceti], but casually intrigued by critical posts, not only by the notorious Richard A. Blue [blue@pilot.msu.edu] on Nov. 11 on sci.physics.fusion, but on Nov.14 on Vortex-L by Dr. Barry Merriman [barry@math.ucla.edu] and Chris Tinsley [100433.1541@compuserve.com] and on Nov. 25 by Ron McFee [mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov] and Elliot Kennel in Japan [kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp]. So, I read more carefully Miley's second preprint, 16 pages, on Dec. 2, on "Quantitative Observation of Transmutation Products Occuring in Thin-Film Coated Microspheres During Electrolysis," presented at the International Conference on Cold Fusion-Sixth, Japan, Oct. 14-17. In Texas, Miley said over 20 successful runs had been done, "with no abortions". In his Second Preprint, he claims, "over a dozen". His First Preprint described Run #8, while Second Preprint repeats summary data from #8 and adds data on five other runs. Table 2, Second Preprint, shows that the six sets of 1 mm beads have thin films of from 2.7 to 58 microgram mass. The nickel film for Run #8 is given as 2650 A and for Run #18C as 3000 A, but on page 8 we have, "Runs #8 and #18C, both of which used 650-A Ni film...," and the 650-A figure is likewise given in First Preprint. Table 3, Second Preprint, "Yield for NAA Elements", lists for all six runs, Neutron Activation Analysis net mass change data in micrograms per bead on samples of 10 of the 1000 beads, described in First Preprint as taken from the surface of the cathode end of the ~.5 cc (3-5 layers) packed volume of 1 mm beads. "These microspheres were selected due to accessibility and because the higher electric field in that region should make this layer most reactive." It is thus admitted that the 1 % sample of measured beads was deliberately non-randomly selected. Wouldn't there be a natural tendency to pick out the beads that appear "most reactive"? The data given are only the net or (final minus initial) values, without the final or initial values being given! This prevents us from making important judgements on what might be going on in the experiments. Eight elements are listed, plus one datum for Ni in Pd film. Of the 49 listed values, four are actually negative, indicating loses of .00204 to 1.78 microgram/bead. This could indicate mass transfer among the beads. The six sets of beads respectively have initial metal film masses: 8.8, 67., 8.3?, 8.5, 2.7, 9.4 micrograms/bead. The four negative values allow us to estimate the lowest bound of some of the initial impurity levels, assuming the null hypothesis: Run #18C 9.4 microgram/bead Ag>= .002 microgram/bead 200 ppm Run #13 2.7 Al 2. 74 % ! Cu .4 15 % ! V .006 2000 ppm I wonder why Miley didn't claim the 74 % loss of Al as evidence of an extraordinary level of transmutation. However, in order to do so, he would have to argue that the beads used in Run #13 actually had 74 % Al as an impurity. Since Al has atomic mass 27 amu, while Ni is ~58 amu, that would be ~1.5 Al atoms per Ni atom. The alternative conclusion is that the Al was an impurity from some other source in the overall experimental process. This in turn tends to support the simplest null hypothesis view that the other three elements are likewise impurities, not transmutation products. The 45 positive gains range from as low as 3.71-E05 to as high as 5.19 micrograms/bead. Three decimals of accuracy are given across this whole five orders of magnitude range without discussion or justification. No attempts are mentioned to measure the same 10-bead set more than once, to compare several different 10-bead sets from the same run, or to measure variation within each 10-bead set. This is extremely casual, careless data. It is presented in a cramped, dense table in a form that makes intelligent appraisal very difficult and tedious. With his Second Preprint, Miley sent the recepients a note: "As I said in my earlier note, these results are very difficult to understand and I would appreciate any comments, questions, or suggestions. I've received a number of questions about the earlier paper on nickel results and I am attempting to wade through them and get back to the individuals with my response as soon as possible." On page 5, Second Preprint: "Typical [NAA] detection limits were of the order of 2 ppm, with a precision of 2-10 %". On page 11, First Preprint: "Typical [NAA] detection limits for Ag were of the order of 2 ppm, with a precision of +- 10-15 %," and, page 12, "Detection limits were several ppm for Cu and less than 1 ppm for V and Al, with a precision of several percent for these elements." The lowest NAA value is 37.1E-06 microgram/bead for Run #18C, with Ni mass 9.4 microgram/bead, gives 4 ppm net change in V, just above the claimed detection limit, and properly should be expressed as 37 +- 1 E-06 microgram/bead, if we assume 3 % precision. Recall that our minimal estimate for putative V impurity level was 2000ppm, so this value of 4 ppm represents a claimed .2 % change. Precision of 3 % implies that the impurity level should be thought of as 2000 +- 60 ppm. So the claimed change of 4 ppm is 6 % of the positive error range of 60 ppm. That's impressive. Now, the 60 ppm for the 9.4 microgram Ni/bead gives .0006 microgram, or 6E-04. At least, the other 7 values for Run #18C are substantially above this limit of significance. A question: what if dust from the laboratories involved settled onto the ten-bead sample sets and whatever container they were measured in? How much dust might produce how many micrograms of elements, when data accuracy of .0000371 microgram/bead are claimed? Second preprint, page 5: "Element yields as high as several micrograms/microsphere are obtained, representing roughly a mg of these high-yield elements per cell (1000 microspheres)." Thus, with blatant audacity, the unjustifiable claim is made that the measurements on a non-randomly selected sample of 1 % of the beads in a run can "represent...roughly" the "high-yield elements per cell". Nine elements are thus dignified as "NAA elements", while the other elements are determined by SIMS analsis on micron-size sites on individual beads, and called "non-NAA elements". Second Preprint says nothing about SIMS detection limits or precision or about bead and site selection, while First Preprint explains that NAA values were used to calibrate the SIMS values, page 10: "With this technique, an uncertainty factor of 2 is estimated for the absolute values for non-NAA element percentages." Uncertainty factor of 2, folks! Second Preprint combines NAA and non-NAA element data and presents all six runs in Figure 2 as Production Rate, atoms per sec per cc metal film vs Atomic Number (Z), and separately for Runs #8, #18C, and #13-- but NONE of these four figures include ANY of the data for the 9 NAA elements from Table 3, which are either left out totally, or given radically different values! Figure this one out, folks! The four figures, which are small and dense, are organized with a heavy dark line to indicate, page 8, "four distinct peaks at Z ~12, 30, 48, and 82." The abstract, but not the text, claims: "four major groups with atomic number ~= 6-18; 22-35; 44-54; 75-85." The abstract's claim has several short-comings. The first two gaps between the bands are narrow. The first band ends with 17-Cl and 18-Ar, which as gases would not be retained in thin films, to be later detected. The second band ends with 35-Br, same problem. The third range ends with 53-I and 54-Xe, same problem. Doubling the dimensions of the figures with zeroxing makes assessing the data easier, but Fig. 2, of all six runs, even so still has many illegible data points and element labels. Removing the heavy four-peak curve with white-out reveals a jagged landscape, indeed. If transmutations were happening, then wouldn't gases like 1 H, 2 He, 7 N, 8 O, 9 F, 10 Ne, 17 Cl, 18 Ar, 35 Br, 36 Kr, 53 I, 54 Xe be lost? They'd do a lot to fill in those "gaps", in all four figures. In addition, if transmutations were happening, wouldn't quite a lot of product go into the 100 ml of electrolye, 1 molar LiSO4 in H2O, as sulfates, chlorides, fluorides, and who knows what else, and thus be lost to analysis? Why haven't the gases been collected and measured? Why haven't the electrolytes been analyzed in exhaustive detail? What sense does it make to make radical claims about four peaks of element production without doing a complete, detailed, exhaustive survey of your experiment? Folks, I don't like this! It bugs me no end. Incidentally, a data point for iodine is on Figure 3b for Run #18C. Stunned? Bored? Confused? Sorry, there's more, much more, rather like the trials of O.J. Simpson. First Preprint does include much before and after data for Run #8. Table 4a is supposed to substantiate claims that only trivial amounts of possible contaminants are in the experiment: as much as 1.6 microgram Cu in the filter paper; 220 of Al, 80 of Cu, 3 of Ag, .9 of V in the electrolyte, 191 of V, 107 of Cu, 74.6 of Al, 1.15 of Ag in the Ti electrodes (.44 gm each for two)-- before the runs. BUT, AFTER the runs, so solly, NO data given, ah, ok, not necessary, see? Edgar Allen Poe's famous story, "The Purloined Letter," has made famous the strategy of hiding a letter by leaving it in plain sight on top of a desk. Table 4a does give before and after data on the honored NAA elements on beads, both uncoated and coated: (I have calculated the ratios, after/before.) [ppm, of whole microsphere = 611 microgram] Ag .061 125.4 ppm 2594.9 ppm 20.7 ratio, after/before microgram before after Al .007 11.2 50.2 4.48 Cu .016 27.0 1849.9 68.2 V .00006 .1 2.6 26.0 Cr .0018 2.9 1126.4 433. Ni 1.11 1821.0 4420.5 2.43 Fe ~.133 ~217.2 2956.6 ~13.6 Zn ~.009 ~ 15.4 488.8 ~31.7 Co .00036 .6 20.5 34.2 The before data for V and Co is far below the 2ppm NAA detection limit, and Cr is barely above it. The total Ni metal mass of a bead with a (maybe) 650-A film is 2.04 microgram, which gives 2.04 mg for 1000 beads. The before data for Ni gives a NAA reading of 1.11 microgram for a bead, about half of the supposed value. So the values for the other element metals, before and after, may vary as much, from 1/2 to 2, which means their ratios may vary from 1/4 to 4 times my calculated values. Who knows? You see, folks, this is a mess, uh, scientificly speaking. Page 6: "Some coating variations, estimated to be +- 30 % can occur among the 1000 microspheres used in the cell, however. Measurements with an Auger electron probe on select microspheres confirmed the film thickness to be reasonably uniform (+- 20 %)." The nickel after is well over twice the nickel before. Of course, almost certainly, the before and after beads are two different sets of ten! But here is a strong message that massive amounts of electrolyic dissolution and redeposition occur in the two-week runs at 2-3 V and several mA (.06 watt) at 60-70 degrees C. What a marvelously complicated maze of fluid and ionic currents our valiant little thousand beads are, all cramped together between two titanium electrodes, with 11 ml/min flow rate. The beads closest to the Ti cathode are precisely the ones that will collect Ni, and all the other metals, and then be selected to be the "most reactive", visually outstanding, lucky ten to represent the whole thousand. Is it too much to imagine that Cr might be thus concentrated 433-fold? Just consider how many compounded measurement inaccuracies are involved: uncertainties in film thickness, film impurity levels, NAA accuracy, and random dust. A few factors of 2 or 3, multiplied together, can do wonders in producing anomalous data peaks. Then, viola!, we have a situation in which the impurities from the unlucky 990 beads can be bequeathed, in unknown but considerable amounts, onto the favored 10. This, my friends, is the stuff of which scientific dreams are made of, great mountains of data, plus or minus 15 % or 100%, whatever, with towering castles of conjecture, "results very difficult to understand," which seen closely, even walked through, are thin air, perhaps half a degree Centigrade hotter, for, reliably, on the average, "approximately 0.5 +- 0.4 watts was recorded throughout the run," surely a triumph of definitive excess heat production, given the .06 watt electric power input. Given all this, I can't help but be skeptical of claims of 4 +-0.8 watt power output. It should be easy to definitively prove such a large power increase, compared to input power of .06 watt, but it is essential to absolutely close all conceivable loopholes, and have a continuous record of energy input and output for the whole 2-week run. Are there any heat excursions, as in other electrolysis experiments? If there is this high level of excess heat, then transmutations and isotopic shifts are certainly a logical probability, but the data in that case would still be swamped by the uncontrolled transport of inpurities in this maximally complex geometry. Here are, from Table 4b, some before and after NAA results, probably on different sets of ten, for sulfonated polystyrene beads: before before after ratio, after/before micrograms ppm whole bead ppm Ag .000426 .7 2.9 4.14 Al .0749 123.0 133.2 1.08 Cu .0391 64.2 35.1 .546 V .000487 .8 .2 .25 Again, the before values for Ag and V are below the NAA detection limit of 2 ppm. What to say? These plastic beads have much more Ag, Al, and V than the Ni coated beads, but 143-fold less Ag. There is as much as four-fold change more or less after electrolysis. The plastic is probably an important source of the many trace elements found in the six runs. Another possibility that needs to be considered and studied, is the possible role of isotopic fractionation by electrolysis. For instance, Cr 54 is 8 % heavier than Cr 50. It would probably diffuse correspondingly slower from bead to bead, and with each transfer, become progressively diluted, so that by the time Cr is accumulated on the beads closest to the cathode, it might be depleted in Cr 54 and enriched in Cr 50. In First Preprint, Table 3, 82 isotopes are listed, based on combined NAA and SIMS data. Eight NAA elements are represented by 18 isotopes. For whatever reason, the NAA element Al is omitted, perhaps because 13-Al27 is the only isotope, which on Fig. 3b, SIMS scan, has a high peak of ~500 counts. We have already discussed evidence for very high Al impurity levels in Run #13. Nevertheless, Miley does include 7 other single-isotope elements, and correctly determines their isotopic shift to be precisely 0.00, a result that gladdens my heart, and reassures me that he is a careful, thorough, cautious worker, not afraid to pad his tables with a few incontrovertible truths. Here is a selection from Table 3 of NAA element data, before and after: (I have arranged the data by element, in order, and calculated the ratio, after/before. When helpful, I added natural abundance, the estimated SIMS count from Fig. 3b., and possible same-mass interferences.) #atoms per microsphere ratio, after/before before after 23-V50 3.54E10 70.1E10 19.8 23-Cr50? 23-V51 1.44E13 28.6E13 19.9 24-Cr50 omitted, 4.4%, SIMS=~500, 23-V50? 24-Cr52 5.63E14 1070E14 190. 24-Cr53 6.27E13 1360E13 217. 24-Cr54 1.53E13 255E15 167. 26-Fe54 2.82E15 17.8E15 6.31 26-Fe56 4.29E16 27.0E16 6.29 26-Fe57 1.01E15 14.1E15 14.0 26-Fe58 omitted, 0.28 %, SIMS=~1000, 28-Ni58? 27-Co59 1.23E14 19.9E14 16.2 100% 29-Cu63 3.57E15 116E15 32.5 29-Cu65 1.54E15 49.7E15 32.3 30-Zn64 1.42E15 16.7E15 11.8 28-Ni64? 30-Zn66 7.82E14 92.2E14 11.8 30-Zn67 1.14E14 21.6E14 19.0 4.1%, SIMS=~10 30-Zn68 5.08E14 130E14 25.6 18.8%, SIMS=~11 30-Zn70 1.64E13 124E13 75.6 0.6%, SIMS=~1, 32-Ge70? 47-Ag107 7.32E15 76.1E15 10.4 47-Ag109 6.68E15 61.4E15 9.2 Of these 7 NAA elements, the V pair is typical, with after/before ratios astonishingly close at 19.8 and 19.9, giving absolutely no hint of changes in isotopic abundances, but suggesting strongly a 20-fold transfer of metal from one set of beads to another within the cell. This is obviously the same for Cr, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, and Ag, considering the +- 15 % precision of NAA. The most out-of-line isotope is 30-Zn70, with ratio 75.6, has only 0.6 % natural abundance, making its measurement more susceptible to dust contamination, and, shall we say, random glitches, as well possible interferences from 32-Ge70. The remarkable close match of some of the isotope pairs for V, FE, Cu, Zn, and Ag is surprising and gratifying, and gives us more faith in the NAA measurements. Miley claims that 47-Ag107 is enhanced 5.17 %, and 47-Ag109 depleated 5.17 %, while the data given show strictly natural abundances. His procedure for estimating changes in isotopic abundances is a rude mathematical device for exaggerating random fluctuations. All his claims based on it are groundless, or as Wolfgang Pauli said more than once, "This is not even wrong." Part of this "not even wrong" is the profuse use of unjustified, meaningless two-decimal place numerical data, with only the most meager concession to modern standards of error estimation. Do you know, if you drive from Santa Fe to Espanola, it takes 20.32 miles, but if you drive from Espanola to Santa Fe, that's 20.04 miles. So, one-way is enhanced .14 miles, and the other is depleted .14 miles. The exact agreement of .14 and .14 surely proves that distance is transcendentally non-conserved in New Mexico. I see nothing in these data to hint at electrolytic enhancement of the lighter isotopes. The rest of the 82 isotopes in Table 3 are non-NAA, that is, SIMS. It is not clear where this data comes from. It might be based on Fig. 3b: "Typical low resolution SIMS scan after the run (average of microspheres in 3 layers in the cell)." If the cell has five layers, then an unspecified number of beads from the top three layers, given that only micro-size sites are measured on each bead, suggests that the SIMS data is far less accurate than the "factor of 2" previously mentioned. Even with doubling by zerox, Fig. 3b is difficult to read. Table 3 ends by giving data for three Pb isotopes, with wonderfully impressive data like 1.37E+15 Reacted MS Atoms. If that data is based on Fig. 3b, then it is based on secondary ion counts of ~2 to ~8. Not even wrong. Having my innate autism aroused, I've been unable to resist scanning Table 3 for intriguing number patterns: There are 6 pairs of identical numbers for Reacted MS Atoms, such as 7.82E+14 for Pb, and 1 triple identity, 7.62E+13 for Mo95, Mo98, and Mo100, with wonderful calculated isotopic deviances of 17.63, 9.53, and 23.70 %. Not even wrong. Now, here's two that are really something, or rather, nothing. Miley has listed nothing but rows of 0.00 values for In113 and for Sr87 and with a stroke of genius derived isotopic differences of -4.28 and -7.02 %. Now that's scientific dispatch. Crisp. Clean. And it's very tidy to have the SIMS isotopic abundance column come up with precisely 1.00E+00 no less than 15 times, and even 3 in a row, as with Dy163, Ho165, and Yb172, with calculated isotopic differences 75.00, 0.00, and 78.20 % Hooray! There is a double 5.00E-01 for Rb85 and Rb87, with calculated differences 22.20 and 22.20 % That one has a very pleasing symmetry, and certainly goes a long way to confirm the wonders of, "relatively long lived atom-p complex with excitation energies of orders of several MeV." (Page 32) Gosh! We've forgotten all about Second Preprint! Well, Fig. 3a shows all the data from Table 5, page 25, First Preprint, which gives 36 elements, all derived by added together the precision isotope data from Table 3, page 15. In addition a point for Li is added, which may derive from a ~100 count line for Li7 and ~6 counts for Li6, in Fig. 3b, the SIMS scan. These SIMS scans are so costly. It's wise to make every count count. Where's the data for all those graphed points for the other five runs? Data! I want data! Those fortunates who have bought CETI kits, and will receive their kits and one-day training on Tuesday, Nov. 10, from Miley at his Fusion Studies Laboratory, have an opportunity now to create more complete, open-minded, and scientifically productive experiments. Competent researchers like Scott Little and Barry Merriman have tried and failed to get excess power or transmutations from their own bead experiments. I believe this pattern will persist, for those researchers who resist merely following the well-worn patterns established by the venerable James Patterson, the ambitious young James Redding, the pragmatic Dennis Cravens, and the unwily George H. Miley. Why not set up microcells to run beads one at a time under strict controls and precision microinstrumentation? This would eliminate complex interbead interactions. If a sudden, descrete excess heat event occurs, the reaction could be immediately stopped, and all constituents completely analyzed. The bead surface could then be surveyed completely in detail. Also, the electrolyte should be continuously renewed, to prevent buildup of complex reaction products, which are sure to promote and inhibit further reactions in mysterious ways. At LANL, Thomas Claytor's 2000 V glow discharge in deuterium gas onto palladium alloys now seems to reliably produce tritium. Couldn't a bead be loaded by a glow discharge in hydrogen or deuterium gas? This is a far simpler situation than electrolysis in water. The range of available impurities could be controlled. Any radiation from the reactions would be less likely to be immediately absorbed and made undetectable. Photons emission at all wavelengths could be continually and sensitively monitored. We should each send Richard A. Blue [blue@pilot.msu.edu] a nice post, admitting that, even if he is a mite tactless, so are we at times, and anyway he is sometimes right, and we are sometimes "not even wrong". Let us resolve firmly to always attend carefully to criticism. Please criticize this critique passionately and pedantically. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 08:00:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAB05081; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 07:54:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 07:54:10 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961207110834.0075a840@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 11:08:44 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Grav papers, a Subject of mutual interest (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"Yd9V-2.0.EF1.WCPgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2554 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:34 PM 12/6/96 -0500, John Schnurer wrote: > >We use www-internal.ornl.gov. The "internal" looks suspicious, >but the information looks like something that the public could >easily have access to. Try it! > John, maybe it's my fumble fingers (or my feeble memory) but I tried it, and couldn't get through. Here's what popped up when I tried to access: Colin Quinney From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 08:23:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA07974; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 08:20:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 08:20:12 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 11:16:42 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Richard Thomas Murray , <74750.1231@compuserve.com>, <72240.1256@compuserve.com>, , , , , , , , Vortex Subject: Re: Miley Preprints Critique Message-ID: <961207161641_100433.1541_BHG84-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"QfgFS1.0.Uy1.xaPgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2555 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Richard, An interesting post indeed. Personally, I feel that at least some of the 'sixty purchasers' will produce their findings, and I'm happy to wait and be guided by the sum-total of their findings. However, I repeat (I know I keep banging on about this, and nobody listens, but I'll do it again), it IS POSSIBLE TO DO A FULL QUANTITATIVE ASSAY. With suitable precautions, a 'before and after' chemical analysis can actually be done - though I believe that so "crude" an approach is deemed to be beneath the notice of lofty nuclear physicists. I just had a blood test done - and it gave a result of 0.8 *nanogrammes per 100ml*, so don't anyone tell me that chemical assay techniques can't determine whether 40% transmutations do or do not occur in several mg of metal in some tens of ml of electrolyte. You can digest the entire cell contents and assay the resulting solution *completely*. I can only hope that some people will for one moment set aside their elaborate (and apparently wholly untrustworthy) machines, and instead call on a competent analytical chemist to advise on digestion procedures, and then divide the resulting solution and send measured samples to properly qualified analytical laboratories. If that were done, we might have some proper facts to discuss - but nobody will pay attention. After all, what do I know? By the way, I think you meant 72240,1256 (Jed Rothwell), not 72240,1246. Chris Tinsley (sour old bastard, me) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 08:49:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA12082; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 08:43:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 08:43:20 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 11:36:24 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Further Jones comment Message-ID: <961207163624_76016.2701_JHC65-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"kZfaW2.0.fy2.cwPgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2556 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick, I have read with interest your comments and those of the wonderful CF Musketeers (this is intended as a compliment.) However, I must vehemently disagree with you on one thing: >>But I count for practically nothing, my opinions and my one measly vote.<< Here, you are totally wrong. I won't go into the details of the concept of the "100th Monkey" but it certainly applies here. I believe in the common conciousness of man; and, at some point, some individual can become the last straw which sways the way of thinking. (Doncha love mixed metaphors?) Even if you don't accept that, your opinion is important. You are an opinion leader. You post heavily in cyberspace and people listen to you. You speak to people who respect you. All these are very important to the general acceptance of any new idea. I am new to this list and new to CF. The honorable Mr. Tinsley set me straight over a year ago and I have followed CF religiously since. I frequently post in many forums of major media when I see CF derided. I look at the Musketeers with a high reverence and am pained to see how they have been hurt by people like Jones. Their injuries are what make them make the statements they have made. I took a hiatus from engineering for two years to be in sales and I learned one thing which is important. When you attack your competition is reflects badly on you, no matter how truthful be the attack. As Chris often says, "The truth will out." And when it does, the untruthful will reap their rewards. Terry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 08:57:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA13430; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 08:54:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 08:54:09 -0800 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 11:48:46 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: Richard Thomas Murray , 74750.1231@compuserve.com, 72240.1256@compuserve.com, VORTEX-L@eskimo.com, BLUE@PILOT.MSU.EDU, G-MILEY@UIUC.EDU, BARRY@math.ucla.edu, MCFEE@XDIV.LANL.GOV, KENNEL@nhelab.iae.or.jp, DNOVAK@URIACC.URI.EDU, Vortex Subject: Re: Miley Preprints Critique In-Reply-To: <961207161641_100433.1541_BHG84-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"nc7s01.0.lH3.l4Qgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2557 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: yy Sour? JHS On 7 Dec 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Richard, > > An interesting post indeed. Personally, I feel that at least some of > the 'sixty purchasers' will produce their findings, and I'm happy to > wait and be guided by the sum-total of their findings. > > However, I repeat (I know I keep banging on about this, and nobody > listens, but I'll do it again), it IS POSSIBLE TO DO A FULL QUANTITATIVE > ASSAY. With suitable precautions, a 'before and after' chemical > analysis can actually be done - though I believe that so "crude" an > approach is deemed to be beneath the notice of lofty nuclear physicists. > > I just had a blood test done - and it gave a result of 0.8 *nanogrammes > per 100ml*, so don't anyone tell me that chemical assay techniques can't > determine whether 40% transmutations do or do not occur in several mg of > metal in some tens of ml of electrolyte. You can digest the entire cell > contents and assay the resulting solution *completely*. > > I can only hope that some people will for one moment set aside their > elaborate (and apparently wholly untrustworthy) machines, and instead > call on a competent analytical chemist to advise on digestion > procedures, and then divide the resulting solution and send measured > samples to properly qualified analytical laboratories. > > If that were done, we might have some proper facts to discuss - but > nobody will pay attention. After all, what do I know? > > By the way, I think you meant 72240,1256 (Jed Rothwell), not 72240,1246. > > Chris Tinsley > (sour old bastard, me) > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 09:15:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA16144; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 09:11:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 09:11:17 -0800 Message-Id: <199612071709.JAA25438@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: rmforall@rt66.com Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 09:10:22 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Miley Preprints Critique Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"gkfF81.0.6y3.pKQgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2558 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I received Richard's long critique, I don't have much to add being that I have been very cautious with my optimism about results based on SIMS and NAA. However the analysis and experiments you propose are a bit naieve considering the effort involved. The details, controls, and analysis you propose would take months of time from many people and scores of thousands of dollars. Perhaps you don't understand that work in this field is not richly and lavishly funded. When a working (not an armchair) scientist like George Miley presents his results you must understand that it is what it is, not perfectly performed spare no stone nor expense research. Suggestions that exhaustive efforts and vast sums be expended serve no purpose everyone would spend those sums if they were available. George needs constructive realistic advice and supporting data from others working in the field not simply a litany of where his work is weak he knows that very well. This is work on the frontier if your unable to live off the land, afraid of getting lost or running into a bear you ought not to be out here. Russ George From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 09:37:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA19012; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 09:33:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 09:33:22 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 08:31:42 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Latest Yusmar Leaflet Resent-Message-ID: <"9U5m-2.0.ve4.WfQgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2559 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >As I wrote to Hal, both columns are re. produced energy. >See please the message at vortex. >Peter >-- >dr. Peter Gluck Yes - and I was very impressed to see that! Is Frank Znidarsic or someone here in the USA going to get a shot at testing one, or marketing them? If they work that well, I could sell many thousands of units here in Alaska alone. If there are patents and the thing is in production maybe we on vortex could somehow see some design information? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 10:02:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA22827; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 09:59:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 09:59:12 -0800 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:57:47 -0500 Message-ID: <961207125746_2084168020@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Heffner's Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH) Resent-Message-ID: <"ykd_j2.0.Za5.k1Rgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2561 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 12/7/96 8:30:27 AM, you wrote: <> From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 10:04:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA22806; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 09:59:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 09:59:06 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 12:55:47 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Further Jones comment Message-ID: <961207175547_100433.1541_BHG113-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"0h1gK1.0.Ga5.e1Rgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2560 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Terry, It is indeed good to see you and Rick - both noted for sense - here. We are listening, even while we are arguing with you! > As Chris often says, "The truth will out." Do I? I should be more careful. > And when it does, the untruthful will reap their rewards. Actually, the normal procedure is for the untruthful to ask the truthful to give lectures and accept high honours. That stops the truthful from making too much fuss about the way they were treated earlier by the untruthful. The rain it raineth every day, Upon the just and unjust fella. But more upon the just, because The unjust hath the just's umbrella. And John Schnurer queries my use of the word 'sour'. Well, yes, I am. A few years in this game would make anyone sour - though, to be honest, it is also a natural tendency of mine. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 10:10:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA23772; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 10:06:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 10:06:11 -0800 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:04:07 -0500 Message-ID: <961207130405_707766757@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Heffner's Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH) Resent-Message-ID: <"vEjWj3.0.Kp5.I8Rgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2562 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Colin Quinney asked: <> In principle, yes (see my papers on ZPE basis for gravity and inertia, 1989 and 1994, respectively, both in Phys. Rev. A). However, since gravity and inertia result from interaction with the entire ZPE spectrum, then a Casimir Effect extraction of ZPE would introduce a gravitational disturbance whose percentage effect size would be on the order of the ratio of Casimir energy density to total energy density, too small to measure under ordinary circumstances. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 10:33:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA26944; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 10:30:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 10:30:05 -0800 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:19:39 -0500 Message-ID: <961207131938_607569008@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Latest Potapov Claimed Self-Sustaining Device Resent-Message-ID: <"zwYit1.0.ua6.gURgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2563 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Peter said (of the latest Potapov device): <> If true, this is the breakthrough we have all been waiting for, and will revolutionize the world energy economy. However, as far as all of us experimenters can tell, similar previous Potapov claims (now tested by Mallove, us here at EarthTech, and at Los Alamos) simply were untrue. Is there some new reason why I should see these new claims in a different light? Then, where and how fast could I buy one? Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 12:50:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA11621; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:26:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:26:49 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961207202351.002d83bc@atlantic.net> X-Sender: johmann@atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 15:23:51 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Kurt Johmann Subject: Re: We mean it: people are evil Resent-Message-ID: <"nQEVe2.0.Sr2.8CTgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2564 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@CompuServe.COM> wrote: >Jed - [snip] > > I am *proud* of my role in these affairs. Horwood did > > the heavy work on Meyer, but I helped a little. Meyer > > and Jones should be ashamed of themselves, not me! > >Again, you're drifting a bit from the focus of my complaint. It doesn't >involve that. You are right about those things, and I agree with what >you've done in exposing them. Now for instance, Meyer has damaged the >advancement of new energy sources by his ill-motivated actions. The day >that dawns on a world powered by new clean energy source will come a day >later than it could have because of it. And children will die in agony >because of that lost day. Is there blood on Meyer's hands? > >Jed, if there is, then there's blood on every one of our hands for every >instant in which we failed to act impeccably while enmeshed in this >complex web of cause and effect we call the material world. I have not >always acted impeccably in my life, and through some unseen connections >of cause and effect, the world is just a little bit worse off for it, and >somewhere a person has died or will die because of it. Blood on my hands? >In a certain sense, yes. Will you win any friends if you are against me, >for political or whatever reasons, by claiming that I have blood on my >hands? No. At least I don't think so. That's my point. Beautifully argued, Rick. I too strongly dislike the repulsive the-blood-of-millions-is-on-his-hands argument which Jed and Gene have been making against Steve Jones. It is an ugly argument, plain and simple; a cheap shot of the worst kind that makes the person making it look a lot worse than the intended target. When I first saw this blood-of-millions argument -- which, if I recall correctly, was made by Jed in a very recent issue of IE -- my mental reaction at the time was to think that "and by this logic, Jed has the blood of many children on his hands, because the money he spent flying to Japan to attend this CF conference could have fed how many children at 'just pennies a day' as the TV commercial says." Jed and Gene, I'm with Rick on this. Stop making this asinine argument. Kurt Johmann -- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 13:09:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA13075; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:40:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:40:15 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 14:39:58 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Miley Preprints Critique Message-ID: <961207193957_72240.1256_EHB69-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"_I5FX.0.DC3.hOTgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2565 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Murray's post is too long and too technical for me to comment on extensively. Many of his points are over my head. However, some are not, and I think he has made some serious mistakes. A question: what if dust from the laboratories involved settled onto the ten-bead sample sets and whatever container they were measured in? How much dust might produce how many micrograms of elements, when data accuracy of .0000371 microgram/bead are claimed? If that happened, the readings would vary wildly from sample to sample, unless the dust composition was as uniform as the beads themselves and exactly the same amount of dust fell on each sample. Needless to say, great care was taken to avoid dust and other contamination. Given all this, I can't help but be skeptical of claims of 4 +-0.8 watt power output. Given all of what? The objections raised here relate to the SIMS and other methods of detecting elements and isotopes. Murray gives us no reason to doubt the calorimetry. It should be easy to definitively prove such a large power increase, compared to input power of .06 watt, but it is essential to absolutely close all conceivable loopholes, and have a continuous record of energy input and output for the whole 2-week run. Yes, it is easy. All reasonable loopholes were closed. There is a continuous record. You can never close "all concieveable loopholes," because people can always concieve of more magic crystal hypotheses and the like. Are there any heat excursions, as in other electrolysis experiments? Yes, but no negative excursions, so energy storage hypotheses are defeated. Another possibility that needs to be considered and studied, is the possible role of isotopic fractionation by electrolysis. For instance, Cr 54 is 8 % heavier than Cr 50. It would probably diffuse correspondingly slower from bead to bead, and with each transfer, become progressively diluted, so that by the time Cr is accumulated on the beads closest to the cathode, it might be depleted in Cr 54 and enriched in Cr 50. I am told by Bockris and other experts in electrolytic diffusion that in order to see significant differences in isotopic concentration with heavier elements, you must perform thousands or even hundreds of thousands of passes. Furthermore, in this and in all other points, Murray overlooks the fact that null runs did not show these effects. Competent researchers like Scott Little and Barry Merriman have tried and failed to get excess power or transmutations from their own bead experiments. The beads used by Little and Merriman were fabribricated by an outside contractor who did not see the patents. No absorbtion tests were performed to determine whether these beads met the standards described in the patents. During the experiments, the beads split apart and self destructed, which is a sure sign that they are not fit for this experiment. I do not like to be harsh, but the Little & Merriman work proves absolutly nothing. It was, at best, good preparation for the real experiment. It was a nice calibration run. I believe this pattern will persist, for those researchers who resist merely following the well-worn patterns established by the venerable James Patterson, the ambitious young James Redding, the pragmatic Dennis Cravens, and the unwily George H. Miley. Well, Little and Merriman certainly did resist following the patterns established by Patterson. And I am sure that anyone else uses untested beads that crack apart will also see no heat or nuclear effects. If you do the experiment incorrectly, it does not work. But this proves nothing. Why not set up microcells to run beads one at a time under strict controls and precision microinstrumentation? This would eliminate complex interbead interactions. If a sudden, descrete excess heat event occurs, the reaction could be immediately stopped, and all constituents completely analyzed. This sounds extraordinarily complicated, expensive and problematic to me. I cannot imagine it would work. And why bother? You can instantly eliminate all interbead interactions by using a single large chunk of nickel, palladium or gold. That has been done and it works fine. Transmutations are reported in these experiments as well. The thin film Ni beads do have some major advantages from the point of view of practical technology (as well as some serious disadvantages.) They turn on faster and generate more heat per unit of volume. But for scientific results, other systems work well. It seems to me that Murray is ignoring the larger context of other experiments, and even other aspects of the Miley experiment. What about all that excess energy? What about those x-rays? Hmmm? At LANL, Thomas Claytor's 2000 V glow discharge in deuterium gas onto palladium alloys now seems to reliably produce tritium. Couldn't a bead be loaded by a glow discharge in hydrogen or deuterium gas? Nope! Out of the question, I think. In Claytor's experiment geometry is critical. He has done a mountain of work (superb work) with different wire geometries to avoid problems like sputtering from spark. You could not aim a spark at a bead and somehow reproduce this effect. Maybe a thin film nickel plated wire or something like that . . . It might be interesting, but I expect it would take years. This is a far simpler situation than electrolysis in water. Good grief no! Claytor's work is marvelous, but not simple. Neither is gas loading or any other technique. They all have their ins and outs, and complexities. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 13:10:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA13138; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:40:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:40:24 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 14:39:17 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: We mean it: people are evil Message-ID: <961207193917_72240.1256_EHB69-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"iXnys3.0.CD3.rOTgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2566 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Ricks comments are so interesting, I feel compelled to respond. I hope this off-topic, political discussion is not bothering the readers here. Please let me know if it bothers you and I will move the discussion to private e-mail. Rick writes: Now for instance, Meyer has damaged the advancement of new energy sources by his ill-motivated actions. The day that dawns on a world powered by new clean energy source will come a day later than it could have because of it. And children will die in agony because of that lost day. Is there blood on Meyer's hands? Yes there is, but nowhere near as much as on the hands of Huizenga, Jones or Taubes. Meyer is unimportant. He has no power, and no influence. The worst he can do is defraud people. Huizenga was assigned a solemn responsibility by the Federal Government. He was called upon by his country to judge a major new scientific claim. He acted irresponsibly and caused grave harm to the nation and to the human race. Consider another example. Many people shared responsibility for the Titanic disaster, ranging from the ship designers, who removed lifeboats from the design in order to save money; to the captain, who ignored repeated wireless warnings of icebergs; to the petty officers who filled some of the lifeboats with only the half the people they were rated to hold. There was plenty of guilt to go around, but any fair minded judge would place most of the onus on the people with the largest responsibilities and the greatest power: the shipowners, designers, and the captain. If Huizenga and Jones accept large salaries, prestigious jobs, and important national assignments, they must also accept a large share of moral responsibility for their actions. It is a continuing responsibility; they should speak up now, and correct their mistakes. Jed, if there is, then there's blood on every one of our hands for every instant in which we failed to act impeccably while enmeshed in this complex web of cause and effect we call the material world. Yes, I think there is. I believe that's the basis of the doctrine of original sin in Christian theology. But we are not all equally guilty of everything! - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 15:07:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA31694; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:38:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:38:08 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:13:41 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Water Feul Cell a Fraud.... Resent-Message-ID: <"fzRmC.0.6l7.E7Vgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2567 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 5:37 PM 12/5/96, Chris Tinsley wrote: [snip] >You know, they think people like us are batty, but I was watching the >top BBC science series Horizon, which was on the ultimate fizzix - time >travel. They had some Oxford physicist, and it really was incredible. >You maybe know the "Young's Slit" experiment, where it can be shown that >even single photons cause diffraction patterns? He said that this was >conclusive proof of billions of alternate universes, each different, >each produced by quantum uncertainty, because the interference pattern >was caused by photons from alternate universes! > >The man is apparently incapable of distinguishing between reality >and our artificial models of reality. And the guy is being paid good >money to warp young minds with this garbage. > >Chris I thought people would jump on this, but since no one has, I feel compelled to give it one round, even if it is a feeble one. This physicist is in very good company, which I believe includes Richard Feynman. This interpretation of QM, the branching simultaneous universe interpretation, is gaining some following, and will get the ultimate test in the construction of the quantum computer. It appears to me, from very limited information, that the field is in about the same state as CF, i.e. it is going to take a working commercial gadget to gain acceptance of the theory. Such macines were proposed by british researchers (maybe your boy is one of them?), based on actual research, to be built from quantum cells, cells containing trappped electrons, which can be made to change state instantaneously based upon the state of selected adjacent cells. Cell state changes require no energy. The only energy involved is in providing a clock that changes the state of a single cell, the first cell of a vast network of cells comprising the instructions. The trick, other than cell constuction, is building as much as possible into each instruction without creating a brancing condition. Branching conditions would create a quantum uncertainty the would set every cell simultaneously on and off. The only other problems are interfacing and providing a clock. Sorry, I am not experienced in this field and have no references to give you other than I think Scientific American carried an article about this research about 7 years ago, Discovery had an article a while ago, and I think IEEE journal had one also. I have some articles arount somewhere, but I just spent a couple hours looking for the references and that's too much already. One of the initial tests is expected to be the factoring of very large numbers (thereby destroying the usefulness of the RSA encryption algorithm.) Such a computer executes instructions in zero time and can implement any degree of complexity in a single instruction, provided there is no branching, and provided the computed result has a unique solution. The instruction *simultaneously* evaluates every possible result, and sets the outputs only for the solution that works. If a result has multiple solutions the output result states are indeterminate. This means instructions need be designed in a way to be certain of a unique result. The limits in speed of such a computer are set by the limits of how fast you can run the clock ( i.e. the time between instructions provided only to interface to the real world and to permit looping), and how much you can jam into a single instruction. This is one case where CISC is much better than RISC. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 15:22:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA02685; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:05:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:05:31 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 18:01:50 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Tokamak will fail?? Message-ID: <961207230149_100060.173_JHB111-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Fb0hh3.0.of.vWVgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2568 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vos I happened to read an article in today's Daily Telegraph (Dec 7 p.11) headlined: "Scientists fear L6bn [$9bn] energy project will fail" Researchers at the University of Texas and Princeton have computer models showing the current design of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor will not produce the fusion energy reaction that its designers expect".............................................................. "Our studies suggest that a different design would be more successful and cheaper, said William Dorland, a Texas physicist, who has published his findings in "Science"".............................................. "Scientists said a new understanding about the turbulence and heat flow of the atoms inside the Tokamak suggest the current design will fail. But Anne Davies, director of the American Energy Department's Office of Fusion Energy, said that she was not convinced by the scientists' criticisms." Well, well!!!!!!!!!!!!! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 15:40:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA05436; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:24:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:24:26 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:22:30 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: We mean it: people are evil Resent-Message-ID: <"O3zsE1.0.qK1.doVgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2569 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >To: Vortex > >Ricks comments are so interesting, I feel compelled to respond. I hope this >off-topic, political discussion is not bothering the readers here. Please let >me know if it bothers you and I will move the discussion to private e-mail. > >Rick writes: > > Now for instance, Meyer has damaged the advancement of new energy > sources by his ill-motivated actions. The day that dawns on a world > powered by new clean energy source will come a day later than it could > have because of it. And children will die in agony because of that lost > day. Is there blood on Meyer's hands? > >Yes there is, but nowhere near as much as on the hands of Huizenga, Jones or >Taubes. [snip] >If Huizenga and >Jones accept large salaries, prestigious jobs, and important national >assignments, they must also accept a large share of moral responsibility for >their actions. It is a continuing responsibility; they should speak up now, >and correct their mistakes. > > > Jed, if there is, then there's blood on every one of our hands for every > instant in which we failed to act impeccably while enmeshed in this > complex web of cause and effect we call the material world. > >Yes, I think there is. I believe that's the basis of the doctrine of original >sin in Christian theology. But we are not all equally guilty of everything! > >- Jed Rick makes such good and true points, and Jed certainly makes some also. I was not going to comment further on these issues, but maybe this is a good time for me to indulge in unloading some deep personal feelings, and to confess to being the sinner I am. I am greatful for Huizenga, Jones and Taubes, etc., and especially for Dick Blue (who I think is in a league by himself.) I am as greatful for them as for Jed and other proponents, as the two sides are the yin and yang that will create the new reality. Without the issues there would be little or no progress. As to the blood on our hands, I would personally lie, cheat, steal, and many worse things, to protect a single human life. Since we may be looking at the majority of life on the planet hanging in the balance, I think impeccable behaviour is not the prime objective. It seems immoral to place our own self image and self righteousness above the very lives of others. I suspect the opposition, especially Jones, may have similar feelings, but not similar perspectives and opinions of exactly what action is important to the end of saving lives. Rick is right I guess, but it is so difficult to define exactly what "impeccable behavior" is in these circumstances. I am personally glad to be a liar, lunatic, egomaniac, pompous fool, and general sinner in the pursuit of solving the energy problem. This is not situational ethics, the end justifying the means. On the contrary, it is upholding an absolute value for human life. I am greatful to be much more than "equally guilty" of my sins in this pursuit, and hope I do not find myself too tempted to judge others when I carry such a burden of sin myself. Thanks, I needed that. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 15:44:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA06223; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:30:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:30:56 -0800 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:26:37 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Further Jones comment In-Reply-To: <961207175547_100433.1541_BHG113-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"W81gh3.0.7X1.kuVgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2570 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vo and Chris, The 'sour' .... was jus tan attempt at holiday humor. Take it lightly and in its spirit. JHS On 7 Dec 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > Terry, > > It is indeed good to see you and Rick - both noted for sense - here. We > are listening, even while we are arguing with you! > > > As Chris often says, "The truth will out." > > Do I? I should be more careful. > > > And when it does, the untruthful will reap their rewards. > > Actually, the normal procedure is for the untruthful to ask the truthful > to give lectures and accept high honours. That stops the truthful from > making too much fuss about the way they were treated earlier by the > untruthful. > > The rain it raineth every day, > Upon the just and unjust fella. > But more upon the just, because > The unjust hath the just's umbrella. > > And John Schnurer queries my use of the word 'sour'. Well, yes, I am. > A few years in this game would make anyone sour - though, to be honest, > it is also a natural tendency of mine. > > Chris > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 15:53:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA07717; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:44:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:44:00 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:44:54 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tokamak will fail?? Resent-Message-ID: <"sZmIN1.0.Vu1.-4Wgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2571 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > >"Our studies suggest that a different design would be more successful and >cheaper, said William Dorland, a Texas physicist, who has published his >findings >in "Science"".............................................. > [snip] > >Well, well!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >Norman According to a post in sci.physics.fusion by Jeff Candy the Science article about this can be found at: http://www.sciencemag.org/science/scripts/display/full/274/5293/1600.html Well, well indeed! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 17:00:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA16658; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 16:56:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 16:56:14 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:57:39 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tokamak will fail?? Resent-Message-ID: <"EdfNs2.0.844.i8Xgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2572 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I still just do not see why the focus is still on complicated expensive magnetic confinement. Why not simply use the hydrogen for confinement and use a large tower for heat and gas containment? It would give the advantage that the hydrogen could be pressurized, and the ball contained for seconds, giving a much better Lawson value. Heating of the gas at the bottom center of the tower could be be done with a combination of microwave, inductive heating and lasers. Cooling could be done by dropping a curtain of liquid coolant, say Li, down the sides of and over the top of the central plume. The sides of the tower could be water cooled to generate conventional steam. If necessary the process could be non-continuous. The boiled Li could psooibly be used to generate steam in an exchanger, and maybe directly thorough a turbine. Yes it would be a huge machine and big budget, but the power output would be huge also. The tower would have to be many hundreds of feet high and a very large diameter. Yes, it would take a lot of Li and hydrogen. Maybe the Li could be replenished from the He. Hot fusioneers, has anything besides magnetic or inirtial confinement been looked at lately? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 17:38:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA22599; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:35:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:35:19 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 20:30:47 EST From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Further Jones comment Message-ID: <961208013046_76216.2421_HHB20-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"wcDf32.0.zW5.IjXgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2574 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Terry - You wrote: > Here, you are totally wrong. I won't go into the details of > the concept of the "100th Monkey" but it certainly > applies here. I need a bumper sticker that says "You're following the 98th monkey". Few would figure it out, but *that's* part of the joke! Get it? They'd be #99, see? Ha ha. Ha. > Even if you don't accept that, your opinion is important. > You are an opinion leader. You post heavily in > cyberspace and people listen to you. You speak to people > who respect you. All these are very important to the > general acceptance of any new idea. > [...] > The honorable Mr. Tinsley set me straight... That's one of the things I like about you, Terry. You are so completely and utterly full of crap. Very endearing. The Englishman really has done quite a job on you, hasn't he. ;) Look - thank you, but what I really meant was that this one man's opinion in and of itself is just one data point, and doesn't much help the argument that my opinion might be widely shared out there. Some others have posted their views, so a few more data points register; some for, some against. What I'm concerned with is that how I and a few others feel about it may reflect large numbers of people out there who constitute the climate of opinion on these matters. It is they who Gene and Jed and Chris, and to some extent even you and I, are trying to reach. They are the important ones. People in industry, science, education and government, and large numbers of just plain taxpayers, voters, and consumers. Are people who react poorly to those comments in the majority? If they are, then the Musketeers should seriously consider clamping down on such comments. If not, then they should feel free to ignore my minority reaction and continue as they were. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 17:41:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA22620; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:35:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:35:25 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 20:30:50 EST From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: We mean it: people are evil Message-ID: <961208013049_76216.2421_HHB20-4@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"lfThn2.0.MX5.QjXgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2575 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Kurt Johmann wrote: > [snip] > I too strongly dislike the repulsive > the-blood-of-millions-is-on-his-hands argument > which Jed and Gene have been making against Steve > Jones. > > It is an ugly argument, plain and simple; a cheap shot of > the worst kind that makes the person making it look a lot > worse than the intended target. > > When I first saw this blood-of-millions argument -- > which, if I recall correctly, was made by Jed in a very > recent issue of IE -- my mental reaction at the time was > to think that "and by this logic, Jed has the blood of many > children on his hands, because the money he spent flying > to Japan to attend this CF conference could have fed how > many children at 'just pennies a day' as the TV > commercial says." > > Jed and Gene, I'm with Rick on this. Stop making this > asinine argument. Thank you Kurt. I wish I could learn to convey my ideas as succinctly as you have. Could have saved everyone a lot of time and bandwidth. Regards, - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 17:44:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA22677; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:35:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:35:58 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 20:30:52 EST From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Evangelizing CF Message-ID: <961208013052_76216.2421_HHB20-5@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"cMgU43.0.EY5.yjXgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2576 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gnorts - I just inadvertently did the old Bible-thumper's trick of randomly flipping open a book and reading words of wisdom suspiciously relevant to the situation at hand. Gene had said: > "...it almost doesn't matter what we do!" I just pulled Guy Kawasaki's book "Selling the Dream" off my shelf and plopped it on the desk. It fell right open to page 145: > Avoid Fanaticism > > Evangelism ends and fanaticism begins when nothing > except the cause matters. It is a disruptive state of mind > wherein people redouble their efforts but forget why. > Fanaticism can lead to imbalance, injured people, and > broken laws. It leads to people believing that "the cause > justifies the means." Though I am willing to push > evangelism far, I draw the line at fanaticism as an > effective way to sell the dream. Gene and Jed, I'd be very surprised if between you two there weren't copies of either or both of Kawasaki's "The Macintosh Way" ( <- Mine's personally signed ) and "Selling the Dream". The particular brand of selling an idea this marketing genuis proposes, "evangelism", is perfect for the cause of new energy and CF. It was written for you guys. I hope you'll partake of some of his wisdom if you have the chance. If you've already read them, a brief review might not be a bad idea. Respectfully, - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 17:46:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA22573; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:35:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:35:07 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 20:32:56 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Tokamak will fail?? Message-ID: <961208013256_76570.2270_FHU46-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"zuVGM2.0.dW5.8jXgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2573 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: It will be extremely interesting to see if (and how) the New York Times covers this ITER bad news. The NYT has been the biggest booster of the hot fusion program and has been totally ignoring cold fusion since Nov. 17, 1992. For the record, both Bill Broad and Nicholas Wade of the NYT Science section have been getting complimentary copies if Infinite Energy since the beginning (along with 100+ other journalists and VIPs -- Clinton, Dole, Gingrich, President Vest of MIT, etc.). We want it on the record that they had the information and did nothing. There's hope that when they finally HAVE to wake up, they might actually think of asking us what is going on. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 18:00:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA24891; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:55:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:55:23 -0800 Message-ID: <32AA1FAD.3DD6@interlaced.net> Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 20:53:49 -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: Tokamak will fail?? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"DZxG9.0.r46.90Ygo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2577 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > I still just do not see why the focus is still on complicated expensive > magnetic confinement. Why not simply use the hydrogen for confinement and > use a large tower for heat and gas containment? I think the devil is in the details, Horace. If you get H2 or D2 hot enough - even at one atmosphere - I think it's about like trying to cool a hydrogen bomb soon after detonation! Also, the plasma gets to be such a good conductor, it's very hard to add heat - like trying to heat metal with microwave - but the plasma conducts much better than copper. Resistive heating can't keep up with radiation when the stuff gets that hot! Hey! To keep on topic, let's use a VORTEX in the center of your tower to center the plasma column. Close your tower into a circle, make it like a bellows, and roll it like a smoke ring rolls! Use ultra-sonic heating (viscosity of a gas goes up with temperature). Where's Paul Koloc when we need him -------. I agree, Horace - there must be a better way --. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 18:03:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA25283; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:59:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:59:52 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 20:40:45 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Hot fusion ideas? Message-ID: <961208014045_76570.2270_FHU46-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"d5K5c.0.oA6.K4Ygo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2578 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace wrote: "Hot fusioneers, has anything besides magnetic or inirtial confinement been looked at lately?" Yes, a couple of Bozos trotted out the "brilliant" idea of detonating thermonuclear weapons in underground caverns, making steam, and using that to generate electricity. This was published in MIT Technology Review. It was evidently the replacement article for my previously editor-approved 1991 cold fusion article (editor was then Jonathan Spineless Schleffer) that was nixed by Institute Professor Herman Feshbach of the MIT Physics Department. Well, they paid me $1,000 for my trouble -- a "kill fee" in the writing business. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 18:20:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA27595; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:14:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:14:54 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 20:30:41 EST From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Proposed test- Reduction of radioact Message-ID: <961208013041_76216.2421_HHB20-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"pmnHD3.0.5l6.SIYgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2579 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris - Thanks for weighing in on this, Chris. You made a reference to the intellectual dishonesty of those postings on Compuserve as an example of what Gene and Jed are up against. You didn't have to for me, as I'm already sure what they confront is sometimes far worse than that, the real wickedness and evil you refer to later in your post. > As Jed says, we all tend to subscribe to the idea that > there is no such thing as evil. I don't, and my arguments do not come from that spot. There is a kind of logic to the justifications given. I stated that there was none, and feel I must withdraw that comment. That logic arises from the deeper understanding of the issues involved and how the world works, a veiwpoint I suspect is at least in part molded from some contact with Eastern practice. I'm referring to the concept of Karma - not the simplistic version everyday Americans have of "stuff comes back to you", but the more complete view of a highly networked existence, sensitive to the inputs you place across it. I sincerely regret introducing anything like metaphysics into this discussion, and do so only because it seems that the logic used to justify the claims here depend to some extent on this extended notion of cause and effect. I suscribe to this notion myself. But even though I do, the conclusion presented, as it is in those rather shocking terms, even makes me react with some revulsion. I believe it simply doesn't work as a viable element in a campaign for the hearts and minds of people in general. I suspect that the argument falls even harder on the ears of many others than it does on mine, becuase few people (in the West) are likely to hold this more extensive view of Karma or cause and effect, and fewer yet suscribe to this list or I.E or whatever and hear the gory details of the CF wars from the front lines which do make the argument a bit more palpable. For them, those kinds of comments will always stick out as unjustified and hideous themselves, no matter what. The display of those gory fetus posters in shopping malls or other public places by abortion foes is a similar kind of thing. There isn't even a need to try and justify that those are indeed the results of abortion. It's instantly obvious to anyone that they are. But it's still too ugly for the people you're trying to persuade to your cause. You're even further back in the game if you have to try to justify it with more verbage, arguments supported by a sophisticated world view that many are probably not quite up to speed with. > "Anyone who knowingly uses specious argument in an effort to > discredit CF or other science of potential benefit is evil. It is > really that simple." That may be, but the larger issue of evangelizing a planet to a new paradigm regarding energy sources sure isn't. My complaint goes to that issue, not the underlying logic used to justify the comments I find offensive and counterproductive, logic which to some extent I can in fact concede. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 18:40:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA30510; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:23:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:23:54 -0800 From: "Jay Olson" Organization: University of Idaho To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:57:53 PST8PDT Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Message-ID: <1220581E6B@hickory.csrv.uidaho.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"8z8gQ.0.cS7.tQYgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2580 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hey guys, just a few thoughts on the atomic expansion hypothesis. If the hypothesis put forth by Horace Heffner is true, what difference does it make if you use light water as opposed to heavy water? Also, if you want lots of H ions, why not use an acid as the electrolyte? Is there some obvious reason why an acid should not be used? Would it corrode the annode? How about conventional loading of the cathode for some amount of time and then changing the whole electrolyte bath to an acid solution (with the same conductivity and initial temperature). This would certainly give you more H ions to work with and it might be usefull in determining if having more ions present increases the temp. of the experiment. OK, I know I'll probably be hitting myself over the head thinking "of course, why didn't I realize that" when someone responds to this, but hey, it's just off the top of my head. Jay Olson From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 18:52:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA31867; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:30:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:30:27 -0800 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:59:24 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: We mean it: people are evil In-Reply-To: <961207050123_72240.1256_EHB95-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"VFudV.0.hn7.1XYgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2581 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: 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. Whether true or not, and whether or not it's important to get that information out, Gene's message constitutes namecalling. It is not respectful debate. It violates Vortex-L rule 2. If Jones wants to join Vortex-L and respond with the same tone as Gene's message, he can only be stopped by rule 2 at the moment, and rule 2 should apply to everyone. Vortex-L is not s.p.f. because both Gene's message and Jones' possible response are not welcome here. The only way to keep the "s.p.f. effect" at bay is to ban ALL such discussion here and let it take place elsewhere, where there is no fragile online community to be damaged by the crossfire. Attacking Jones here is the equivalent of bringing artillery into a small town. Possible responding fire will trash surroundings, and the point is to maintain a community, not give space for a battleground, regardless of which side is right. "To save the town we had to destroy it?" The importance of the CF battle is not so great that starting this type of discussion on vortex-L becomes right. On 7 Dec 1996, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I do not think that Jones inadvertently impedes progress. I think it is > deliberate and calculating. However, I am sure he does not see of his actions > in those terms. He thinks he is playing the game, defending real science, and > having things his own way. I am certain he thinks that cold fusion is > pernicious nonsense -- nobody could fake his level of contempt. Exactly. Jones actually thinks he is right, to the point of taking *self-righteous* actions. And when one really is in the right, the temptation to respond with more self-righteous thinking and actions is hard to resist. But responding in that way is lowering yourself to Jones' method of fighting: seeing the winning as so important that reprehensible means of fighting become acceptable. .....................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 Dec 7 18:54:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA31904; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:30:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:30:54 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 17:57:02 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: vortex Subject: Beat Patent Figures (UUE) Message-ID: <961207225701_76016.2701_JHC66-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"P_LHE2.0.Jo7.RXYgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2582 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: begin 644 pfig1.gif M1TE&.#=A=0$O`?<``````/______________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M_____________________RP`````=0$O`0`(OP`#"!Q(L*#!@P@3*ES(L*'# MAQ`C2IQ(L:+%BQ@S:MS(L:/'CR!#BAQ)LJ3)DRA3JES)LJ7+ES!CRIQ)LZ;- MFSASZDP(H.=`GSN#"AU*5"<`@4<#'`5:M*G3IU!%^DR:-*K5JUBS\ER*5*O7 MKV"+4NT:MJS9LRV9CD7+MJW;CE65DGU+MZ[=A7'EYKW+M^_;O4S]"AY@Y-NG3#T:89_@(,('`@ MP8(&#R),J'`APX8.'T*,*'$BQ8H!`%C,J'$CQXX>/X(,*7(D28082Z),J7(E MRY8N30*(*7,FS9HC3[[,J7,GSYXH:\:,"/0C3I]&CR)-JM/FSYD4@RJ-*G4J M5:$R%P+-JO4J5J@.O58-*W:L3Z<':8I$"[/H6;9DW\*-ZQ$L0;,N[1:D.U"O MW+Y^_\(TB//'FK M9:99.X(FVQGQWZLG/8M6#?OBZM*H9T<]C!MPY]A]4^?5[77W5^)&C8O&B]SW M\=F.G[.V"ESI\MBZ#3-_'!US\.T5(T_U7IX]>'?NX\.+[PWRZ^ MY&G!;.4W!(\TOOCSWOG/UQQ[MF$WH$73[31G`@@(T:.'3TJA*B1H4&2%#F*_-@0Y4>6+5V^A"G1)$*2 M-!_6C+DQ9\R5*W?^#.D39$*A)84&?8GR*%"F39T279K1)\X`5!TFC?H4JE:N M$ZN&W"K3JDV8"V=V19L6XUF')4<:M9DUJ%NU1.MJ%7FT:%&H>WGFE7M7,->Q M4HTJ/1PWL&*VA!:C*+\`01-M++T`-+!`">FS;\+*R!.0O)YJTDN[]R)# MST(1HZMPQ/,4U'"UML):4+(#=X/01!F?BD_&&D_2;T4,,PSP11=G!%*S&TUL MSK406T2Q-QYW3`VUYX*$DK`G9TQ/Q2-3O/#)SY@<"5*A18,B,!3\2A&AR)$F#'2.:K-B08TN8-&O:O(GS M8$J5.7OZW/CPY$.-'V>N#"HTJ5*1+X>R%.ERHD>&,IO^O(HUJU2H6KO6;!J2 M*-&31H]R=;IT)4^K:AVR1?@V(<>S7NO:Q3KVKEZJ8-&:75O6+%W!856N91J3 M9TF*X%1N+IHP:LLS4J2W_]:N9 MKM&1M$=?1CPZ;MK=B5>S_OW[-/"NF9461\I2+&?;A`,G1RY7I_#AU*M?GF[] MY^REKF,_98J2_GEMY+IQ?^^Y-%J!V"\QG(VVT[)5@2:.5-2%)1V%%( MXDT(EEBAB!ZM"%=W!F-5_./8TDVD;326?8A>")YY<;]&& MWH<[+AEC?DS2M&*4X;7U8U\8FG?@8.,-)21?2CX)YGEAYJ1B2U("56:+5\)H MU9:('5G?EV/.&>*(=!HI&8MU5CG@FB)RB">#F/5X9Z%HV6GHIM^Z/FEWZ9A:JJJ6Y>&.@;D5(]^ MFNJBHUZWW*NM9C?CKELABEVO)Y+E)UAN_IC<@J']M MB"JHE>['ZI+^``40.)!@08,'$294N'`A`($.&4:4.)%BQ8H`(`;(:!&A0X\0 M/VHDN#$C28PB1Q8TB?$DRH$M46[D.)-F39LW9\K$N9,G3I@O#<+4*9&ER*)` MD6HLZ?*ARI;2LT)1\M2XUB]8OT[MV`1^>.%9Q8XX_#XLMW%>PVX8' MVTYUW'5IWLV!/X>."/GNWI:"S3+^"3FD5+1O15<%Z3&V0L^U/Y/N:/$V5-!I MDYYNFWEP:LVX?:J^W9@QK#8^^Z?ML\,I?B;MVV=PYS>;+%;?^[HY;-^?= M:X6B/OTZ,VG+K\=?!!Z]-O?XHLLG!)_SHTG"38<;R3[C[IONN.=H*["^_1AB M"Z^TWBL,.K+@V^X]!8D"BL&Y!L20N0TKE`\SX?Z;;ST!57(P-1#'ZZQ`%CV4 M#4;9@JJ.P!6U,TI%IF8D3[@>L>HPQLB`7"Q#$U&#+:;LE-0MR2*'#"W!*#2-3,S0#-&I*2>+:;#AG.3R3!_IG+/,Q6:T MLR/Q4IS*/[H2<[.X.[^,34]"B8(R3ZJH"ZO$"WE44LM)$1VQ/OHJY:RN0Q]; MJT38[--IRK_4K#0_Q`;-E*M3CVR00C,?)44QL"M]GP)LR+)F"\?NJ2),Z?.A3-W^KP9$N1,DR-# M&B78,^C*E#Z;[@3JE.7)J%2K8H2*DB)6IR*7'O4:U&72J4H+0MQJ-6U6M6;! MLGV;-BGRCJ1?MG9HN<:VXW^_6O)]_QL7G4'KS!;B1<@@**%MCT@4W7&J/Y79>;T#=)99I)OK6$H83>E0AAO0) M:-N'*HEV%'XT\F6B:0WAUN)@5*'GXH`]'A@:3CI.UQ>0)8:7XV8\!CED6U$& M&=QJ4R;WW4:2!&[YW97]4%I=B55=J21:#-[[)VU0Y7EC@4FNJ M^1.=9W*VXI[]/????4T:Y5I78=V)ITY`[AD;@8AFN=AV;M:(8U=A+LJH?(>I MEVEG?>K':6&P+9C?='$V:=>C_K6(::=\3B+)7J$6#D4>7J@>^*FK=<+4JJZB MCOA:9F:VYIQJJ(:96*G=_@$40.!`@@4-'D0(`.'"@@`4*F084>)$BA4M7J3H ML")$C`(Y7OR(T>'#`!\?CD094J/'A@17=H094V;$D!8AUIR94^?.CBMQXN2Y M4>3`FRP]WGLWZ M=*%:M&W=FFW)D"W;MV:_$G5IDNQ/HW7]3M0J$>Q?PE.]TC6(>.;#)FM$@M1PW,&>I)PXG+;E[Z,[1HPIH;LY;:U?7&V4-/TT0- M\BYESV0GJX;->O7FVL$SJA2;4OERYLLE&\>=D/3SW<\?)RX.?33C[-KEC@V; M_K8IRMQ>`?<\ZAFO[[#JRWO_V_4W_-&58ZL=+M3O7OEBK1MVJBGZ+B.OI>X& M-.VU[1*DC$']%(30,9I6TTO!_BI$L+61*CLP0\GRRPG$SUK+**X/>9O/OMLB M]!`KY<+KL$7Y[A,L1M&FZRLR"<-CL<7#4F))1!_7T@A(T!!C+,3H9,*Q-)]4 M;/"Z(=]Z<;`IX8-L+?H4*Q(R\*)L;0+REIY_@(H@,"!!`L:/(@PH<(``!8Z?`@QHL2)%!\":%@0XT2-%1%RE/@Q MH\"&%P=R+,E0Y,B/&D-V?`DS9D67,FO:O-D1)4&:+WG.I*B3),:61%/NW!ER M*,ZE3&7Z;`HU:DR=$9\"E6JP9$N3156NS$H2J]BQ)LF:/>N0ZL:#5G&V57GR MJ-&R2-5^18OW)LN\?,7:]9AUJ<^W=#,*C?L5,=V++@GW?>QU).3);KS"GTV/_MU[K.[DS!7^O>T1>7"UB(O3WKN[^>/ETK7G'=Y[VC-$HHP/FR^/ M/KWZY][Q+F_?'CS\F>OKV[_/?C[9]_J9YV?:G5M>!6678G7UI]EI"(;W5H#? M18>2;2GI-I2$F3FX8$X*9IC:?U-)-UADX\FG%$/88;D8%FBYF%-O\%VE5$2QH:CF&QM&:6(:+(68XJ\X0=GG%VN&2:6=*Z(V6L) M!@:6B7+^:=^=7JHIJ)(-*G=FF)$BA4M&@3P\")"C1@W?L38,./`CAI'$NS(\.##DPPSOH0)TJ%, MFC)3IJR94^=.B"U5\@0*,J;`DBA]_B3JD2A.HS"94KSY-"A-EDFG7L5J4RI2 MCED3/MTJDJ5)E$MG=EVZM>E0J%&]ZAQ9]>UC&Q20)8Q4+^._+RV83=WZK./+'OEQ'GP8Z&?3% MRE?CEO;+UK/EV:;GDK6-NN=/U;I]4^X-N75;ET5I/T:*6S!CDYQ_2X0]_/GT ML[]Q#M[+M_AGJ\H]C_4H_MVF4NJ-DY='/S'X;N36T_;V'A7\6?%"L:?G>[(^ M?M0MO?O>C[?FCCO*+;O:*%N6JN323NH[+67W^`RB`P($$"QH\B#"A0H(```1P M^'"AQ(D4*UJ\B)$AQ(@(-U[TR-`@2(L-'VX\B=)AR8$K!;9DR=+CRXPT:]J\ MJ;`D1)DX>_K\27$DT*$P7>X,6=3DR8(M1_(,*92HU*D952:-2C6K5I$WL6[= M^=1D3)`SK3)%"G6KVK4=.;IE"W>M5XQS?S94&?:ESK,:N5[E&S=PUJ-O!1L> M6C?IX9AB%>S?YY]%])U?.[5+U\-^V*T_W M[!OQ1*MWHU\EC9K^,&_9U:\/U_S:?.?BWJ4?S)X3+U[*[5=VW^W<,?[RZF-# M;]_?9>QM-Y5\DFV&E%ZZY4>?=&`%:-Y>DL$'H504&B=21@K2'Y)&D>UI>><.$-B59QN#5IHGU%OVGU'M, M9ND>F(8%AYJ;%OZ8T(8>5IE@=;M-.5E4N-THYYNJ#1AHBQ7!5YN&"OXU%IH' M>ND75C!&YV.AW#L:<>:;BP)H]7VQL&;#EN(TC MUY7[4N15HWL3KP7Y6;;GV&MGWR99<[3MT&<=+Z;<]#1JT3E[7\:=O.QEX,J= MNS6L=3=JJL-?/XY)$ZYNT)+9=GX>_K[GTNCB9]?V+CWQQ\IM4W^WBYM*S)`IZQ;43D3ZL/OP1!MSX^PU!6_"9.@JNK9[<LZ,HJIXJQ3BICW.RN.[,R$\\; MD_31T.Y`S#"J(=\42<]/P M,*52U2@_2DTQLE#O[!/"!%D[U<54754NS$[=Y)4C7%NC5=0VRPQTT+R`Y15, M#Q-MMJU96UR334GSS'520C6-UL%LF;743QUAC/1:6X-35JM-_@$*('`@P8(& M#R),J'#A0@```CQ$&)'@1(86+V+,F/%AQ8$=!7YT2-$A28T6/QI$";%A1Y4F M7\*,*7,F38XJ1=+,J?-ER8(H?Y+LN3-E0XD,)]H#,DWKY^ MN2:$"S*M6<)_#R.F"#)PU\2.RPINK)AE6\./+]OER%@RYLY*"4>.[-.C9L^F M_>K=//(TZYFB5Z<$W;9NZ]IC4QOE;'MWW*.J2<.FS7NXTZ2Y@Q-/;ECTS^"X MDT,?*O+U6\85V.!)");'GGD.%F>9@-4I.!V% M&_KV6FB!^<>A5Q9>."%_XXF88GY6F:A@@BKR%.*+$K+X'8P.*). M`YX(88\JCL?7C,@=):-M![Z%H7-"#DDDA$:Z>"1E!3*IWHP5H1@EC'K1Q1]P M(%:5Y6EFGK1CD#:*_@A0`($#"18T>!!A0H4+&38<"$`@Q(<&)5)<6-%A```; M,W;T^)$@1Y`*11;$&#$DRI$K6;9T^1)F3(D83VI$6-,DSHLE8_:\J;,ESXDF M4]KT>11I4J5+C984*G1H0J@.-P)E2G7JRZE0*XJT>A5L6+%*9X8\F?5KU95J MQ^[,JE5G39HJV]:U>SK7L2+.7<.Z[6HV9\,)S,67/C!3MXX>: M7_?V;9FN1LR22_^&:77XT-O&F3>G&I%FW;0<86G1-NLG'? M;*N3+,^:>WKU%Z%_GWU?W[5[7?O[UG9MOCZ@XP^_O0[\,#[ M!@3O*`#;-%C@(P8-4;4:%*D MRI4L6[I\"3.F3(\A1Z:TJ9!D2YTE0<:LB1`HSI,SBQH]BC2ITJ0U;X[\*'3I MRZ@&HS:5BC6KUJU<78:T2M4BSZX+.^8$6S$LV;5LV[J=BM+IV)Y.LYJ%>K!I MW;=\^_K]2Q`HU;EG":')S9;)W%<<^_3JW[MU$/5O&_7/VR;C`>1L_SGIL M;;JK?R\/*K@Y\NG46\]]7E:S=I7+I5?_#AY*-&'AHX62#X\^O7C#B`_[S.M= MO?SYD+';U'X7_VS[]/O[#]V>0_S9=MY_!AX(H'X2*3@@@@X^6%UQ$$Y(8846 M7HAAAAINR&&''@IA!%``@0,)%C1X$&%"A0L9-G3X$&)$B1,I5K1X$6-&C1LY M=O3X$61(D2-)EC1Y$F5*E2M9MG3Y$F9,F3-IUK1Y$V=.G3MY]O3Y$VA0H4.) 5%C5Z%&E2I4N9-G7Z%&I4D@$!```[ ` end -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- begin 644 pfig2.gif M1TE&.#=A+`%<`;,``````*H```"J`*JJ````JJH`J@"JJE555:JJJO\```#_ M`/__````__\`_P#______RP`````+`%<`0`$_O#)2:N]..O-N_]@*(YD:9YH MJJYLZ[YP+,]T;=]XKN]\[__`H'!(+!J/R*1RR6PZG]"H=$JM>@#8K!9`V6HK M6YG72BYWO.,'.MM%O]9M:?[JVQG=V"!>(,J7WJ'?XQ/A1R/ MAHN1)XF*C9A.E!F4D9LEG7&9HTB?%XN*HI@\.KS*.+C;;/V'_KT_2#ZF]ZQ(\'/G\$-`']=*PA)WL&'#0>2TV9, MH,-VHAA"I&>)F+<^!I(N>O2VT805A" M8F9J;G)V>GZ"AHJ.DI::GC+^0CPY:;479[UY]Q\,Q9$LS1--U95MW1>.90^H MI]J>]9WO_=\$N#UR.:`&EU0NFK[5"]H3@^/SG"0HJ\I<,6IB*//JXL1Q"URJ_`. M,4X3[6^2DB;-CK1N7EI@6#WHYMVV<)).M* M20/W;BB2F36%2E*9<>7/-R%YEKRE#6BS>SB3&DW5L9>K?QSG>`2[\F/2G52/ MT*-9S&U:K*6BZD+*]M%33O>60@7'M)T\MLYZ^I29QY54N>ADYE2+K*[499"% MA7U<-S&NP3V.!FU:>-R4E#E%&R5-=;%CQ0^YOAWMM.IF'NFNZ@6=62S@O9F' MFE4*5;7O795[M?M8+S8RT3ML(X\&'IW[[)E'&?^71Q)4%M[6T1E$34L;.QQ[S*D>HK.0(3. M8$:_P^ZCZ#G=T&M--7<(Q.RUR.""B+YK2IJH0;CN\P:WA*QKJ9M.$C,/&O[> M:JJZ8#X$L9SFI``,I+FF0['"ZW0\S49(*$3..\E\&&M$K\3#,,,O@!-H/?9^ MF08X['#LD/X$")ZW=J+ M>8;$H@=F3/H^)Y6)]W(B);B/J&J-+JG3UZV+Q(&[U-_T3%:JU]BU$M66QIO. M;0U,(\/3V2\F/('EDL;')*3EEIC8IC@D,R;U]U7D:R&DKBGG#9?=TB`NK8UK+6MQD;';+%:EL):M[ M=Q;\:\C[0ZT[##Q]ITF,#/X=+C[*3!NMPNVL/`A;>O38>FY]_+E)/QZ^:LQ8 M_KR-SM>\90/?06EWK=FI/3GV]9N5*U^^?:P$8A/U#R#&=,U\:?XCQS"ANCZ# MACG4:@EGH)@[R;)JT;.F$EBTYYU.\F;7%SQ M_-CREW;&4&DI(3M^8YH(B+^;G2W-:0XPX2`H#5&L*9Y-.?5I58T>7 M:Z>(/5>R5C$FCP6V5Y(.7;N>R^2<&]QEL3U+L])\>/PUI+$_)8UNVXFY)<74 MU0+/KKKB=[3^RCYU;1^DSS"U"Y'"7OH*&JL=41I6\+DT7"^LW;>@9?C1!\EL M&SG7B4C]#$@;=K_PI]"!1R4X77'&!00A996YTEEBH'5(SX7:7,$>4["!Z"%0 M>IEHGXLG1KAC9M[)6`Z+VV!V#EL)Z=00C37:^(9N/8:7GXY11JB9..O<)U52 M$K;(WG,+*;ED>I'IE]%^R#VE'%^D12/=C[-P^&8PH_ED8)B-``W95)0\%3CI2*L*5A"! MB[ZG_@$$3TY:[<593P!D]ZR0&ROP+*GT0\&KPUI87)^9I40GH66];.] MY>0%)OD]IM;<%B2Z(68M#18+>ES[:^[JCG:?]--FWFUWMG8#E$\%2R:''%NT M+M@C5H$(E7N7,$Z\:WWNK2PRHO8Q8#J2S5R)(]`;*D2:_>,Y<0'Z)L%LB4CY$ZF-Z< M&<;>OJ$^K1HJ&E*HNDQ&NW*="I78U(E+&^GD*4Q0P+17W2:*)S5;18%Q6V85 M=6BL14;;@M9=FP.@O8,"WQ[V!W0E78,5(>8B6T^(E\`@_^51-T[-T,F(/9.E M*!'T7-%$0ZN<:-=50)U)<.9,RA'=ZW06^6K^K#!BU:>032N.>AIUV,YEATME M?#E:/5_OQ2U*K02SZ>CJLT8-_HC\/U MT*][I;W*ZJO]66Z]>=U$5;?&_0N;`!=+CZ*@JKMNM%**`TVSOD)IB[]9ML-. M,NKP>8BI#,.XCSE':KM.*0!IP0PW":514#C.+D1JP.#^0T8YKT8T+C[_4#$$ MHQ1/C$:C#?^J<,:4WKLPG]%<*&S'Y^+KIRZL8.(QNLN^DBM('8=<\4$)*3,> MD:-<,IL9V>O4BOJF5);L-]1NK=LBKL@=/K%&[>_#2>>022<\+C][C5)4,`;- M8_=F?1W74=#8&]!?&!F=4EL;X!QDI%Q6X9U+3Q4>'UW=%Z!FH@[BV>85Z".)&SL!F5AK9]=)BAN7Z=HKAJJ#?#FZJBG"%*88>*P9Z@L-#2MJ>KE M+J]UUV>V+[;+CF`JV#+.*@AR'OCLZRAY]#L3,QVWG.%+8LM>/RAN*"HJ=LS^8C)]!O6<*MGP9)-& M$R-*Q'A1%\>6,+M5#$FFUAJ53]"P0K7SFD240N/5I%<.HKF5+&4&7$JIIT`P M97I8!!K1H\!P(X=R!?ITX=&9`;]*K3?3)SZKJ7AJJ.24XUB/\M)A[2H4S;RR M9KDY53J2+-2][/J(?&,N)LVH8(,BWH2NE&5W^JEKY\.5T)3%3M(C6A>I-19,K=SMP9V3]ITW,%/JJ)L7!6O-,[&Z MZM,8CTW0CF/RLLZ]-)]Y\7G_Z`&&V#FZMF)2*']FRAC:9C#.B;-J9 MR%5M*;H7((%`QI:>>B2N,-AQ,2[((')#FH$;B3LRI.-_WEU79$4;9DD/E=]U M%Q.(%"4W&CHY0BCE)%"V9^6`R[7YEY`T'0DE?3_=R`=\6W&7$9IW_2B9A>P) MYD:@2@XYR')Z)N=+9%$*L=&9?3JDY:`Q#BHHD2ZNN.%<">*")50Z=LA=&?!% M*FE*F%ZIZ9K@O9E=+T<:=,X?K-+&B1C6.8HBJO!4J)JJ<6XE+*R\=7J*9]M1 M>A"=!48ER9QC_A`\.6FU%V>]+?#@\L*/!#NS*C\,I=0U9%_V:27Q'FT[[NO. M11.Z=CS.$9E4:DHCGP&NS!`Y-675(NSLH)S+,%?$I4A0%H54%N2^>T'(!DSW$^I:85IY< MMX+M^O(KT"9MDY[U.^RCK[1`DH6$^Q9,2Y:*A7)-]3CH3'Q[8[B[.<9RMV@T M0?59>U@D9'LJ5TZ$MSARYM*&$WML+(\<61D@/X,^2)JHZ:"Z2^,^:A21Y+%3 ME<6.I0LLPN-2RS&2BC6^I8`)G7D4!\52A+42@.-<-`DQYMNJ>,*S;+6ZTK=,\#'QBQURCF#G%4B M.7JS'+2:B^H8--\_[=Q6AB*9XF=HJJN MH^;%K]S)\%0_MZ7WL2V'&8)X/1PHJ2QVEDXE2X(4NE:IXZN%S?ZJUJYOY_/H MPL"@E*SM$L?J)]Q9,\>?K"C;1IN9:>&I&->1%U[35*'0'%V:%L3W MW+9H-ZYVO7V=./!YN7DXMSHY=X3NE('G)M<(1WW*Z+ORB5[#>Q(G^N.W,!O` M?>4`]5JC$?X:PX<0I2D3.:\D.!?*'N6BZ-)2QXB!,*+T97&@0)R*Y.%@9G)5 M06,G3:ST^/*HMDU&;=[TY@JGPX\CIQK9)2\CT$N:4GYJB?0K%*7C/N[D&',H MTYS>N,(R62KESII9PV8X5!,L7CLS__5+JTHG%J=/3=WEZ/8JVS>'ZR)^UO9P MWLA6_8ZM6&RJY8VJ:$*>*9?QVVE^832KGR<9EBE:>K^[BQS$"I0P]%XE-X7NMG,2?G'ELS M8.J\8UFG/L_PU47H?U_'#I8EW\[;?W\W&[ZA]O/&:]W(7YVD,?^NN3<@?'R9 M59QW\]U57VV+I8<9,W&!4QZ``&TV((8'TJ2A@9O%=]&'5(44A(1%/%R]:8@9,L!,2)WH"T8433L\3-2:50$UZ)+SMUG7'T"DA684Z#H MMM!HQS0R&PH^J8%;>T06.1J,'G9X9&((`KE%"@@9V<*9]/07EG1G9*GE1/!` MA5R2L-F8X'Q5A2/7CA#I:)LH8IG8TZ6L@[E!#'FH5+K0E==<]MFIUY#,;:)9CT+3?>J7VB MA"A<2&*"(J:OOJ1D:\1VAR=G(%IQ6GX+$3(DZ*[0,H?6CR#^0/#DI-5>G/7> M`%P/],91%,G2"BN4Q#ZU=5E8JJDT6W%PVI\?4!,$UFX^(D>Y9#:=Q60.*3/% MJ#TKZO62'7]2Y/!8W`K#N#&-Y8N1GV]XG*EM9^EJ^TQU:E5I=QLOLS6=-+"I M,\2.&YBQE22Y2,FG/JR_RKV\0[=+P$0T/1L\KS2V'LA'DU*TP,'$U+-O/'=321V+7UD98LD-AY=EGV2Y#VMK`W"L\WLUC:U-00FY1 M'6"V7%?(;_!6:/9VJ&IO;>)K>'%YPVE[1<)\KNQU?O]VQ0/HSN"D#]+\@*J' M"YNO>P/%F9MGR5\V(L+J7"2H[^#^QS@)=5EDV*OC.T\%IZ0L&"(CE(4J-]IZ M>1(6J9D@=3I)]A!B29,>K37$YQ.@R#8)8X83&`;G3Z@_,Z+;696DPDP120YE M&6YD4J5JBJGC5&@8(T'C+$VE:M6M4*SD5K)T2)0/79.I@I&M,BRJLGX4G;VM M6K0KVWI>O_)%&929D5&,_T0]EW.A2TQ8;IW@RKVR8RR2\IK,O.C MQX%1YT%M.>\\:_<6OMM+&TNI>1(F[$S])JIR9D2X[-D@P][B"!25Z&V@9PC_ M';RX4&^HQ6H6N_I3W_DY;S+W]<.R$+_-D&_$O M[Y@"[IQK;`S/1^=.5/&Y''5<,1W=6+PJQ9L":TU)MRB4SLOR)'I23$[8@DU( M_=P8,K7O]%(-1"Z?B>[+*$RL,\J.(+,B3\`ZQ"(M*B7"S+HXNRSQ02/N:D9L47*SNC!HSC<4V M%"7L$4*CAL-.O,@\[$M&N%X3(R_Y)/^!X,E)J[TXZXV!_\#EB2!(DN5HJ57Z MH5*XQAW;97*<3ZJM[S[8C+?C&(_(I+*6NJU<11VJ^9R6JH^@['7"1:44WS8: M$G];6-YRS6ZWH<'L%RX,0[NM>Y@VS/+17CAX?G-_=AID9&Z+C(V`='UY5'E6 M)FEV+F"):D1[@H%.92*&E$Z=I8ZIJDECF:.5<7Y/KJB836.HBF"O-7),6IR? MD5IGJ\;'?Y"11+2`LU>7S%1FGI3%QNJ31LKO,R.'BWC_0R]*6YW)ZA\^3 MI]_MO*;<\>1/];Y+OJMDRYVQ@.GD&R05;=Z8A-H40B>WAMXO%)HK^ M,B*9PTX@NH/^'LL1#,DP(A!5FS:3>=('EV-/H1G\^2M<1T[(V; M.^O!V>0NJB\I0!=Z:JF-K-6W)&>6$1ISIMFR/7ZYY0KU+EZ#AGV-H+N.B;I+ M<6QPI-:85"-B!`*5U7%KU33,/'QSF5(UDH2Q% MW2_"7:;A.(,Q&)J,"W(7V#*2N4?6B=MPHEJ/P>WCXHOA>$ACB54-]=^()GF$ MD464B9++9*!X=Q^1-=LA'8)3FW\":14J=P@&I)SO] M!HS2I-.Q&BRT/#M#/CF2J9"X1L?'HZ"[KCP]RCY&G\NLQ*T],L1`3L!`3;Z_ MQ1(M2-;61[_)TJVB*LQ0T]%.J-TSV4Y"X.##2CQ7X^,FG:O:64O93&%>OSW> MRU7085)A;`TSMFOD2:O-Z=\U4\]@:'=N\#DP6K!Q_GYY3'/G MY@3L,\_;OT4#KXR`I4U;/2]A"MFSDJN./XS(1L6:58D@_C=.?QIZ7%B27KU> MP!BR*/,Q4D:8QT1R=)@J()>#7=(-S&?2I,-J@,3`4H&J6TRDK#;2O+=0H,A5 M,)PMR>7SIT)T9I@83=I5"9MEV;)J?3K4'-=\6XE:97IOGU>X;5:2F%H37TY? MZ>B]05L#B1&I?=]QL!C7L(NE^D[A)&?7A)"=@OTF^\M7,L+#F5$$IDNP+M2R MY2;+)?W23>&+FE7?0E5R&^AX(+_%_AKN,K-(MUJY1*)D45-VL1NQ=S MS&N^!]5RY+(4@]1QR._$R;`Q#R%D\497_B!XWR;_U.T^O(,!/_`\=' M%6.EY9YC5^2@GQ`0R.2E:!?A9:B;D!\H2LGCZ*N;:Z?EJ53J$ZN$+"POQ>X3 M8ZV.I&ZO<='OAVGRSESN,?1A*=BGL&_B-3#'JBYH]/=L)E1W\8.<60@/J]=; MZS,X/.JTM+GYN]@VC+U^?LHS0JF?P0SLE7_R5LQ;0V,!IK50Q/+'P MXK^'&GUI7,%M;`S%$^QP-=QH,J*63^6TQ;(BS-JJ=0Y-OD)Y98E';+.\T>QY MQF:WG#QO\=O'LA]0GTI7YBG)5)LZG2YF+JTJ:MU!3ARS%JSGD*K5L#?3L1D* M=DS4CY"&/A7K%HO,I)4\6GQK=^Q*N4U:Z.6K5]H&A"(QF9E,A7788OG"30MA(GB[;I\VIUCNO7;V:[WU#1(N@7E])079)78M MXGW1%4Y2C@3-5=:]26:"AC[RA0;^/5XU?I:R$CJIMN(YFH[$VO:E<=YV M4)'N_@)[Y`;G],80(R=_P'8ILQPK.DM/4U=;7V-G:V]S=WM_@X>+CY.7FY^C 8IZNOL[>[O\/'R\_3U]O?X^?K2T<````[ ` end From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 18:55:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA31925; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:31:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:31:01 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 17:56:37 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: vortex Subject: Bead Patent Message-ID: <961207225637_76016.2701_JHC66-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"59atk1.0.ko7.YXYgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2583 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: For the internet-impaired, here is the text of the Patterson Bead Patent. The UUE-encoded figures follow. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Patent Issue Date: 1996 12 03 Application Number/Date: 462005 / 1995 06 05 Title: Uniformly plated microsphere catalyst Inventor(s): Patterson, James A. , FL; U.S. Class: 502/159 502/10 204/222 204/290R 427/125 IPC: B01J 35/08 C25B 1/00 Field of Search: 427/383.5 U.S. References: 2915406 / 1959 12 Rhoda et al. 3577324 / 1971 05 Patterson 3763002 / 1973 10 Skomoroski et al. 204/37 3787718 / 1974 01 Patterson 3965039 / 1976 06 Chaplits et al. 3991225 / 1976 11 Blouin 4130506 / 1978 12 Collier 4179402 / 1979 12 Kim et al. 4243728 / 1981 01 Sato et al. 4306085 / 1981 12 Kim et al. 4586998 / 1986 06 Wood 204/252 4587001 / 1986 05 Carins et al. 204/290 4853135 / 1989 09 Oeckl et al. 5036031 / 1991 07 Patterson 5318675 / 1994 06 Patterson 204/86 5372688 / 1994 12 Patterson 5494559 / 1996 02 Patterson 204/222 Foreign References: JPX 0125286 / 1982 07 JPX 0114678 Primary Examiner: Caldarola, Glenn A. Agent: Prescott, Charles J. Abstract: Cross-linked polymer microspheres having a sulfonated cation exchange surface are carefully separated into fractions of equal size and density. Each fraction is separately plated pref- erably with copper, palladium, nickel, titanium or any metal cat- ion which will reduce with hydrazene to form a conductive metal flash coating. The flash coat plated microspheres are again sepa- rated into fractions of equal size and density. Each fraction is then given additional metal platings first of nickel, then pref- erably palladium, then a support plate for the palladium, fol- lowed preferably by a stabilizing metal plate such as chromium. The thus plated microspheres have uniformly thick platings and have a maximized surface area for the amount of metal plated mak- ing them particularly useful as catalysts or in electrical prod- ucts or processes. Microspheres having a plating of palladium exhibit a marked improvement in the adsorption of hydrogen both quantitatively and in rapidity. An inner nickel plating between the copper flash coat and palladium plate and an outer nickel plating atop the palladium plate serve to structurally stabilize the palladium plate during a heat production duty cycle without inhibiting hydrogen adsorption by thepalladium plate. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 1. Scope of Invention This invention relates generally to metal plating and more par- ticularly to improved uniform plated microspheres for use in cat- alytic processes and electrical applications. 2. Prior Art In U.S. Pat. No. 3,577,324, I described a process and apparatus for plating particles which had as a preferred embodiment the plating of polymeric beads formed from polystyrene cross-linked with divinyl benzene. A solution for bonding copper atoms to such beads was disclosed. In U.S. Pat. No. 3,787,718, I disclosed the use of plated spheri- cal particles as electronic components. In this patent, the form- ing of additional coatings or platings on the copper layer was also disclosed . U.S. Pat. No. 2,915,406 to Rhoda et al., entitled "tPalladium Plating by Chemical Reduction"m, discloses a number of baths for use in immersion plating of various metals. Another of my earlier patents, U.S. Pat. No. 5,036,031, teaches a metal plated microsphere catalyst, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference. This prior patent teaches the application of a copper plate of uniform thickness atop which a palladium plate is applied, the copper plate being applied atop microspheres formed of cross-linked polystyrene similar to my `324 patent. In utilizing the microsphere catalyst disclosed in my `031 patent in the cell disclosed in my prior U.S. Pat. No. 5,372,688, I have observed a black residue forming within the liquid electrolyte of this cell. I have also observed shorter than expected cell life. Upon further investigation, I have determined that the source of the black residue is palladium which has been separated from the microsphere catalyst beads under heat and electrical current duty cycle. The present invention discloses the preparation of copolymer microspheres having copper salts on the outer portion. These microspheres are separated into batches of substantially uniform sizes and are then plated. By plating microspheres of the same size and density (as determined by Stoke's Law), a plating of uni- form thickness can be achieved. This uniformly thick plating is essential when the plated microspheres are used in catalytic beds and/or with electric current flowing. Non-uniformly thick plat- ings will result in hot spots which will cause the plating to spall off. An improved plated layer combination including a layer of nickel atop palladium is also disclosed which serves to struc- turally stabilize the palladium plate without inhibiting diffu- sion of hydrogen to palladium. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION As disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,036,031 and 4,943,355, in a column exchange, a copolymer in hydrogen form is reacted with chlorosul- fonic acid, the resulting microspheres have a sulfonate surface in the hydrogen form. The microspheres are washed with deionized water. The sulfonated microspheres are next placed in an aqueous copper chloride solution. The microspheres have copper salts on the surface and hydrochloric acid is contained in the solution by ion exchange. The microspheres are again washed with deionized water. The resulting copolymer when dried is in the form of micro- spheres having copper salts on the exterior. These microspheres are separated by passing them through meshes of progressively decreasing size beginning with U.S. sieve cut 16-18and ending with U.S. sieve cut 25-30. Each such separated group of micro- spheres is further hydraulically separated to obtain microspheres of sizes identical to .+-.0.005 g/cm.sup.3. These microspheres are then plated with the electroless copper plating solution described in U.S. Pat. No. 3,577,324 with the required good agitation or with a flash coating formed of a metal cation which will chemically reduce with hydrogen or hydrazine such as copper, nickel, palladium or titanium. After drying and further sorting, these microspheres are given an additional metal plating using the apparatus disclosed in the previously mentioned `324 patent and solutions which will be described herein for var- ious metal platings. Such plated microspheres are useful in elec- trical applications and in catalytic processes. For example, microspheres having a palladium outer plate have been found to occlude hydrogen in increased quantities and at faster rates than pure palladium wire or palladium plated wire. A further improve- ment includes applying an additional nickel outer plate atop the palladium plate and therebeneath atop the copper plate or flash coat to add structural integrity to the palladium plate. It is therefore an object of this invention to provide improved catalytic microspheres which have plating layers of uniform thickness atop uniform nonmetallic beads which layers include various combinations of an inner nickel plate and a palladium or similar plate thereatop and another plated layer for added strength atop the palladium plate when the microspheres are used during hydrogen (or an isotope of hydrogen) cycling in catalytic reactions. In accordance with these and other objects which will become apparent hereinafter, the instant invention will now be described with reference to the accompanying drawings. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS FIG. 1 depicts in broken perspective one embodiment of the inven- tion. FIG. 2 is a broken section view of another embodiment of the invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION My prior U.S. Pat. No. 5,036,031 (U.S. `031) is incorporated in its entirety herein by reference. Cross-linked polystyrene copolymer is reacted in a column exchange with chlorosulfonic acid yielding sulfonated cross- linked polystyrene copolymer microspheres having hydrogen ions on the outer layer and hydrochloric acid, as shown in FIG. 1 of my U.S. `031. This sulfonation should be limited to a 100 molecular layer depth. If sulfonation is excessive, the diameter of the microspheres will change when dry microspheres are hydrated. Fol- lowing this reaction, the sulfonated polystyrene microspheres are washed with deionized water. Next, aqueous copper chloride is added to the solution and substitutes for the hydrogen ions in the outer layer, as shown in FIG. 2 of U.S. `031. The microspheres are again washed with deionized water and dried. The resulting micro- spheres have copper salts on the exterior. The microspheres are passed through sieves to separate them into batches with each batch containing microspheres of substantially the same size. The largest cut is U.S. sieve 16-18 followed by 18-20, 20-25 and 25-30 mesh. Each cut is then individually hydraulically separated in a cone having an upwardly laminar water flow. As is well known, in accordance with Stoke's Law, microspheres of different densities and size will be found in different layers or zones. The micro- spheres in each zone are carefully removed separately and are now in fractions which are identical to .+-.0.005 grams/cm.sup.3. These fractions are then copper coated using the process disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,577,324. The resulting copper coated microspheres perform superiorly as electronic components and in catalytic functions because they do not develop hot spots as occurred with microspheres formed by the previous process. Such hot spots would cause the metal coating to pop off the microspheres. For many applications, a second metal coating is desired. To assure uniformity of coating, the copper coated microspheres are again hydraulically separated to an accuracy of .+-.0.0075 grams/ cm.sup.3. Second metal platings of various metals atop the copper coat have been performed using the apparatus disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,577,324 and the solutions are described in U.S. `031 wherein the following are described in detail: By Electroplating: Gold plating; Silver plating; Platinum pla ting; Palladium plating; Nickel plating; By Immersion plating: Palladium plating; Nickel plating; Rhodium plating atop copper plate; Tin plating atop copper plate; Gold plating atop copper plate; Silver plating atop copper plate; Platinum plating atop copper plate. By Electroless plating: Copper plating; Nickel plating; Palladium plating. In addition to the above processes for forming the desired plated layers, the microplating processes for applying these plates may include the methods of vacuum evaporation, ion plating, and sput- tering. These additional plating processes are fully described in "Vacuum Metalizing" by Paul R. Forant, Metal Finishing Guide Book and Directory (Issue `84) at pages 365 to 375. CATALYTIC SUPPORTED METALS Only thin metal films ar required for catalytic activity. One of the active metal groups for producing surface catalytic reactions is nickel (58.69), palladium (106.70), white gold (197.20), plat- inum (185.23), titanium (47.9) with specific gravities of 8.9, 12,02, 21.45, 4.5 g/cm.sup.3, respectively. For example, palla- dium (Pd) surface will adsorb hydrogen gas. This adsorption will be used as an example to show an improvement in surface activity of metals coated on small stable copolymer microspheres. Palladium coated microspheres are preferred for hydrogen (or an isotope of hydrogen) adsorption. However, palladium may be sub- stituted by other transition metals, rare earths and also ura- nium. In general, any of these metals which are capable of combining with high volumes of hydrogen to form "smetallic hydrides"w are acceptable. These metals known to applicant which will serve as a substitute for, or in conjunction with, palladium are lanthanum, praseodymium, cerium, titanium, zirconium, vana- dium, tantalum, uranium, hafnium and thorium. Authority for the inclusion of these elements within this group is found in a book entitled "oInorganic Hydrides"e by B. L. Shaw, published by Per- gamon Press, 1967. However, palladium is the best known and most widely studied metallic hydride and isotopes and was utilized in my previously referenced patents to form conductive hydrogen- absorbing microspheres. In an even more general sense, the broad requirement here is to provide a "9metallic hydride" (or isotopes thereof) surface, the makeup of the core of the microspheres being a secondary consideration. PALLADIUM COATING OF PLASTIC SPHERES 100.000 grams of copolymer microspheres were treated as described to produce a flash copper coating. The copper coated microspheres when dry exhibit a static surface charge. Density of microspheres as determined by S.V.S., U.S. Pat. No. 4,196,618 was 1.0550 +/- 0.0005 gm/cm.sup.3 dry. A 0.1000 cm.sup.3 tube was used in S.V.S. in conjunction with a Metler analytical balance. The microspheres were coated with palladium using three coating techniques, elec- troplating, immersion plating and electroless plating. In addi- tion, coils of 100.000 gm, 0.05 mm diameter copper wire were coated using the same technique as the microspheres. All micro- spheres and wire were coated to give a weight of 20.000 grams of palladium. ______________________________________ TABLE OF RESULTS PALLADIUM COATING BEADS WIRE ______________________________________ WEIGHT 100.00 grams 100.00 grams WEIGHT Pd 20.00 grams 20.00 grams ______________________________________ SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF Pd COATING IN GRAMS/CM.sup.3 PLATING E I EL ______________________________________ 11.00 11.40 11.1 11.85 11.00 10.75 12.00 11.95 11.85 ______________________________________ E = ELECTRODEPOSITION I = IMMERSION EL = ELECTROLESS HYDROGEN LOADING OF Pd SURFACES As is well known, palladium is noted for its tendency to adsorb hydrogen and isotopes thereof. When finely divided, it takes up about 800 times its own volume. See Smith's College Chemistry by James Kendall, The Century Co., 1926, at page 630. Given below are comparative results of adsorption of hydrogen and isotopes thereof by palladium plated cross-linked polymer microspheres, palladium plated wire and pure palladium wire. ______________________________________ VOLUMES OF HYDROGEN/VOLUME OF Pd MICROSPHERES Pd PLATED WIRE PURE Pd WIRE ______________________________________ E I EL E I EL E I EL 900 910 950 580 590 610 570 950 975 1050 ______________________________________ 1 volume Pd to x volumes hydrogen Using specific gravity of Pd at 12.02 gm/cm.sup.3 and coating weight for Pd volume and standard gas conditions for hydrogen, a volume of metal to volume of hydrogen is given as loading, i.e. where the Pd coating on the beads range from 1.962% to 1.760% of the microsphere volume. Microspheres range in size from 2 mm to 10 microns. It is seen that the plated microspheres take up a larger volume of hydrogen per unit volume of Pd than either plated wire or pure Pd wire. This slows the improved catalytic nature of metal coated microspheres over plated or pure metal wire. The volume of metal on plated microspheres shows that considerably less metal is required on the microsphere to give improved reactions over the pure metal, using the palladium/hydrogen uptake as the example. A remarkable result relating to the adsorption of hydrogen by pal- ladium is depicted in FIG. 3 of U.S. `031. Palladium plated cross- linked polymer microspheres having an outside diameter of essen- tially 0.88 mm and palladium wire were exposed to hydrogen under standard conditions of temperature and pressure. In unit periods of time as shown in FIG. 3 of U.S. `031, the microspheres are found to reach maximum uptake in a much shorter period than the wire. It is believed that the adsorption occurs more rapidly on the surface and the beads present a much higher surface area. In addition, it appears that the thinner the metal plate on the beads, the more rapidly adsorption occurs, since the hydrogen does not have to penetrate deeply. Moreover, this thin coating does not adversely effect the electrical conduction properties when these microspheres are used as a catalyst in electrochemical or electro induced reactions. Consequently, the shell metal not only produces a greater product yield, but also produces it faster. Based on the foregoing, the palladium coated microspheres repre- sent an ideal adsorber for hydrogen and its isotopes. Other uses for the plated microspheres of the various metals described above will be apparent to those who typically use such metals as cata- lysts. The plated microspheres provide enhanced catalytic activ- ity because the surface area is maximized for the weight and volume of the metal. Referring now to FIG. 1 of the present application, the invention is shown generally at numeral 10. The core 12 is nonmetallic and preferably formed of cross-linked styrene divinyl-benzene as described in my previous `031 patent. It has been determined through experimentation that the addition of a nickel coating both beneath at 16 and atop at 20 the palladium coating 18 as above described affords still further hydrogen adsorbing cata- lytic results. In experiments utilizing the previously described palladium plated microspheres without nickel outer plating, these experimental results being disclosed in my earlier U.S. Pat. No. 5,318,675 and 5,372,688, a black residue developing within the liquid electrolyte was analyzed and determined to be palladium. This palladium had only one source, that being the palladium plate atop the `031 microsphere beads. Further analysis of the source of this black residue appears to be as a result of the heat/current duty cycle imposed upon the palladium plate of each microsphere as it is charged and the interacted with the electrolyte and electri- cal current within the cell described in my `688 and `675 patents. This duty cycle apparently results in minor cracking, flaking and/or spalling of the palladium plate. The present invention as seen in FIG. 1 provides an additional inner nickel plating 16 applied atop the copper plate or flash coat 14 prior to the application of the palladium plate 18. There- after, an additional nickel plate 20 is applied atop the palladium 18, thus preparing the preferred embodiment 10 of this invention. The primary benefit of the addition of the nickel plates 16 and 20 both beneath and atop the palladium plate 18 is to structurally stabilize the palladium while permitting free diffusion of hydro- gen to the palladium plate 18. During the duty cycle described in the `688 and `675 patents, considerable heat is generated in the palladium layer causing expansion and contraction thereof. To prevent cracking, flaking and/or spalling of the palladium, the nickel layers both beneath and atop the palladium add structural integrity and prevent such damage or deterioration without inhib- iting hydrogen diffusion. The application of the nickel plating 16 atop the copper layer 14 is in accordance with the teachings of the techniques disclosed in my `355 patent. Thickness of this additional nickel layer 16 is in the range of about 10 angstroms to 1 micron in thickness as desired. Nickel plate thickness appears to be inversively propor- tional to the rate of hydrogen diffusion therethrough to the pal- ladium layer. The inner layer of nickel 16 also appears to provide a more uni- form spherical foundation for the application of the palladium plate 18 thereatop and, in combination with the outer nickel plate 20, better supports the palladium layer 18 during heat cycling as previously discussed. It has also been determined by experimenta- tion that this inner and outer combination of nickel layers 16 and 20 which straddles the palladium plating 18 stimulates heat pro- duction reaction. A preferred layer thickness is in the range of 1 to 10 angstroms for the copper flash coat 14, in the range of 10 angstroms to 1 microns thickness for the inner nickel plate 16, in the range of about 10 angstroms to 2 microns for the palladium plate 18 and in the range of 10 angstroms to 1/2 micron for the outer nickel plate 20 atop the palladium plate 18. Referring now to FIG. 2, another more general embodiment of the invention is shown generally at numeral 22 and includes the spher- ical nonmetallic core 12 as previously described with respect to FIG. 1. A flash coat 24 of a conductive metal coating of uniform thickness is formed of a metal cation which will chemically reduce with hydrogen. This flash coating 24 has a thickness in the range of from 1 to 10 angstroms. This flash coating 24 is taken from the group consisting of copper, palladium, nickel and titanium, cop- per being preferred. A second layer 26 is then applied atop the flash coating 24 formed of nickel and having a uniform thickness in the range of 10 ang- stroms to 1 micron. A palladium layer 28 is then applied atop the nickel plating 26, the palladium plating 28 having a thickness in the range of 10 angstroms to 2 microns. More generally, this plate 28 may be formed of a metallic hydride which is readily combine- able with hydrogen or an isotope of hydrogen as previously described. This metallic hydride plating 28 is taken from the group consisting of palladium, lanthanum, praseodymium, cerium, titanium, zirconium, vanadium, tantalum, uranium, hafnium and thorium, palladium, alone or in combination with any other in this group, being preferred. A metallic support plating 30 of uniform thickness is then formed atop the metallic hydride forming plating 28, the metal chosen having a high hydrogen diffusion rate and a low hydride formation ratio. The materials which may be used to form this support plat- ing 30 are taken from the group consisting of nickel, gold and silver, nickel being preferred. A high rate of hydrogen diffusion is considered to be in the range of about 0.85 mols hydrogen to 1 mol of palladium. A low hydride formation ratio is considered to be a molar ratio of metal to hydride or denteride of less than about 10:1, or 1 mol metal to less than 0.1 mol hydride or dent- eride. A metallic stabilizer plating 32 of uniform thickness is then formed atop the support plating 30. The stabilizer plating 32 is formed of one of the transition metals capable of high rates of hydrogen diffusion and is taken from the group consisting of chro- mium, iron, cobalt, and nickel, chromium being preferred. Thick- nesses are in the range of about 1 to 60 angstroms. One or more pairs of additional layers 34/36 of palladium or more broadly a metallic hydride forming plating 34 followed by a nickel plating 36 or more broadly a metallic support plating having a high rate of hydrogen diffusion and a low hydride formation rate may be provided as desired for each particular catalytic environ- ment. Multiples of these pairs of layers 34/36 may be built up one atop the other up to as many as five to ten pairs of additional layers for increased structural integrity and enhanced hydrogen adsorption. While the instant invention has been shown and described herein in what are conceived to be the most practical and preferred embodi- ments, it is recognized that departures may be made therefrom within the scope of the invention, which is therefore not to be limited to the details disclosed herein, but is to be afforded the full scope of the claims so as to embrace any and all equivalent apparatus and articles. Claim: What is claimed is: 1. A catalyst comprising: a plurality of conductive microspheres each having a first nickel layer of uniform thickness formed atop a copper layer of uniform thickness which is formed atop a non-conductive core; a palladium layer of uniform thickness formed atop said first nickel layer; said palladium layer having high hydrogen adsorption capabili- ties; a second nickel layer of uniform thickness formed atop said palla- dium layer. 2. A catalyst as set forth in claim 1, wherein: said non-conductive core is cross-linked polystyrene. 3. A catalyst as set forth in claim 1, wherein: at least one said layer is formed by electroplating. 4. A catalyst as set forth in claim 1, wherein: at least one said layer is formed by immersion plating. 5. A catalyst as set forth in claim 1, wherein: at least one said layer is formed by electroless plating. 6. A catalyst as set forth in claim 1, wherein: at least one said layer is formed by vacuum evaporation. 7. A catalyst as set forth in claim 1, wherein: at least one said layer is formed by ion plating. 8. A catalyst as set forth in claim 1, wherein: at least one said layer is formed by sputtering. 9. A palladium plated catalyst having high hydrogen adsorption capabilities comprising: a plurality of conductive microspheres each of substantially uni- form diameter and having layers of copper, then a first nickel layer atop said copper layer, then a palladium layer atop said first nickel layer, then a second nickel layer atop said palladium layer, each said layer of uniform thickness; said palladium layer capable of absorbing large quantities of hydrogen through said second nickel layer. 10. A catalyst as set forth in claim 9, wherein: each said microsphere has a non-conductive core formed of cross- linked polystyrene. 11. A catalyst as set forth in claim 9, wherein: at least one said layer is formed by electroplating. 12. A catalyst as set forth in claim 9, wherein: at least one said layer is formed by immersion plating. 13. A catalyst as set forth in claim 9, wherein: at least one said layer is formed by electroless plating. 14. A catalyst as set forth in claim 9, wherein: at least one said layer is formed by vacuum evaporation. 15. A catalyst as set forth in claim 9, wherein: at least one said layer is formed by ion plating. 16. A catalyst as set forth in claim 9, wherein: at least one said layer is formed by sputtering. 17. A catalyst comprising: a plurality of uniform non-conductive cores each having a conduc- tive metal flash coating of uniform thickness formed by chemical combination with a cation exchange surface of said non-conductive cores from a metal cation which will chemically reduce with hydra- zene; a nickel layer of uniform thickness formed atop said flash coat- ing; a metallic hydride forming layer of uniform thickness formed atop said nickel layer, said metallic hydride forming layer being readily combinable with hydrogen or an isotope of hydrogen; a metallic support layer of uniform thickness formed atop said metallic hydride forming layer. 18. A catalyst as set forth in claim 17, further comprising: a metallic stabilizing layer of uniform thickness formed atop said metallic support layer, said metallic stabilizing layer being a transition metal. 19. A catalyst as set forth in claim 17, wherein: said flash coating has a thickness in the range of 1 to 10 ang- stroms; said nickel layer and said metallic support layer each have a thickness in the range of about 10 angstroms to 1 micron; said metallic hydride forming layer has a thickness in the range of about 10 angstroms to 2 microns. 20. A catalyst as set forth in claim 18, wherein: said flash coating has a thickness in the range of 1 to 10 ang- stroms; said nickel layer and said metallic support layer each have a thickness in the range of about 10 angstroms to 1 micron; said metallic hydride forming layer has a thickness in the range of about 10 angstroms to 2 microns; said metallic stabilizing layer has a thickness in the range of about 1 to 60 angstroms. 21. A catalyst as set forth in claim 17, wherein said flash coat- ing is taken from the group consisting of: copper, palladium, nickel and titanium. 22. A catalyst as set forth in claim 17, wherein said metallic hydride forming layer is taken form the group consisting of: palladium, lanthanum, praseodymium, cerium, titanium, zirconium, vanadium, tantalum, uranium, hafnium and thorium. 23. A catalyst as set forth in claim 17, wherein said metallic support layer is taken from the group consisting of: nickel, gold, silver and titanium. 24. A catalyst as set forth in claim 19, wherein said metallic stabilizing layer is taken from the group consisting of: chromium, iron, cobalt end nickel. 25. A catalyst as set forth in claim 19, wherein: said flash coating is taken from the group consisting of: copper, palladium, nickel and titanium; said metallic hydride forming layer is taken from the group con- sisting of: palladium, lanthanum, praseodymium, cerium, titanium, zirconium, vanadium, tantalum. uranium, hafnium and thorium; said metallic support layer is taken from the group consisting of: nickel, gold, silver and titanium; and said metallic stabilizer layer is taken from the group consisting of: chromium, iron, cobalt and nickel. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 20:21:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA10723; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:11:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:11:41 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 19:12:38 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Hot fusion ideas? Resent-Message-ID: <"vWIl53.0.Nd2.w_Zgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2584 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Horace wrote: > >"Hot fusioneers, has anything besides magnetic or inirtial confinement been >looked at lately?" > >Yes, a couple of Bozos trotted out the "brilliant" idea of detonating >thermonuclear weapons in underground caverns, making steam, and using that to >generate electricity. This was published in MIT Technology Review. It was >evidently the replacement article for my previously editor-approved 1991 cold >fusion article (editor was then Jonathan Spineless Schleffer) that was >nixed by >Institute Professor Herman Feshbach of the MIT Physics Department. Well, they >paid me $1,000 for my trouble -- a "kill fee" in the writing business. > >Gene Mallove Isn't that idea an oldie - like from the plowshare days, Edward Teller and company? Need a new port - use a nuke, etc? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 21:10:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA16122; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:57:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:57:37 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 23:08:59 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Tokamak will fail?? Message-ID: <961208040858_76016.2701_JHC113-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"rkMEg.0.rw3.wgago"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2585 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Eugene Mallove states: >>For the record, both Bill Broad and Nicholas Wade of the NYT Science section have been getting complimentary copies if Infinite Energy since the beginning (along with 100+ other journalists and VIPs -- Clinton, Dole, Gingrich, President Vest of MIT, etc.). << What about Hilliary? How do you expect her to read Bill's copy? I bet she's not even allowed in his bathroom. Terry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 21:15:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA16444; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:57:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:57:55 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 23:09:00 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Further Jones comment Message-ID: <961208040859_76016.2701_JHC113-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"2KYlk1.0.zy3.3hago"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2586 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick, >>That's one of the things I like about you, Terry. You are so completely and utterly full of crap.<< Gee, with fiends like you, who needs enemas? |:~T I am not in a position to *do* CF experiments; but, I can try to convince people of their reality. Now, if I convince one person per day, or get 10 to question it, I have made a difference. And *you* make a difference, @$$hole. >>If they are, then the Musketeers should seriously consider clamping down on such comments.<< I think they got the point. I look up to these guys. I am enamored with what they are doing. It's a noble cause. I guess what you and I are trying to say is, "Youse guys are the Babe Ruth's of CF and you're not allowed to be human anymore. No more drinking, chewing, and chasing women." Like it or not, they got themselves in this situation by their own efforts. They're our heroes and we depend on them to keep us informed -- and lead us. Let's move on. Must be hell to be a diplomat. This is why I got out of sales. Terry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 7 21:49:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA18773; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 21:03:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 21:03:24 -0800 Date: 07 Dec 96 22:32:58 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: vortex Subject: Dr. Li's Kitchen Disrupted Message-ID: <961208033257_76016.2701_JHC81-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"aaV3U1.0.Db4.Pmago"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2587 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Talk about snafus!!! Read this: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Paraphrased from the Huntsville [Alabama] Times: An internal squabble over lab space at UAH (University of Alabama/Huntsville) left one scientist's equipment in the hallway and another facing possible reprimand. Dr. Ning Li, who made news recently when she made an agreement with NASA to develop an experiment that could measurably decrease the effect of gravity, came to her lab at the UAH optics building Friday to find the contents of one lab in a hall. The equipment was being used to heat-treat high temperature superconducting powder to be pressed into a disc for the gravity experiment. She stated she believes she's the victim of an academic turf war with colleagues who question the value of her research. "I just fainted," she said. "The are afraid to have success. I just try to do my best. To do science at UAH is so difficult. People become so jealous they think how to block me and kick me out." Officials at UAH deny any turf battles in the physics department. Poor communications was sited as the real issue. Li's lab was supposed to be moved to another area. Ray Garner, UAH spokesman, said lab space is tight. Apparently, another employee moved the equipment out without permission early today. This employee has not been identified, and could not be contacted by UAH. "I don't think it's anything newsworthy," Dr. Charles Lundquist, director of the Consortium for Materials Development in Space, stated. "Part of the problem is two different groups each thought they owned the space. It's just a little internal snafu and got fixed in a hurry. It was a relatively junior person. It wasn't a professor. Conceivably he will probably be informed this isn't good form." Li's equipment won't be moved back in immediately, pending a meeting Monday between the department heads involved to resolve the space problem, Lundquist added. Quote: "NASA and university officials said the displaced equipment will slow Li's research by only one to three days. Engineers at Marshall Space Flight Center are waiting for a new mold that will contain the superconducting powder while it's being pressed into an 11" disk for the gravity experiment. Two earlier attempts to press a disk failed. The next attempt is expected before the end of the year." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Terry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 00:49:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA15222; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 00:33:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 00:33:07 -0800 Date: 08 Dec 96 03:30:15 EST From: Rick Monteverde <76216.2421@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Dr. Li's Kitchen Disrupted Message-ID: <961208083014_76216.2421_HHB31-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"U0_uy.0.ij3.2rdgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2588 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Terry - Now they're trying to trash Dr. Li's work before it even gets started?! Blecherous. Totally. > Apparently, another employee moved the equipment out > without permission early today. This employee has not > been identified, and could not be contacted by UAH. And never will. MJ never sleeps, does it. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 03:36:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA15881; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 03:21:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 03:21:40 -0800 Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 12:35:01 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <32aa99d9.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Latest Potapov Claimed Self-Sustaining Device Resent-Message-ID: <"J3xoS1.0.zt3.2Jggo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2589 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 7 Dec 1996 10:30:05 -0800, vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > If true, this is the breakthrough we have all been waiting for, and will > revolutionize the world energy economy. However, as far as all of us > experimenters can tell, similar previous Potapov claims (now tested by > Mallove, us here at EarthTech, and at Los Alamos) simply were untrue. Is > there some new reason why I should see these new claims in a different light? > Then, where and how fast could I buy one? > Hal Puthoff Dear Hal, I think this is really the BREAKTHROUGH but I don't want to convince anybody, I know it is difficult. Therefore I advice you to wait the reports of the ad-hoc validation committees i.e. of the people from US and Germany who will analyze the devices at the site and tell their expert opinion. This is the only rational attitude I think, let first them to judge and the inner clients to buy. Just for your information: the demand for all types of YUSMARs and QHPS's in the former SU is very big; the explanation can be : a) those people are stupid; b) they forget about the phase angle or other detail c) the devices are efficient as claimed by Potapov. 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 Dec 8 03:37:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA15904; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 03:21:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 03:21:49 -0800 Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 12:22:20 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <32aa96e4.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Re: Latest Yusmar Leaflet Resent-Message-ID: <"62TkD.0.Qu3.BJggo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2590 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 7 Dec 1996 09:33:23 -0800, vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > Yes - and I was very impressed to see that! Is Frank Znidarsic or someone > here in the USA going to get a shot at testing one, or marketing them? If > they work that well, I could sell many thousands of units here in Alaska > alone. I was very impressed too it is a historical event, however increasing of o/u leads directly to the self-sustaining state. This was accomplished by persistent, systematic, profound efforts. The products are in continuous development and prior to get on the outer market a lot of inner (former Soviet) orders have to be fulfilled. Servicing in the known area is feasible, while US is for the moment given just a strategic area. One of them. The demand is very great, the production is just starting and the technical problems (I hope you are an engineer Horace and you can imagine the details) are very serious. A first demonstration will be organized this spring (you are aware of the Russian winter, I think) and later a worldwide one in some European capital city. I do not ask anybody to believe these claims; Gene had the initiative to send the leaflet data to Vortex, they had been sent just for his information. I bet that somebody will really sell thousands of QHPS's in Alaska and many thousands worldwide but this needs time- est modus in rebus. > If there are patents and the thing is in production maybe we on vortex > could somehow see some design information? A diplomatic answer: not yet. Wait for the video tour. 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 Dec 8 03:49:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA17997; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 03:34:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 03:34:56 -0800 Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 13:09:37 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <32aaa1f7.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Miley-CETI seminar. Resent-Message-ID: <"BsVNN1.0.7P4.VVggo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2591 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Gentlemen, Tuesday, December 10 will take place the first Miley CETI seminar for the buyers of the demo cells. Can somebody get "direct information"? I think many questions can be answered and many doubts can be discarded this way. 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 Dec 8 04:01:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA20738; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 03:46:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 03:46:30 -0800 Message-ID: <32AAB920.7E54@rt66.com> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 04:48:32 -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: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Cravens Critique Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"UUJQn2.0.S35.Lgggo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2592 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Return-Path: Dennis@wazoo.com Received: from earth.wazoo.com (earth.wazoo.com [206.206.161.10]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA21812 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:44:44 -0700 (MST) Received: from default (dialup2.pm3.wazoo.com [206.206.161.113]) by earth.wazoo.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA26301 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:42:50 -0700 Message-Id: <199612072042.NAA26301@earth.wazoo.com> From: "Dennis Cravens" To: Subject: Re: Miley Preprints Critique Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:51:32 -0700 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 I quickly read over your critique. From my view it is not even wrong. for example: you cannot use the same beads for NAA before and after since they would under go nuclear changes in the first analysis. Your arguments of selective migration of isotope is intersting but if true - why does the heavy Zn isotope become more concentrated. You often try to compare numbers between runs. That is crazy: they could be in entirely different conditions (i.e. some early runs used a Al oxide pump head, later ones used plastic). The moral is not to jump to fast. You are still living off of preprints and not even waiting for the real paper. You ask for data- if you want it -then get up and do the experiment and don't just do Mon. morning quarter back stuff. If you ever did it in real life you would begain to understand a little more. The attempts by Scott little etc. you mention were totally off the mark. Despite continual warnings they used improper beads, improper bead preperations, improper sizes (radius of curvature), undefined plating techniques, etc. (they also violated several patent laws). They may say they have good Calorimetry, but were have they described their device, had it analysied by other, even submitted to peer review within the CF community. The problem is that people don't wait to do a good job or wait for the final papers, or even get the data straight that they try to discuss. I still think that our approach is correct. Make a detail protocol, make several identical systems, make one standard large batch of beads, and then get others to do the experiment independently and then compare the results. All the verbage is not going to do a thing but cause bad feelings. After all is said and done more is said than done - how sad. Dennis > From: Richard Thomas Murray > To: cc840@freenet.carleton.ca; ceti@onramp.net; reeber@aro.ncren.net; dennis@wazoo.com > Subject: Miley Preprints Critique > Date: Saturday, December 07, 1996 12:18 PM > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 04:03:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA21350; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 03:48:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 03:48:38 -0800 Message-ID: <32AAB99B.4866@rt66.com> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 04:50:35 -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: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Miley Preprints Critique Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"C3fmJ2.0.KD5.Jiggo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2593 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Return-Path: bks@netcom.com Received: from netcom20.netcom.com (bks@netcom20.netcom.com [192.100.81.133]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA13535 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:03:13 -0700 (MST) Received: (from bks@localhost) by netcom20.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id MAA01113; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:02:09 -0800 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:02:09 -0800 From: bks@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) Message-Id: <199612072002.MAA01113@netcom20.netcom.com> To: rmforall@rt66.com Subject: Re: Miley Preprints Critique Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion In-Reply-To: <32A9C5BB.30DD@rt66.com> Organization: DNA + Sunlight Thanks for the well-thought out critique. You write very well (for a scientist). Too bad the journals convince all of us to write like automatons. --bks From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 05:28:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA09244; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 05:26:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 05:26:09 -0800 Message-ID: <32AACF6C.1ADE@rt66.com> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 06:27:56 -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: vortex-l@eskimo.com, CldFusion@aol.com, design73@aol.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, bockris@chemvx.tamu.edu, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, dennis@wazoo.com, ceti@onramp.net, g-miley@uiuc.edu, ine@padrak.com Subject: RE Miley Preprints Critique Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ZqM8U2.0.HG2.m7igo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2594 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Sunday 5 AM Santa Fe, NM I am pleased to find some vigorous responses to my Critique. I'll quickly emphasize some central points. Miley's First Preprint, page 21, Table 4b, gives before and after electrolytic run data on sulfonated polystyrene beads without metal film for just 4 element impurities, measured by NAA analysis with 2 ppm detection limit. Clearly, this is a null experimental run, and certainly a very poor test of the possibility that interbead transfer of impurities occurs on a large enough scale to produce apparent element anomalies on the 10-bead samples, admittedly non-randomly selected for analysis from a total of 1000. Of course, the before and after data are for two different sets of ten beads. The only way to do this properly would be to compare 10 or 20 sets of randomly selected 10-bead samples, or 10-20 % of the 1000 beads. Nevertheless, Ag increases 4 times, while Cu decreases to 1/2 and V decreases to 1/4. Since the impurities are in the volume of the 609 microgram beads, not just on the surface, the amount of impurities thus made available is substantial, considering that the beads closest to the Ti cathode are naturally going to collect any loose metal ions in the 100ml electrolyte during the two-week run. Questions: just how porous are these beads? How well do the many dozens of possible impurities diffuse through the volume of the beads? Ag was raised from below NAA detection level to just above. It is plausible to imagine that many other trace impurities, below the 2 ppm NAA detection level, were likewise raised to significant levels on the 1 % of beads actually measured after the run. There is no way to know, except to do comprehensive NAA analysis, which is possible, since presumably those remaining 990 plastic beads are in careful storage, available for analysis. The strong reduction in Cu and V indicates that these two elements were put into solution into the 100 ml electroltye. Wouldn't it be wonderful if this electrolyte is also in careful storage, available for thorough, exact quantitative analysis? Would someone like to volunteer to do this analysis at their own cost? Obviously, the element electrolyic transfer behavior of metal coated beads is likely to be far more extreme than the bare plastic beads. Impurities from the VOLUME of the plastic beads would be concentrated on the metal film SURFACE, especially if the beads near the Ti anode are stripped of their metal film during the two weeks of electrolysis. Test solutions with precise loads of various elements can be run on fresh beads to study the transfer of elements among various levels and locations of beads in the .5 cc cell. Radioisotopes can be used to make very quick and sensitive tests. For instance, beads run with a radioisotope electrolyte can be all be spread out in a 35 by 35 array on photographic film to study how much of the element is deposited on which beads. Get a high school lad or lassie to do it! Let us not forget that Miley published 3 values, out of the 8 given, that are below the NAA detection limit, without mentioning this in the table. Doesn't this make a gratitious contribution to the peace of mind and lightness of heart of committed skeptics, and indicate to moderates that all his claims are similarly given a generous shot of "spin", to use a popular term in politics? Why, having shot a big hole in your own foot, then go hobbling around, complaining about unfair or even "evil" treatment by skeptics and prejudiced disregard by the scientific community at large? You know, a week ago, in a flush of enthusiasm, I was going to hand both of Miley's Preprints to Murray Gell-Mann, a major player at Santa Fe Institute, and a member of the "Skeptical Inquirer" organization. Boy, am I glad I didn't! I would have lost all chance to establish a modicum of credibility with his extremely influencial network. >From now on I'm going to triple-check any reports by anyone, before I pass them on. Science, not charade! Rich Murray From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 06:54:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA27702; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 06:50:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 06:50:19 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 05:52:13 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Resent-Message-ID: <"2ezAT.0.lm6.eMjgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2595 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jay Olson writes: >Hey guys, just a few thoughts on the atomic expansion hypothesis. If >the hypothesis put forth by Horace Heffner is true, what difference >does it make if you use light water as opposed to heavy water? Yes. You refer to one of the results potentially explained, the Ni-H Mills type cells. Typically CF electrolytic cells fall into two basic categories - Pd-D Pons & Fleishmann cells and Ni-H Mills type cells. The Mills type should have served as "controls", but instead produced o-u effects. ZPE has been suggested by various people to be the source of the energy, and for both types of cells. The AEH hypothesis points to a possible mechanism by which the ZPE energy might be extracted. It is a conceptual starting point for further experimentation and theory development, but maybe just another dead end. >Also, >if you want lots of H ions, why not use an acid as the electrolyte? >Is there some obvious reason why an acid should not be used? Would >it corrode the annode? How about conventional loading of the cathode >for some amount of time and then changing the whole electrolyte bath >to an acid solution (with the same conductivity and initial >temperature). This would >certainly give you more H ions to work with and it might be usefull >in determining if having more ions present increases the temp. of the >experiment. OK, I know I'll probably be hitting myself over the head >thinking "of course, why didn't I realize that" when someone responds >to this, but hey, it's just off the top of my head. > > Jay Olson I think using an acid is a very good idea, though it is not new. A lead/acid or uranium/acid cell may even work. I think the big problem with electrolytic cells is that the "free" protons are not free - they are bound into an H3O+ ion. It has been theorized that these H3O+ ions achieve proton conduction in water by permitting the protons to tunnel from an H3O+ ion to an adjacent H2O molecule, thus converting it ito an H3O+, but only when the orientation of the two involved molecules is correct. This makes for fairly slow proton conduction in electrolytes. A similar tunneling mechanism has been proposed at the interface, a douple layer at the surface of the cathode. I think alternating current superimposed on a DC current, i.e. pulsed DC, works better than simple DC because it aligns the H3O+ molecules at the interface, and then rams the the H+ across the interface. It seems like maybe the best waveform would be very short (less than 1 us) but frequent high voltage (above 10V) spikes superimposed on a very low voltage (about 0.6 V) DC. Even though generating H2 is very useful, something to think about is maybe recovering the H or H2 back to become an H+, right in the cell. Bubbles just tend to impede electrolysis and the o-u part of the exercise, the atomic expansion (if the hypothesis is correct.) Re-ionizing the H2 for recycling seems to be much easier in a gas phase. Thanks for responding, and keep up the thinking ... Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 07:43:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA06418; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 07:40:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 07:40:13 -0800 From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:39:25 -0500 Message-ID: <961208103925_1287359868@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Evil people? Resent-Message-ID: <"8tOz92.0.Ca1.Q5kgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2596 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I have broken bread with Gene, Jed and Chris and done small things to help their cause. They have ample reason to be outraged by the personal invective hurled their way, and repeated disinformation given to the press and forums like spf. Gene, in particular, put his career on the line in protest over disinformation given out as a formal report from MIT, with long range consequences. That story hasn't been fully told in this forum, but perhaps there will be an appropriate day. I think Rick has given balance. But the accusation of global guilt as a consequence of individual hubris and stupidity is one of which we are all guilty and all innocent. The list is very long, and in the history of the Holocaust is perhaps found the best documented example of how cumulative innocuous acts can be orchestrated into systematic genocide, a truly evil concoction. The truly evil constitute only a ***small*** fraction of humankind. The remedy is not counter-invective -- which can only confuse the onlookers, but the careful marshalling of statements and actions into what will be a truly damming record. But this doesn't really further the interests of science or humankind. The answer to the blind critics is not to fight them, but to Flourish and Prosper and leave them behind. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 07:52:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA07544; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 07:44:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 07:44:39 -0800 Date: 08 Dec 96 10:41:43 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: RE Miley Preprints Critique Message-ID: <961208154142_100433.1541_BHG95-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Z3PsY1.0.or1.a9kgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2597 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Richard, Look, can ANYONE tell me what is wrong with my suggestion, namely that a total digestion of cell contents is performed, and a full quantitative analysis done on a 'before and after' basis? It seems to me that people would very much prefer to play the armchair scientist here, and that nobody would welcome a 'bottom line' job. If I am wrong and this is impossible, then let someone show me why. Or if such results would be irrelevant, show me why. I am on record over a long period as being highly sceptical of the (proven to my mind) *thermal* anomaly of CF being *primarily* a nuclear effect. However, I am taking serious notice of the reports of not only Miley but of Ohmori and Mizuno, and others which are less public. Well over thirty years ago, I worked during summer vacations from university doing ppm analyses, mostly of water. I had no problems in doing that with very basic equipment. So, again I have to ask what the hell is wrong with destructive analysis of the cell contents before and after? Without that, and without commercialisation of CF products on a serious scale, this confused debate will continue until the sun goes out. Actually, even that test would just provoke more squabbles... Frankly, I thought your list of problems with the paper interesting but also full of considerable arm-waving, full of weak assertions given as fact. If these wonderful SIMS and NAA machines are so problematical, let's get and do some good old chemistry. But I see you dismiss Joule calorimetry, so I suppose chemistry would not impress you much. Yes, the tone of this note IS designed to goad a response. That's because I've not had a sensible one on this from anyone at any time. Come on, shoot me down. If you can, I'll accept it cheerfully. *One more point. Yet again the basic issue is being sidelined, though * *perhaps 'hijacked' would be a better word. The basic issue is not the * *source of the energy, it is the energy itself and any remaining * *questions over its safety. As can be seen from this discussion, the * *matter of the origin of the energy is never going to be subject of * *agreement between the 'sceptics' and the 'transmuters'. That * *agreement can and will happen when and if the devices are in routine * *commercial use, because many people with no vested interest in the * *mechanism are going to find it. Until then nobody on either side is * *going to give ground. * Meanwhile, let's have some old-fashioned science done. Frankly, I don't much care what the outcome of my suggested test would be - whatever it is would be taken by one side as proof positive, and by the other as nothing of the kind, and then used to make a false extrapolation beyond its significance. I really would be interested in the science of CF if I honestly thought it would progress the debate. However, we have seen yet again that it *cannot*. Only the market can do that. While I am in full rant-mode, I would add that I have been called a religious fanatic, a worshipper before the false god of cold fusion, and a true believer - by those who are kinder. I prefer to see myself as a person who wants any new and clean form of energy, and who is satisfied that, whatever it is, CF is just that. I'm long past caring whom I may offend with my views, because I happen to think that the reported 10,000 premature deaths in the UK and the reported 60,000 premature deaths in the US from microparticle emissions (and those are just a tiny fraction of energy-related deaths worldwide) happen to be a bit more important than these hifalutin' squabbles. I think that those who see CF as I do should be working to hasten a valuable form of energy for mankind, and that those who oppose it should ask themselves just exactly how certain they are that every calorimetric result favouring 'new energy' really is so much crap. And, if confronted with the parents of yet another dying, asthmatic child, what would the transmuters or the sceptics have to say? Not any business of scientists? In that case, what exactly *is* their business? Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 09:16:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA26026; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 09:01:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 09:01:44 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199612081632.IAA00208@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: ?GMX Magnetic hardwater treatment To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 08:32:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <9612060940.AA22881@mail.clackesd.k12.or.us> from "David Doty" at Dec 6, 96 02:55:14 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"vcOY53.0.WM6.sHlgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2598 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: David Doty writes: > Dear vortex-l, > Does anyone know what type of magnets GMX is using to treat > hard water? > Who sells them cheeper than GMX's high priced adds on ART BELL > radio talk show? Try the Magnetizer Group Inc. Phone: 1-800-4-MAGNET "The Free-Energy Company". Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 09:57:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA02040; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 09:42:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 09:42:43 -0800 Date: 08 Dec 96 12:40:09 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Evangelizing CF Message-ID: <961208174008_76570.2270_FHU72-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"CoAj42.0.oV.Hulgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2599 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Rick, If we weren't "fanatics," Infinite Energy magazine would not exist -- among other things, I would not have been editing and producing it while teaching high-school in Alton, New Hampshire last year (physics and chemistry, what's left of them). And we would certainly not be selling IE to US/Canada for $29.95/six issues -- an utterly unreasonablly low figure for a magazine with so little advertizing and little prospect that the advertizing will rise before the "triumph of the fanatics." It is being sold that low, precisley because we are in the business of spreading the word and truth at the cost of much pain -- and, in my case, severe financial deprivation. Of course, I hope that there will be actual financial benefits down the line, but I am beginning to think there may not be any. There is plenty of Truth-seeking and truth telling out there that goes unrewarded financially. The rewards, I suppose, are mainly the "fun of it,' the excitement, and the certain knowledge that we are doing the right thing. Kawasaki's "wisdom" -- I have read much of his book in the past -- is about a *currently* non-controversial field in which it is possible to make money by just sticking your hand out and catching the dollars. I think we wrote to him once and got no reply. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 11:38:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA27176 for billb@eskimo.com; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:33:26 -0800 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:33:26 -0800 X-Envelope-From: hjscudde@pacbell.net@aol.com Sun Dec 8 11:33:12 1996 Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA27021 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:32:56 -0800 From: hjscudde@pacbell.net@aol.com Received: by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA25623 for vortex-l@eskimo.com; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 14:32:25 -0500 Old-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 14:32:25 -0500 Message-ID: <961208143224_839859531@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, Puthoff@aol.com Subject: Re: Heffner's Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH) X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Puthoff@aol.com wrote: > > Colin Quinney asked: > > < gravitational disturbance ?>> > > In principle, yes (see my papers on ZPE basis for gravity and inertia, 1989 > and 1994, respectively, both in Phys. Rev. A). However, since gravity and > inertia result from interaction with the entire ZPE spectrum, then a Casimir > Effect extraction of ZPE would introduce a gravitational disturbance whose > percentage effect size would be on the order of the ratio of Casimir energy > density to total energy density, too small to measure under ordinary > circumstances. > > Hal Puthoff Hal Would it be possible for you to put your papers on Earthtech's home page, or someplace else, such as John Logajan's so the world at large could have easy access to them? -Hank Scudder -- 1¾ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 11:57:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA31102; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:48:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:48:30 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:01:11 -0500 Message-ID: <961208112052_873395514@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Yusmar Resent-Message-ID: <"m6Pg62.0.tb7.Akngo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2600 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I'm still trying to get our Yusmar working. We are going to proceed with some additional tests in a few weeks. A young lady friend of mine read my paper on the subject. She asked, "I've read that this has something to do with Bosons" I said, "I think so." She replied, "Then why don't you add bosonic vinegar?" Well anyway...Her ides is as good as any...that's as far as I've managed to go... Quite nowhere...I wish I knew how to fix the thing. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 11:59:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA31371; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:49:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:49:43 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199612081649.IAA00220@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Dr. Li's Kitchen Disrupted To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 08:49:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <961208033257_76016.2701_JHC81-1@CompuServe.COM> from "Terry Blanton" at Dec 7, 96 10:32:58 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: <"ft7Wc.0.rf7.Jlngo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2601 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Engineers at Marshall Space Flight Center are waiting for a new mold > that will contain the superconducting powder while it's being pressed > into an 11" disk for the gravity experiment. Two earlier attempts to > press a disk failed. The next attempt is expected before the end of > the year." Podkletnov, with very limited resources, managed to acquire a suitable disk over five years ago. Yet NASA can't manage it? The big difference might be -- he wanted to do it. Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 12:03:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA31671; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:50:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:50:18 -0800 Message-Id: <199612081756.JAA16012@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 09:56:41 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: (Fwd) Re: Miley Preprints Critique Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"P1Z1B2.0.jk7.ulngo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2602 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I received Richard's long critique, I don't have much to add being that I have been very cautious with my optimism about results based on SIMS and NAA. However the analysis and experiments you propose are a bit naieve considering the effort involved. The details, controls, and analysis you propose would take months of time from many people and scores of thousands of dollars. Perhaps you don't understand that work in this field is not richly and lavishly funded. When a working (not an armchair) scientist like George Miley presents his results you must understand that it is what it is, not perfectly performed spare no stone nor expense research. Suggestions that exhaustive efforts and vast sums be expended serve no purpose everyone would spend those sums if they were available. George needs constructive realistic advice and supporting data from others working in the field not simply a litany of where his work is weak he knows that very well. This is work on the frontier if your unable to live off the land, afraid of getting lost or running into a bear you ought not to be out here. Russ George From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 14:04:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA27968; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 13:48:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 13:48:10 -0800 From: Tstolper@aol.com Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 14:30:59 -0500 Message-ID: <961208143058_940525497@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Water Fuel Cell a Fraud Resent-Message-ID: <"RpwXc1.0.vq6.NUpgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2603 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: For Chuck Davis: Chuck, Thanks for reposting Harold Wicks' post to sci.energy.hydrogen of the article from the London *Sunday Times*, 1 Dec. 1996, about the judgement against Stanley Meyer for fraudulent peddling of his water fuel cell. And congratulations to Jed Rothwell, who long ago warned followers of sci.physics.fusion that Meyer was probably faking it. (See Jed's post to sci.physics.fusion dated 29 Oct 95 23:07:35 -0500 and carried in Scott Hazen Mueller's *Fusion Digest* No. 4555 dated Mon, 30 Oct 1995 09:58:32 -0800.) Let's hope that the media won't confuse Stanley Meyer with CF anymore. Tom Stolper From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 15:37:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA19614; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 15:28:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 15:28:08 -0800 Date: 08 Dec 96 18:26:12 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Yusmar Message-ID: <961208232612_100060.173_JHB56-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"1rKK3.0.Jo4.6yqgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2604 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank, >> I wish I knew how to fix the thing. Frank Znidarsic << Easy! Buy a fully working standard unit from Muldova, if necessary persuade one of their satisfied customers to sell you theirs at a small profit so they can replace it with a new one. At the same time perhaps you can discover how they have managed to get a self-sustaining power pack running. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 16:29:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA31425; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 16:20:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 16:20:13 -0800 Message-Id: <199612090017.QAA11236@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 16:17:31 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Water Fuel Cell a Fraud Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"o1tbB1.0.vg7.wirgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2605 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You praise Jed for telling people about Meyer being a fraud but you forget to mention that Jed also was a big booster of Meyer first. Selective memory is a funny thing. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 18:04:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA18201; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 17:42:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 17:42:03 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961209005901.0066a604@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: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 09:59:01 +0900 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: Ad hominum attacks Resent-Message-ID: <"rS6WS3.0.fR4.evsgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2606 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I'm disturbed about attacks on skeptics and true believers alike which have appeared here. Professional scientists can occasionally be on opposite ends of a discussion. And of course everyone is fallible and our egos get in the way of being able to make correct decisions. Yet no one ought to be subjected (for example) to being called a murderer due to (alleged) short-sightedness. These are people with feelings and families. Do you enjoy it when your children report negative things that people have set about you? Then why do it to others? Instead, of your opinions are so obviously correct, please share them in an open way so that others will be enlightened by your wisdom. You will convince no one by simply attempting to hurl more mud than your opponents. I do the cold fusion business for a living. I know what it is like to be ridiculed as much as anyone. And I would never, ever, justify these kinds of personal attacks on others just because it's been done to me. If cold fusion is going to be recognized as a science, then the persons who study it will have to behave like professionals (even if--or especially if--some of our critics do NOT). Gentlemen, even if those you disagree with behave improperly, please keep YOUR side of the street clean. It serves no useful purpose to attack personalities. It will only increase the negativity associated with our field. Ideas and institutions are one thing. Individuals are another. Best regards, Elliot From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 18:43:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA30518; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 18:37:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 18:37:45 -0800 Message-ID: <32AB89F7.3682@rt66.com> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 19:39:36 -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: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Comment re Critique Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"H14943.0.lS7.ujtgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2607 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Return-Path: CldFusion@aol.com Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.95]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA00454 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 13:27:51 -0700 (MST) From: CldFusion@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA03796 for rmforall@rt66.com; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 15:26:17 -0500 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 15:26:17 -0500 Message-ID: <961208152616_1986597018@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: rmforall@rt66.com Subject: Re: RE Miley Preprints Critique Look Richard, let's get this straight. I'm the FIRST one to say, "got to be careful". And therefore I wish everyone would "calm down". There are always varying degrees of things that are checked, cross checked, taken care of well and taken care of poorly depending on who does what work. I think we could probably agree the results are "interesting" for now. I'd like to see 10 or 20 DIFFERENT groups produce results, and THEN shake and bake the data and see what is coming out of the "noise". I gues the thing that worries me is "dismissing this out of hand". I think THAT is bad science. (And I don't think YOU are advocating that.) - MDH From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 19:13:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA05464; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 19:10:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 19:10:08 -0800 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 19:08:38 -0800 Message-Id: <199612090308.TAA26315@dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Water Fuel Cell a Fraud To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"6HQd21.0.4L1.DCugo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2608 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: December 8, 1996 Sunday As I gather this thing about Meyer's Water fuel cell being a fraud, it seems to be a judgement of a judicial nature and not of an experimental nature. So perhaps the final scientific judgement awaits an experimental trial(s) aside from what smells out of a legal courtroom. Perhaps Mr. Meyer can yet be persuaded to let his device be scientifically tested for the latest word. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 20:04:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA16361; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 19:56:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 19:56:24 -0800 Date: 08 Dec 96 21:10:10 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Water Fuel Cell a Fraud Message-ID: <961209021010_72240.1256_EHB139-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"k-lUb3.0.Y_3.ctugo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2609 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Russ George writes: You [Stolper] praise Jed for telling people about Meyer being a fraud but you forget to mention that Jed also was a big booster of Meyer first. Selective memory is a funny thing. This is nonsense, for two reasons: 1. I was not a "big" booster of Meyer first. I thought his experiment was worth investigating. 2. Even if I had been a big booster, I am allowed to change my mind. When new experiments show signs of a mistake or even fraud, I never hesitate to withdraw support and announce to the world I was wrong. I have made it abundantly clear that I am disappointed in Potapov, and that I wasted a lot of money on him. For that matter, I was originally a big booster of Russ George's work at E-Quest, but after years watching papers vanish before publication and claims unsupported by data, I now believe it is probably a mistake. The shifts in my opinion about Meyer are well documented in the e-mail archives. I changed my mind after both Horwood and Mallove made brave attempts to replicate, and failed. All three of us hoped that it would work. We were disappointed when it failed. None of us has ever hesitated to tell people about this work in detail, or to express our disillusionment, or to warn people about the problems. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 20:09:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA16659; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 19:57:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 19:57:33 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 16:45:20 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Evil people? Resent-Message-ID: <"by68d1.0.D44.guugo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2610 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > >But this doesn't really further the interests of science or humankind. The >answer to the blind critics is not to fight them, but to Flourish and Prosper >and leave them behind. > >Mike Carrell Amen. Personally, I, like many others, have a dream of driving the first free energy vehicle to Washington, DC. I'd love to pull up to a crowd of poparazzi and media people to say "Howdy folks, I here from Alaska for the flying pig watching season!" (Commentary on old s.p.f material.) Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 8 21:34:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA02867; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 21:21:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 21:21:29 -0800 Message-ID: <32ABA460.56ED@gorge.net> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 21:32:16 -0800 From: tom@gorge.net (Tom Miller) Reply-To: tom@gorge.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ?GMX Magnetic hardwater treatment References: <199612081632.IAA00208@shell.skylink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"vf3-43.0.ei.N7wgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2611 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is a URL for Magnetizer: http://www.freeenergy.com That is 3 e's in a row. They don't mention prices. Another site is http://www.cam.org/~avoca/fuel.html This site claims a "sharply focussed south pole" magnetic field changes hydrogen form the "normal para state" to the "more volatile ortho state." ie. "reversing electron spin from counterclockwise to clockwise." Does anyone know whether this claim has any validity? There are so many claims being made, on the internet, etc. that it is hard to know which to believe. Since this site values integrity, and since hydrogen is an integral part of CF, this seems to be a good place to ask. There is a similar situation regarding what is called "Brown's gas." Some internet sites are making claims which don't fit standard science about hydrogen and oxygen. But then neither does cold fusion. Some of these claims are: 1. that a stoichiometric mixture of 2 hydrogen and one oxygen will *IMPLODE* on ignition, rather that explode. 2. that combustion (in a torch) of said mix (Brown's gas) has different effects on different substances. ie. that the "flame" from the torch doesn't harm one's hand, but will sublimate tungsten, melt holes in refractory brick, etc. 3. vague claims of transmutation, and neutralizing radioactive waste. The basic issue is whether the stoichiometric mixture has a significantly different character that the combustion of hydrogen in air. I hope that some of you with reputations for integrity, and the aparatus for electrolysis, will generate some of this mix, and test a couple of these claims. The two most urgent issues are: 1. Does Brown's gas produce more heating effect on metals, etc (melting) than is required to produce the gas by electrolysis? 2. Does Brown's gas, when mixed with the proper amount of air, produce enough horsepower in an internal combustion engine to power an electric generator, or an automobile (in addition to that electricity needed to produce the gas)? If brown's gas performs as claimed, the near-term energy and air pollution situation will be completely changed. If it doesn't, then the search goes on. But, similar to CF, the answer can only come from from repeatable experiments by reputable people. Thanks, Tom From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 01:44:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA24115; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 01:30:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 01:30:27 -0800 Date: 09 Dec 96 04:10:14 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Water Fuel Cell a Fraud Message-ID: <961209091014_100060.173_JHB74-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"VN8fz1.0.Xu5.nmzgo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2613 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >> As I gather this thing about Meyer's Water fuel cell being a fraud, it seems to be a judgement of a judicial nature and not of an experimental nature. So perhaps the final scientific judgement awaits an experimental trial(s) aside from what smells out of a legal courtroom. Perhaps Mr. Meyer can yet be persuaded to let his device be scientifically tested for the latest word. -AK- << Meyer has repeatedly been asked to submit his device to independent testing, but his response is that this has already been done, and he then showers you with supposed "proof" which fails to stand up when investigated. His other ripost is that he is prevented by section 101 of the Patent regulations from allowing anyone outside his own group from handling or measuring his cell on pain of jail(for him). He insists on his customers taking him on trust and giving him money. At the recent confrontation with him he eventually agreed that he would: a) Clear his name in court. b) Return to GB with a working engine, using his gas generator as its fuel supply, suitable for a full-sized river-boat, which could be tested by our scientists. These promises were made a few minutes after he said that he was legally prevented from so doing. You figure! If he succeeded in these tasks he was promised that he would be allowed to present his products to the same invited audience in the House of Lords as had been cancelled recently. I can tell you that after he had returned to the US he started to send faxes here accusing everyone of "bogus" statements regarding the reasons for the postponement of his seminar - after he had agreed the wording of the notice, no less! - and threatening legal action for millions for defamation of character. By the way, he claims that he is guided from on high in all his actions, so he must be right! Lets face it, we all rushed to try to replicate his devices when they were first publicized, and I was a keen as anyone to prove him genuine - as was Admiral Griffin who visited Meyer's workshop many times, and was convinced almost to the end that the stuff was genuine. If there is anyone out there who has real proof that Meyer's fuel cell is really much more efficient in gas production that a good standard electrolytic cell, then I hope they will say so, but to date no-one has been able to do so. There are those who have parted with good cash and have ended up with nothing to show for it except broken promises. If Meyer is a crook, rather than a self-deluding crack-pot, then he should be locked away. If he is just a clever lunatic then he must be publicly exposed big time so that his potential victims are made aware. Otherwise its a case of "caveat emptor". Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 02:47:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA07805; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 02:34:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 02:34:59 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961209104017.0073d850@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 02:40:17 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Water Feul Cell a Fraud.... Resent-Message-ID: <"T5PuW2.0.pv1.Hj-go"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2614 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:19 AM 12/6/96 EST, you wrote: >Tom Miller writes: > >>> It seems to me that the important question is this: Was Meyer able, as >claimed, to run his volkswagen van on a series of his cells? << > >The big problem with Meyer is that he has never allowed an independent testing >of his water fuel cell. He showers you with paper purporting to quote >independent testing, but where I have followed up and contacted the supposed >tester it has either been a case of "not proven" or straightforward >misinformation. In cases like Meyer, as with Dennis Lee and others like them, it might be wise to consider the possibility that powerful interests would sponsor a front man to purposefully fail and defraud on something that might otherwise be valid, to tarnish its image. I'm not saying the high-voltage, low-current approach isn't reasonable, do not know, just scientifically considering all of the possibilities behind the scenes. Consider that you own a large logging operation. Some upstart comes along with a way to produce synthetic wood, made from dirt and sea water for 1/6th the cost of logging. What better way to spoil the public interest than to sponsor your own representative to promote it, and make sure everything gets all fouled up in its presentation, and all investors lose their shirts. Just a thought. Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 05:45:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA14996; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 05:43:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 05:43:12 -0800 From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 08:42:07 -0500 Message-ID: <961209084204_1186912631@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Jones and CF Resent-Message-ID: <"feRxs2.0.Eg3.lT1ho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2615 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I see on spf that Jones is asserting that his muon-catalyzed reaction is the one, true, and original Cold Fusion process. He claims a slight o/u performance, but doubts its commercial utility. I propose we cede this patch of ground to Jones, along with the CF banner, since it was he who coined the phrase, which has led to much misunderstanding since it was mistakenly applied to the P&F effect, which does not produce the expected hot fusion radiation signatures. It is now apparent that Jones' CF is a small island lying well offshore from the vast continent discovered by P&F and now being explored by dozens. An appropriate name and acronym is needed. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions? Chemically Assisted Nuclear REactions? But what about the cavitation, plasma, and magnetic effects? Suggestions anyone? Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 06:29:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA20133; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 06:26:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 06:26:01 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 05:27:31 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: more ITER ations Resent-Message-ID: <"4lcUH1.0.Uw4.t52ho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2616 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: For those not having acces to s.p.f. you may be interrested that Michael E. Fullerton posted the following URL in reference to the ITER situation: which is not much news, but it has links to the American Association for the Advancement of Science web page which includes their congressional information (lobbying?) stuff. From there there is a pointer to: which is a table of old/requested/final approprations to various US science related organizations. Looks like some academic programs took a pretty big hit. It's easy to spot where the pork is flowing - the final is bigger than the requested amount. Also some interresting encryption issues before congress discussed on the AAAS pages. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 06:33:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA20308; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 06:27:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 06:27:17 -0800 Date: 09 Dec 96 09:23:32 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Jones and CF Message-ID: <961209142331_76570.2270_FHU61-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"vmFvu.0.Dz4.372ho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2617 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mike, I cede NOTHING to Jones! "Cold fusion" is just fine with me, especially since there are nearly certainly going to be some manner of fusion effects going on -- if not fission and fragmentation. It is the original designation for the phenomenon and it will be nearly impossible to change the name now. Furthermore, I rather enjoy the thought of the negativists having to admit that "cold fusion" was a real phenomenon after all. Let them eat their words by having to utter for the rest of their lives what they most hate -- yes, hate is the accurate word. Chemically assisted nuclear reactions? Not bad, but remember, the Hiroshima bomb was technically a "chemically assisted nuclear reaction" -- the explosives to trigger it. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions? "LENR's"? I think if this were to be used it should be augmented to LENUR's to put another vowel in it -- My Idea, got it! The other stuff should be just New Energy -- a bit New Agey, but great to shove in the face of the Neanderthals at CSICOP. They hate "New Age"! Well, that's where they are going to live, whether they know it or not. I think the media will ultimately call it all FREE ENERGY. Gene From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 07:49:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA03772; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 07:47:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 07:47:18 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9612090944.ZM2084@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 09:44:02 -0600 In-Reply-To: William Beaty "Re: We mean it: people are evil" (Dec 7, 9:04pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RULE #2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"InBKC.0.pw.3I3ho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2619 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Dec 7, 9:04pm, William Beaty wrote: > > 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. > >-- End of excerpt from William Beaty DITTO. I have enough email to read without the 20-30 posts and reposts on this crap. Jed, Gene, Rick, you obviously have each other's email addresses by now, please use them. The relevence of the topic has disapeared. Your points have been made. We are all intelligent enough to separate the wheat from the chaff ourselves. Respectfully, -- John E. Steck Motorola CSG From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 07:50:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA03853; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 07:47:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 07:47:49 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199612091547.HAA07391@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, 09 Dec 1996 07:46:56 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Water Fuel Cell a Fraud Resent-Message-ID: <"V9pYm1.0.4y.YI3ho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2620 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:10 AM 12/9/96 EST, you wrote: > >If Meyer is a crook, rather than a self-deluding crack-pot, then he should be >locked away. If he is just a clever lunatic then he must be publicly exposed >big time so that his potential victims are made aware. Otherwise its a case of >"caveat emptor". > >Norman > > One thing that has always intriqued me, Norman, is the case of the lunatic crook, of which Myer may be a good specimin. Just how are we to deal with them? I am not certain of Myer, so maybe Dennis Lee is a better example. I am quite certain he is both, ie, a lunatic who is also a knowing crook. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 08:47:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA11545; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 08:36:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 08:36:43 -0800 Message-Id: <199612091636.IAA13951@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 08:37:00 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Full analysis??? Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"i415s1.0.8q2.O04ho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2622 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Chris work out the numbers on sensitivity and resolution of small amounts in a large background which would result from total cell analysis. The reason large numbers representing change can be seen in these microfilms is because the background is low. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 08:30:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA09304; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 08:22:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 08:22:12 -0800 Message-Id: <199612091618.AA09994@gateway1.srs.gov> Alternate-Recipient: prohibited Disclose-Recipients: prohibited Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 10:35:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Kirk L Shanahan Subject: Re: RE Miley Preprints Critique To: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com>, Private_User@srs.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Posting-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 10:49:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal A1-Type: MAIL Hop-Count: 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"Vjkfg1.0.GH2.oo3ho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2621 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) wrote: > Look, can ANYONE tell me what is wrong with my suggestion, namely that a > total digestion of cell contents is performed, and a full quantitative > analysis done on a 'before and after' basis? Nothing. As I recall you suggested an acid dissolution and AA. Acid dissolution has the possiblity of incomplete dissolution however. A sodium peroxide fusion is preferred. Also, AA would be a bit tedious, especially for a total analysis. Simultaneous multi-element ICP-ES would be what I would use. 12 or so elements at once, with a larger dynamic range. Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}} From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 08:54:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA13664; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 08:50:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 08:50:08 -0800 X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <32AA1FAD.3DD6@interlaced.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 11:49:20 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Tokamak will fail?? Resent-Message-ID: <"trTJk1.0.PL3.-C4ho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2623 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >cool a hydrogen bomb soon after detonation! Also, the plasma gets to >be such a good conductor, it's very hard to add heat - like trying to >heat metal with microwave - but the plasma conducts much better than The main problem with a dilute plasma is that the bremstralung radiation carries away the energy through x-ray radiation too fast. If the plasma is dense enough so that it is opaque to x-rays then the main cooling problem is solved. >like a bellows, and roll it like a smoke ring rolls! Use ultra-sonic >heating (viscosity of a gas goes up with temperature). Where's Paul >Koloc when we need him -------. Paul Koloc was at Los Alamos last week and got a letter of intent for a cooperative parterniship signed. The plan is to generate his plasma in their compression chamber which goes up to 10 mb. Even at this very high pressure there still is not much absorption of the x-ray energy. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 10:00:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA21445; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 09:51:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 09:51:22 -0800 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 11:49:14 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612091749.LAA20910@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: total analysis Resent-Message-ID: <"VmMmo.0.xE5.O65ho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2624 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) wrote: > Look, can ANYONE tell me what is wrong with my suggestion, namely that a > total digestion of cell contents is performed, and a full quantitative > analysis done on a 'before and after' basis? Chris, in studying the Miley paper in IE9, it appears that he did a total analysis of the beads after electrolysis. On p24 of that issue, Table 2 shows the NAA results which indicate that the bead layers were only 62% Ni afterwards. In the footnote it says that the Ni result was "adjusted" for a total of 100%...I wonder if that was a relatively small adjustment? A proper NAA analysis should be quite a good "total sample analysis" as the neutron flux penetrates the entire sample very thoroughly. EDX, on the other hand, is only looking at one side of one bead. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 10:04:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA21768; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 09:54:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 09:54:55 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199612091753.JAA23164@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, 09 Dec 1996 09:52:39 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Water Feul Cell a Fraud.... Resent-Message-ID: <"7TPUq1.0.2K5.j95ho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2625 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 01:13 PM 12/7/96 -0800, you wrote: >At 5:37 PM 12/5/96, Chris Tinsley wrote: >[snip] >>You know, they think people like us are batty, but I was watching the >>top BBC science series Horizon, which was on the ultimate fizzix - time >>travel. They had some Oxford physicist, and it really was incredible. >>You maybe know the "Young's Slit" experiment, where it can be shown that >>even single photons cause diffraction patterns? He said that this was >>conclusive proof of billions of alternate universes, each different, >>each produced by quantum uncertainty, because the interference pattern >>was caused by photons from alternate universes! >> >>The man is apparently incapable of distinguishing between reality >>and our artificial models of reality. And the guy is being paid good >>money to warp young minds with this garbage. >> >>Chris > >I thought people would jump on this, but since no one has, I feel compelled >to give it one round, even if it is a feeble one. > >This physicist is in very good company, which I believe includes Richard >Feynman. This interpretation of QM, the branching simultaneous universe >interpretation, is gaining some following, and will get the ultimate test >in the construction of the quantum computer. It appears to me, from very >limited information, that the field is in about the same state as CF, i.e. >it is going to take a working commercial gadget to gain acceptance of the >theory. > I had interpreted this experiment rather as a beginning proof for the concept of aether or zpe bubbles, whatever you want to call it.. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 10:35:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA25644; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 10:21:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 10:21:19 -0800 Date: 09 Dec 96 13:02:01 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Full analysis??? Message-ID: <961209180201_100433.1541_BHG117-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"jCgkb2.0.OG6.QY5ho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2626 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Chris work out the numbers on sensitivity and resolution of small > amounts in a large background which would result from total cell > analysis. The reason large numbers representing change can be seen > in these microfilms is because the background is low. My first negative response - I'll comment on the more positive ones that I've received when I've allowed time for everyone who wants to comment. The suggestion has been made (by Dieter Britz) that the entire cell be digested, and not just its contents. OK, I can see that under such conditions the argument over Si would be unresolvable, much as any argument over O, H, or Li cannot be resolved in the present arrangement. Essentially, where the total quantity of any element is sufficiently large any very small change will be undetectable. However, my original interest was in the Ni itself. I can see no problem of the total quantity of Ni being much greater than the quantity on the beads themselves - so there is one test, and it is perhaps the most important one of all. The same would probably apply to the Ag and to some other elements. Certainly the sensitivity of available tests is fine - the only problem is the one mentioned. A less secure test would involve the digestion of the beads, debris and electrolyte (and any Ni which some migh believe to be mysteriously clinging to the cell walls or whatever). That at least would almost certainly cover the metallic elements, and even the full analysis of the cell itself would probably give some very revealing unsights. For example, the argument over Cr versus Ti might well be settled, since the chemical tests distinguish these. What is important to realise is that chemical analyses are capable of extraordinarily high resolution and quite good accuracy. Parts per billion is no big deal for many elements. Returning to Dieter, he said that I had "hit the nail on the head" and expanded my comments to state that in his opinion chemists are not necessarily ideally placed to do nuclear studies - but at the same time physicists were commonly not able to perform (or perhaps even to appreciate the scope of) chemical analysis. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 10:38:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA26548; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 10:28:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 10:28:13 -0800 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 10:24:37 -0800 Message-Id: <199612091824.KAA07344@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Luis Alvarez, not Jones - by Frisch To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"1gt9I1.0.kU6.ve5ho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2627 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: December 9, 1996 Monday It was in December, 1956 that Luis Avarez in the Radiation Laboratory at U. of California found mu-meson (muon) catalyzed fusion and was tantalized for a while on its possibilities. Professor Otto R. Frisch, of U. of Cambridge, described Alvarez's discovery as a momentary dream of 'Cold Fusion' possibility in his 1961 book "Atomic Physics Today'. Dr. Frisch, along with Lise Meitner (his aunt) in 1939 also coined the word "Nuclear Fission". Dr. Frisch predates 'Feynmann' for his popular lectures and writing. He retired and died in Sept.1979, almost a decade before the latest hubbub of 'Cold Fusion" started. Say! Its forty years since the hint of cold fusion started. Wow. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 12:23:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA16208; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 12:10:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 12:10:03 -0800 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 13:34:41 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199612091834.NAA12152@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <961207050123_72240.1256_EHB95-2@CompuServe.COM> (message from Jed Rothwell on 07 Dec 96 00:01:23 EST) Subject: Re: Steven Jones Resent-Message-ID: <"BMC6M.0.6z3.P87ho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2628 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I can't agree with the position of Jed and Gene. I think that when you look deeper, Dr. Jones is fighting for what he knows to be true. He doesn't know "cold fusion" to be true or false, but he does know that "warm fusion" works, and works better than all the tokamaks ever built or planned. He demonstrated much better than "scientific breakeven" with muons a few years ago, and although that term is a lot of nothing, he now understands that he has to use it to fight the tokamak mafia. (He also could end up very embittered about Pons and Fleishman, but for a very different reason. The warm fusion research is Nobel quality work, but until the cold fusion controversy is settled, such an award is unlikely to occur.) Dr. Jones is not the devil or the enemy. He is just treading a different path, and for obvious reasons, he is striving to make sure that people understand the difference. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 13:04:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA23693; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 12:52:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 12:52:03 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 08:50:37 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tokamak will fail?? Resent-Message-ID: <"Kq-qk.0.wn5.nl7ho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2629 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > >Paul Koloc was at Los Alamos last week and got a letter of intent for a >cooperative parterniship signed. The plan is to generate his plasma in >their compression chamber which goes up to 10 mb. Even at this very high >pressure there still is not much absorption of the x-ray energy. > >Lawrence E. Wharton Does mb above mean milli-bar? Mega-bar? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 14:39:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA05708; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 14:34:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 14:34:02 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 17:08:03 -0500 Message-ID: <961209170803_2050944300@emout20.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Jennison? Resent-Message-ID: <"Yxy4b3.0.6P1.NF9ho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2630 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Does anyone have any referances to Jennison's work with energy and matter? fznidarsic@aol.com Frank Znidarsic 481 Boyer St. Johnstown, Pa. 15906 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 16:09:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA14286; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:39:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:39:16 -0800 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 12:16:55 -0800 To: Vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tokamak will fail?? Resent-Message-ID: <"Feu1D2.0.8V3.YCAho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2631 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Since I am the only "hot fusion" member of this list, I feel it is important to respond to last Friday's (1996 dec 6) media splash that a few theorists at the APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting (Denver, 1996 nov 11-15) predicted that "large tokamaks cannot work". I was at the meeting. Over 1000 papers were presented, as is typical. The papers in question were not "high profile" ones. Someone must have orchestrated SCIENCE and the national news media to single out this particular result and "publish" it in unison as "fact" on Dec 6. One should be aware that not all fusion researchers are happy with the prospect that ITER might get approved for construction, because some of the US contribution to the construction would have to come out of present, already reduced, budgets of existing fusion research programs. The papers by three theoreticians (Dorland, Kotschenreuther and Hemmel) address the stabilization or not of a particular instability and what might be the turbulent plasma losses in the event of its non stabilization. The ITER (proposed International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, presently in the engineering design phase) has always been designed under conservative assumptions. This is part of the reason why it is so big and expensive. Those assumptions include the continued presence of common tokamak instabilities and their associated plasma losses. Tokamak experiments in the last 2 years have discovered techniques to greatly reduce some of these instabilities, and this has raised the hope that ITER might perform much better than presently projected. However, the conservative ITER design has not been scrapped, because we cannot yet predict with confidence how these new results will apply to an ITER-scale device. The singled-out papers predict THEORETICALLY that the new effects will not be present in ITER. Maybe yes, maybe no. Hundreds of people world-wide work in plasma turbulence. It is a very difficult field, much harder than gas or liquid turbulence. Not surprisingly, most attempts to predict plasma turbulence fail. Usually we are lucky if an occasional theory lends some insight to pre-existing experimental data. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 16:11:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA14322; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:39:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:39:32 -0800 X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <961209021010_72240.1256_EHB139-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:16:55 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Water Fuel Cell a Fraud Resent-Message-ID: <"P-Tks.0.dV3.oCAho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2632 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: An important thing to remember about Jed Rothwell and his associates, > >1. I was not a "big" booster of Meyer first. I thought his experiment was >worth investigating. > >2. Even if I had been a big booster, I am allowed to change my mind. When new >The shifts in my opinion about Meyer are well documented in the e-mail >archives. I changed my mind after both Horwood and Mallove made brave attempts >to replicate, and failed. All three of us hoped that it would work. We were >disappointed when it failed. None of us has ever hesitated to tell people >about >this work in detail, or to express our disillusionment, or to warn people >about >the problems. they are interested in the truth and when they investigate a device and find that it does not work they let everyone know. That is a very valuable service and Jed et al should be highly praised for their work. I think that in the future all the current devices alleged to work will be also exposed as frauds, it just takes time. At some stage here it would be wise to ask: why do all of these devices fail to work? My answer is that they violate conventional physics and there is no good reason to doubt the validity of conventional physics. >From that viewpoint we can throw out all the ou motors, all the zpe stuff, all of cf, all the perpetual motion machines of the first kind, and all of the perpetual motion machines of the second kind based on first order dynamics. I add the first order dynamics proviso here because the second law of thermodynamics (the law which disproves a perpetual motion machine of the second kind) has not been proved for the more accurate second order dynamics. My paper on that topic has been tied up for 3 months for an internal review ( an unusual amount of time for an internal paper review at NASA). I think it is fine for Jed et al to continue to debunk these machines and if there is one that they cannot disprove it would deserve more careful attention. I myself would be interested in a machine that seems to extract thermal energy from the ambient background and turns it to mechanical energy ( a perpetual motion machine of the second kind) which involves some highly perturbed motion (second order terms are important) such as a rapidly rotating fluid. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 16:13:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA14460; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:40:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:40:08 -0800 From: "Jay Olson" Organization: University of Idaho To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 14:56:09 PST8PDT Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Message-ID: <421BBA697B@hickory.csrv.uidaho.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <"Yg8Mv1.0.XX3.JDAho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2633 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > It is the electromagnetic equivalent of the squeal that results when you > place a microphone near a speaker, i.e., a feedback system in which > quantum-jiggled charged particles throughout the universe radiate, and the > radiation causes any individual particle to jiggle. Thanks, Hal. So by "jiggle" do you mean the wave nature of matter or something else? If so, by transforming zero point energy into heat energy, are we theoretically lowering Plank's constant for the entire universe? Or am I totally off base here? Thanks again. Jay Olson From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 16:45:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA26783; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 07:12:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 07:12:22 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 06:10:44 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Jones and CF Resent-Message-ID: <"FH-Pi2.0.LY6.Kn2ho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2618 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >But what about the cavitation, plasma, and magnetic effects? Suggestions >anyone? > >Mike Carrell Renaming seems like a waste of time unitl all the evidence is in as to what is actually happening. Besides, lots of things are misnamed intially, but the name sticks anyway. CF is in now in the mindset of the general population. Some scientific committee might declare another name, but the generic name is there for the longer haul. Why waste energy on somantics (not to mention political issues) while there is so much real work to be done? Besides, this puts us all in the same CF camp, doesn't it? Just a bunch of happy campers! :) Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 20:40:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA17762; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 20:36:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 20:36:03 -0800 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 21:45:49 -0500 Message-ID: <961209214548_1254081915@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Resent-Message-ID: <"SXQ3e3.0.PL4.mYEho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2634 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Jay Olsen asked: <> By "jiggle" I mean simply the quantum uncertainty in position, second to second, which can be seen as incorporating accelerated motions in response to ZPE buffeting and thus radiating in response. The conversion from ZPE to heat does not lower Planck's constant; it's simply that the vacuum has dropped a little in energy, and that energy has been converted to heat. In the Casimir effect, e.g., vacuum plus plates far apart is a higher energy state than vacuum plus plates close together. Therefore, the vacuum "decays" to a lower energy state, "emitting" IR photons in the process. Many make the mistake of thinking the vacuum has a fixed energy state; it doesn't. A nice article in Scientific American a few years ago on "Decay of the Vacuum" which discusses this. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 21:01:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA18439; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 20:38:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 20:38:38 -0800 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 21:27:34 -0500 Message-ID: <961209212731_774983743@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Wharton re Perpetual Motion, 2nd Kind Resent-Message-ID: <"OM7dS1.0.0W4.DbEho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2635 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Lawrence Wharton says: <> I agree with parts of your general statement, except you shouldn't throw out all the zpe stuff quite yet. ZPE extraction is perpetual motion of the second kind (see, e.g., the Casimir Effect) in which energy from one source (background zero-point energy of boundary-condition-allowed modes) is converted into energy of another form, e.g., heat when the Casimir force brings the plates together. There is nothing more mysterious about Casimir potential energy converting into heat when the plates collide than when gravitational potential energy converts into another form at the base of a waterfall. In that sense gravitational potential energy differs from gravitational energy only essentially because one goes as R^(-1) while the other goes as R^(-3). For discussion of the thermodynamic aspects you refer to see D. Cole and myself, "Extracting energy and heat from the vacuum," Phys Rev E vol 48, p. 1562 (1993). Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 22:44:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA30361; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 21:53:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 21:53:36 -0800 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 16:21:34 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tokamak will fail?? Resent-Message-ID: <"_4kjY3.0.JQ7.UhFho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2636 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >I still just do not see why the focus is still on complicated expensive >magnetic confinement. Why not simply use the hydrogen for confinement and >use a large tower for heat and gas containment? The big problem is that hot plasma, at the 100 million deg C temperatures required, it an extraordianrily good conductor of heat. At any practical pressure and size combination for a confinement vessel the plasma heat loss would exceed the fusion power generated by many orders of magnitude. This was understood in the 1940's. The fusion rate increases roughly as the square of the pressure once the necessary temperature has been achieved. One way around the heat loss rate problem is to make the plasma pressure sufficiently high, eg by cleverly FOCUSING the energy of a fission bomb on the target fusion fuel. (It's just not enough to simply explode an A-bomb on top of the fusile material.). This solution is commonly called an H-bomb. The high pressure plasma fuses, but too fast to be useful for controlled energy needs. With the advent of powerful pulsed lasers, it became conceptually feasible to do the same thing on a very small target. The fission bomb gets replaced by an array of lasers imploding the target and the energy yield of the microexplosion small enough to contain in a vessel. This has come to be called "inertial fusion," because the fusion reaction occurs only during the brief time of peak compression, before the plasma expands again--the so-called inertial time. The other conceptual way around the problem is to keep the plasma pressure low, on the order of a few bar, thereby keeping the volumetric fusion energy release in the desired range, and use a magnetic field to supply thermal insulation. Note that, although it is popular to talk about "magnetic confinement," the thermal insulation role is the most fundamental one. Michael J. Schaffer General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 9 22:45:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA30411; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 21:54:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 21:54:05 -0800 Date: 09 Dec 96 18:45:20 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Water Fuel Cell a Fraud Message-ID: <961209234519_100060.173_JHB69-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"TD7W22.0.1R7.whFho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2637 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael, >> One thing that has always intrigued me, Norman, is the case of the lunatic crook, of which Myer may be a good specimen. Just how are we to deal with them? << IMHO there is only one way and that is to amass solid evidence of fraud and bring a class action. As long as it becomes national news and the case is won with either jail or $$$ of damages or both, then his credibility is totally demolished. Unfortunately it has been my experience (and cost!!) that these people manage to pop up again under a different banner and start all over again. The TV crime documentaries are full of them, just managing to stay out of jail, mainly due to lack of solid evidence or witnesses. The conspiracy theory as far as Meyer is concerned I think is not valid. While his devices seem to be potential competition for traditional energy production or conversion, there are plenty of others closer to commercialisation which are the possible targets for the oil or power gen. boys. Meyer IMO is either his own worst enemy, or a clever PR genius crook. He has stirred up a real hornets nest here - we shall see!! Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 10 05:16:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA12455; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:10:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:10:28 -0800 Message-ID: <32AD0021.7BA1@rt66.com> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 22:16:02 -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: vortex-l@eskimo.com, little@eden.com, 72240.1256@compuserve.com, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, letters@csicop.org, editors@sciam.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp, mica@world.std.com, dennis@wazoo.com, barry@ucla.edu, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, puthoff@aol.com, ine@padrak.com, rgeorge@hooked.net, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu, britz@kemi.aau.dk, g-miley@uiuc.edu, design73@aol.com, wireless@rmii.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, jechampion@aol.com, jlogajan@skypoint.com, bockris@chemvx.tamu.edu, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, bhorst@loc100.tandem.com, art@imaginet.fr, jdunn@ctc.org, dash@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, cc840@freenet.carleton.ca, ceti@onramp.net, science-now@aaas.org Subject: Third Miley Critique Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"bBSVz3.0.X23.oCLho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2639 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote on 12-09-96, referring to George Miley's paper, "Nuclear Transmutations in Thin-Film Coatings Undergoing Electrolysis", published in Infinite Energy, #9, and just published as well in Journal of New Energy, Vol. 1, No. 3: "...it appears that he [Miley] did a total analysis of the beads after electrolysis...Table 2 shows the NAA results which indicate that the bead layers were only 62 % Ni afterwards..." However, as I described in my post of 12-07-96, Miley wrote: "SIMS, EDX, AES and NAA methods were employed to analyze the microspheres before and after the run. Sampling was done by disassembling the cell after a run and removing microspheres from the top (cathode end) layer of the packed bed. (The 1000 microspyheres in the bed result in roughly 3-5 layers total.) These microspheres were selected for reasons of accessibility and the fact that thye higher electric field in that region is expected to make this layer most reactive." and, "NAA was carried out at the University of Illinois...Samples consisted of 10 microspheres." Thus, each NAA analysis was conducted on a highly nonrandom set of 10 out of 1000 beads. The beads were taken from the layer closest to the Ti cathode, because, "the high electric field in that region is expected to make this layer most reactive". It is not even a joke to suggest that these NAA values apply to the whole set of 1000 beads. We can surely expect the beads closest to the cathode to take on by electroplating any element metals that happen to be put into solution from the lower layers of beads, including the impurities in the volume of the plastic beads. Table 4a, "Key element mass balances from NAA on microspheres, electrolyte and filter paper before and after a run", gives "after" data only for the beads, not the filter paper or electrolyte. Almost certainly, a single set of 10 "before" beads is being compared to a single set of different 10 "after" beads. Ni INCREASES from 1821.0 ppm to 4420.5 ppm!!! The "before" values for V are 0.1 ppm and for Co are 0.6 ppm, far below the NAA detection level of 2 ppm. It is poor scientific practice to list such values in a table without explicitly tagging them as below the instrument's detection level. The actual data in Miley's paper does not support any reasonable interpretation that either transmutations or isotopic shifts are occuring. The data support the null hypothesis that very complex electrochemistry is concentrating impurities onto the top (cathode) layer of beads. Beads that receive the most deposits with probably look different, and be more likely to be selected as "most reactive", to be analyzed. The results are then claimed to represent the whole set of 1000 beads. No attempt is reported to analyze the impurity level after the run in the electrolyte or filter paper, or to collect and analysis the product gases. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 10 05:31:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA14778; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:33:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:33:24 -0800 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:58:53 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <32ad5083.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: ETHERGY Resent-Message-ID: <"QBQ-j1.0.qc3.IYLho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2643 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortexers, Mike Carrell has suggested that the name "cold fusion" is not more appropriate for the description of the phenomena we are dealing with at this group. I agree, and because in my understanding, the essence of these processes is capturing energy from the aether, in special very limited zones (active sites and cavitation bubbles) and using this energy as such or via the induced nuclear processes, the simple name of ETHERGY would be OK. My patent. 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 Dec 10 05:32:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA14618; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:31:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:31:51 -0800 From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Full analysis??? Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:29:50 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32b05174.20997091@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <961209180201_100433.1541_BHG117-1@CompuServe.COM> In-Reply-To: <961209180201_100433.1541_BHG117-1@CompuServe.COM> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"fnOVf1.0.Ga3.rWLho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2641 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On 09 Dec 96 13:02:01 EST, Chris Tinsley wrote: [snip] >Essentially, where the total quantity of any element is sufficiently >large any very small change will be undetectable. However, my original >interest was in the Ni itself. I can see no problem of the total >quantity of Ni being much greater than the quantity on the beads >themselves - so there is one test, and it is perhaps the most important >one of all. The same would probably apply to the Ag and to some other >elements. [snip] Chris, The only potential problem I can see is in measuring the "before". If one relies on digestion of an "equivalent" set of beads to determine this, and the actual change in the amount of nickel in the used beads is not actually all that great, then it may get lost in the variation between the "equivalent" set, and the set actually used. I suppose one would need to digest several sets to determine the variance between sets with a reasonable degree of predictability. 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 Tue Dec 10 05:32:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA14671; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:32:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:32:16 -0800 From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tokamak will fail?? Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:29:47 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32af5056.20711573@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"swy_A2.0.5b3.FXLho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2642 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 9 Dec 1996 11:49:20 -0500, Larry Wharton wrote: [snip] >Paul Koloc was at Los Alamos last week and got a letter of intent for a >cooperative parterniship signed. The plan is to generate his plasma in >their compression chamber which goes up to 10 mb. Even at this very high >pressure there still is not much absorption of the x-ray energy. I don't suppose you would happen to know if he ever managed to find any evidence for the existence of his "hyper conducting layer" that was supposed to reflect the x-rays back into the plasma? [snip] 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 Tue Dec 10 05:32:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA14408; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:31:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:31:22 -0800 From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Water Fuel Cell a Fraud Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:29:53 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32b15483.21780612@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"lbfw92.0.-W3.MWLho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2640 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:16:55 -0500, Larry Wharton wrote: [snip] > I think it is fine for Jed et al to continue to debunk these machines and >if there is one that they cannot disprove it would deserve more careful >attention. I myself would be interested in a machine that seems to extract >thermal energy from the ambient background and turns it to mechanical >energy ( a perpetual motion machine of the second kind) which involves some >highly perturbed motion (second order terms are important) such as a >rapidly rotating fluid. [snip] Perhaps you would like to join in on the little discussion we have going on this topic at the moment on freenrg-L@eskimo.com . Your expertise would be most welcome. 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 Tue Dec 10 06:56:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA23211; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 06:13:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 06:13:38 -0800 Message-ID: <01BBE6A3.D4B7E5A0@ppp322.enterprise.net> From: Mike Butcher To: "'Vortex Contributions'" Subject: State funding for Free Energy Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 14:09:17 -0000 Encoding: 50 TEXT Resent-Message-ID: <"chrDQ1.0.Yg5.F0Nho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2644 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Out of frustration of slow progress every so often we come across the question "why doesn't the Government finance research" ? I would like to chip in here with some thoughts of my own (though not original). In England we have had more of a history of Government support than our US counterparts in all sorts of areas, we have Government doing so much for us that personal responsibility is getting a distant memory. I seemingly don't even know how to allocate my own money wisely. The share of State spending is, given their own figures 46% of GDP, I suspect it is higher. In effect against my will I am forced to hand over in one form or another probably most of what I work for. If anyone else got me to do that then it would be a criminal activity instead it is theft by majority vote which somehow somehow makes it moral. Free energy as such I doubt will ever exist, we have now, courtesy of the State, extremely highly taxed energy and the State will find some clever mechanism enabling it to tax the new "free energy" if it ever comes about. At the moment the "oil companies" pay licence fees for extraction rights, and various fees per barrel, I say "oil companies" because like all companies they really only exist as a group of individual share holders workers etc. All the taxes any company pays can only be passed down as higher prices or salary reductions to individuals. We are not suffering from expensive energy but expensive wealth extracting government. If we truly want Free Energy then the well-worn path of crawling to Government for R&D finance or any type of finance is not the way to go about it. They will gladly extract your tax money and attempt to deliver the goods which may possibly result in short term gains, but free lunches lead to the indigestion of having to continue paying the insiders long after the technology of "Free energy" has been established. Our gas prices in the UK are now around $4/US gallon. How much is tax? I'm sure you can work it out, so, availability of Free energy over here is in real terms probably going to knock less than a dollar off prices of whatever new form of tax collecting mechanism replaces the gallon. Given several seconds thought I suspect few on this list really believes that Free Energy will set the world free, what it may do is lower the ability of large corporations in league with big government, (the Corporate economy) to corner/tax markets and individuals and make taking a breath of air less hazardous. But if we continue to rely on our slave master to provide short cuts then yet more insiders will be employed, established and salaried and we will be no further forward towards true freedom. In the US you are not as far down the Statist road as Europe is, though catching up fast. Given the exciting prospect of cleaner and more abundant form of energy we are tempted to go for a quick solution but in the interests of truly long term Free Energy let us try and resist that temptation. Mike Butcher The Kuyper Foundation From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 10 08:58:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA04155; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:40:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:40:17 -0800 X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 10:39:05 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Tokamak will fail?? Resent-Message-ID: <"YpsW01.0.k01.g9Pho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2645 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >[snip] >> >>Paul Koloc was at Los Alamos last week and got a letter of intent for a >>cooperative parterniship signed. The plan is to generate his plasma in >>their compression chamber which goes up to 10 mb. Even at this very high >>pressure there still is not much absorption of the x-ray energy. >> >>Lawrence E. Wharton > >Does mb above mean milli-bar? Mega-bar? Mega-bar. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 10 09:40:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA05463; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:52:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:52:38 -0800 Message-ID: <32AD9553.2AE4@interlaced.net> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:52:35 -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: Full analysis??? References: <961209180201_100433.1541_BHG117-1@CompuServe.COM> <32b05174.20997091@mail.netspace.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Hu8Uc2.0.BL1.ILPho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2646 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > (snip) > The only potential problem I can see is in measuring the "before". If one > relies on digestion of an "equivalent" set of beads to determine this, and > the actual change in the amount of nickel in the used beads is not actually > all that great, then it may get lost in the variation between the > "equivalent" set, and the set actually used. I suppose one would need to > digest several sets to determine the variance between sets with a > reasonable degree of predictability. > I would think it would be easy to assure "equivalent" sets of beads by careful mixing of the "source batch". Statistics anyone? Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 10 11:42:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA09986; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 09:37:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 09:37:21 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0b36.32.19961209074045.00687cb4@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0b36 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 07:40:58 -0600 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Jones and CF Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"4nIza3.0.dR2.4_Pho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2648 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mike: Cold fusion is the production of excess heat from the loading of materials by an isotopic fuel. There are nuclear reactions, including the generation of helium-4, which demonstrate this to be real and fusion. CF is isotopic loaded fusion, occuring within (or possibly near the surface) of the solid state. Muon fusion is muon-catalyzed fusion. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) --------------------------------- At 08:42 AM 12/9/96 -0500, Mike wrote: >I see on spf that Jones is asserting that his muon-catalyzed reaction is the >one, true, and original Cold Fusion process. He claims a slight o/u >performance, but doubts its commercial utility. > >I propose we cede this patch of ground to Jones, along with the CF banner, >since it was he who coined the phrase, which has led to much misunderstanding >since it was mistakenly applied to the P&F effect, which does not produce the >expected hot fusion radiation signatures. > >It is now apparent that Jones' CF is a small island lying well offshore from >the vast continent discovered by P&F and now being explored by dozens. An >appropriate name and acronym is needed. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions? >Chemically Assisted Nuclear REactions? > >But what about the cavitation, plasma, and magnetic effects? Suggestions >anyone? > >Mike Carrell > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 10 11:49:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA10224; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 09:39:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 09:39:18 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0b36.32.19961209073544.00dddb6c@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0b36 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 07:35:57 -0600 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"lEUT01.0.cV2.41Qho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2649 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 09:45 PM 12/9/96 -0500, HAL PUTHOFF wrote: > >Jay Olsen asked: > ><something else? If so, by transforming zero point energy into heat >energy, are we theoretically lowering Plank's constant for the entire >universe?>> > >By "jiggle" I mean simply the quantum uncertainty in position, second to >second, which can be seen as incorporating accelerated motions in response to >ZPE buffeting and thus radiating in response. The conversion from ZPE to >heat does not lower Planck's constant; it's simply that the vacuum has >dropped a little in energy, and that energy has been converted to heat. In >the Casimir effect, e.g., vacuum plus plates far apart is a higher energy >state than vacuum plus plates close together. Therefore, the vacuum "decays" >to a lower energy state, "emitting" IR photons in the process. Many make the >mistake of thinking the vacuum has a fixed energy state; it doesn't. A nice >article in Scientific American a few years ago on "Decay of the Vacuum" which >discusses this. > >Hal Puthoff > > > IMHO there are two potential, but major, problems with this putative theory. 1. Noone here seems to be willing to calculate or state the maximum value of ZPE available, but IMHO it is incredibly tiny, if it exists at all. ZPE, to the extent that it exists appears to be only good for infintesimally small [circa <10-12 to 10-30 Joules/cm3 by various estimates] amounts of energy. These levels are much too low for what is observed with cold fusion. 2. The Born-oppenheimer principle of the location of the relatively heavy nuclei determining the wavefunction of the electrons seems to be violated by this hypothesis. Has anyone considered this? One may check Slater or other solid state physics book regarding the Born-oppenheimer principle. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 10 11:55:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA10523; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 09:40:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 09:40:05 -0800 Date: 10 Dec 96 10:32:04 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Letter from Miles Message-ID: <961210153203_72240.1256_EHB162-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"adoUN1.0.La2.o1Qho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2650 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Yesterday I received a letter from Melvin Miles, of China Lake, with a short note: Jed, Please send a note to Dr. El-Sayed in support of cold fusion and my right to respond to Jones and Hansen. Thanks, Mel Miles Normally, I would post this message here without further ado, but in this case I hesitated. There has been a heated discussion here about the role of Jones in cold fusion. I promised to stop talking about that, in order to tone down the discussion, get away from politics, and back to science. I mean to stick to that promise. I do not intend to say another word about the controversy. For a couple of months, anyway. But then this letter showed up. I feel I should share Mel's request with the readers of this forum. Please write to Dr. El-Sayed if you feel strongly about the issue. (I'm not sure what I should say to the man.) Please consider this a posting from Mel that I am forwarding; this is not Jed's contribution to the Jones controversy. Let me fill in a little background information. Jones and Hansen critiqued Miles' calorimetry. Miles wrote a rebuttal. The rebuttal was rejected by the editor and reviewers primarily because it does not address the nuclear issues. Attached are: 1. Letter from Miles to El-Sayed, the editor of the Journal of Physical Chemistry. 2. Rejection letter from El-Sayed to Miles. 3. Anonymous reviewer rejection. (#66) 4. Another reviewer (#65). This was handwritten, I had a little difficulty reading parts of it. I believe this is more typical of the remarks I have heard opposing the Miles paper. It is a rejection of the data on theoretical grounds. - Jed ----------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER WEAPONS DIVISION CHINA LAKE, CALIFORNIA 93555-6001 December 1, 1996 Dr. Mastafa A. El-Sayed Editor, Journal of Physical Chemistry School of Chemistry and Biochemistry Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332-0400 Dear Dr. El-Sayed: My recent manuscript that your returned (JP 961751) was a detailed response to unusually harsh criticism of my publications regarding cold fusion authored by S.E. Jones and L.D. Hansen and published by your journal (J. Phys. Chem., 1995, 99, 6966-6972). In my reply to the criticisms of Jones and Hansen, I should not be required to fit my cold fusion results to hot fusion mechanisms as stated by Reviewer 65 or be required to solve the cold fusion reproducibility problem as requested by Reviewer 66. In responding to the sharp criticism of my work by S.E. Jones and L.D. Hansen, I should only be required to carefully document the various distortions, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings of my published papers. I believe I fully accomplished this requirement in my reply. Neither reviewer cited even a single instance where my reply to Jones and Hansen was not correct. My manuscript carefully documents issue after issue where the statements by Jones and Hansen concerning my publications are distorted, misleading, or simply untrue. This single fact should certainly justify the publication of my response. I am sure you recall that neither the authors of the criticism of my work or yourself as Journal editor would allow me to publish a response in the same issue according to the normal scientific custom. Furthermore, I was never properly informed of this manuscript by the authors, reviewers, or editors involved. Obviously, cold fusion is not a normal scientific controversy, hence normal rules are not followed, and normal manuscript reviews are apparently not possible. I would like to cite a few statements related to this discussion from your Notice to Authors and Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research (J. Phys. Chem., Vol. 100, No. 1, 1996, pp. 9A- 15A): "If the Comments are concerned with the work of other authors, the editors will generally permit these authors to reply" (p. 9A). "An exception arises in connection with a manuscript submitted for publication in the form of a comment on the work of another author. Under such circumstances the first author will, in general, be allowed to review the communication and to write a rebuttal if deemed necessary. The rebuttal and the original communication will be "refereed" and, if accepted, will be published together in the same issue of the Journal" (p. 11A). "The sole responsibility for acceptance or rejection of a manuscript rests with the editor" (p. 1 3A). The critical scientific issue at stake regarding my manuscript is the right of any scientist to respond to criticism of his work and to correct the scientific record concerning distorted, misleading, and untrue statements. In my opinion, many criticisms by Jones and Hansen would not have been published if the reviewers of their manuscript had been impartial and had taken the time to carefully study my publications. Most reviewers are apparently too eager to jump on the bandwagon to promote the demise of this struggling new science rather than to really study the many publications available that report anomalous cold fusion effects. As encouraged by your Journal, I suggested the names of several scientists who could have given a much more competent evaluation of my manuscript than your Reviewers 65 and 66. I am returning my manuscript for your decision as editor. My manuscript carefully documents the distortions, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings by Jones and Hansen concerning my published papers. I should be allowed to correct the scientific record concerning my publications. I realize that the publication of my manuscript will be very unpopular with many scientists, but it is the right thing to do. Sincerely, Dr. Melvin H. Miles NAWCWPNS Fellow copies: Dr. Robert J. Nowak, Of lice of Naval Research Dr. J.J. Lagowski, Editor, J. Chem. Education Dr. Jean-Pierre Vigier, Editor, Phys. Letters A Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Editor, Infinite Energy Dr. George H. Miley, Editor, Fusion Technology Hal Fox, Editor, Journal of New Energy Dr. Haven E. Bergeson, University of Utah Dr. Steven C. Barrowes, University of Utah Dr. Wilford N. Hansen, Utah State University Dr. Stanley Pons, IMRA Europe Dr. Martin Fleischmann, United Kingdom Dr. Xing-Zhong Li, China Dr. Mahadeva Srinivasan, India Dr. G. Preparata, Italy Dr. H. Ikegami, Japan Dr. Akito Takahashi, Japan Dr. David J. Nagel, Naval Research Laboratory Dr. Thomas 0. Passell, EPRI Dr. Michael C. McKubre, SRI International Dr. Michael E. Melich, Naval Postgraduate School Dr. Edmund K. Storms, ENECO Dr. Peter L. Hagelstein, M.I.T. and others ----------------------------- Letter from El-Sayed to Miles October 18, 1996 Dear Dr. Miles, Enclosed are the comments of reviewers, none of whom are the authors of the paper under discussion. As you can see, they have a number of serious misgivings. I will be glad to forward your response to them for reconsideration. I am sorry for the delay in getting the reviewer's comments. With my best wishes. Sincerely, M. A. El-Sayed Editor-in-Chief ----------------------------- Anonymous Reviewer #66 Manuscript JP961751J by Miles entitled "Rely to Examination of Claims . . ." I recommend rejection of this paper because it provides no new insight or clarification of resolving the issue of explaining the source of excess heat reported by the author. The argument about probability was of no consequence in Jones and Hansen nor is it here. If I were to put out data where there was no correlation, within orders of magnitude, between two variables and claimed a causal relationship between the two, I would laughed out of my profession. I would prefer the author present results of analysis showing what is different between those giving "cold fusion" and those not. If we are to accept the author's observations of excess heat, he needs to show that all possibilities, including changes in the electrodes, connecting wires, uncertainty in gas analysis and every other reasonable cause has been eliminated. When he can control and understand his experiment to the point where he gets reproducible results, he will have valuable contribution. Nit picking of others trying to explain his results, even when he enlists Einstein's help will not bring the cold fusion issue to a close, one way or another. ----------------------------- Anonymous Reviewer #65 The main and most striking conclusion of the present manuscript of M. H. Miles is that "there is compelling evidence that the anomalous excess heat is correlated with helium-4 production." This unsupported claim has been made several times by Miles and his collaborators (see references) over the last half-dozen years. The Miles claim of deuterium fusion lacks credibility for the following reasons. (1) No helium-3 is observed. The yield of helium-3 from deuterium fusion is more than a million times greater than helium-4. Arguments claiming that "cold fusion" produces anomalous yields of products can be dismissed immediately because the product yields from "muon-catalyzed fusion" of deuterium, a known and well-studied type of "cold fusion," are similar to those of energetic deuterium fusion. (2) The amount of helium-4 claimed should be accompanied by the equivalent amount of 23.8-MeV gamma rays. This copious yield of easily-detected gamma rays have not been observed. (3) The claimed equivalence between the "excess heat" and the helium-4 is based on the assumption that all the reaction heat is contained in the electrolytic cell. This assumption is flawed because most of the reaction heat from the D+D -> 4He+gamma reaction is carried outside the cell by the energetic gamma rays. ----------------------------- * End of File * From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 10 12:41:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA16406; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 10:51:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 10:51:44 -0800 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 10:51:28 -0800 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Miley Preprints Critique Resent-Message-ID: <"_eJ2_3.0.G04.z4Rho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2651 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Richard Murray has raised many questions about George Miley's preprints that report transmutation products from Patterson cell electrolysis. I, too, had some questions, a few of which I was able to raise with Miley. However, Murray has done a far more complete scrutiny than I. Before going on to specifics, I must state that I think that Murray's leering, emotion-laden words detract from the credibility of his work. On the other hand, I do find discomforting gaps and inconsistencies in Miley's first preprint which are still not rectified in the second. I know that Miley's work is still in progress. However, he must be held to the same high standard as any other scientist. Murray continually criticizes Miley's failure to write numbers in strict accord with significant figure formalism. This is a peripheral issue. Ideally, Murray is correct--the significant figures and error limits should be given in all the tables. It is obvious that Miley simply pasted clips from his data analysis spread sheets into his tables. Anyone who has worked with spreadsheets knows that they format numbers by row or column at a time. It is very tedious to manually format each number in each cell. They were designed for business people and book keepers, not scientists and engineers. However, we have all adapted to them because they are very useful. So, Murray should look at the sense of the data and not be hung up on format. Miley needs to include much more complete data and error limits at measurement points. The rest of us can read and judge. Re Table 2 of the 2nd paper and 650 A vs 2650 A: There is a roaming factor of 4 between stated film thicknesses and volumes, probably due to a mixup between radius squared and diameter squared in one of the calculations. This does point up that Miley has not carefully checked his calculations, even in this second paper. Murray repeatedly applies a NAA detection limit of 2 ppm. The actual detection limits undoubtedly vary widely from species to species. On the other hand, Miley gives no additional information. It is not even clear what the million reference parts are, though one suspects the reference is whole beads. Murray makes a lot out of "74%" loss of Al in case 13 data. He assumes that this is 74% loss from the metal film. However, Table 3 of the 2nd paper refers to the whole bead, not just the film, and case 13 uses glass beads instead of plastic. Many glasses have 1-2% Al, including many common "soda-lime" glasses and borosilicate (Pyrex). Therefore, the 2 microgram/bead Al loss is probably a small difference between large before and after total-bead Al measurements. Miley did not state the formulation of the glass beads, which highlights again the lack of sufficient data in Miley's papers to judge the validity of the data. Murray criticizes Miley's apparent satisfaction with factor of 2 accuracy. If the results are clearly a factor of 10 or greater product over initial content, then factor of 2 is fine, the scientific point being that unexpected product was generated. This kind of accuracy that looks loose to the layman is actually all that is logically necessary to make the point. It is common practice. Murray points out that the production rate plots in the 2nd preprint are "given radically different values! Figure this one out, folks!" I figured it out to within a factor of about 15: The plots are per volume of METAL (see 1st proprint), whereas Table 2 is per total volume of bead. There might be an additional factor of 4 error in metal volumes in Table 2, which would bring the unit problem down to about a factor of 4. Miley needs to state his units more clearly and carefully. Murray argues that 990 beads might be depositing their impurities onto just 10, beads, specifically just onto the 10 that are selected for measurement after the run, and this in all the runs. This assertion is statistically untenable. 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 Dec 10 13:45:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA22012; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:51:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:51:05 -0800 Message-ID: <32AD9A2C.CFB@interlaced.net> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:13:16 -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: State funding for Free Energy References: <01BBE6A3.D4B7E5A0@ppp322.enterprise.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"kejjP.0.mN5.cyRho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2652 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mike Butcher wrote: > (Good comments on government funding of CF research!) > Given the exciting prospect of cleaner and more abundant form of > energy we are tempted to go for a quick solution but in the interests of > truly long term Free Energy let us try and resist that temptation. As an old government "insider", you make me wince, Mike - but I think you are right! If an energy device is manufactured and sold, the government will find a way to tax it. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 10 14:09:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA23492; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:03:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:03:23 -0800 X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <32af5056.20711573@mail.netspace.net.au> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:24:59 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Tokamak will fail?? Resent-Message-ID: <"jJVCH.0.xk5.88Sho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2653 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >On Mon, 9 Dec 1996 11:49:20 -0500, Larry Wharton wrote: >[snip] >>Paul Koloc was at Los Alamos last week and got a letter of intent for a >>cooperative parterniship signed. The plan is to generate his plasma in >>their compression chamber which goes up to 10 mb. Even at this very high >>pressure there still is not much absorption of the x-ray energy. >I don't suppose you would happen to know if he ever managed to find any >evidence for the existence of his "hyper conducting layer" that was >supposed to reflect the x-rays back into the plasma? >[snip] Paul has not compressed his configuration yet so the surrounding jacket is not of high enough density to absorb any x-rays. The jacket is proposed to be composed of high-z materials so that the x-rays will be absorbed and converted into heat. This heat would then propagate back into the plasma as in the laser implosion techniques. As the surrounding jacket becomes ionized then there will be some inverse Brehmstralung which would reflect back into the plasma. He does not want to release any data yet but you can just think about it yourself. Do you think that Los Alamos would have signed the cooperative agreement with him if he did not have very impressive data on x-ray emissions? Any plasma that has any chance of generating hot fusion must be radiating large quantities of x-rays. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 10 14:50:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA29715; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:10:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:10:04 -0800 Message-ID: <32ADD181.17A1@interlaced.net> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:09:21 -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: Water Fuel Cell a Fraud References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"hoDUS3.0.zF7.e6Tho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2654 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Larry Wharton wrote: > (snip) I myself would be interested in a machine that seems to extract > thermal energy from the ambient background and turns it to mechanical > energy ( a perpetual motion machine of the second kind) Hey! This sounds like Horace's "Second-Law-Violating-Nanochip"! Give us your best shot, Larry! Being knocked silly by airborne brownian-movement particles, Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 10 17:15:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA13264; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:57:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:57:24 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0b36.32.19961208184516.00ef5a60@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0b36 (32) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 18:54:26 -0600 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Proposed test- Reduction of radioactivity in CETI cell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"-WwOL.0.AF3.XZVho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2655 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 06:43 PM 12/5/96 -0800, Akira Kawasaki wrote: >>Accelerators cost hundreds of millions of dollars typically, so the >>comparison is not apt. >>--Steven Jones >> [corrected repost] Actually, it depends upon the accelerator, particle, dose rate, ..... Some accelerators, capable of centigrays per sec dose delivery, particles including photons and electrons, and at energies up to 20 MeV photons (~18 MV electrons), are available at a quite small fraction of that amount used or new. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 10 17:41:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA15004; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:18:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:18:11 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:16:37 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Tokamak will fail?? Resent-Message-ID: <"exJWR3.0.Lg3.1tVho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2656 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 11:24 AM 12/10/96, Larry Wharton wrote: [snip > Paul has not compressed his configuration yet so the surrounding jacket is >not of high enough density to absorb any x-rays. The jacket is proposed to >be composed of high-z materials so that the x-rays will be absorbed and >converted into heat. This heat would then propagate back into the plasma >as in the laser implosion techniques. As the surrounding jacket becomes >ionized then there will be some inverse Brehmstralung which would reflect >back into the plasma. He does not want to release any data yet but you can >just think about it yourself. Do you think that Los Alamos would have >signed the cooperative agreement with him if he did not have very >impressive data on x-ray emissions? Any plasma that has any chance of >generating hot fusion must be radiating large quantities of x-rays. > >Lawrence E. Wharton >NASA/GSFC code 913 >Greenbelt MD 20771 >(301) 286-3486 If that's the case, the tower design idea should also work if high Z material is included in the curtain/cover dropped from the top of the tower around/onto the rising plasma. However, a high Z cooling screen means you are back into neutron activation problems, unless multiple screens are used, or aneutornic fuels. This kind of idea would have been absurd to even consider in the 40's, even if it could work. A structure as big as a stadium and taller than a skyscraper - doesn't make much sense when gas is 5 cents a gallon. Best wishes for success to Koloc and Los Alamos in getting his innovative spheromak design working. It's small and clever. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 10 17:56:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA16935; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:40:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:40:09 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961211003931.006681c0@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, 11 Dec 1996 09:39:31 +0900 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: EK to MS on Miley critique Resent-Message-ID: <"SBzyR1.0.X84.eBWho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2657 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >>Murray argues that 990 beads might be depositing their impurities onto just 10, beads, specifically just onto the 10 that are selected for measurement after the run, and this in all the runs. This assertion is statistically untenable.<< The 10/990 claim is probably untenable, but the general concern that the beads nearest to the anode might receive a disproportionately high amount of contamination is not. McKubre et al. presented an analysis (ICCF-6) of the hydrogen loading in the CETI cell which suggests that the loading rate is at its highest for beads nearest to the anode, and much lower in the bulk. One might conjecture that contamination could follow the same pattern. Best regards, Elliot Kennel Sapporo Japan From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 10 19:01:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA26970; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 17:54:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 17:54:35 -0800 Message-Id: <199612110152.RAA26680@mx1.eskimo.com> From: Ron McFee Subject: They prefer Vodka To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tue, 10 Dec 96 18:52:09 MST Cc: mcfee@lanl.gov Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Resent-Message-ID: <"IyqHo3.0.Ab6.OHXho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2658 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: After learning from Vortex-L about Yuri Potapov's achievement of self sustaining achievement, Tom Claytor sent me the following. I am also sharing my reply with you. > > Ron, > > This is totally off scale. They can't get the thing to work here, yet back > home they have electric generators excess heat etc. WHAT ARE THEY DRINKING? > Can you get me some? > Tom Actually I think that they will drink almost anything, wine, beer, brandy. However I think that they, Yuri and son, prefer vodka. They really weren't drinking any more alcohol than I usually do. However at the beginning of the evening meal they liked to toast a shot glass of vodka. We kept the bottle in the freezing compartment of the refrigerator. It was considered good form to drink it in one gulp after saying "na z'drovia." Peter's report is the first direct claim of a self sustaining device. Although there were hints that Yuri had achieved it earlier, he would not comment on it. If the device is really producing more energy than is being input by a reasonable factor, and they can operate at a few hundred degrees Celsius, then I am willing to grant that they can probably operate in a self sustaining mode. To generate electricity is a nice goal. We will have to suspend judgement until we really see one of these in operation. At this point there is really no reason for Potapov not to go public in a big way. The sooner he begins licensing these things the more money he is going to make. If he lives for at least another ten years he will probably join the ranks of the world's richist men. He will certain be a great hero anyway. Failure not to go public in a big way would indicate either irrationality or indicate that they are slightly less than honest about their claims. If their claims are for real then Yuri's prices are very competitive with other electric generating plants. A Mega Watt power plant for a quarter million dollars is a real bargain. That is a mere $250 per kilowatt which compares well to a usual $1000 to $1500 per kilowatt. Once Yuri gets market share we probably should tell him to start raising his prices. How they are generating the electricity is a good question. The obvious is to drive an electric generator with a steam turbine or engine. There is some evidence that a moderate electric field is maintained by the vortex action of the water. One may also be able to extract energy from this. Regards, Ron From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 10 22:29:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA04627; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 21:49:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 21:49:20 -0800 From: hjscudde@pacbell.net Message-ID: <32AE2585.EAE@pacbell.net> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 19:07:49 -0800 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: How much power has ZPE? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"GZKlM2.0.C81.Ujaho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2659 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Vortex: What is the constant of proportionality K in the equation P = K*B^3 where P is power in watts, and B is the Low-Pass bandwidth in Hertz. ie: from DC to some frequency B. Has this been measured? Any references to the experiment, or the theoretical value? -Hank Scudder From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 10 23:20:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA10056; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 22:28:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 22:28:00 -0800 Message-ID: <32AE62F9.B94@rt66.com> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 23:30:01 -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: vortex-l@eskimo.com, schaffer@gav.gat.com, 72240.1256@compuserve.com, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jdunn@ctc.org, rgeorge@hooked.net Subject: Fourth Miley Preprint Critique Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"bsf6r3.0._S2.kHbho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2660 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: <32AE5F67.7A5B@rt66.com> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 23:14:47 -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: vortex-l@eskimo.com, schaffer@gav.gat.com, 72240.1256@compuserve.com, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, jdunn@ctc.org, rgeorge@hooked.net, bhorst@loc100.tandem.com, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, barry@math.ucla.edu, g-miley@uiuc.edu, ceti@onramp.net, reeber@aro.ncren.net, mica@world.std.com, dennis@wazoo.com, puthoff@aol.com, ine@padrak.com, little@eden.com, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu, britz@kemi.aau.dk, design73@aol.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, jechampion@aol.com, jlogajan@skypoint.com, bockris@chemvx.tamu.edu, kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp Subject: Fourth Miley Preprint Critique Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am very pleased that Michael J. Schaffer [schaffer@gav.gat.com] has read fairly carefully my rather long and tedious 12-07-96 post "Miley Preprints Critique", and found one mistake, thus pulling from Miley's hopefully tough hide at least one of my arrows. Schaffer points out that the 1.06 mm diameter glass beads (having the same volume as the plastic beads) used in Run #13 are probably 1-2 % Aluminum. They are listed in Table 2, page 4, Miley's Second Preprint, as having 1001 micrograms mass of glass for each bead, plus 2.67 micrograms of Ni as a 850 A film. So, I find that 1-2 % means 10,000-20,000 ppm Al, or 10.01-20.02 microgram Al per bead. So in my Critique, when I noticed in Table 3, page 6, of Miley's Second Preprint, that the NAA net yield for Run # 13 was minus 1.76 micrograms per microsphere, I guessed that meant that the Al level for fresh beads was at least 1.76 micrograms each or more. It turns out that "more" was an order of magnitude more, and did not imply nuclear transmutations at this remarkable level, but merely electrochemical transfers, IMAO [In My Arrogant Opinion]. Question: How is it that Al can escape the glass beads in the rather gentle electrolysis process, especially when coated with 850 A Ni film? I dimly recall that nuclear wastes were sealed into glasses for millenia-long storage. Miley, of course, did not include Al in his figure 3c, "Run #13 with GL/N (glass core) microspheres- compare with Figs. 3a and b...", which plots Production Rate (atoms/sec-cc) versus Atomic Number (Z). Well, what do you know, Figs. 3a for Run #8, reported in Miley's First Preprint, and 3b for Run # 18C, done at CETI's lab as an ultra-clean run, do not include any data for Al either! Why? In Table 3, "Production Rate (atoms/s-cc of microsphere), Al is given for these two runs values of 4.44E+11 and of 8.79 E+10. 13-Al comes after 12-Mg and before 14-Si. In Figure 2. "Comparison of atomic production rates for all runs", Mg and Si are very clearly and explicitly labeled, with 5 values for Mg and 5 for Si. (This can be seen very easily, once the figure is doubled in dimensions via zerox.) There seem to be just 3 values for Al, from Runs # 5, 7a, and 11, which of course also have values in Table 3, of 2.08E+12, 1.28E+12, and 1.10E+13. (However, in Figure # 2, and in Figure #5, the first Run listed is called Run #6. Ohhhh!) But, in Figure 2, Run # 5 is the lowest of the three, Run # 11 is the middle, and Run # 7a is the highest, all out of order, compared to Table 3. Oh, Oh! You know, I didn't know this myself, until I found it out this minute, writing on my laptop, and shuffling papers all around my chair. Furthermore, these three values are 3 orders of magnitude above the rates given in Table 3. I am grateful that Schaffer has made a stab at clarifying this "3 orders of magnitude" question. Now, I just noticed that in Figure 4, Al is left out of the plot for Run # 11. In addition, please note: Figure 3b for Run #18C simply does not include data points for V, Cr, Ag, Fe, and Cu, which are all of course listed in Table 3, and Figure 3c for Run # 13 does not include points for Cu and V, also listed in Table 3. Why, why, why? I'm sorry. I don't want it to be this way. Someone's shot himself in the foot, and I'm tracking the bloody footprints. It helps to crack a few jokes. These Preprints have been out for weeks, months. They're very important news in our network. I myself didn't notice any of these problems until eight days ago. Schaffer pointed out that Miley's NAA ppm data probably are based on the whole bead plus metal, or 609 microgram plus 2 micrograms Ni for the Run #8 beads, for example, rather than on the metal film itself. This does not alter the most important points in the Critique, which are based on ratios of ppm values, "after" divided by "before". However, 2 ppm NAA detection limit, applied to a 611 microgram bead, translates to .0012 microgram detection limit, or 1.2 nanogram. This would certainly justify much of Miley's three-digit decimal data, about which I complained so much. But it seems that some of my objections to data under the 2 ppm limit still apply, as in the values of O.1, 0.6, 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.2 in Tables 4a and 4b. The "factor of 2" uncertainty in the SIMS data still seems too much to allow any significant claims to be based on Miley's data, as reported so far in tabular form. If one isotope is 10 and the other is 2, then that seems to be a ratio of 5 to 1, but a factor of 2 uncertainty means that the first might be 5 and the second might be 4, and that is a ratio of only 1.25, or, if they are the only 2 isotopes, 44 % and 55%. Well, Miley did not claim in his celebrated Table 3 in First Preprint any differences greater than +97.20 %. Since the claim of isotopic shifts has to be treated as controversial by the general community of scientists, the evidence has to be precise, or it will naturally be rejected, even though others like Dash and Mizuno are supplying colloborative evidence of great value. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 10 23:36:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA11686; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 22:36:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 22:36:03 -0800 Message-Id: <199612110142.RAA00958@mail.eskimo.com> From: Ron McFee Subject: Good news from the Donbass! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tue, 10 Dec 96 18:42:25 MST Cc: mcfee@lanl.gov Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Resent-Message-ID: <"Y1F1Q.0.Ss2.GPbho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2661 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Thanks to Gene Mallove and Peter Glueck for the good news from the Donbass. Yuri Semionovich Potapov has not only developed a self-sustaining device but apparently is also co-generating electricity! Peter, please congratulate Yuri for me. Well done! Mitchell Swartz and Mike Carrell have raised the question "What is and What isn't Cold Fusion?" Actually for the last seven years I have never liked the term "Cold Fusion" as applied to the observed energy production in hydrogen loaded metal lattices. The term was first used to describe muon catalyzed fusion which was first observed by Louis Alverez in 1956 in the Berkeley Bubble Chamber. This was in liquid hydrogen. ***That's really cold.*** I am willing to concede "Cold Fusion" to Steve Jones and his fellow muoneers. Muon Fusion is not worth much of anything anyway. For the Pons-Fleischmann type fusion I have preferred and used the terms "Solid State Fusion" or "Solid State Nuclear Fusion". Eventually when the phenomenon is scientific demonstrated to correlate quantitatively to the production of helium isotopes, everyone will have to accept the Fusion part of the name. I also like the term "Schwinger Fusion" since Julian Schwinger seems to be the first person to figure out what was happening. "Pons-Fleischmann Fusion" might also be a good name. Potapov's Yusmar or Yurle is probably a variation of the Solid State variety although there is at this time less evidence for any nuclear effects than for the Solid State Fusion. There is probably only one good name for this and that is Potapov Fusion. If it turns out to not be Fusion, then I will call it the Potapov Effect. Peter Glueck wants to call it "Ethergy" probably after the so called Ether which was proven not to exist over a hundred years ago by Michelson and Morley. He and the rest of you can use whatever terms you like including "Cold Fusion." The final appellations will develop by consensus anyway. As a catch-all term "Condensed Matter Nuclear Fusion" could be used to refer to Schwinger and Potapov Fusion collectively. I was pleased to read Richard Thomas Murray's critiques on George Miley's results and must state that I concur with Richard's conclusions. Particularly George's failure to monitor any evolved gases. There is little doubt in my mind that the CETI effect is Schwinger or Pons-Fleischmann Fusion. Regards, Ron From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 11 00:55:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA28948 for billb@eskimo.com; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 00:09:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 00:09:55 -0800 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 00:09:55 -0800 X-Envelope-From: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 11 00:09:54 1996 Old-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 09:50:17 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <32ae67c0.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Ethergy Resent-Message-ID: <"e16wg2.0.dz6.Hmcho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2666 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: Ron wrote that the non-existence of the (energetic) ether was proved conclusively by Michelson and Morley a hundred years ago. I do not agree. What's your opinion, friends? 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 Dec 11 04:10:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA16642 for billb@eskimo.com; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 22:57:25 -0800 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 22:57:25 -0800 X-Envelope-From: hjscudde@hercules.rdyne.bna.boeing.com Tue Dec 10 22:57:06 1996 Received: from mail.eskimo.com (root@mail.eskimo.com [204.122.16.4]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA16340 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 22:56:41 -0800 Received: from hercules.rdyne.bna.boeing.com (hercules.rdyne.bna.boeing.com [134.57.7.79]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA11486 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:18:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from xchrd11.rdyne.bna.boeing.com by hercules.rdyne.bna.boeing.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA01093; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:19:29 -0800 Received: by xchrd11.rdyne.bna.boeing.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BBE6B6.2AE2E5D0@xchrd11.rdyne.bna.boeing.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:21:16 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Vortex-L , Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Tokamak will fail?? Old-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:18:00 -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 X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Larry What is the energy spectrum (or range) of the X-rays you are talking about here? How many photons at what energy? Also, what is inverse Bremstrellung? -Hank Scudder ---------- From: Larry Wharton To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Tokamak will fail?? Date: Tuesday, December 10, 1996 8:24AM >On Mon, 9 Dec 1996 11:49:20 -0500, Larry Wharton wrote: >[snip] >>Paul Koloc was at Los Alamos last week and got a letter of intent for a >>cooperative parterniship signed. The plan is to generate his plasma in >>their compression chamber which goes up to 10 mb. Even at this very high >>pressure there still is not much absorption of the x-ray energy. >I don't suppose you would happen to know if he ever managed to find any >evidence for the existence of his "hyper conducting layer" that was >supposed to reflect the x-rays back into the plasma? >[snip] Paul has not compressed his configuration yet so the surrounding jacket is not of high enough density to absorb any x-rays. The jacket is proposed to be composed of high-z materials so that the x-rays will be absorbed and converted into heat. This heat would then propagate back into the plasma as in the laser implosion techniques. As the surrounding jacket becomes ionized then there will be some inverse Brehmstralung which would reflect back into the plasma. He does not want to release any data yet but you can just think about it yourself. Do you think that Los Alamos would have signed the cooperative agreement with him if he did not have very impressive data on x-ray emissions? Any plasma that has any chance of generating hot fusion must be radiating large quantities of x-rays. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 11 05:02:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA15768; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 04:59:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 04:59:13 -0800 From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 07:58:30 -0500 Message-ID: <961211075828_907453618@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Jones and CF Resent-Message-ID: <"fAQld2.0.Gs3.U0hho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2670 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell, yes it does help, and thank you for the correction and clarification. Others seem quite content with the CF label and so I shall be also. When we had talked on the phone about your report, I did not realize that it was still in preparation and I am content to await its appearance. Regards, MIke From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 11 05:02:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA15799; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 04:59:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 04:59:21 -0800 From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 07:58:40 -0500 Message-ID: <961211075838_1153788466@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: State funding for Free Energy Resent-Message-ID: <"X9mDA2.0.ks3.c0hho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2671 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Governments can tax energy that enters into commerce, just like any other product. If you build a windmill from lumber sawn from trees on your property, no one will tax the water you pump from the well you dug with your own hands. But when you bought the saw from someone else, that's commerce and taxable unless you bartered it all the way back to the mines. The energy is "free", always was and will be. But getting it into a convenient form when and where you want it involves the effort of other people who should be paid for their work -- including the inventor of the "free energy" gadget you are using. Your compensation of those who helped you consitiutes commerce, which is taxed. If you do not want to give fair exchange to others for their contribution to your survival, drop all your conveniences and walk into the wilderness, where all is free. You can then be in competition with other animals for the available free energy of the sun converted into useable form by the plants and smaller, slower animals. On the other hand, you might participate with others in helping a talented and dedicated few learn how to build power sources that will help all mankind live comfortably without polluting the environment, and perhaps take us to the stars. With many making small contributions we got to the moon. I think this is called government funding. There is no system of economics or government that cannot be corrupted. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 11 05:30:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA19484; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 05:25:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 05:25:51 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 04:28:01 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: How much power has ZPE? Resent-Message-ID: <"bjI-Z3.0.Mm4.UPhho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2673 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Vortex: >What is the constant of proportionality K in the equation >P = K*B^3 >where P is power in watts, and B is the Low-Pass bandwidth in Hertz. ie: >from DC to some frequency B. Has this been measured? Any references to >the experiment, or the theoretical value? >-Hank Scudder I probably should not respond to this, since I'm no expert, but let me test my knowledge anyway, as I so often do. I will be swiftly corrected, and learn from this. It doesn't work like that. The vacuum energy fills a vaccum. If there is not a cutoff frequency, that energy is infinite. Assuming a cutoff frequency of near the Plank frequency (wavelength) of about 10^-33 cm, the energy density is on the order of 10^94 g/cm^3. Multiply by c^2 and you get a lot of energy - which does not have to remain constant, but can replenish itself from the ZPE sea if tapped. See the reprint on Keelynet (on www) of an article by Dr. H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum: Implications for Energy Research", Speculations in Science and Technology, vol 13, no. 4, pp. 247-257, 1990. The average energy for a given frequency w (w is omega) is given by = hw/2. The ZPE is distributed cubically by frequency. Thus the energy density rho(w) is characterized (by H. E. Puthoff) by: rho(w) dw = [w^2/pi^2*c^3]/[hw/2] dw = (hw^3) / (2*pi^2*c^3) dw joules/m^3 Rearranging I get: rho(w) dw = (h/(2*pi^2*c^3)) w^3 dw joules/m^3 rho(w) dw = K w^3 dw, where K = (h/(2*pi^2*c^3)) joules/m^3 Integrating over w=0 to w=B I get f(B): f(B) = K/3 B^4 This indicates to me the total energy density of the vacuum (though not constant if tapped) is proportional to the fourth power of the cutoff frequency. The big problem is figuring out how to tap it. If you do, conservation of energy is not violated, the second law is violated. Hope I got that all right with the above corrections. (Sorry) Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 11 05:43:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA21794; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 05:41:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 05:41:08 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 04:40:34 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: State funding for Free Energy Resent-Message-ID: <"FWwQc.0.SK5.odhho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2675 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 6:09 AM 12/10/96, Mike Butcher wrote: [snip] >But if we continue to rely on our slave master to >provide short cuts then yet more insiders will be employed, established and >salaried and we will be no further forward towards true freedom. In the US >you are not as far down the Statist road as Europe is, though catching up >fast. > >Given the exciting prospect of cleaner and more abundant form of >energy we are tempted to go for a quick solution but in the interests of >truly long term Free Energy let us try and resist that temptation. > >Mike Butcher >The Kuyper Foundation Here is my third try at sending this. None have come back to me, so please excuse if you have seen this. There have been problems with communications lines here in Alaska. Mike, I couldn't agree more with you about the anathema of traveling down the Statist road. My dislike is centered more on the government's increasing and unnecessary involvement in personal and business affairs than on the tax burden, though. If government were (or could possibly be) economically effective while maintaining freedom, then a small percent of a much bigger pie would be acceptable. The problem is that the pie gets smaller. It is incredible the regulations and alphabet soup a person must learn to do business. You can never stop your ever increasing exertion on the government's treadmill. This regulatory nightmare is now creeping into personal life in rural US in the form of regulations on small community wells. It is not a case of the government being our friend by doing a funded service, but of the legislation funding only enough to pay the whippers to keep the treadmill going. It's no fun when you are the whippee, and the feelings of powerlessness to change the order leads to indiviual lethargy that eventually sums up to national economic lethargy. However, I think you have missed a far more important point, Mike. You will not have economic freedom if weather patterns double and redouble storm energies and tidal surges. If you can't live within 50 miles of the sea, and can not buy property insurance, you will experience significant economic loss, especially in the UK. If the world banking system collapses due to massive economic infrastructure and real estate collateral loss, you will lose freedom also. If global warming goes runaway, like on Venus, we and our proginy will lose all our freedoms. Determining the magnitude of global warming and modelling it, and determining an action to thwart it, and enforcing those actions, can only be done at a government and world level. You may need to be prepared to change your views sooner or later, when nature confronts them. Some pie is better than no pie at all. As to free energy, or renewable energy, or greenhouse effect avoiding energy, any technological advance can only be helpful, as these things can provide true input to the economy. It seems to me that real problem here is that the lead time for technology development and deployment is much longer that the horizon we get. If the future physical global condition is actually in fact threatening to all life, it will only be beyond political debate when it is too late to do anything about it. If history is any teacher, a small group of visionaries can make a real difference. Technology is much easier to deploy when you already have it. To this end, a small piece of an otherwise largely wasted pie seems to me to be a small price to pay. It is the cheapest form of insurance, and there are side benefits to be had as well. If the government is involved, and knowledgeable, especially in testing and certifying over unity energy claims, then the snake oil salesmen will have a much more difficult time of it. We all benefit from that. I think the key to succesfull government involvement is for the government to be our friend and not our whipper, to make services available, not regulations. Regulations only hinder progress. There should be a carrot and not a stick. If an over unit energy concept works, or shows promising preliminary data in a government test lab, the device or concept should get some funding for follow-on work, especially in matching funds and to a defined second stage point. If the testing is free then investors can reasonably demand that testing be performed before investing. If a concept is not developed to a point that testing is feasible, then at least the investor should know that it is a longshot worse in risk than a state lottery ticket. If this doesn't make more pie, at least maybe it will taste better! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 11 07:06:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA28125; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 06:42:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 06:42:58 -0800 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:47:36 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961211224552.3fc70410@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: And I thought it was called 'Brown's Gas'... Resent-Message-ID: <"r71c_3.0.Mt6.mXiho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2676 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Didn't see it go through, so i'll sen it again... This is a story from yesterday's newspaper here in Singapore. Funny smell. [open a window] Did I see someone flinch in the audience ? I think I'll wait until the price becomes a bit more reasonable. considerably more reasonable. http://web3.asia1.com.sg/archive/st/2/pages/stlife5.html please note that this http has a lifetime of only 600 kiloseconds... of which 100 kiloseconds are already behind us. -- ********************************************************** * http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 ******** ********************************************************** Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="stlife5.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="stlife5.html" Content-Base: "http://web3.asia1.com.sg/archive/st/2/ pages/stlife5.html" The Straits Times - Singapore: Lifestyle
DEC 10 1996

Hot new use for cold water

A Singapore company has perfected the ultimate challenge: making fire from water. Tong Ming Chien explains the technology.

Related:

YOU can drink icy glasses of it, make hot steaming soups with it, take a refreshing dip in it and wash everything from gardening gloves and the family car to dirt-ingrained jeans with it.

And now, there is another, more novel, way to use water.

"Making fire from water. Now, that must be the ultimate challenge," smiles Mr Dusan Petrovic, 35.

It is a challenge that has been taken on by his company, Green Gas Generator, located at Pandan Road.

The Singapore firm has just perfected what it is calling a world's first -- a method of using electricity to break water down to gases that give blowtorches a 3,000-deg C flame.

This is new technology that comes in a gadget about the size of a microwave oven and is named after its company.

The Green Gas Generator works by passing a current through metal plates dipped in water to get a flammable mixture of hydrogen and oxygen.

Although electrolysing water to get these gases is not new -- as many secondary-level chemistry students will tell you -- using it to produce a slow-burning flame is.

Previously, such reactions were hard to control because hydrogen and oxygen, if not mixed in exact proportions, were liable to explode when lit.

The new gas generator solves this problem by using computer chips that control the entire process electronically so that a steady flame is produced instead.

The machine is plugged into a power socket and tap water -- yes, the very same kind that runs out of the pipes -- is poured into a chamber in the machine.

Almost immediately, the machine's blowtorch is ready to cut, weld or melt metal with a bright yellow flame.

Unlike ordinary blowtorches, which need qualified welding technicians to mix the oxygen and acetylene gases from huge floor-standing cylinders in precise proportions, the new water-fire gadget is "so simple even I can operate it," maintains Mr Francis Chua, 49, the firm's managing director.

"And I'm definitely not a skilled technician, or engineer for that matter," he says with a grin.

The economics graduate from the University of Singapore who had worked for the Economic Development Board (EDB) as a special assistant to the chairman, set up the company, with Mr Petrovic as the firm's inhouse research scientist, in 1994.

A meeting with the Yugoslav-born Australian citizen through a mutual friend had convinced him of the potential of the million-dollar project.

Mr Petrovic, a mechanical engineer, had already been doing research -- in his garage -- on the product for the past 10 years.

As the shy father of two reveals, his most memorable experience back then was when an experiment went awry in 1991 and a small explosion blew off a part of the garage roof.

"My wife and I had to deal with the police who came and made me promise to stop all dangerous experiments," says Mr Petrovic, smiling at the recollection.

But after a decade of preliminary research in Australia, and two years of intensive development with a team of five assistant researchers here, he went on to invent two versions of the water-gas blowtorch product.

A desktop product which consumes electricity only as much as a five-room flat air-con unit when in operation retails for about $6,500.

A larger floor-standing model, which can support up to three blowtorches, goes for $12,500.

Confident that their gas generators were "without peer", they sent the machines to an independent body, the Singapore Productivity and Standards Board (PSB) for testing.

The results that have been returned, as Mr Chua reveals happily, show the green gas generators as superior to conventional oxy-acetylene methods of cutting and welding in many ways (see other report).

These are features that Mr Chua and Mr Petrovic say will help their Green Gas Generator go far -- in fact, all the way to the other side of the globe.

They have plans to sell 5,000 units in this region in the next 12 months before trying to capture a share of the $5 billion international metal cutting and welding market in industries like car-making and ship-building.

Mr Chua is confident that the water-gas generator will eventually become the standard for metal work, but he has a dream use in mind for the new technology.

As he says wistfully: "Maybe, just maybe, sometime in the future, it can be used to power space-shuttles for space exploration!"

Tribute to Filipino hero who fought Spaniards
Nisa has the legs and a big heart

You can send
a letter to the editor		 Or post a tip-off or comment on
news in this section to the Life! section
rule

Singapore Resources

Information to help you
live, work and play

| Singapore | Courts | Region | World | Cybernews | Sports | Business |
| Perspective | Opinion | Lifestyle | Portfolio | Comics | About Us | FAQ |


Copyright © 1996 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.
********************************************************** * http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 ******** ********************************************************** From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 11 07:46:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA31456; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 07:24:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 07:24:02 -0800 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:17:38 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961211221553.3fc71304@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: State funding for Free Energy Resent-Message-ID: <"XDYF1.0.Qh7.F8jho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2677 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: RMCarrell@aol.com posted the following (edited for brevity) at 07:58 1996.12.11 -0500: >Governments can tax energy that enters into commerce, just like any other >product. If you build a windmill from lumber sawn from trees on your >property, no one will tax the ... thugs are *always* ready to tax it, whatever it is >... With many making small contributions we got to the moon. I am so glad that you got to go to the moon. Which mission were you on ? >I think this is called government funding. It's called fleecing the cattle. The brainwashing is a side-effect. If I ever get to the moon, I'll send you a postcard. maybe. > >There is no system of economics or government that cannot be corrupted. >Mike Carrell There is no corruption of economics that will not call itself government. ********************************************************** * http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 ******** ********************************************************** From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 11 08:35:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA01689; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 07:55:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 07:55:53 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 08:58:44 -0500 Message-ID: <961211085844_1424289475@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: List of articles on brow gass and other subjects (htm enclosure) Resent-Message-ID: <"yFQ95.0.FQ.7cjho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2678 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: --------------------- Forwarded message: From: zap@dnai.com (Sylvester H. Christie) To: alansch@zip.com.au, andrew@andy.alt.za, atech@ix.netcom.com, bcarter@igc.apc.org, bernieb@warp.ecn.net.au, pywilkes@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu, bkreutzer@coi-world.com, bobwing@nbn.com, Bravo666@ix.netcom.com, etimes@mail.teleport.com, jak@en.net, CALLOWAY@nku.edu, ccremona@pointest.com, colin@direct.ca, gordc@sherwood.co.uk, dakktdo@earthlink.net, dbook@plainfield.bypass.com, dewaal@studaff.und.ac.za, O.Nwosu@cs.ucl.ac.uk, 75401.715@CompuServe.COM, esittl@po-box.mcgill.ca, jgo876@airmail.net, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com, georgerw@pop.erols.com, holyzion@earthlink.net, lafont@arrakis.es, haley@infohwy.com, hansell@rapidramp.com, jcomeaux@ptialaska.net, jmcclurg@engr.latech.edu, jbarocsi@gol.com, jjw001@netgates.co.uk, jason@synerget.demon.co.uk, jbeane@neo.lrun.com, johan@plea.se, eng30309@leonis.nus.sg, petro@pegasus.rutgers.edu, mentor@ksu.ksu.edu, michaelt@tminet.com, mike@wildnet.co.uk, micent@sprynet.com, melvink@k2.kirtland.cc.mi.us, mars.or.bust@mail.utexas.edu, Mutchg@Topaz.Cqu.edu.Au, pjezek@nb.vse.cz, petersmc@ozemail.com.au, phee@tab.com, rickdav@microsoft.com, couslin@diamond.nb.net, stevek@usa1.com, sunioj@southwind.net, misc5040@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz, t91dh@hh.se, taotree@geocities.com, rondan@iap.net.au, WWeber1011@aol.com, zap@dnai.com, jonesb9@mail.idt.net, tonylo@microsoft.com CC: zap@dnai.com Date: 96-12-10 11:55:47 EST Hi haleykins http://www.tstonramp.com/~ltseung/brown0.htm List of articles

Welcome to the Home Page of Prof. Yull Brown

Article Last Update Contents
brown1.htm 6/23/96 Welcome & Contents page
brown2.htm 6/23/96 Experiment & Pictures as observed
brown3.htm 6/23/96 Introduction to Brown's Gas
brown4.htm 6/23/96 Words from Prof. Yull Brown
brown5.htm 6/23/96 The Big Debate - Should we tell?
brown6.htm 6/23/96 The Cheap Nuclear Bomb
brown7.htm 6/23/96 Support Material 1 - Other Experiments
brown8.htm 6/23/96 Things to Check with Brown's Gas
brown9.htm 6/23/96 Interesting Questions Raised
brown10.htm 6/23/96 Support Material 2 - Temperature Measurements
brown11.htm 6/23/96 Support Material 3 - Reduction of Radioactivity
brown12.htm 6/23/96 Support Material 4 - Violating Existing Concepts
brown13.htm 6/23/96 Support Material 5 - On Implosion
brown14.htm 6/23/96 Existing Supporters
brown15.htm 6/23/96 Support being sought
brown16.htm 6/23/96 Support Material 6 - Inelastic Kinetic Theory
brown17.xls 6/23/96 Spreadsheet to Support Implosion
brown18.htm6/27/96Can Brown's Gas Trigger Nuclear Reactions?
brown19.htm6/29/96Experiment Suggestions
brown20.htm6/30/96Study of the Flame in Brown's Gas
brown21.htm7/4/96Instruction Manual from Norinco
brown22.htm7/9/96Spreading knowledge of the trigger before mastering the technology of controlled fusion
brown23.htm7/12/96Elements of controlled nuclear reactions
brown24.htm7/13/96Storage Concerns of Brown's Gas 1
brown25.htm7/15/96Storage Concerns of Brown's Gas 2
brown26.htm7/15/96Advanced Transmutation - 1
brown27.htm7/16/96Building Industries and Careers out of Brown's Gas - 1
brown28.htm7/17/96Flame of the Brown's Gas
brown29.htm7/18/96Building Industries and Careers out of Brown's Gas - 2
brown30.htm7/19/96Building Industries and Careers out of Brown's Gas - 3
brown31.htm7/19/96Building Industries and Careers out of Brown's Gas - 4
brown32.htm7/20/96Advanced Transmutation - 2
brown33.htm7/21/96EXPLO-PROOF
brown34.htm8/20/96Email List
brown35.htm7/30/96The Brown's Gas Automobile
brown36.htm7/28/96MASS-ENERGY diagram according to Prof. Yull Brown
brown37.htm8/3/96"Conclusive Experiments" on Implosion
brown38.htm8/17/96Implosion vs Explosion
famous1.htm8/18/96Safe, Famous & Powerful
famous2.htm8/20/96Energy and Group Wealth Creation
famous3.htm9/7/96Righting Past Wrongs
famous4.htm9/15/96Some Comments on Teri York's Business Plan as of 9/15/96
famous4a.htm9/15/96Some Comments on Teri York's Business Plan as of 9/15/96 (continued)
famous5.htm9/23/96A Promoter's Nightmare
famous6.htm9/26/96The SHOW in Philadelphia - after reviewing the video tape
Other Related Sites
  • Teri York who has been helping Prof. Yull Brown for over 4 years
  • Timothy O. Prellwitz who is experienced in many electronic control systems. Tim will be glad to help those who want to develop their own web pages. Tim's web pages are exceptionally well done with file downloading capabilities, etc. The 22 page Norinco BN2000 Instruction Manual will be available there.
  • Planetar y Association For Clean Energy. This page contains links to other groups interested in alternative forms of Energy.
Additional Site for Imformation purposes only - no endorsement is implied
  • International Tesla Society, PO Box 5636 - Colorado Springs CO 80931, Tel: (719) 475-0918, Fax: (719) 475-0582. At the 1996 International Tesla Symposium held from July 19-21, Mr. George Wiseman conducted a workshop on Brown's Gas. A copy of his book on Brown's Gas (about 30 pages, ID 240007) for $10 can be ordered from the Tesla Society. Beware of the danger in implementing the system described in the book. There were no safety systems such as those used in the BNxxx machines from Norinco, China.
  • The Institute for New Energy (INE) is at http://www.padrak.com/ine/. The INE is an official US non-profit technical and membership organization whose monthly newsletter "The New Energy News" reports the latest and up-to-date findings in international New Energy research. The Institute's primary purpose is to promote research and educate society of the importance of alternative energy. The INE bridges the gap between the advanced and fringe scientific technologies being discovered today, and the old and existing scientific paradigms of yesterday. This site includes many outstanding "advanced energy related" papers, reports, summaries, announcements, and web site links that are not found elsewhere.
  • Infinite Energy Magazine: New Energy Technology is at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jedrothwell/. Cold fusion is the revolutionary new energy source announced by professors Pons and Fleischmann in 1989. Welcome to the best source of information on cold fusion in the world! See what the newest research is yielding, and learn the intriguing possibilities of what the future might hold. You will be amazed at how much progress has been made in this exciting field. You can also add more links if you want to, by referring to: www.padrak.com/ine/WEBSITES.htm l. An interesting example is CETI.
  • Another Group actively promoting Brown's Gas is Better World Technologies (BWT) headed by Mr. Dennis Lee. Mr. Dennis Lee is currently touring the US with his "America's Declaration of Energy Independence" tour. A major portion of the show is about Brown's Gas. To find if there is a show near you, please visit http://jongalt.com/bwt/. At the show will be demonstrations of the "welder" and a full demonstration of an implosion "engine." My contact at present is Mr. Dave Akins via Email - wizardav@netins.net. I missed their "show" in Las Vegas on Aug 22. However, this group is "seeking lost dealers" who believed they lost money eight years ago. This group can sell!
  • Site focused on Group Wealth Creation with the lead in of helping China to WIN World War 4.
Those who are interested in the Email List can Email Lawrence Tseung. Please assume that the FBI, Chinese Intelligence, International Spy Organizations will be on this Email List. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 11 13:03:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA21964; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 23:18:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 23:18:59 -0800 Date: 10 Dec 96 18:17:31 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: State funding for Free Energy Message-ID: <961210231730_100433.1541_BHG96-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"UmTxF.0.2N5.X1cho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2662 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > If an energy device is manufactured and sold, the government will > find a way to tax it. Well, to my recollection Faraday had two answers to similar questions about the usefulness of his electric motor. To Queen Victoria he responded, "What use has a new-born baby?" To the Prime Minister he said, "Before long you will be able to tax it." Probably I have the story wrong. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 11 13:06:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA31679; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:50:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:50:25 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:01:19 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Returned mail: MX list for xchrd11 points back to hercules.rdyne.bna.boeing.com Resent-Message-ID: <"ONBok1.0.tk7.Fwnho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2679 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I attempted to return this note privately, but got a bounce. Looks like they cut you off Hank! No more of that ZPE radical free energy nonsense for you! :) >X-POP3-Rcpt: hheffner@anc >Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:50:37 -0800 >From: Mailer-Daemon@hercules.rdyne.bna.boeing.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem) >Subject: Returned mail: MX list for xchrd11 points back to >hercules.rdyne.bna.boeing.com >To: >To: postmaster@hercules.rdyne.bna.boeing.com > >The original message was received at Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:50:32 -0800 >from anc.ak.net [204.17.241.19] > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >554 MX list for xchrd11 points back to hercules.rdyne.bna.boeing.com > > ----- Original message follows ----- >Return-Path: >Received: from anc.ak.net by hercules.rdyne.bna.boeing.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id LAA08392; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:50:32 -0800 >Received: from [204.17.242.69] (unused2-69.ak.net [204.17.242.69]) by >anc.ak.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA23633 for >; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:59:23 -0900 >Message-Id: >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 10:51:43 -0800 >To: hjscudde@hercules.rdyne.bna.boeing.com >From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) >Subject: Re: How much power has ZPE? >content-length: 468 > >>Horace >>Thanks >> -Hank Scudder >> ---------- > > >Hope you got my third clerical correction: > >>rho(w) = K w^3 dw, where K = (h/(2*pi^2*c^3)) joules/m^3 >> >>Integrating over w=0 to w=B I get f(B): >> >>f(B) = K/4 B^4 >> > >Sorry for all the "noise" in my system. Must be that HAARP project at it >again. > >8^) > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 11 14:02:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA02538; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:25:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:25:56 -0800 Message-ID: <32AEF5DD.531D@interlaced.net> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:56:45 -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: [Fwd: Re: Tokamak will fail??] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------6D5C593461DB" Resent-Message-ID: <"fosmj2.0.ad.YRoho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2680 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. --------------6D5C593461DB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Second try to get this out. ----- F. Stenger --------------6D5C593461DB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <32ADCDC1.6E95@interlaced.net> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:53:21 -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: Tokamak will fail?? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Larry Wharton wrote: > > > Mega-bar. > Stenger writes: MY GOODNESS!!! 10 megabars = 145 million pounds per sq. inch. I thought that the maximum theoretical strength of the chemical bond was less than this! Larry, I assume the details of such a facility would be secret - is that right? - could you say, in general, how such a facility works? Feeling really ignorant ---------- Frank Stenger --------------6D5C593461DB-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 11 18:52:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA03665; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 18:36:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 18:36:13 -0800 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:07:55 -0800 Message-Id: <199612112307.PAA21474@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Second time on SW radio for Mallove To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: 76570.2270@compuserve.com Resent-Message-ID: <"TAe4k.0.4v.P-sho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2681 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: December 11, 1996 Wednesday Last Tuesday, Dec. 2, 1996, Mallove had a broadcast interview with Dr. Norman Resnick on the short wave 3.215 MHZ. At that time, because of depth of the subject matter (CF) to be covered, a second talk show was scheduled for December 11, 1996 Wednesday at 9:06 PM EST (6:06 PST). That is today. I hope Mallove makes it. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 11 22:21:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA25990; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:50:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:50:12 -0800 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 07:26:29 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <32af9791.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Subject: Miles publication. Resent-Message-ID: <"9zVDW2.0.yL6.Gqvho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2682 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortexers, I have sent the Miles documents to Dieter Britz who is my good friend and is very knowledgeable in the CF literature. I know he is sometimes corresponding with Steve Jones. My own opinion about Jones is very negative due to what he wrote at spf; I consider him responsible for the endemic "jonesitis" (focusing on measurement and not on triggering the effect) of so many CFeers. He has now an opportunity to prove or to disprove his scientific honesty. Error or sin, that's the question? Here is Dieter answer minus my words about Jones. Peter Dear Peter, this is a scandal. It is customary to be allowed to rebutt a critique of one's paper, just after the critique itself. It does happen that the rebuttal is not as well written as a paper should be (this may have been the case here), but in the interest of fairness, it should still be printed. I have been wondering why Miles & Co. never rebutted those two papers. Actually, Steve himself would not approve of the authors' being prevented from rebutting; I would suggest that Miles tell him about it, and if I were Steve, I would email the Editor and urge him to print the rebuttal. I believe Steve would do that, too. I will, if I may, send the attachments to your email to Steve and ask him to do what I reckon he would anyway. I doubt he knows about this. Regards Dieter -- 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 Dec 11 22:32:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA29231; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:12:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:12:54 -0800 Message-ID: <32AFA212.407A@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:11:31 -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 CC: aki@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: Second time on SW radio for Mallove References: <199612112307.PAA21474@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"2h0_n2.0.e87.Z9who"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2683 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: December 11, 1996 Wednesday The second interview was made on the SW 3.215 MHZ American Freedom Network. Resnick found since the last interview that of the scientists he talked to on CF, not one expressed a neutral position to CF or to Mallove. He did not elaborate. Three callers called asking mostly introductory questions on CF. One mentioned an Australian (Steven Horvat) of ten-fifteen years ago having device (similar to Meyer's dissociation of water as a power source). On Pons & Fleischmann's discovery, Mallove says it (he?) is not certain that the power excess, found by Pons & Fleischmann, might not exclusively be a D-D reaction (although helium has been found) or fusion of D at all. Its possible it may be another nuclear reaction. It may be other things (not elaborated) going on. But what is undeniable is the reality of the excess. (I wonder if this latest position is based on Miley's findings) The fourth caller was Frank Znirdarsic. He confirmed the CETI cell at Power-Gen. Explained his involvement with cavitation technology (Yusmars), which so far is not successful but optimistic. Frank mentioned his dismissal from his job at the utility copmpany. He brought the O/U technology to the top level of his company. Shortly afterward (ostensably on a down sizing move) he was included in those dismissedd engineers. The lack of top medis coverage of CF largely based on early (faulty) replication failures (Cal-Tech, MIT, Halway) were explained. Group think, group fears were discussed. Frank agreed with the disappointment to the continued subdued public reaction to the CF movement. Resnick mentioned that critics of CF he met did not agree to join the program. Mallove figures critics feels CF is on its death throes already so leave it alone. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 11 23:14:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA03464; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:52:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:52:20 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:00:53 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Resent-Message-ID: <"qDRIB1.0.lr.Wkwho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2684 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Third try at this post: One possible way to measure excess energy creation is to use an experiment that I think was proposed by John Logajohn, or at least something similar. Simply enclose water and an electrolyte in a pressure vessel, with electrodes and electrode leads. Pt would be best for the elecrodes. It would be best to isolate the H2 and O2 generated. Inlcude a pressure guage and small volume of air or gas. Measure the V and I input, heat ouptut, and pressure, all vs time. Continue electrolysis to the pressure limits of the vessel. If the same, or nearly the same, molar volumes are produced per watt of input, regardless of pressure, the atomic expansion hypothesis is confirmed, and at least a lower bound is set for the energy density available. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 11 23:51:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA07912; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:13:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:13:30 -0800 Message-ID: <32AF4928.4346@rt66.com> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:52:08 -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: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: Fourth Miley Preprint Critique] Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"0aEch1.0.Xx1.N2xho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2685 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Return-Path: blue@pilot.msu.edu Received: from pilot12.cl.msu.edu (pilot12.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.22]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA10759 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 08:11:07 -0700 (MST) Received: (blue@localhost) by pilot12.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/MSU-2.10) id KAA114828; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 10:10:03 -0500 Message-Id: <199612111510.KAA114828@pilot12.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: Fourth Miley Preprint Critique To: rmforall@rt66.com Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 10:10:02 -0500 (EST) From: "Richard A Blue" In-Reply-To: <32AE6469.6A92@rt66.com> from "Richard Thomas Murray" at Dec 10, 96 11:36:09 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text/plain > > Since the claim of isotopic shifts has to be treated as controversial by > the general community of scientists, the evidence has to be precise, or > it will naturally be rejected, even though others like Dash and Mizuno > are supplying colloborative evidence of great value. > > Rich Murray > > Rich, I certainly agree that Miley's claims must be "treated as controversial" rather than considered established fact as some would have it. I question, however whether Dash and Mizuno are supplying "collaborative evidence of great value." I what sense is their evidence collaborative of the Miley data? My understanding is that Mizuno has investigated an entirely different set of circumstances. Since nothing is known or even conjectured about the actual mechanisms for nuclear transmutations I think it takes a rather giant leap of faith to say that what Mizuno does "colloborates" what Miley claims to have observed. It is only too obvious that the sorts of analyses that Miley has been doing, as you have so rightly observed, leave so much slack in the outcome that Miley clearly can (and does?) select his results to match what Mizuno has been claiming. Now let me ask your opinion of another feature common to the advocacy of transmutations, cold fusion, etc. It is the denial that all the negative outcomes for attempts to detect nuclear radiations have any bearing on the question. My understanding is that even the tritium production claims by Storms, et al involve some sort of "virgin birth" of the tritium in which no neutrons or gammas accompany the reaction process. I find this so suspect that it is, as you say, "Not even wrong." Dick Blue From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 12 01:32:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA27879 for billb@eskimo.com; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:45:08 -0800 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:45:08 -0800 X-Envelope-From: hheffner@anc.ak.net Thu Dec 12 00:42:32 1996 Received: from mail.eskimo.com (root@mail.eskimo.com [204.122.16.4]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA27278 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:42:23 -0800 Received: from anc.ak.net (root@anc.ak.net [204.17.241.19]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA14319 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 07:15:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [204.17.242.75] (unused2-76.ak.net [204.17.242.76]) by anc.ak.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA21551 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 09:25:48 -0900 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Old-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 06:18:13 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS X-Diagnostic: Unprocessed X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: >At 09:45 PM 12/9/96 -0500, HAL PUTHOFF wrote: >> >>Jay Olsen asked: >> >><>something else? If so, by transforming zero point energy into heat >>energy, are we theoretically lowering Plank's constant for the entire >>universe?>> >> >>By "jiggle" I mean simply the quantum uncertainty in position, second to >>second, which can be seen as incorporating accelerated motions in response to >>ZPE buffeting and thus radiating in response. The conversion from ZPE to >>heat does not lower Planck's constant; it's simply that the vacuum has >>dropped a little in energy, and that energy has been converted to heat. In >>the Casimir effect, e.g., vacuum plus plates far apart is a higher energy >>state than vacuum plus plates close together. Therefore, the vacuum "decays" >>to a lower energy state, "emitting" IR photons in the process. Many make the >>mistake of thinking the vacuum has a fixed energy state; it doesn't. A nice >>article in Scientific American a few years ago on "Decay of the Vacuum" which >>discusses this. >> >>Hal Puthoff >> >> >> > > IMHO there are two potential, but major, > problems with this putative theory. > > 1. Noone here seems to be willing to calculate or state >the maximum value of ZPE available, but IMHO >it is incredibly tiny, if it exists at all. > ZPE, to the extent that it exists >appears to be only good for infintesimally small >[circa <10-12 to 10-30 Joules/cm3 by various estimates] >amounts of energy. > > These levels are much too low for what is observed with >cold fusion. John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, when first examining the possibility of vacuum energy, calculated that there is enough energy in the vacuum of a light bulb to boil all the seas. The problem is designing a mechanism to effectively extract this energy. The energy available is dependent upon the method used to extract it, be that polarization of the vacuum, the Casimir Effect, etc. I have proposed a couple of hopefully new and related potential mechanisms: sub-orbital photon emission (up the .5 MeV per transaction) and atomic expansion. The atomic expansion method depends upon the amount of orbital deformation achievable per transaction, and the transaction repeat rate per volume achievable. It does appear the two goals, high repeat rate, and high confinement, oppose each other. Since the concept is new, maybe the place to start is to pick a design and caluclate the energy that should be available from it, and then measure it. Personally, I am still kicking this around in my head. Maybe one place to start might be the Kamada et al deuteron implantation experiment. The energy of the deuterons (200 - 400 KeV) is expended in heat and ionizing radiation upon contact with the target. However, the target melting which occurs is not commensurate with the total particle energy. One possible source of some energy is the fact that the hydrogen ended up compressed into bubbles under 7 GPa pressure. The D2 formed tunnel structures in the aluminum target. Where did the energy come from for this compression? I suggest it is from atomic expansion, as the kinetic energy was expended into heat prior to the orbital formation on the deuterons. The orbital formation on the ions generates an increase in volume on the order of 10^15 times for each ion. The ions did not have to be implanted into the Al using 200 KeV. They could have been adsorbed using electrolysis. So, the design question boils down to how big a pressure change (at what volume) can you get per unit of time per volume. The cost of the electrolysis energy is not material is it is all returned in heat and free H initially. The big problems are recovering the hydrogen from the matrix for repeating the cycle, and not damaging the matrix. Maybe this can be accomplished using back side recovery (just push it on through) and/or facilitated using proton conductors with internal barriers. Just some thoughts, no numbers yet. > > > 2. The Born-oppenheimer principle of the location of the >relatively heavy nuclei determining the wavefunction of the >electrons seems to be violated by this >hypothesis. Has anyone considered this? One may >check Slater or other solid state physics book regarding >the Born-oppenheimer principle. > > Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) Is this a misinterpretation of the principle? Unless all new orbitals form faster than the speed of light when one ion strips an electron from another, orbitals can be formed in a stressed configuration. The impinging ion nucleus can be "off center", i.e. the orbital will be deformed and energy will be stored in the deformation that can cause a rebound, and this does not happen at the expense of the impinging nucleus momentum. Consider that the inertial displacement of the nucleus can generate an electrostatic dipole moment in an atom just as a strong electrostatic field can. The deformation is there regarless of the coordinate system chosen to express it. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 12 01:34:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA28053 for billb@eskimo.com; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:45:27 -0800 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:45:27 -0800 X-Envelope-From: 72240.1256@CompuServe.COM Thu Dec 12 00:41:59 1996 Received: from mail.eskimo.com (root@mail.eskimo.com [204.122.16.4]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA27241 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:41:44 -0800 Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com [149.174.217.135]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA17848 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 07:43:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id KAA05377; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 10:43:32 -0500 Old-Date: 11 Dec 96 10:41:31 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: J. New Energy, ILENR2 Proc. Message-ID: <961211154131_72240.1256_EHB164-1@CompuServe.COM> X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I just received: JOURNAL OF NEW ENERGY Proceedings of the Second International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Conference College Station, Texas, September 13-14, 1996 This is from: Fusion Information Center, Inc. P.O. Box 58639 Salt Lake City, UT 84158-0639 801-583-6232 This includes some papers that were not given at the conference, by Bockris, Swartz and Fox. It is a fine collection of papers. Some of this stuff is off-the-wall by my standards, but I see no harm in off-the-wall science. I reviewed this conference on my home page and in a longer article in I.E. Now that I have the papers I think I'll say more about them, particularly Ohmori. If the hypothesis in the Bockris paper, "Complex Conditions Needed to Obtain Nuclear Heat from D-pd Systems," are verified, commercialization will be terribly difficult. Attached is the table of contents from the proceedings. - Jed 1 EDITORIAL Hal Fox BASIC EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES 5 NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATIONS IN THIN-FILM NICKEL COATINGS UNDERGOING ELECTROLYSIS, G.H. Miley and J.A. Patterson 31 ISOTOPIC CHANGES OF THE REACTION PRODUCTS INDUCED BY CATHODIC ELECTROLYSIS IN Pd, T. Mizuno, T. Ohmori, end M. Enyo 46 EXCESS HEAT AND UNEXPECTED ELEMENTS FROM ELECTROLYSIS OF ACIDIFIED HEAVY WATER WITH TITANIUM CATHODES, R. Kopecek and J. Dash 54 NUCLEAR AND THERMAL EVENTS ASSOCIATED VVITH Pd + D CODEPOSITON, S. Szpak and P.A. Mosier-Boss 68 POSSIBLE DEUTERIUM PRODUCTION FROM LIGHT WATER EXCESS ENTHALPY EXPERIMENTS USING NICKEL CATHODES, M. Swartz 81 ELECTRO-NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION: LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN AN ELECTROLYTIC CELL, R. Bass, R. Neal, S. Gleeson, and H. Fox 88 COLD FUSION EXPERIMENTS, THEORY, AND MANAGEMENT AT THE NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY (Abstract only), D. Nagel 89 TRITIUM PRODUCTION FROM PALLADIUM AND PALLADIUM ALLOYS (Abstract only), TN. Claytor, MJ. Schwab, and D.G. Tuggle 90 ISOTOPIC DISTRIBUTIONS OF HEAVY METAL ELEMENTS PRODUCED DURING THE LIGHT WATER ELECTROLYSIS ON GOLD ELECTRODE, T. Ohmori, T. Mizuno, end M. Enyo INNOVATIVE APPROACHES 100 ANOMALOUS RADIOACTIVITY AND UNEXPECTED ELEMENTS AS A RESULT OF HEATING INORGANIC MIXTURES, G.H. Lin and J. O'M. Bockris 106 INVESTIGATION OF REPORTS OF THE SYNTHESIS OF IRON VIA ARC DISCHARGE THROUGH CARBON COMPOUNDS, T. Grotz 111 OBSERVATIONS ON THE ROLE OF CHARGE CLUSTERS IN NUCLEAR CLUSTER REACTIONS, K. Shoulders and S. Shoulders 122 ADVANCED TRANSMUTATION PROCESSES AND THEIR APPLICATION FOR DECONTAMINATION OF RADIOACTIVE NUCLEAR WASTES, A. Michrowski THEORETICAL MODELS 131 LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTION: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE ALPHA-EXTENDED MODEL OF THE ATOM, R. Monti, T. Mizuno, and M. Enyo 145 NUCLEAR PHYSICS MECHANISMS FOR GAMOW FACTOR CANCELLATION IN LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS, Y.E. Kim and Am. Zubarev 155 NATURAL NUCLEAR SYNTHESIS OF SUPERHEAVY ELEMENTS, A. Cau 184 NATURAL COLD FISSION - NATURAL NEW ENERGY - NATURAL NEW PHYSICS, G.S. Rahzi 192 POSSIBLE PALLADIUM-RELATED NUCLEAR REACTIONS, S.X. Jin and H. Fox ADDITIONAL PAPERS NOT PRESENTED AT THE CONFERENCE 210 COMPLEX CONDITIONS NEEDED TO OBTAIN NUCLEAR HEAT FROM D-Pd SYSTEMS, J. O'M. Bockris 219 IMPROVED CALCULATIONS INVOLVING ENERGY RELEASE USING A BUOYANCY TRANSPORT CORRECTION, M. Swartz 222 PLASMA-INJECTED TRANSMUTATION, H. Fox, R.W. Bass, and S.X. Jin 231 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Additional Conference Papers by Z. Minevski: New Elements Formed in the Electrolysis of Light Water on Palladium R. George: Isotopic Ration Anomalies Induced in Palladium by the Application of Intense Ultrasound R. Notoya: Evidence of Nuclear Reactions Found by Measurement of Radioactivity in Electrolytic Cells RJ. Kovac: Unusual Reactions of Mass 5 with Helium and Catalytic Metals, with Proposed Mathematical Interpretation E. Lewis: Novel Hypothesis Concerning the Production of Elements, Superconductivity and Anomalous Radiation were unavailable at press time and may be printed at a later date. * End of File * From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 12 02:00:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA29433; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:56:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:56:22 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 06:44:07 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Resent-Message-ID: <"E74hQ3.0.oB7.pYyho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2691 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: One possible way to measure excess energy creation is to use an experiment that I think was proposed by John Logajohn, or at least something similar. Simply enclose water and an electrolyte in a pressure vessel, with electrodes and electrode leads. Pt would be best for the elecrodes. It would be best to isolate the H2 and O2 generated. Inlcude a pressure guage and small volume of air or gas. Measure the V and I input, heat ouptut, and pressure, all vs time. Continue electrolysis to the pressure limits of the vessel. If the same, or nearly the same, molar volumes are produced per watt of input, regardless of pressure, the atomic expansion hypothesis is confirmed, and at least a lower bound is set for the energy density available. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-digest-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 12 02:32:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA01350 for billb@eskimo.com; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 01:30:42 -0800 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 01:30:42 -0800 X-Envelope-From: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 12 01:18:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA25423; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:16:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:16:22 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Old-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:29:21 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Resent-Message-ID: <"e-OOx.0.8D6.Izxho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2690 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored X-Envelope-To: vortex-digest Status: RO X-Status: Second try at this one: >At 09:45 PM 12/9/96 -0500, HAL PUTHOFF wrote: >> >>Jay Olsen asked: >> >><>something else? If so, by transforming zero point energy into heat >>energy, are we theoretically lowering Plank's constant for the entire >>universe?>> >> >>By "jiggle" I mean simply the quantum uncertainty in position, second to >>second, which can be seen as incorporating accelerated motions in response to >>ZPE buffeting and thus radiating in response. The conversion from ZPE to >>heat does not lower Planck's constant; it's simply that the vacuum has >>dropped a little in energy, and that energy has been converted to heat. In >>the Casimir effect, e.g., vacuum plus plates far apart is a higher energy >>state than vacuum plus plates close together. Therefore, the vacuum "decays" >>to a lower energy state, "emitting" IR photons in the process. Many make the >>mistake of thinking the vacuum has a fixed energy state; it doesn't. A nice >>article in Scientific American a few years ago on "Decay of the Vacuum" which >>discusses this. >> >>Hal Puthoff >> >> >> > > IMHO there are two potential, but major, > problems with this putative theory. > > 1. Noone here seems to be willing to calculate or state >the maximum value of ZPE available, but IMHO >it is incredibly tiny, if it exists at all. > ZPE, to the extent that it exists >appears to be only good for infintesimally small >[circa <10-12 to 10-30 Joules/cm3 by various estimates] >amounts of energy. > > These levels are much too low for what is observed with >cold fusion. John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, when first examining the possibility of vacuum energy, calculated that there is enough energy in the vacuum of a light bulb to boil all the seas. The problem is designing a mechanism to effectively extract this energy. The energy available is dependent upon the method used to extract it, be that polarization of the vacuum, the Casimir Effect, etc. I have proposed a couple of hopefully new and related potential mechanisms: sub-orbital photon emission (up the .5 MeV per transaction) and atomic expansion. The atomic expansion method depends upon the amount of orbital deformation achievable per transaction, and the transaction repeat rate per volume achievable. It does appear the two goals, high repeat rate, and high confinement, oppose each other. Since the concept is new, maybe the place to start is to pick a design and caluclate the energy that should be available from it, and then measure it. Personally, I am still kicking this around in my head. Maybe one place to start might be the Kamada et al deuteron implantation experiment. The energy of the deuterons (200 - 400 KeV) is expended in heat and ionizing radiation upon contact with the target. However, the target melting which occurs is not commensurate with the total particle energy. One possible source of some energy is the fact that the hydrogen ended up compressed into bubbles under 7 GPa pressure. The D2 formed tunnel structures in the aluminum target. Where did the energy come from for this compression? I suggest it is from atomic expansion, as the kinetic energy was expended into heat prior to the orbital formation on the deuterons. The orbital formation on the ions generates an increase in volume on the order of 10^15 times for each ion. The ions did not have to be implanted into the Al using 200 KeV. They could have been adsorbed using electrolysis. So, the design question boils down to how big a pressure change (at what volume) can you get per unit of time per volume. The cost of the electrolysis energy is not material is it is all returned in heat and free H initially. The big problems are recovering the hydrogen from the matrix for repeating the cycle, and not damaging the matrix. Maybe this can be accomplished using back side recovery (just push it on through) and/or facilitated using proton conductors with internal barriers. Just some thoughts, no numbers yet. > > > 2. The Born-oppenheimer principle of the location of the >relatively heavy nuclei determining the wavefunction of the >electrons seems to be violated by this >hypothesis. Has anyone considered this? One may >check Slater or other solid state physics book regarding >the Born-oppenheimer principle. > > Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) Is this a misinterpretation of the principle? Unless all new orbitals form faster than the speed of light when one ion strips an electron from another, orbitals can be formed in a stressed configuration. The impinging ion nucleus can be "off center", i.e. the orbital will be deformed and energy will be stored in the deformation that can cause a rebound, and this does not happen at the expense of the impinging nucleus momentum. Consider that the inertial displacement of the nucleus can generate an electrostatic dipole moment in an atom just as a strong electrostatic field can. The deformation is there regarless of the coordinate system chosen to express it. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 12 03:08:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA08694; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:06:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:06:53 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:20:19 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: How much power has ZPE? Resent-Message-ID: <"Q41kJ2.0.U72.wazho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2692 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The following is a continuation of discussion of ZPE energy denisty and power estimates based on the article by Dr. H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum: Implications for Energy Research", Speculations in Science and Technology, vol 13, no. 4, pp. 247-257, 1990. The energy density rho(w) is characterized (by H. E. Puthoff) by: rho(w) dw = [w^2/pi^2*c^3]/[hw/2] dw = (hw^3) / (2*pi^2*c^3) dw joules/m^3 Rearranging: rho(w) dw = (h/(2*pi^2*c^3)) w^3 dw joules/m^3 rho(w) dw = K w^3 dw, where K = (h/(2*pi^2*c^3)) joules/m^3 Integrating over w=0 to w=B to get cumulative energy density f(B) to cutoff frequency B: f(B) = K/4 B^4 This indicates that the total energy density of the vacuum (though not constant if tapped) is proportional to the fourth power of the cutoff frequency being tapped. The big problem is figuring out how to tap the energy. If ZPE energy is tapped, conservation of energy is not violated, the second law is violated, as the replacment energy ultimately comes from elsewhere in the universe. Of interrest is that most of the energy is in the top frequencies utilized. The bottom 98 percent of the frequency ditribution contains (.98)^4 or 92 percent of the energy. The top two percent contains about 8 percent of the energy. This implies it is best to utilize the smallest possible wavelenghts in a ZPE extracting mechanism, and therefore, most likely, the smallest possible structures. This leaves atomic structures as the most likely regime to get good results. Further evaluating f(B) for dimensionless frequency B (in Hz) we get: f(B) = [1.556 x 10^-61 joules/m^3] B^4 Now, considering radiation on an atomic scale, i.e. wavelength of 1 angstrom, or 10^-10 m, we get B ~ [3 x 10^17 Hz.] so: f(B) = [1.556 x 10^-61 joules/m^3] [3 x 10^17 Hz.]^4 f(B) = 1.26 x 10^9 joules/m^3 f(B) = 1260 joules/cm^3 If only the top 2 percent of the accessable ZPE frequency band is utilized, we get an energy density of about 1260/8 ~ 100 joules per cm^3. Now, to consider power tapping capabilities, and some pretty big guesses. Given the extreme ZPE energy density at high frequencies, it is reasonable to assume that the tapped energy, i.e. energy removed from the imaginary cm^3 can be replaced at nearly the speed of light, or about 10^-10 second to replenish the cm^3. Given a collection of atomic sized devices located in the cm^3, we could use the macro size of 1 cm instead of 1 angstrom as the distance from which the replenishing energy must come, even though the higer ZPE wavelengths within the angstrom dimension microstructure volume could resupply the volume intially, with the minor resulting deficit at all ZPE frequencies spreading like a wave throughout the universe. This conservative choice gives an event cycle rate maximum of 10^10 event cycles per second, each cycle taking at most some fraction of the 100 joules residing in the imaginary cm^3. If we can somehow extract 1/10,000 the ZPE energy in the cm^3, we would be able to extract 10^5 joules / cm^3 / sec, or 10,000 W/cm^3. If there are only 1 out of 10,000 sites active per cycle, and we could extract 1/10,000 the ZPE energy in each site per cycle, we would get 1 W/cm^3. However, since we are using such a small part of the ZPE spectrum, replenishment could happen as fast as 10^-20 second per cell, so would not be a practical limitation in any sense. The potential energy release is unlimited from a any reasonable standpoint. The real limitations are event density and event repetition rate, and these are strictly design parameters that depend upon the ingenuity of the designer and choice of medium. Thoughts, corrections? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 12 03:10:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA08884; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:08:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:08:15 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:02:31 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Resent-Message-ID: <"paKxO3.0.eA2.Aczho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2693 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Fourth try at this post: >At 09:45 PM 12/9/96 -0500, HAL PUTHOFF wrote: >> >>Jay Olsen asked: >> >><>something else? If so, by transforming zero point energy into heat >>energy, are we theoretically lowering Plank's constant for the entire >>universe?>> >> >>By "jiggle" I mean simply the quantum uncertainty in position, second to >>second, which can be seen as incorporating accelerated motions in response to >>ZPE buffeting and thus radiating in response. The conversion from ZPE to >>heat does not lower Planck's constant; it's simply that the vacuum has >>dropped a little in energy, and that energy has been converted to heat. In >>the Casimir effect, e.g., vacuum plus plates far apart is a higher energy >>state than vacuum plus plates close together. Therefore, the vacuum "decays" >>to a lower energy state, "emitting" IR photons in the process. Many make the >>mistake of thinking the vacuum has a fixed energy state; it doesn't. A nice >>article in Scientific American a few years ago on "Decay of the Vacuum" which >>discusses this. >> >>Hal Puthoff >> >> >> > > IMHO there are two potential, but major, > problems with this putative theory. > > 1. Noone here seems to be willing to calculate or state >the maximum value of ZPE available, but IMHO >it is incredibly tiny, if it exists at all. > ZPE, to the extent that it exists >appears to be only good for infintesimally small >[circa <10-12 to 10-30 Joules/cm3 by various estimates] >amounts of energy. > > These levels are much too low for what is observed with >cold fusion. John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, when first examining the possibility of vacuum energy, calculated that there is enough energy in the vacuum of a light bulb to boil all the seas. The problem is designing a mechanism to effectively extract this energy. The energy available is dependent upon the method used to extract it, be that polarization of the vacuum, the Casimir Effect, etc. I have proposed a couple of hopefully new and related potential mechanisms: s-u-b-orbital photon emission (up the .5 MeV per transaction) and atomic expansion. The atomic expansion method depends upon the amount of orbital deformation achievable per transaction, and the transaction repeat rate per volume achievable. It does appear the two goals, high repeat rate, and high confinement, oppose each other. Since the concept is new, maybe the place to start is to pick a design and caluclate the energy that should be available from it, and then measure it. Personally, I am still kicking this around in my head. Maybe one place to start might be the Kamada et al deuteron implantation experiment. The energy of the deuterons (200 - 400 KeV) is expended in heat and ionizing radiation upon contact with the target. However, the target melting which occurs is not commensurate with the total particle energy. One possible source of some energy is the fact that the hydrogen ended up compressed into bubbles under 7 GPa pressure. The D2 formed tunnel structures in the aluminum target. Where did the energy come from for this compression? I suggest it is from atomic expansion, as the kinetic energy was expended into heat prior to the orbital formation on the deuterons. The orbital formation on the ions generates an increase in volume on the order of 10^15 times for each ion. The ions did not have to be implanted into the Al using 200 KeV. They could have been adsorbed using electrolysis. So, the design question boils down to how big a pressure change (at what volume) can you get per unit of time per volume. The cost of the electrolysis energy is not material is it is all returned in heat and free H initially. The big problems are recovering the hydrogen from the matrix for repeating the cycle, and not damaging the matrix. Maybe this can be accomplished using back side recovery (just push it on through) and/or facilitated using proton conductors with internal barriers. Just some thoughts, no numbers yet. > > > 2. The Born-oppenheimer principle of the location of the >relatively heavy nuclei determining the wavefunction of the >electrons seems to be violated by this >hypothesis. Has anyone considered this? One may >check Slater or other solid state physics book regarding >the Born-oppenheimer principle. > > Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) Is this a misinterpretation of the principle? Unless all new orbitals form faster than the speed of light when one ion strips an electron from another, orbitals can be formed in a stressed configuration. The impinging ion nucleus can be "off center", i.e. the orbital will be deformed and energy will be stored in the deformation that can cause a rebound, and this does not happen at the expense of the impinging nucleus momentum. Consider that the inertial displacement of the nucleus can generate an electrostatic dipole moment in an atom just as a strong electrostatic field can. The deformation is there regarless of the coordinate system chosen to express it. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 12 04:04:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA18053; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 03:00:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 03:00:02 -0800 Message-Id: <199612121058.FAA24224@mail.enter.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Robert G. Flower" Organization: Applied Science Associates To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 06:24:18 -0500 Subject: Born-Oppenheimer Approximation not valid for CF ? Reply-to: chronos@enter.net CC: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"P6pLo.0.aP4.mM-ho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2694 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > >>Jay Olsen asked: > >>< >>something else? If so, by transforming zero point energy into heat > >>energy, are we theoretically lowering Plank's constant for the entire > >>universe?>> > >At 09:45 PM 12/9/96 -0500, HAL PUTHOFF wrote: > >>By "jiggle" I mean simply the quantum uncertainty in position, second to > >>second, which can be seen as incorporating accelerated motions in > >>response to ZPE buffeting and thus radiating in response. The conversion > >>from ZPE to heat does not lower Planck's constant; it's simply that the > >>vacuum has dropped a little in energy, and that energy has been converted > >>to heat. In the Casimir effect, e.g., vacuum plus plates far apart is a > >>higher energy state than vacuum plus plates close together. Therefore, > >>the vacuum "decays" to a lower energy state, "emitting" IR photons in the > >>process. Many make the mistake of thinking the vacuum has a fixed energy > >>state; it doesn't. A nice article in Scientific American a few years > >>ago on "Decay of the Vacuum" which discusses this. > >>Hal Puthoff > > From: Mitchell Swartz > > 2. The Born-oppenheimer principle of the location of the > >relatively heavy nuclei determining the wavefunction of the > >electrons seems to be violated by this > >hypothesis. Has anyone considered this? One may > >check Slater or other solid state physics book regarding > >the Born-oppenheimer principle. > > Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) RGF: I believe it is incorrect to elevate "Born-Oppenheimer" to the status of a Principle. In fact, it is an *approximation* which is known to be invalid in certain circumstances (eg, low-energy collisions, and shielded Coulomb force). See "Quantum Theory" by David Bohm, pp. 550 - 560. > From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) > Is this a misinterpretation of the principle? Unless all new orbitals form > faster than the speed of light when one ion strips an electron from > another, orbitals can be formed in a stressed configuration. The impinging > ion nucleus can be "off center", i.e. the orbital will be deformed and > energy will be stored in the deformation that can cause a rebound, and this > does not happen at the expense of the impinging nucleus momentum. Consider > that the inertial displacement of the nucleus can generate an electrostatic > dipole moment in an atom just as a strong electrostatic field can. The > deformation is there regarless of the coordinate system chosen to express > it. > Regards, RGF: What Horace Hefner describes here could be important in coaxing the ZPE interactions with matter into yielding up some useful energy. Prof. Giuliano Preparata discusses at length how Born-Oppenheimer approximation is violated in macroscopic quantum-coherent states such as liquid 4He, and the plasma of valence electrons in superconductors and (perhaps) other metals. Quote: "It is only when the oscillations of the nuclei cannot be completely followed by the charge compensating electrons that the nuclei start emitting and absorbing radiation of their own frequency. And if the interaction is 'strong enough' below a given temperature -- the critical temperature -- they [nuclei] will be able to access a coherent, collective state of lower energy." -- from "QED Coherence in Matter"; World Scientific Press; 1995; ISBN 981-02-2249-1. p. 109 Preparata's book is an excellent exposition of the theories of Super-radiance and the Coherent Ground State, which are helping guide the rather fruitful Italian experimental work on CF. Best regards, Bob Flower ======================================================= Robert G. Flower, Applied Science Associates Quality Control Engineering Instrumentation Systems - Technology Transfer ======================================================= From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 12 06:37:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA19246 for billb@eskimo.com; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 06:32:24 -0800 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 06:32:24 -0800 X-Envelope-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk Thu Dec 12 06:31:51 1996 Received: from mail.eskimo.com (root@mail.eskimo.com [204.122.16.4]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA19141 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 06:30:41 -0800 Received: from kemi.aau.dk (kemi.aau.dk [130.225.22.6]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA27184 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 06:30:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by kemi.aau.dk; id AA06792; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:30:00 +0100 Old-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:30:00 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Miles publication In-Reply-To: <961212134143_72240.1256_EHB82-3@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: On 12 Dec 1996, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Peter Gluck posted some comments from Dieter Britz about the Miles - Jones > controversy: > > Actually, Steve himself would not approve of the authors' being > prevented from rebutting; I would suggest that Miles tell him about it, > and if I were Steve, I would email the Editor and urge him to print the > rebuttal. I believe Steve would do that, too. I will, if I may, send the > attachments to your email to Steve and ask him to do what I reckon he > would anyway. I doubt he knows about this. > > That is completely incorrect. Miles found out the paper a few months before it > was due to be published. He wrote to the editor and to Jones repeatedly, > asking them to allow him to publish a rebuttal side-by-side, or a letter. They > both turned him down. After the paper was published, Miles wrote several times > again asking for a chance to respond in a letter or paper. Jones recommended > that he be turned down, as did the reviewers, for the reasons shown in the two > sample reviewer comments I posted here. Jones has been fully aware of the > controversy from the start. He tried to keep it a secret from Miles before it > was published. After Miles found out about it, Jones successfully prevented > Miles from responding. This is serious enough for me to break into vortex, which I had decided to leave, some time ago. I don't think the above is correct; someone has forgotten the sequence of events. I emailed Steve Jones, and received the slightly unsatisfactory reply from him, telling me only how he remembers the affair: He sent a copy of their original MS (or maybe both MS'es, I am not certain now) to Miles, before submitting it/them to the journal. He got no reply until it had been accepted by the journal, and was ready to come out. Later, although he was aware of a rebuttal being considered, he never received a preprint of it. What I find unsatisfactory is that Steve didn't offer to approach the editor, El-Sayed, to urge him to publish the rebuttal. I have asked him again to do that, as I believe he is the best one to do it, and I believe him to be gentlemanly enough, from my experience. The CNF enthusiasts tend to vilify us skeptics, but we do not have horns just because we are skeptics. This is a scientific dispute, not a schoolyard wrestle, and one can keep the shirt on. If Miles can document the sequence of events as stated by Rothwell, he should do so; we have two opposing memories of what happened, and one of the two must be wrong. I do NOT believe that any respectable editor would allow the author of a polemic to have one word to say about the acceptance or otherwise of the rebuttal to the polemic. He might send a copy to the polemic author(s), for him/them to prepare a re-rebuttal (this can happen); but he wouldn't ask for advice on whether to publish or not, and would ignore such advice if given. It seems that El-Sayed did use referees to evaluate the rebuttal; I regard this as unusual, and unfair. I would pipe a rebuttal straight through, if I were the Editor. I might have to (temporarily) subscribe to this list again for the duration of this argument, so I will see all the to & fro about it; no need to mail me copies, thank you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | | http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~britz | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 12 10:51:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA18582; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:48:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:48:00 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:29:29 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Resent-Message-ID: <"Uf6fg2.0.3Y4.gYxho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2687 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Second try at this post: One possible way to measure excess energy creation is to use an experiment that I think was proposed by John Logajohn, or at least something similar. Simply enclose water and an electrolyte in a pressure vessel, with electrodes and electrode leads. Pt would be best for the elecrodes. It would be best to isolate the H2 and O2 generated. Inlcude a pressure guage and small volume of air or gas. Measure the V and I input, heat ouptut, and pressure, all vs time. Continue electrolysis to the pressure limits of the vessel. If the same, or nearly the same, molar volumes are produced per watt of input, regardless of pressure, the atomic expansion hypothesis is confirmed, and at least a lower bound is set for the energy density available. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 12 12:39:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA15902; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:39:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:39:32 -0800 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:46:37 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: Richard Thomas Murray cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fourth Miley Preprint Critique In-Reply-To: <32AE62F9.B94@rt66.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"SV1Zh2.0.Ou3.oQxho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2686 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Richard Murray wrote: [Lots snipped] > > However, 2 ppm NAA detection limit, applied to a 611 microgram bead, > translates to .0012 microgram detection limit, or 1.2 nanogram. This > would certainly justify much of Miley's three-digit decimal data, about > which I complained so much. But it seems that some of my objections to > data under the 2 ppm limit still apply, as in the values of O.1, 0.6, > 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.2 in Tables 4a and 4b. > The neutron Activation analysis must be questioned in an absolute sense if one allows isotopic abundances to be anything other than "natural". This technique is sensitive to specific nuclear isotopes and in particular to the cross section for thermal neutron capture. This can vary by up to 5 orders of magnitude between different isotopes. Under these circumstances an upper limit of 2 ppm must be viewed as just a rough guide on the senstivity level! > The "factor of 2" uncertainty in the SIMS data still seems too much to > allow any significant claims to be based on Miley's data, as reported so > far in tabular form. If one isotope is 10 and the other is 2, then that > seems to be a ratio of 5 to 1, but a factor of 2 uncertainty means that > the first might be 5 and the second might be 4, and that is a ratio of > only 1.25, or, if they are the only 2 isotopes, 44 % and 55%. Well, > Miley did not claim in his celebrated Table 3 in First Preprint any > differences greater than +97.20 %. The nature of SIMS is such that it is very hard to determine the absolute quantity of a specific element present in a sample. The number detected ions depends critically with the ease with which they be liberated from the specimine by an incident ion beam. Thus Miley's "factor of 2" is a nice conservative estimate with witch the absolute number of atoms of a specific chemical nature - the same atomic number - can be determined. However, SIMS should provide a very accurate measurement of the relative number of different isotopes with the same atomic number. Thus the factor of 2 should be applied globally to all isotpes with the same atomic number. I would expect that within an isotope chain the relative isotopic ratios could be extracted to within 1% - provided that there is no contamination from some hydride. > > Since the claim of isotopic shifts has to be treated as controversial by > the general community of scientists, the evidence has to be precise, or > it will naturally be rejected, even though others like Dash and Mizuno > are supplying colloborative evidence of great value. > I have not read the pre-prints however you have not demonstrated that that the evidence is not precise enough. Only that you don't understand how NAA and SIMS work. Martin Sevior > Rich Murray > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 12 13:07:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA31138; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 13:03:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 13:03:16 -0800 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:02:13 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: marett@mail.ican.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@ican.net (Douglas M. Marett) Subject: New Photo and Data on PAGD Resent-Message-ID: <"72RZP1.0.Sc7.IC7io"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2696 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Just in case anyone is interested, I have just posted a new article at my site called "The Vacuum Orgone (VACOR) Tubes". This article mainly deals with replicating Reich's work on plasma discharges. I have included in this article new photographs of glow discharge and pulsed abnormal glow discharges (PAGD) similar to those seen in the Correa reactor. This latter photo was taken just a few days ago during experiments to determine whether Reich's experimental conditions were sufficient to see PAGD, or whether a more elaborate pulse-generating system such as Correa's is necessary. The experiment I conducted was as follows: A plasma tube constructed according to Reich's specifications, using opposing 128cm2 aluminum plates and a central tungsten grid was used. The tube was open to the atmosphere and evacuated via an Edwards E2M5 pump. For this particlur tube, alzak aluminum was used since it sputters considerably less. The tube was evacuated and tested in an air atmosphere between 7 E-2 Torr and 3 E-1 Torr. H.V. D.C. was applied directly to the tube electrodes without any capacitors or resistors in the circuit initially, except for the 20uF regulating cap. on the output of the supply. Under these conditions, the tube exhibited a mixture of glow discharge and numerous, weak flashes resembling PAGD. The glow was violet, indicative of nitrogen. A parallel capacitance of about 1000uF was then put across the tube. On re-applying power, the tube continued to behave the same. However, if a load resistor (2.5K) was put between the power supply positive pole and the positive side of the capacitor/tube connection, then extemely large bursts occured across the tube at long intervals. To delimit this effect, the capacitance was lowered to 100uF, 30uF, and finally 3uF. The load resistance was also dropped from 2.5K to 800 ohms to 200 ohms to 50 ohms to zero. The effect of reducing the capacitance lowered the intensity of the pulses to a point, but they still remained quite strong at a few pulses per second. Lowering the load resistance also increased the number of pulses, but again only to a point. Once the PAGD had been initiated in the tube, eliminating both the load resistor and the parallel capacitor had no effect - the tube continued to pulse at several times per second. I concluded the following: 1.In this experiment, although a parallel capacitance was necessary to initiate PAGD, the tube still remained capable of PAGD without it. This confirms Paulo Correa's assertion that the tube is not operating as a relaxation oscillator. I suspect that the operation of the tube in the glow discharge regime followed by the PAGD regime may have outgassed the plates sufficiently to allow PAGD to occur spontaniously. 2. Although the load resistor had some effect on the PAGD frequency, PAGD occured continuously between 0 and 2.5K. At 550VDC operating voltage, the continuous current available is only 0.22mA. This is within the range of many types of power supplies, and is not a particularily low impedance. However, it is unlikely that PAGD operating at these current levels will generate free energy, since the Correa's have argued that the energy output =100 x I squared. Still, it should be possible to generate PAGD with a large number of different types of H.V. power supplies, not just those specifically of low impedance. The impedance should just effect the rate and intensity of the pulsation, depending on the tube geometry and plate outgassing conditions. If anyone has been following the PAGD discussions and does not know what a PAGD looks like, you can find the photo at my site at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2514 It is in the "VACOR" article as well as the "images" library. Doug Marett From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 12 13:46:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA25213; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:14:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:14:58 -0800 Message-ID: <32AF499A.796E@rt66.com> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:54:02 -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: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: Third Miley Critique] Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"2Kuru1.0.t96._xxho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2689 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Return-Path: Dennis@wazoo.com Received: from earth.wazoo.com (earth.wazoo.com [206.206.161.10]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA02599 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 14:47:13 -0700 (MST) Received: from default (dialup6.pm2.wazoo.com [206.206.161.77]) by earth.wazoo.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA16329 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 14:44:46 -0700 Message-Id: <199612112144.OAA16329@earth.wazoo.com> From: "Dennis Cravens" To: Subject: Re: Third Miley Critique Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 14:47:47 -0700 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 Your comments seem very harsh. You seem to thank that just because something is not published in a page limited article that it was not done. Wake up and find out before you jump to conclusions. There have been more than one sampling techniques uses and over 20 runs have been looked at at U oF I alone. Some sample are take a the top when looking for the geatest changes. Some sample (in some runs) as a verticle core. Some samples are taken in three samples top middle bottom to show that migration is not occuring. Some samples have been totally (ref. to metal part) digested in acid and looked at as a liquid volume. Again, instead of trying to stir up trouble and misleading people in thinking you know for sure things were not done realize the fault in your logic. Just because you do not know if something was done is not proof that it was not done and others not know enough to have done it. ---------- > From: Richard Thomas Murray > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; little@eden.com; 72240.1256@compuserve.com; claytor_t_n@lanl.gov; letters@csicop.org; editors@sciam.com; 76570.2270@compuserve.com; blue@pilot.msu.edu; kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp; mica@world.std.com; dennis@wazoo.com; barry@ucla.edu; bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu; puthoff@aol.com; ine@padrak.com; rgeorge@hooked.net; jonesse@plasma.byu.edu; britz@kemi.aau.dk; g-miley@uiuc.edu; design73@aol.com; wireless@rmii.com; mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov; jechampion@aol.com; jlogajan@skypoint.com; bockris@chemvx.tamu.edu; ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu; bhorst@loc100.tandem.com; art@imaginet.fr; jdunn@ctc.org; dash@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu; cc840@freenet.carleton.ca; ceti@onramp.net; science-now@aaas.org > Subject: Third Miley Critique > Date: Monday, December 09, 1996 11:16 PM > > Scott Little wrote on 12-09-96, referring to George Miley's paper, > "Nuclear Transmutations in Thin-Film Coatings Undergoing Electrolysis", > published in Infinite Energy, #9, and just published as well in Journal > of New Energy, Vol. 1, No. 3: > > "...it appears that he [Miley] did a total analysis of the beads after > electrolysis...Table 2 shows the NAA results which indicate that the > bead layers were only 62 % Ni afterwards..." > > However, as I described in my post of 12-07-96, Miley wrote: > > "SIMS, EDX, AES and NAA methods were employed to analyze the > microspheres before and after the run. Sampling was done by > disassembling the cell after a run and removing microspheres from the > top (cathode end) layer of the packed bed. (The 1000 microspyheres in > the bed result in roughly 3-5 layers total.) These microspheres were > selected for reasons of accessibility and the fact that thye higher > electric field in that region is expected to make this layer most > reactive." > > and, "NAA was carried out at the University of Illinois...Samples > consisted of 10 microspheres." > > Thus, each NAA analysis was conducted on a highly nonrandom set of 10 > out of 1000 beads. The beads were taken from the layer closest to the > Ti cathode, because, "the high electric field in that region is expected > to make this layer most reactive". > > It is not even a joke to suggest that these NAA values apply to the > whole set of 1000 beads. We can surely expect the beads closest to the > cathode to take on by electroplating any element metals that happen to > be put into solution from the lower layers of beads, including the > impurities in the volume of the plastic beads. > > Table 4a, "Key element mass balances from NAA on microspheres, > electrolyte and filter paper before and after a run", gives "after" data > only for the beads, not the filter paper or electrolyte. Almost > certainly, a single set of 10 "before" beads is being compared to a > single set of different 10 "after" beads. > > Ni INCREASES from 1821.0 ppm to 4420.5 ppm!!! > > The "before" values for V are 0.1 ppm and for Co are 0.6 ppm, far below > the NAA detection level of 2 ppm. It is poor scientific practice to > list such values in a table without explicitly tagging them as below the > instrument's detection level. > > The actual data in Miley's paper does not support any reasonable > interpretation that either transmutations or isotopic shifts are > occuring. The data support the null hypothesis that very complex > electrochemistry is concentrating impurities onto the top (cathode) > layer of beads. > > Beads that receive the most deposits with probably look different, and > be more likely to be selected as "most reactive", to be analyzed. The > results are then claimed to represent the whole set of 1000 beads. > > No attempt is reported to analyze the impurity level after the run in > the electrolyte or filter paper, or to collect and analysis the product > gases. > > Rich Murray From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 12 13:46:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA25423; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:16:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:16:22 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:29:21 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Resent-Message-ID: <"e-OOx.0.8D6.Izxho"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2690 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Second try at this one: >At 09:45 PM 12/9/96 -0500, HAL PUTHOFF wrote: >> >>Jay Olsen asked: >> >><>something else? If so, by transforming zero point energy into heat >>energy, are we theoretically lowering Plank's constant for the entire >>universe?>> >> >>By "jiggle" I mean simply the quantum uncertainty in position, second to >>second, which can be seen as incorporating accelerated motions in response to >>ZPE buffeting and thus radiating in response. The conversion from ZPE to >>heat does not lower Planck's constant; it's simply that the vacuum has >>dropped a little in energy, and that energy has been converted to heat. In >>the Casimir effect, e.g., vacuum plus plates far apart is a higher energy >>state than vacuum plus plates close together. Therefore, the vacuum "decays" >>to a lower energy state, "emitting" IR photons in the process. Many make the >>mistake of thinking the vacuum has a fixed energy state; it doesn't. A nice >>article in Scientific American a few years ago on "Decay of the Vacuum" which >>discusses this. >> >>Hal Puthoff >> >> >> > > IMHO there are two potential, but major, > problems with this putative theory. > > 1. Noone here seems to be willing to calculate or state >the maximum value of ZPE available, but IMHO >it is incredibly tiny, if it exists at all. > ZPE, to the extent that it exists >appears to be only good for infintesimally small >[circa <10-12 to 10-30 Joules/cm3 by various estimates] >amounts of energy. > > These levels are much too low for what is observed with >cold fusion. John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, when first examining the possibility of vacuum energy, calculated that there is enough energy in the vacuum of a light bulb to boil all the seas. The problem is designing a mechanism to effectively extract this energy. The energy available is dependent upon the method used to extract it, be that polarization of the vacuum, the Casimir Effect, etc. I have proposed a couple of hopefully new and related potential mechanisms: sub-orbital photon emission (up the .5 MeV per transaction) and atomic expansion. The atomic expansion method depends upon the amount of orbital deformation achievable per transaction, and the transaction repeat rate per volume achievable. It does appear the two goals, high repeat rate, and high confinement, oppose each other. Since the concept is new, maybe the place to start is to pick a design and caluclate the energy that should be available from it, and then measure it. Personally, I am still kicking this around in my head. Maybe one place to start might be the Kamada et al deuteron implantation experiment. The energy of the deuterons (200 - 400 KeV) is expended in heat and ionizing radiation upon contact with the target. However, the target melting which occurs is not commensurate with the total particle energy. One possible source of some energy is the fact that the hydrogen ended up compressed into bubbles under 7 GPa pressure. The D2 formed tunnel structures in the aluminum target. Where did the energy come from for this compression? I suggest it is from atomic expansion, as the kinetic energy was expended into heat prior to the orbital formation on the deuterons. The orbital formation on the ions generates an increase in volume on the order of 10^15 times for each ion. The ions did not have to be implanted into the Al using 200 KeV. They could have been adsorbed using electrolysis. So, the design question boils down to how big a pressure change (at what volume) can you get per unit of time per volume. The cost of the electrolysis energy is not material is it is all returned in heat and free H initially. The big problems are recovering the hydrogen from the matrix for repeating the cycle, and not damaging the matrix. Maybe this can be accomplished using back side recovery (just push it on through) and/or facilitated using proton conductors with internal barriers. Just some thoughts, no numbers yet. > > > 2. The Born-oppenheimer principle of the location of the >relatively heavy nuclei determining the wavefunction of the >electrons seems to be violated by this >hypothesis. Has anyone considered this? One may >check Slater or other solid state physics book regarding >the Born-oppenheimer principle. > > Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) Is this a misinterpretation of the principle? Unless all new orbitals form faster than the speed of light when one ion strips an electron from another, orbitals can be formed in a stressed configuration. The impinging ion nucleus can be "off center", i.e. the orbital will be deformed and energy will be stored in the deformation that can cause a rebound, and this does not happen at the expense of the impinging nucleus momentum. Consider that the inertial displacement of the nucleus can generate an electrostatic dipole moment in an atom just as a strong electrostatic field can. The deformation is there regarless of the coordinate system chosen to express it. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 12 14:29:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA07353; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 14:18:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 14:18:13 -0800 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 13:42:42 -0800 Message-Id: <199612122142.NAA01320@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Mystery Found in Relativity To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"dPtil1.0.po1.YI8io"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2697 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: December 12, 1996 Thursday I found this yesterday on sci.physics. I am not into Relativity but found the post interesting enough to repost here for consideration. Any comments? -AK- >In article <850024059.31056@dejanews.com> crebigsol wrote: >Relativity states that the quotient of the circumference of a >circle divided by the diameter can be measured as greater than pi >(3.14159265…), if the measurement is done with rigid moving-rods >along the circumference of the circle. But, where is the >mathematical proof? > It seems that the only mathematical support for this statement >found in relativity is in the following quotation: > "This is readily understood if we envisage the whole process of >measuring from the ‘stationary’ system K, and take into >consideration that the measuring-rod applied to the periphery >undergoes a Lorentzian contraction, while the one applied along >the radius does not." This quotation appears in the article >titled "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity", by >Mr. A. Einstein, published in 1916. > > This quotation, if mathematically sound, however, should lead us >to arrive at the exact opposite conclusion: The quotient we seek >with the same process of measuring should be smaller than pi, and >even approach zero if the measuring-rod escalates its speed. > Is there any way to reconcile the contradiction between >Einstein’s larger-than-pi statement and his subsequent >mathematical support? Please help! The actual contradiction is in Einstein's internally self-contradictory relativistic "logic". 1. He holds the size of the spinning disk physically constant - except as measured by a differently moving system. {This was in accord with Minkowski:1908.} 2. He then lets a unit rod, at rest on the perimeter of the disk, PHYSICALLY contract as a function of its own instantaneously inertial velocity. {This contradicts the relativistic mantra that "it's only as viewed by a differently moving observer". 3. He then lays this contracted unit rod end over end around the perimeter of the unshrunken disk to measure its circumference. {Obviously, as determined by the shrunken unit-rods the value of the circumference of the unshrunken disk will be greater than it actually is.} 4. He then divides this spurious value by the constant radius of the disk - as measured by the no-longer inertially moving rod - to find that the ratio is greater than pi. From THAT, modern physics decided that empty space is "non-euclidean". {Since empty space has NO metric, it is neither euclidean nor non-euclidean in the first place. But that's beside the present point.} Glird http://members.gnn.com/glird/reality.htm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 12 23:22:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA03142; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 23:09:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 23:09:31 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 22:00:12 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Out of commision Resent-Message-ID: <"7p8gz.0.fV.k2Gio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2702 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: This is to apologize for any duplicate messages that might come from me through vortex and to note that I am sometimes not getting anything back and sometimes getting things delayed a day. I haven't seen anything from vortex since this morning. It is now about 10:00 PM AST 12/12/96 (2 AM EST 12/13/96.) Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 12 23:53:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA04574; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 23:15:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 23:15:21 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 10:56:20 -0500 Message-ID: <961212105619_1786816987@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: passport Resent-Message-ID: <"cgENs3.0.O71.8AGio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2703 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I applied for my passport today. It was a pain because they would not accept the pictures I had. I had to get special 2" by 2" picutres taken. As soon as Peter gives the word I'll be ready to go. I believe that upon my return I will have some very good news to report. If I find that the Yusmar works as claimed I will be able to get the support I need to build a business here in the US. That's why I'm going. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 01:39:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA10228; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 23:47:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 23:47:52 -0800 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 08:09:22 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Forwarded mail.... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"zru0s2.0.gV2.beGio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2704 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:52:33 -0900 (YST) From: "Valerij S. Gurin" To: billb@eskimo.com From: postmaster@phchinst.belpak.minsk.by (Ben Filimonov) To: billb@eskimo.com (Bill Beaty) Subject: Total failure Dear Mr. Beaty: Earlier I wrote: >>Our University E-mail and Internet linking are terminated temporarily, however, I'm not aware of a date of switching on. So, I'm forced to be absent from Vortex for some time. I'm using an E-mail address of colleague to express my thank to you and Vortexans for interesting discussion and useful information in Vortex and to wish every success to you and you all.<< According to Russian NTV (Independent TV Channel), ALL Belarus Universities and Academy of Science Institutes are disconnected from Internet. It does't look like a sequel of unpayment, rather like a voluntaristic action of our state management. However, the latter is uncertain. Sincerely, Ben Filimonov 14 Leningrad Street Chemical Department Belarus State University Minsk 220080 Belarus Phone (375)0172-207-681, Fax (375)0172-264-696. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 04:09:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA21087; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 03:51:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 03:51:38 -0800 From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: They prefer Vodka Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:51:27 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32b1e290.27641195@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199612110152.RAA26680@mx1.eskimo.com> In-Reply-To: <199612110152.RAA26680@mx1.eskimo.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"asqxq3.0.P95.8DKio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2706 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 10 Dec 96 18:52:09 MST, Ron McFee wrote: [snip] > How they are generating the electricity is a good question. The obvious > is to drive an electric generator with a steam turbine or engine. There > is some evidence that a moderate electric field is maintained by the vortex > action of the water. One may also be able to extract energy from this. > > Regards, Ron > > Ron, could you elaborate a little on this evidence? 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 Dec 13 07:22:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA28325; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 21:37:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 21:37:31 -0800 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 21:43:18 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612130343.VAA10102@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: New Yusmar...Peter Resent-Message-ID: <"RTxDk2.0.Ew6.OkEio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2698 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi Peter, Can you provide any information on how the new QHPS systems are generating electricity? - 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 Dec 13 07:43:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA11560; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 07:38:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 07:38:14 -0800 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:05:47 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <32b170d2.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: Re: New Yusmar...Peter Resent-Message-ID: <"ds4me2.0.Yq2.YXNio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2707 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 21:37:32 -0800, vortex-l@eskimo.com wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Can you provide any information on how the new QHPS systems are generating > electricity? > > > - Scott Little > EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 > 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) Scott, Have you studied with attention my translation of the QHPS leaflets sent by Gene to Vortex? You could see that they use water of max. 70 deg C and YUSMARs, that means that the most probable mechanism is charge separation. Other details belong to the realm of know-how. Have you consulted with the specialists of the Houston Vortex Center, ? They seem to know a lot about the vortexes , the real ones. 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 Home: 064-174976 E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , peterg@oc1.itim-cj.ro From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 02:40:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA27651; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 01:26:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 01:26:23 -0800 Date: 12 Dec 96 08:41:44 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: BlindCopyReceiver:; Subject: Miles publication Message-ID: <961212134143_72240.1256_EHB82-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"0JHQA3.0.gi6.84Iio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2705 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex; >INTERNET:peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro; Dieter Britz >INTERNET:britz@kemi.aau.dk Peter Gluck posted some comments from Dieter Britz about the Miles - Jones controversy: Actually, Steve himself would not approve of the authors' being prevented from rebutting; I would suggest that Miles tell him about it, and if I were Steve, I would email the Editor and urge him to print the rebuttal. I believe Steve would do that, too. I will, if I may, send the attachments to your email to Steve and ask him to do what I reckon he would anyway. I doubt he knows about this. That is completely incorrect. Miles found out the paper a few months before it was due to be published. He wrote to the editor and to Jones repeatedly, asking them to allow him to publish a rebuttal side-by-side, or a letter. They both turned him down. After the paper was published, Miles wrote several times again asking for a chance to respond in a letter or paper. Jones recommended that he be turned down, as did the reviewers, for the reasons shown in the two sample reviewer comments I posted here. Jones has been fully aware of the controversy from the start. He tried to keep it a secret from Miles before it was published. After Miles found out about it, Jones successfully prevented Miles from responding. I promised to leave this controversy alone. I am *not* editorializing or expressing my opinion here, I am only reporting what happened, in order to clear up Britz's misunderstanding. Miles has a paper trail documenting each step described above. He has kept me and several other people informed of this controversy at each step, from the time he first found out about the upcoming publication. For more information, please feel free to contact him directly. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 08:21:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA15334; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 08:13:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 08:13:00 -0800 Date: 13 Dec 96 09:36:11 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: passport Message-ID: <961213143610_76016.2701_JHC88-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"grI2l3.0.Ll3.72Oio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2708 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Frank Znidarsic said: >>I applied for my passport today. << Don't forget to contact the nearest embassy for the country you are visiting (Moldova?). You will likely need a visa to visit that country on business and the embassy can tell you the visa requirements. Most countries require a letter from your CEO stating the nature of your trip. Visa requirements can be a real PITA. You should also contact the nearest US embassy to determine if there are any re-entry requirements. Depending on the country, certain innocculations are required. Your travel agent should be able to advise you on all of the above. Good luck! We look forward to your report! Terry (former world traveler) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 11:33:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA06656; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:30:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:30:32 -0800 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:24:35 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612131924.NAA06255@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: CETI RIFEX kit Resent-Message-ID: <"gB3dt3.0.wd1.LxQio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2710 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Vortexans: EarthTech now has a CETI Rifex kit. The agreement we signed with CETI prevents us from disclosing any proprietary information about the technology but it allows us to publish our results. We will be looking for new elements in/on the beads with x-ray fluorescence and, yes, we will analyze the entire bead bed (and everything else in the system). Despite CETI's statement that the Rifex kit is "not optimized" for heat production, we will also be looking for excess heat with our dual-method calorimeter. Stay tuned but be patient. Careful investigation requires time. We hope to be certain about some things within 2 months. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 11:41:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA07231; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:34:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:34:23 -0800 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:31:03 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612131931.NAA06877@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: passport Resent-Message-ID: <"AOAEq.0.vm1.y-Qio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2711 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:56 12/12/96 -0500, Frank wrote: >If I find that the Yusmar works as claimed..... What do you expect to find when you get over there, Frank? Have they indicated to you that there is a Yusmar/QHPS test stand where you can personally observe the device in operation and measure the input/output power ratios yourself? In view of the "non-starter" experiences that have surrounded the Yusmar to date, I would attempt to bug them by phone/FAX/email until you extract a promise that such a setup will be waiting for you when you get there...otherwise you might only get vodka drinking practice out of the trip. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 12:45:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA14189; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 12:31:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 12:31:22 -0800 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:34:35 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612131934.NAA07424@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: New Yusmar...Peter Resent-Message-ID: <"OC5sU2.0.YT3.MqRio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2712 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 17:05 12/13/96 GMT, Peter wrote: >...that means that the most probable mechanism >is charge separation. I can't envision any mechanism at work in a water vortex that would result in the kind of macroscopic charge separation required to produce usable electric power. Can you suggest a mechanism? >Have you consulted with the specialists of the Houston Vortex Center, >? They seem to know a lot about the vortexes , the >real ones. No, but I will do that right now and let you know what they say. Thanks. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 13:41:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA23496; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:35:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:35:04 -0800 Message-Id: <199612132040.MAA14350@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: RGeorge@hooked.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 12:40:41 +0000 Subject: NAA primer Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.30) Resent-Message-ID: <"llnpJ1.0.ik5.4mSio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2713 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: OK I'll join in here and try to touch on the NAA data. First what the NAA analyst does is assume that one knows the absolute concentration of species in a given sample of measured weight. Since the weights might be well known but the relative degree of contamination can't be well known using this method we have a problem. If I weigh out a Ni coated bead that is virgin I can assume there is not much gunk on the bead. Now a bead that is a cathode by definition and the same weight has gunk on it so the concentration of Ni is necessarily lower. Comparing the number of atoms of Ni on the two will show the Ni disappearing. Now just maybe this isn't the end of the story. If I have data on isotopes I might be able to determine isotope ratios on both samples. Since gunk moves around mostly in a chemical and hence isotopically neutral manner (save for chemical isotope effects which are small and rare,,, maybe) changes in isotope ratios might give use a clue of a trend. However expecting quantitative data on atoms moving around in a system where concentration isn't known is risky business. All this goes to show that this is difficult and expensive research and one needs to apply terrific tools and even better methods to solve the mystery. Armchair speculation isn't going to cut it. Sorry. Russ George Russ George From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 15:52:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA01581; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:15:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:15:36 -0800 Message-Id: <199612132200.OAA11827@mail.eskimo.com> Date: 13 Dec 1996 16:17 EST Sender: "Gene Batten" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: "Gene Batten" Subject: Superconductivity News Resent-Message-ID: <"OAnZ6.0.KO.IEUio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2714 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A few weeks ago, someone posted a reference to SUPERCONDUCTIVITY NEWS. I have been looking for it without success. Can someone please list an address and/or phone number of the publisher or editor? The posting was about Bill Fogal and his new transistor. Superconductivity News June 28, 1994, Volume 6, Number 43 ISSN 0897-2427 Thanks, Gene Batten mdleb@nortel.ca From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 16:04:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA03108; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:28:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:28:17 -0800 Message-Id: <199612132318.PAA02254@mx1.eskimo.com> From: Ron McFee Subject: I am just speculating To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 13 Dec 96 16:18:23 MST Cc: mcfee@lanl.gov In-Reply-To: <32b1e290.27641195@mail.netspace.net.au>; from "Robin van Spaandonk" at Dec 13, 96 11:51 am Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Resent-Message-ID: <"hyRRg.0.Nm.EQUio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2715 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > On Tue, 10 Dec 96 18:52:09 MST, Ron McFee wrote: > [snip] > > How they are generating the electricity is a good question. The obvious > > is to drive an electric generator with a steam turbine or engine. There > > is some evidence that a moderate electric field is maintained by the vortex > > action of the water. One may also be able to extract energy from this. > > > > Regards, Ron > > > > > Ron, could you elaborate a little on this evidence? > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > I am just guessing. Peter should have some first hand information. If I have some time, I will try and find some references on the electric field. Peter found some experimental articles when he was searching in our Reference Library last summer. Regards, Ron From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 18:47:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA16644; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:34:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:34:30 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:36:17 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Pinching H2 in Face Holes Resent-Message-ID: <"OYH2H1.0.p34.o8Xio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2716 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Earlier I wrote: "Some numbers regarding H2 molecules and the face centered cubic geometry of the Ni lattice: H atomic radius: .79 =C5 H covalent radius .32 =C5 H2 bond length .7414 =C5 Ni atomic radius 1.62 =C5 Ni covalent radius 1.15 =C5 Ni bond length 2.4916 =C5 =46rom this it is determined that the face hole will pass a sphere of radius 0.2885 =C5 and the tetrahedral space will accommodate a sphere of radius 0.6118 =C5. However, an H2 molecule can be placed across one axis of the tetrahedron with each atom partway through a face hole. In fact, the H2 atom could pass through the face holes with only an expansion of the bond length of 2*(.3200 -.2885) =3D .063 =C5. This is an increase in bond length= of about 2.5 percent. Less expansion is sufficient to fit the H2 into the tetrahedron. Note that it is also possible, when there is sufficient heat, to trap or form an H2 molecule in the face hole and that the three Ni atoms can act like two hammers and an anvil, or a three jawed anvil - popping the H2 atom apart, each atom then expanding in separate tetrahedral spaces." There are some details about this that warrent further examination. The following chart of FCC elements shows possible candidates for such a mechanism: Elem. Bond Covalent Atomic Face Hole Tetrahedral Length Radius Radius Radius Space Radius (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) Ge 2.4498 1.22 1.52 0.1944 0.5123 Pt 2.7460 1.30 1.83 0.2854 0.6417 Ni 2.4916 1.15 1.62 0.2885 0.6118 Cu 2.5560 1.17 1.57 0.3057 0.6373 Pd 2.7511 1.28 1.79 0.3083 0.6653 Au 2.8841 1.34 1.79 0.3251 0.6993 Ag 2.8894 1.34 1.75 0.3282 0.7031 Al 2.8630 1.25 1.82 0.4030 0.7744 Ce 3.6500 1.65 2.70 0.4573 0.9309 Yb 3.8800 1.74 2.40 0.5001 1.0035 Ca 3.9470 1.74 2.23 0.5388 1.0509 Pb 3.5003 1.47 1.81 0.5509 1.0051 Sr 4.3020 1.91 2.45 0.5738 1.1319 Since hydrogen has a covalent radius of 0.32 A, it appears superficially that Pd, Cu, Ni, and Pt are the only reasonable candidates for the suggested tri-anvil/piston mechanism. However, this table is only an approximation, and a detailed analysis of the crystal structure, utilizing the Schroedinger Equation, is required. It is especially noteworthy that Pt, Cu, and Au are relatively impervious to hydrogen adsorbtion at standard temperatures. The best candidates capable of both trapping the H2 in a face hole and also being capable of tri-anvil pressure on the bond appear to be Nu, Cu, and Pd, but again, detailed analysis is required. Also, the less pervious elements might become active at a high temperature, especially Pt and Cu. Note also that above Al the H atom, radius 0.79 =C5, appears to readily fit into the tetrahedral space without orbital deformation. Any comments, corrections, or suggestions? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 18:52:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA16968; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:35:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:35:46 -0800 Message-Id: <199612132334.PAA04329@helix.ucsd.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Bart Simon" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:36:42 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: CETI RIFEX kit Reply-to: bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"H8LNk.0.q84.-9Xio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2717 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Greetings, Scott Little wrote: > EarthTech now has a CETI Rifex kit. The agreement we signed with CETI > prevents us from disclosing any proprietary information about the technology > but it allows us to publish our results. We will be looking for new > elements in/on the beads with x-ray fluorescence and, yes, we will analyze > the entire bead bed (and everything else in the system). Despite CETI's > statement that the Rifex kit is "not optimized" for heat production, we will > also be looking for excess heat with our dual-method calorimeter. Scott, I presume you were at the workshop then - can you tell us a little, generally speaking, about what went on, how many people were there, and what the discussion was like? 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 Fri Dec 13 19:01:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA17764; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:40:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:40:01 -0800 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 12:09:21 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI RIFEX kit In-Reply-To: <199612131924.NAA06255@natashya.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"-hK4I2.0.NL4.-DXio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2718 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Scott Little wrote: > Vortexans: > > EarthTech now has a CETI Rifex kit. The agreement we signed with CETI > prevents us from disclosing any proprietary information about the technology > but it allows us to publish our results. We will be looking for new > elements in/on the beads with x-ray fluorescence and, yes, we will analyze > the entire bead bed (and everything else in the system). Despite CETI's > statement that the Rifex kit is "not optimized" for heat production, we will > also be looking for excess heat with our dual-method calorimeter. > > Stay tuned but be patient. Careful investigation requires time. We hope to > be certain about some things within 2 months. > That's great news Scott! I'm certainly very interested in any results you might get. If it doesn't break any confidentiallity clauses, can you answer some questions for me? 1. How many people turned up at the Dec 10 briefing? Was it close to 60? 2. After the meeting, was it clear that you had done something wrong in loading/setting up either the glass beads or the Kirk Shanahan beads? 3. Given what you were told at the meeting, do you think you'd be able to work with anyone to totally replicate the CETI system, including the beads? 4. Did you have any chance to assess the caliber of the people doing the RIFEX work? In general did they seem like the sort that would do good work and/or have lots of resources? Cheers Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 19:10:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA24086; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 19:02:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 19:02:53 -0800 Date: 13 Dec 96 15:46:40 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: CETI RIFEX kit Message-ID: <961213204640_100433.1541_BHG34-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"MEHGO3.0.8r5.-YXio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2720 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, > EarthTech now has a CETI Rifex kit. I am hugely unsurprised, but this is excellent news! > We will be looking for new elements in/on the beads with x-ray > fluorescence and, yes, we will analyze the entire bead bed (and > everything else in the system). Go for it, kid. And I'm sure you will consult with experts as you go. > Despite CETI's statement that the Rifex kit is "not optimized" for > heat production, we will also be looking for excess heat with our > dual-method calorimeter. And we all wish you the very best of luck. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 19:09:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA24300; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 19:03:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 19:03:14 -0800 Date: 13 Dec 96 15:46:38 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: passport Message-ID: <961213204638_100433.1541_BHG34-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"1eHfV2.0.Cu5.DZXio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2721 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Scott, > Have they indicated to you that there is a Yusmar/QHPS test stand > where you can personally observe the device in operation and > measure the input/output power ratios yourself? In view of the > "non-starter" experiences that have surrounded the Yusmar to date, > I would attempt to bug them by phone/FAX/email until you extract a > promise that such a setup will be waiting for you when you get > there...otherwise you might only get vodka drinking practice out > of the trip. Excellent points, and ones which I hope Frank will note. If I might add my own comment, being one of perhaps only two people from this list who have visited Potapov, I would strongly recommend that you get something worked out well in advance of travelling. Also beware of Tinsley's Sixth Law: Site visits weaken the critical faculties for the duration of those visits. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 19:10:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA24591; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 19:03:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 19:03:38 -0800 Date: 13 Dec 96 15:24:11 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Can't talk about it here Message-ID: <961213202410_72240.1256_EHB110-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"l1WbI.0.zy5.dZXio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2722 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A To: Vortex I have been having a little trouble posting messages lately, so I sent a message with the subject "Vortex hiccupped . . ." and that caused an even bigger problem. The computer told me: Subcription [sic] /unsubscription/info requests should always be sent to the -request address of a mailinglist . . . And bla, bla. Bill Beaty was kind enough to explain that this is probably because I used the word "Vortex" in the subject line. So, vortex is a verboten on vortex. (In the e-mail Subject line, that is.) Self-referential statements set off cybernetic psychosis. And the barber shaves all of the men in the village who do not shave themselves. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 19:57:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA11154; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 19:44:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 19:44:47 -0800 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 08:01:41 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Jed's message, forwarded by bill b Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"eVs5F.0.Eh2.o9Yio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2723 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 02:41:51 -0800 From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: BlindCopyReceiver: ; Subject: Vortex hiccups / Miles publication To: Vortex; Dieter Britz >INTERNET:britz@kemi.aau.dk Dieter, you wrote: I might have to (temporarily) subscribe to this list again for the duration of this argument, so I will see all the to & fro about it; no need to mail me copies, thank you. I didn't know you were unsubscribed. I think the argument is over. But if I have any more to say about it, I should probably e-mail directly to you as well as Vortex, because Vortex has been dropping and delaying my messages lately. No big deal, but why should you have to wait a week? If Miles can document the sequence of events as stated by Rothwell, he should do so; we have two opposing memories of what happened, and one of the two must be wrong. Memory has nothing to do with it. Miles has letters from all parties documenting every step. If you want copies, please write to him directly. He does not have e-mail. His phone numbers are 619-939-1652, fax: 619-939-1617. The address is: Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake, California 93555-6001. I do NOT believe that any respectable editor would allow the author of a polemic to have one word to say about the acceptance or otherwise of the rebuttal to the polemic. Oh come now. Nature, New Scientist, Scientific American and almost every other scientific journal and newspaper in the world has printed polemics attacking cold fusion for six years, and none has allowed any response. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 20:50:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA02070; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 20:41:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 20:41:57 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <199612140416.UAA25241@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="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 20:15:57 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Hefner's Geometry Resent-Message-ID: <"bNJt42.0.fU.90Zio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2725 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 05:36 PM 12/13/96 -0900, you wrote: >Earlier I wrote: > >"Some numbers regarding H2 molecules and the face centered cubic geometry >of the Ni lattice: > >H atomic radius: .79 =C5 >H covalent radius .32 =C5 >H2 bond length .7414 =C5 > >Ni atomic radius 1.62 =C5 >Ni covalent radius 1.15 =C5 >Ni bond length 2.4916 =C5 > I am delighted about what you are doing here. I ranted in several posts about thinking geometrically about the problems of matter and here you are, supplying the raw data. I just love it. Now what we need is an affordable software package to create 3-D plots. It just so happens that I can afford to buy a CAD or graphics software program in the next couple of weeks. I will have NT server running on a 64mb ram system and could drop it in. We are wiring our ap software to work directly through the internet as a semi-private WAN. And so the server will be up on internet, say in February. Now the question is, does anybody have a rave review on cad graphic software. Yeah, I know about the cadillac but I am not prepared to pump out 5 grand. What I am looking for is something under, please , $500 which can plot the above numbers, from the numbers into simple wireframes and points. I want to tell the computer, give me lines of certain length and make a triangle, square, circle, rectangle, pent, hex, etc. out of them. I do not want to horse around with make believe rulers and mice to compose the basic unit modules. I would be absolutely in love with a program which could turn the inverse square law into curved lines which gradually change color as the energy level shifts in magnitudes of order. I quess what I really want is not a graphics program at all, I want real genuine, 3-D geometry which does not require a bunch of phoney mouse movement to create basic polygons. Any ideas? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 20:50:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA01987; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 20:42:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 20:42:05 -0800 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 22:50:54 -0500 Message-ID: <961213225053_1007086697@emout20.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: How much power has ZPE? Resent-Message-ID: <"nAANf1.0.ES.s_Yio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2724 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hank Scudder asks: <> energy density per unit freq interval is h-bar X omega-cubed/2 X pi-squared X c-cubed (joules/m-cubed). Integrating over frequency DC to B (for B in hertz) gives energy density = 2 X h-bar X pi-squared X B^4/c-cubed. To convert to actual watts output in a device, you have to state the geometry and process. For example, in the Casimir effect one can calculate the Energy/unit area one can extract by letting plates come together from infinity spacing to a distnce R (and how long it takes gives power = energy/sec). So there are these complications in the calculations. I have calculated plates coming together (a bad example) and we're talking nanowatts (if you're lucky) for meter-sized plates, and you can't recycle it. (Mega-Casimir plates in outer space?) So need to go to plasmas, or whatever. For sample calculations see Forward's paper in Phys Rev B in 1984 on extracting electrical energy from the vacuum. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 20:55:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA03748; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 20:48:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 20:48:02 -0800 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 22:29:08 -0500 Message-ID: <961213222907_369552440@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Ans to Swartz Concern re ZPE energy density Resent-Message-ID: <"HcRYt.0.iu.75Zio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2726 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Swart says: <> ZPE energy density is textbook stuff. Formally, it's infinite (like many quantum calculations). The appropriate cutoff is Planck's frequency, so the infinity is reduced to 10^108 joules/cm-cubed, definitely enough to boil coffee. (Wheeler likes to say there's enough in the volume of a coffee cup to evaporate the world's oceans, more or less instantaneously. Feynman says the most conservative estimate still puts it at nuclear energy densities.) Now, given systems do not interact with the entire spectrum, so a given system will not tap the whole thing. For example, in the Casimir effect, in which conducting plates are pulled together, they quit conducting in the UV, so energy is extracted only up to that cutoff. Nonetheless, Casimir pinch effect in charged plasmas (in place of conducting plates) can be calculated to yield useful amounts, if the right stability, boundary conditions, etc. can be created. Casimir energies are not trivial. Get some Jo blocks (gauge blocks) that are polished to optical flatness and notice how you can't pull them apart, but must wring them apart in shear. A substantial part of that force is Casimir. Check out Bob Forward's paper in Phys Rev B in 1984 on "Extracting Electrical Energy from the Vacuum by the Cohesion of Charged Foliated Conductors" for sample energy calculations. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 22:48:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA00619; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 22:47:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 22:47:23 -0800 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 00:47:11 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612140647.AAA26640@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: CETI RIFEX kit Resent-Message-ID: <"20K9p.0.b9.vraio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2727 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:09 PM 12/14/96 +1100, Martin wrote: >1. How many people turned up at the Dec 10 briefing? Was it close to 60? There were only 3 kit recipients at the meeting! I wonder who started the "60" rumor? >2. After the meeting, was it clear that you had done something wrong in >loading/setting up either the glass beads or the Kirk Shanahan beads? No...but I did talk to one guy who had made his own Pd/Ni/Pd beads both with glass substrate and with plastic substrate and he said that the glass didn't make excess heat but the plastic ones did! >3. Given what you were told at the meeting, do you think you'd be able to >work with anyone to totally replicate the CETI system, including the beads? They did not instruct us on how to make the beads...only how to use them properly...and their protocol does not seem significantly different from that used in my own experiments. >4. Did you have any chance to assess the caliber of the people doing the >RIFEX work? In general did they seem like the sort that would do good work >and/or have lots of resources? Miley's group certainly has lots of resources. They are excited about this work and are sincerely trying to do quality work. I'd say that they are all intelligent, qualified physicists but they do not appear to have a great deal of experience with the sophisticated analytical techniques they have employed (NAA, SIMS, AES, EDX) and this could explain some of the inconsistencies in the data. However, that does not change the fact that something surprising is going on in the CETI beads during electrolysis. Everyone involved in the project sincerely hopes it turns out to really be nuclear reactions but I think that most everyone also believes that there is still a significant chance that all the observations will turn out to have a subtle but mundane explanation. Hopefully in about 6 months (some of the labs will not move as fast as we will) we will have some kind of a consensus on all this. - 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 Dec 13 23:20:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA03616; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 23:19:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 23:19:08 -0800 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 18:19:01 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI RIFEX kit In-Reply-To: <199612140647.AAA26640@natashya.eden.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Fehx-2.0.Nu.gJbio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2728 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, Scott Little wrote: > At 12:09 PM 12/14/96 +1100, Martin wrote: > > >1. How many people turned up at the Dec 10 briefing? Was it close to 60? > > There were only 3 kit recipients at the meeting! I wonder who started the > "60" rumor? > I would guess our friend Jim Redding counted all "expressions of interest" as sales... Martin From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 23:40:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA05573; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 23:39:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 23:39:04 -0800 From: hjscudde@pacbell.net Message-ID: <32B26977.46E9@pacbell.net> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 00:46:47 -0800 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: How much power has ZPE? References: <961213225053_1007086697@emout20.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"5pj902.0._M1.Mcbio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2729 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Puthoff@aol.com wrote: > > Hank Scudder asks: > > < P = K*B^3 > where P is power in watts, and B is the Low-Pass bandwidth in Hertz. ie: > from DC to some frequency B. >>> Thanks -Hank Scudder From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 13 19:08:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA23380; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 19:01:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 19:01:28 -0800 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:16:04 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612132116.PAA16673@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: mece1e3@jetson.uh.edu From: Scott Little Subject: charge separation in water vortex Resent-Message-ID: <"XjZ4W2.0.0Y5.xTXio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2719 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Dr. Zimin, I enjoyed reading about your work on the UH Vortex Technology web page and your personal page (http://www.ifdt.uh.edu/atl/people/valery.html) shows that you have a great deal of experience with vortices. It has been suggested that a liquid vortex can, under certain conditions, create large-scale charge separation within the liquid in the vortex such that a measureable voltage would develop, either across the radius of the vortex...i.e. the outside would become charged with respect to the center....or axially across the vortex. I would greatly appreciate any comments you can make on this phenomena. Is it possible? Have you ever observed such behavior? What mechanism within the vortex could cause such behavior? I appreciate your time in considering these questions. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 14 00:54:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA13161; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 00:40:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 00:40:33 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 23:42:35 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: RE: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS Improved Resent-Message-ID: <"2_88x.0.ZD3._Vcio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2730 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I submitted the subject document at 1:12 PM AST (5:12 EST) 12/13/96. It will be interresting to see how long it takes to show up, if ever. It is possible it is now too big to work its way through the system. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 14 01:37:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA18351; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 01:23:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 01:23:17 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 00:25:12 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: AEH updated - Part 1 Resent-Message-ID: <"CAb3L.0.fU4.38dio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2731 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS by Horace Heffner STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND ASSUMPTIONS The Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH) is the idea that atomic expansion (AE), the increase in the size of an ionized atom or molecule, like H+, which occurs when it takes on an orbital electron, can perform work on the surroundings of the ion, and that the amount of energy released can be greater than the initial ionization energy, provided the ion is in a sufficiently confined space when the expansion occurs. This is an idea that I think leads to various possible experiments and, if correct, may provide a basis for the design of over unity devices. If correct, the idea also explains various previously observed results. This hypothesis is another expression of the idea that the excess heat from cold fusion devices does not come from fusion, or transmutation, but from extraction of energy from the zero point energy (ZPE) sea. This is not to say that transmutation or conventional fusion does not occur in cold fusion experiments, only that the heat producing source of cold fusion (CF) devices is primarily ZPE. It is an assumption of this hypothesis that ZPE energy is what keeps atoms from collapsing and is part of the glue that holds atoms together without radiation. There have been various publications referencing ZPE, especially by Dr. H. E. Puthoff (Ref. 1 - 6.) Atoms, more particularly orbitals, though quantized in energy, can be deformed, both in shape and electron probability distribution. These deformations can occur as a result of external stress on the orbitals due to collisions or pressure, or because of electromagnetic fields. The deformations are capable of storing energy, converting kinetic energy into potential energy, and back. With the exception of the occasional resulting photon emissions, such collisions are perfectly elastic, which is why the gas laws and thermodynamics work so well. It is true that collision and pressure deformations of orbitals are also electromagnetic in origin, but differ in that the fields are highly localized and mostly cancel at a distance, and in the fact that the field distortions convert kinetic energy into potential energy at a high energy density. HOW MUCH ENERGY AND POWER IS AVAILABLE FROM ZPE? John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, when first examining the possibility of vacuum energy, calculated that there is enough energy in the vacuum of a light bulb to boil all the seas. The problem is designing a mechanism to effectively extract this energy. The energy available is dependent upon the method used to extract it, be that polarization of the vacuum, the Casimir Effect, etc. The atomic expansion method depends upon the amount of orbital deformation achievable per transaction, and the transaction repeat rate per volume achievable. It does appear the two goals, high repeat rate, and high confinement, typically oppose each other. The vacuum energy fills a vacuum. If there is not a cutoff frequency, that energy is infinite. Assuming a cutoff frequency of near the Plank frequency (wavelength) of about 10^-33 cm, the energy density is on the order of 10^94 g/cm^3. Multiply by c^2 and you get a lot of energy - which does not have to remain constant, but can replenish itself from the ZPE sea if tapped. The energy density rho(w) is characterized by H. E. Puthoff (Ref. 7) by: rho(w) dw = [w^2/pi^2*c^3]/[hw/2] dw = (hw^3) / (2*pi^2*c^3) dw joules/m^3 Rearranging we have: rho(w) dw = (h/(2*pi^2*c^3)) w^3 dw joules/m^3 rho(w) dw = K w^3 dw, where K = (h/(2*pi^2*c^3)) joules/m^3 Integrating over w=0 to w=B to get cumulative energy density f(B) to cutoff frequency B: f(B) = K/4 B^4 This indicates that the total energy density of the vacuum (though not constant if tapped) is proportional to the fourth power of the cutoff frequency being tapped. The big problem is figuring out how to tap the energy. If ZPE energy is tapped, conservation of energy is not violated, the second law is violated, as the replacement energy ultimately flows from elsewhere in the universe. Of interest is that most of the energy is in the top frequencies utilized. The bottom 98 percent of the frequency distribution contains (.98)^4 or 92 percent of the energy. The top two percent contains about 8 percent of the energy. This implies it is best to utilize the smallest possible wavelengths in a ZPE extracting mechanism, and therefore, most likely, the smallest possible structures. This leaves atomic structures as the most likely regime to get good results. Further evaluating f(B) for dimensionless frequency B (in Hz) we get: f(B) = [1.556 x 10^-61 joules/m^3] B^4 Now, considering radiation on an atomic scale, i.e. wavelength of 1 angstrom, or 10^-10 m, we get B ~ [3 x 10^17 Hz.] so: f(B) = [1.556 x 10^-61 joules/m^3] [3 x 10^17 Hz.]^4 f(B) = 1.26 x 10^9 joules/m^3 f(B) = 1260 joules/cm^3 If only the top 2 percent of the accessible ZPE frequency band is utilized, we get an energy density of about 1260/8 ~ 100 joules per cm^3. Now, to consider power tapping capabilities, and some pretty big guesses. Given the extreme ZPE energy density at high frequencies, it is reasonable to assume that the tapped energy, i.e. energy removed from the imaginary cm^3 can be replaced at nearly the speed of light, or about 10^-10 second to replenish the cm^3. Given a collection of atomic sized devices located in the cm^3, we could use the macro size of 1 cm instead of 1 angstrom as the distance from which the replenishing energy must come, even though the higher ZPE wavelengths within the angstrom dimension micro structure volume could resupply the volume initially, with the minor resulting deficit at all ZPE frequencies spreading like a wave throughout the universe. This conservative choice gives an event cycle rate maximum of 10^10 event cycles per second, each cycle taking at most some fraction of the 100 joules residing in the imaginary cm^3. If we can somehow extract 1/10,000 the ZPE energy in the cm^3, we would be able to extract 10^5 joules / cm^3 / sec., or 10,000 W/cm^3. If there are only 1 out of 10,000 sites active per cycle, and we could extract 1/10,000 the ZPE energy in each site per cycle, we would get 1 W/cm^3. However, since we are using such a small part of the ZPE spectrum, replenishment might be able to happen from the loaclity as fast as 10^-20 second per cell, so would not be a practical limitation in any sense. The potential energy release is unlimited from any reasonable standpoint. The real limitations are event density and event repetition rate, and these are strictly design parameters that depend upon the ingenuity of the designer and choice of medium. This is not to say that finding a method of extracting any net energy is easy. Though the ZPE sea abounds, it is very difficult to extract the energy from it. This is possibly the main value to the AE concept. If there is any truth to the idea that ZPE provides the support for orbitals, then ZPE does interact with our environment in a big way continuously. Massive energy exchanges occur in springs, sonic devices, etc., simply from orbital deformation. Enormous forces can be involved and enormous energies, even in the compression and expansion of relatively cold systems, like metal lattices. The intended method of extracting energy from the massive ZPE sea is to cause orbital expansion to occur in a confined space, thus creating extreme orbital deformation without supplying the deforming energy to the process. This is like manufacturing watch springs that are already wound. A PROPOSED MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING HEAT IN A METAL LATTICE 1) An ion, e.g. H+ or He++, is injected into a metal lattice. This can be accomplished via high energy ion acceleration or via electrolysis. 2) As the ion comes to a halt in the lattice, any kinetic energy initially imparted to the ion is given up to the lattice. 3) The ion takes up an electron from an adjacent atom or conduction band. If from an adjacent atom, that atom may momentarily shrink (or lose a bond and expand), but will quickly return to size by obtaining an electron from a conduction band. The net result is an electron from the locality is taken up by the ion. 4) An orbital is formed about the ion, increasing the size of the ion. 5) As the electron occupies the orbital, quantized EM energy (e.g. a photon), equivalent to the original ionization energy, is released - heating the local environment. 6) As the small ion and acquired electron(s) expands from nuclear dimensions to atomic dimensions, at some point force is applied in all directions to the lattice provided the interstitial sites do not accommodate the size of the de-ionized product. Further expansion of the de-ionized product to it's final size results in work being performed on the lattice. The energy thus produced has no antecedent. It is derived solely from the force that keeps atoms from collapsing. However, unlike a collision, no initial compressive kinetic energy was supplied. The energy is supplied from the ZPE sea. ENERGY DERIVED FROM ATOMIC EXPANSION IN LIQUID OR GAS PHASES Energy might be similarly obtained in a gas or liquid phase, though not with the efficiency of a metal lattice. A conducting liquid, like mercury, would behave similarly to the metal lattice, but the force resisting the AE would be almost entirely inertial, thus much smaller than the resisting force of a molecular bond. The force resisting the AE would still be exerted over a slightly sub-atomic distance, so the excess energy produced per atomic expansion would almost entirely be proportional to the AE resisting force. Similar arguments can be made for the collision of an ion with a non-ion in a gas. The main difference here is the lack of an electron source to bring the net charge to zero, and thus the cost of extracting the electron from the neutral atom to fill the ion's orbital. A negative balance in ionization potentials (e.g. H+ hits He) must be overcome using the kinetic energy of the collision. Similar arguments can also be made for gas/metal interfaces where low energy ions strike metal electrodes, but do not penetrate. Here again, the AE is only inertially confined, and results in the ion product being accelerated upon its rebound from the plate. EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING HEAT IN A GAS 1) Hydrogen is ionized to create H+ in a mixture of H2 and Rn (radon gas). This might be accomplished in an arc, a point or wire discharge, or via RF, x-ray, or other indirect excitement. 2) The H+ ion comes into contact with a Rn atom, stripping an electron from the Rn atom producing a H atom and Rn+ ion. In the event one of the other noble gasses is used in place of Rn, some of the H+ kinetic energy is required to strip the electron, and the post collision noble gas atom may still ultimately retain the electron even though a momentary H orbital forms during the collision. 3) An orbital is formed about the H+ ion, suddenly increasing the size of the ion. The expansion, fueled by ZPE, imparts "free" energy to the atoms in the form of potential, then kinetic, energy as the collision progresses. 4) As the electron occupies the H orbital, quantized EM energy (e.g. one or more photons), equivalent to the original ionization energy less the Rn ionizing energy, is released - heating the local environment. 5) The initial momentums and energies of the H and Rn nuclei gets applied to their shells, distorting them, and are returned to the environment via the normal elastic collision mechanism. 6) Eventually the Rn+ is reconstituted to Rn and a photon is released, gaining back the complete energy of ionization of the H atom initially. The net energy gained is the energy of expansion (AE energy) of the H+ orbital in close proximity to the Rn+ ion - thus imparting additional kinetic energy to both. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 14 01:38:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA18396; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 01:23:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 01:23:33 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 00:25:25 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: AEH updated - Part 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"Qr-W81.0.IV4.J8dio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2732 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: WHAT DOES THE AEH EXPLAIN? The AEH provides a possible explanation for the varied effectiveness of the alpha, beta, and gamma phases of CF loading. I suggest that in the initial loading phase the adsorbed hydrogen is, as suggested by others, alternately in H and H+ form, but primarily in H+ form. It is primarily ionically bound to the lattice, especially when in motion. An H atom almost fits inside a tetrahedral lattice cell, but not through the triangular portals between cells. In the beta phase, many of the cells are occupied by H molecules, and in such a state, diffusion between cells requires displacement of some H molecules, the diffusion paths tend to be blocked, and the continued diffusion requires the ionization of a path blocking H or its tunneling out of the way. Some degree of H confinement upon the reconversion from an H+ to H would occur, thus some small AE excess energy might be produced in beta phase. In the gamma phase, H loading would be to the point that additional loading would force the formation of H2 molecules in the tetrahedral sites and in the face holes. In looking at the geometry of the Ni lattice and H2 molecules, it appears such a formation is possible with only a deformation of the lattice of about 2 percent. This would, however, imply extreme confinement and local pressure, which would dramatically increase the work done by ZPE in supporting the H2 formation, or "expansion". Some numbers regarding H2 molecules and the face centered cubic geometry of the Ni lattice: H atomic radius: .79 =C5 H covalent radius .32 =C5 H2 bond length .7414 =C5 Ni atomic radius 1.62 =C5 Ni covalent radius 1.15 =C5 Ni bond length 2.4916 =C5 =46rom this it is determined that the face hole will pass a sphere of radius 0.2885 =C5 and the tetrahedral space will accommodate a sphere of radius 0.6118 =C5. However, an H2 molecule can be placed across one axis of the tetrahedron with each atom partway through a face hole. In fact, the H2 atom could pass through the face holes with only an expansion of the bond length of 2*(.3200 -.2885) =3D .063 =C5. This is an increase in bond length= of about 2.5 percent. Less expansion is sufficient to fit the H2 into the tetrahedron. Note that it is also possible, when there is sufficient heat, to trap or form an H2 molecule in the face hole and that the three Ni atoms can act like two hammers and an anvil, or a tri-jawed anvil - popping the H2 atom apart, each atom then expanding in separate tetrahedral spaces. Such an expansion is at least inertially constrained, thus AE energy could result. Note that each half of the H2 "dumbbell" resides in a different tetrahedral space. These spaces can act as pistons, i.e the vacuum will accumulate zero point energy. This energy may assist the cracking of the H2 by the anvil by exerting a Casimir force on the expanding H orbital surface. Further, when the orbitals of the expanding H and the boundary metal atoms make contact, a kind of orbital "blow through" may occur, creating free electrons that further heat the lattice. The H nucleus would be accelerated in the direction of the center of its tetrahedral site by the expanding H orbital. This momentum could carry the H nucleus on into the next tetrahedral site, thus ZPE may help facilitate the H diffusion. Sufficient energy might momentarily create an H "supermolecule," two H nuclei orbited by two electrons. Such events would increase the likelihood of fusion, if only a small amount. Maximizing the ZPE extraction via these means would mean loading the lattice at a (or eventually heating it to a) temperature near the melting point of the Ni in order to permit maximum occupation of the triangular face holes by H2 atoms. Similar arguments apply to the Pd-D system. The following chart of FCC elements shows possible candidates for such a mechanism: Elem. Bond Covalent Atomic Face Hole Tetrahedral Length Radius Radius Radius Space Radius (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) Ge 2.4498 1.22 1.52 0.1944 0.5123 Pt 2.7460 1.30 1.83 0.2854 0.6417 Ni 2.4916 1.15 1.62 0.2885 0.6118 Cu 2.5560 1.17 1.57 0.3057 0.6373 Pd 2.7511 1.28 1.79 0.3083 0.6653 Au 2.8841 1.34 1.79 0.3251 0.6993 Ag 2.8894 1.34 1.75 0.3282 0.7031 Al 2.8630 1.25 1.82 0.4030 0.7744 Ce 3.6500 1.65 2.70 0.4573 0.9309 Yb 3.8800 1.74 2.40 0.5001 1.0035 Ca 3.9470 1.74 2.23 0.5388 1.0509 Pb 3.5003 1.47 1.81 0.5509 1.0051 Sr 4.3020 1.91 2.45 0.5738 1.1319 Since hydrogen has a covalent radius of 0.32 A, it appears superficially that Pd, Cu, Ni, and Pt are the only reasonable candidates for the suggested anvil/piston mechanism. However, this table is only an approximation, and a detailed analysis of the crystal structure, utilizing the Schroedinger Equation, is required. It is especially noteworthy that Pt, Cu, and Au are relatively impervious to hydrogen adsorbtion at standard temperatures. The best candidates capable of both trapping the H2 in a face hole and also being capable of anvil pressure on the bond appear to be Nu, Cu, and Pd, but again, detailed analysis is required. Also, the less pervious elements might become active at a high temperature, especially Pt and Cu. Note also that above Al in the table, the H atom, having a radius of 0.79 =C5, appears to readily fit into the tetrahedral space without orbital deformation. This would greatly diminish the free energy generating potential. The AEH model also may explain why various discharge tubes, especially those containing H2 or He, appear to produce excess energy. The ions are injected into the metal lattice where they are confined prior to atomic expansion. A repetitive ion oscillation may produce a kind of synchronized shock wave in the metal surface causing it to rebound and add energy to the impinging and reflecting particles at the surface. The source of the AE energy may be primarily in the electrodes, especially cathodes, but to some degree may occur in the gas as well, or at the electrode surface due to AE surface effect expansion. The AEH may also explain the mechanism by which cavitation devices produce excess heat - namely that some of the H2O is ionized in the cavitation bubbles and the collapsing bubble results in the ions being injected into the the high pressure water wall where the ions reconstitute and expand, undergo AE, adding pressure, thus kinetic energy, to the collapsing pressure wall. The AEH may also explain the over unity performance of an arc in producing water gas in that collision of H+ with C, or CO or CO2 could potentially create AE energy. Here are some ionization potentials of interest: H 13.598 C 11.260 CO 14.014 CO2 13.773 Note that no kinetic energy is required to trigger the AE reaction between H+ and C and that little is required for CO or CO2. Note that the AE reaction might possibly push the chemical equilibrium in the arc toward the production of CO by supplying the excess energy required to split the second O from the CO2. Two things are bothersome about this concept though. One is that if the AE effect exists it should have been observed in chemistry long ago. Another is that, unlike the case where H+ and a noble gas are used, a bond can form between the H and the reactant, so the kinetic energy would end up in molecular vibration, or in reducing the probability of such a bond. The main difficulty, though, is that the shared orbital, the bond, creates an attractive force instead of a repulsive force. AE excess energy is based upon repulsion, not attraction. Perhaps one difficulty answers the other. In any event, He++ would make a more logical AE generator than H+ in this application. The He would act as an energy booster, and thereby as a kind of catalyst, in cracking the H2O and CO2 bonds. Such a process may work best at very low voltages and high frequencies, especially in a manner similar to that suggested by Puharich (Ref. 8) for cracking water. His method adapted to a steam/CO2 environment, catalyzed by He, could assist in the production of water gas. Such a gas could be used, within a sealed glass envelope containing both discharges, to feed oscillations (due to operation in the negative resistance range) of a higher voltage arc or electric discharge, to produce electrical energy directly, without mechanical devices. SO WHAT ABOUT DESIGN CRITERIA? This model results in some concrete design suggestions: 1) Produce ions (especially H+ or H++) in as large a quantity and as efficiently as possible. 2) Accelerate or transport the ions into a confining and preferably conducting medium where they are deionized under pressure. 3) Utilize the increased pressure and heat in the confining medium. 4) Make the confining medium as gas recycling as possible, preferably extracting energy from the higher pressure and temperature post-AE gas before repeating the cycle. SOME APPLICATION AND EXPERIMENTATION THOUGHTS 1) Mercury, though not as confining as a lattice, may make a good medium for ion injection as it would expel the gasses quickly. Mercury also conducts electricity well. Other metals could be used at higher temperatures; however, electron emission from hot cathodes would not be good as it would increase the power demand. The increased power would have to be utilized to result in more ionizations. The simplest possible test device may be a small sealed glass tube of H2 or He with a point anode at the top and mercury cathode at the bottom, activated with high frequency high voltage pulsed DC current. An improvement might be to use two anode electrodes, isolated from the cathode, with a lower voltage discharge between the anodes to do the ionization. 2) Hot anodes are fine as they will increase ionization and kinetic energy of the gas. An arc created by an isolation transformer may make a very good anode. 3) It may be possible to use water as a cathode. The atomic expansion may assist in boiling the water at the surface. The water could provide it's own H2 from the evolved steam which migrates to an arc anode. It might be good to use a helium atmosphere to get safe recombination. An electrolyte would, of course, increase the cathode conductivity. 4) Electrolysis (or arcs) under water may produce usable energy if done under extreme pressure. Simply use the evolved high pressure gas to move pistons. Additional process stages could be added for recombination and heat recovery. Some of the energy of compression, by the AEH model, would come from the ZPE sea. 5) As suggested earlier, a closed tube with an electrically excited mixture of H2 and a noble gas, especially radon, may produce some over unity results. 6) The process of producing water gas, i.e. burning carbon in an arc under water to produce CO and H2, may be improved by avoiding the use carbon rods altogether. This might be done by recycling the CO2 and H2O (as steam) into an arc and driving its equilibrium to a mixture of H2O, CO2, CO, and H2 in the arc. The AE energy would assist in driving the reaction in reverse in the arc and would be the energy derived from the recycling process. This process might be assisted by adding He to the atmosphere as the He has a much higher ionization potential (24.587 volts) than CO or CO2, and will not bond with it. REFERENCES 1. H. E. Puthoff, "Everything for Nothing," New. Sci., vol. 127, p. 52 (28 July 1990). 2. H. E. Puthoff, "Ground State of Hydrogen as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State," Phys. Rev. D, vol. 35, p. 3266 (1987). 3. D. C. Cole and H. E. Puthoff, "Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum," Phys. Rev. E, vol. 48, p. 1562 (1993). 4. H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum: Implications for Energy Research," Spec. in Sci. and Tech., vol. 13, p. 247 (1990). 5. Timothy Boyer, "The Classical Vacuum," Scientific American, p. 70, August 1985 6. Walter Greiner and Joseph Hamilton, "Is the Vacuum Really Empty?", American Scientist, March-April 1980, p. 154 7. H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum: Implications for Energy Research", Speculations in Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 247-257, 1990. 8. US Patent 4,394,230, "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SPLITTING WATER MOLECULES," Henry K. Puharich, Attorney, Agent, or Firm - Mandeville and Schweitzer Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 14 02:32:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA27212; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:34:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:34:44 -0800 Date: 13 Dec 96 12:27:13 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: passport Message-ID: <961213172713_100433.1541_BHG22-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"--trk1.0.6f6.17Qio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2709 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Terry, > Don't forget to contact the nearest embassy for the country you > are visiting (Moldova?). You will likely need a visa to visit > that country on business and the embassy can tell you the visa > requirements. As one who has travelled to Moldova, I know that they require a specific visa. In the US, I believe these are obtainable only from their embassy in Washington DC. Further and separate visas will be required for the the Russian Federation and quite possibly for (for example) Romania if the flight changes there. I believe that there are, however, direct flights to Kishinev from Germany, and the European-USA agreement waives the visa requirements for US citizens visiting the European Union. I would also suggest that if you were to travel via Bucharest it is preferable to take the Tarom air service (Antonov turboprop) to Kishinev rather than the train. Actually, it is VERY preferable.... I liked Kishinev, where the police dress up in Western Cowboy outfits (black), but bear in mind that the airport restaurant there closes for lunch. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 14 06:19:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA08046; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 06:05:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 06:05:28 -0800 From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 09:04:54 -0500 Message-ID: <961214090453_1652871134@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI RIFEX kit Resent-Message-ID: <"9C0AL1.0.ez1.dGhio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2733 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In a message dated 96-12-14 01:48:51 EST, Scott Little wrote << There were only 3 kit recipients at the meeting! I wonder who started the "60" rumor? >> Mea Culpa. I visited the CETI booth at the ANS meeting. Gene had told me that Reding had told him that 40 kits had been sold before the show, and Reding told me that "about 20" had been sold by the time I saw him, which was Tuesday noon. I added them together to report "about 60", assuming there might have been more in the afternoon. Could be that these numbers were serious inquiries, or applications taken, etc., and only 3 carried through. I find this quite disappointing, but 3 is much better than none, and I am happy that EarthTech is one of them. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 14 08:42:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA07738; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 08:28:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 08:28:03 -0800 From: alansch@zip.com.au (Alan Schneider) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Ans to Swartz Concern re ZPE energy density Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 18:04:42 GMT Message-ID: <32b5e940.55751511@mail.zip.com.au> References: <961213222907_369552440@emout06.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <961213222907_369552440@emout06.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/16.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"BZsVp3.0.mu1.HMjio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2734 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 22:29:08 -0500, Puthoff@aol.com wrote: [big snip of interesting "good-stuff"] _>can be created. Casimir energies are not trivial. Get some Jo blocks = (gauge _>blocks) that are polished to optical flatness and notice how you can't = pull _>them apart, but must wring them apart in shear. A substantial part of = that _>force is Casimir. =20 Do you have evidence to support this statement, Hal? I would have thought this was mostly a suction-cup sort of effect, the=20 force provided by air pressure (ie as you try to pull the blocks=20 apart you have a small volume containing no air so you have=20 14 psi pushing the blocks back together). To prove how much of the force is due to the Casimir effect wouldn't you have to=20 repeat the experiment in vacuo? BTW, I seem to have gotten the idea from somewhere that the Casimir effect occurs only between metallic plates. Does it work as well (or at all) for dielectrics?=20 After all, one can see the suction effect between sheets of plate=20 glass just as well as between flat metallic surfaces, particularly if there is moisture present. _>Check out Bob Forward's paper in Phys Rev B in 1984 on _>"Extracting Electrical Energy from the Vacuum by the Cohesion of = Charged _>Foliated Conductors" for sample energy calculations. =20 _> _>Hal Puthoff=20 _> _> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=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 Dec 14 09:46:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA26169; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 09:30:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 09:30:33 -0800 Message-Id: <199612141730.JAA26043@mx1.eskimo.com> From: Ron McFee Subject: I am just speculating To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 13 Dec 96 16:18:23 MST Cc: mcfee@lanl.gov In-Reply-To: <32b1e290.27641195@mail.netspace.net.au>; from "Robin van Spaandonk" at Dec 13, 96 11:51 am Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Resent-Message-ID: <"l7O9D2.0.YO6.nGkio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2735 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > > On Tue, 10 Dec 96 18:52:09 MST, Ron McFee wrote: > [snip] > > How they are generating the electricity is a good question. The obvious > > is to drive an electric generator with a steam turbine or engine. There > > is some evidence that a moderate electric field is maintained by the vortex > > action of the water. One may also be able to extract energy from this. > > > > Regards, Ron > > > > > Ron, could you elaborate a little on this evidence? > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > I am just guessing. Peter should have some first hand information. If I have some time, I will try and find some references on the electric field. Peter found some experimental articles when he was searching in our Reference Library last summer. Regards, Ron From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 14 11:14:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA23131 for billb@eskimo.com; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 11:13:52 -0800 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 11:13:52 -0800 X-Envelope-From: dominic@popmail.dircon.co.uk Sat Dec 14 11:12:53 1996 Received: from popmail.dircon.co.uk (popmail.dircon.co.uk [194.112.32.30]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA22935 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 11:12:47 -0800 Received: from gw4-139.pool.dircon.co.uk (gw4-139.pool.dircon.co.uk [194.112.36.139]) by popmail.dircon.co.uk (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA13461 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 19:12:18 GMT Old-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 19:12:18 GMT Message-Id: <199612141912.TAA13461@popmail.dircon.co.uk> X-Sender: dominic@popmail.dircon.co.uk 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: Dominic Murphy Subject: Re: CETI RIFEX kit X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Is anybody in the UK testing this kit? Perhaps I could drum up some interest. At 09:04 14/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated 96-12-14 01:48:51 EST, Scott Little wrote > ><< There were only 3 kit recipients at the meeting! I wonder who started the > "60" rumor? > >> > >Mea Culpa. > >I visited the CETI booth at the ANS meeting. Gene had told me that Reding had >told him that 40 kits had been sold before the show, and Reding told me that >"about 20" had been sold by the time I saw him, which was Tuesday noon. I >added them together to report "about 60", assuming there might have been more >in the afternoon. > >Could be that these numbers were serious inquiries, or applications taken, >etc., and only 3 carried through. I find this quite disappointing, but 3 is >much better than none, and I am happy that EarthTech is one of them. > >Mike Carrell > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 14 11:38:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA29364; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 11:34:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 11:34:23 -0800 Date: 14 Dec 96 14:31:59 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: A fine kettle of fish! Message-ID: <961214193158_72240.1256_EHB109-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"Q37aT3.0.XA7.o4mio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2738 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Well, well . . . so CETI only sold three kits, after they told us it was forty, or sixty. What a disgrace! Why did they try to get away with telling us such nonsense? The truth always gets out, and we always report it. I'll have to update my home page on Monday. I hope we have time to add this to the magazine before it goes to press. I think we will be able to squeeze this in. Gene says the magazine will probably be a few days late because he has a rotten case of the flu. People should send him a get-well-soon e-mail. It seems like a bad year for the flu. Everyone seems to be getting it except (touch wood) me, so far. I expect CETI did not sell many kits because of their sales contract. I am not free to discuss it in detail, but I saw it, and I thought it was outrageous. They are trying to grab too much market share, and trying to micro-manage their customer's R&D. If they would market the RIFEX cells properly, they could easily sell sixty, or six hundred, or six thousand for that matter. Such a shame. Such a waste. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 14 14:44:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA04055; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 14:43:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 14:43:15 -0800 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 16:42:58 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612142242.QAA29515@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: A fine kettle of fish! Cc: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"6oHsp1.0.H_.0soio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2739 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 02:31 PM 12/14/96 EST, Jed wrote: >To: Vortex > >Well, well . . . so CETI only sold three kits, after they told us it was >forty, or sixty. What a disgrace! Why did they try to get away with telling us >such nonsense? The truth always gets out..... Careful...all I said was that there were only 3 kit recipients at the Dec 10th meeting. That is the truth...I was there. I don't know how many kits they've sold...I didn't get around to asking. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 14 16:09:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA22232; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 16:07:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 16:07:46 -0800 Message-Id: <199612150006.TAA03359@mail.enter.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Robert G. Flower" Organization: Applied Science Associates To: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner), vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 19:34:45 -0500 Subject: Re: AEH updated - Part 1 - COMMENTS Reply-to: chronos@enter.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"sXEc02.0.IR5.D5qio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2740 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 00:25:12 -0900 > From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) > Subject: AEH updated - Part 1 > > THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS > by Horace Heffner > STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND ASSUMPTIONS > > The Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH) is the idea that atomic expansion > (AE), the increase in the size of an ionized atom or molecule, like H+, > which occurs when it takes on an orbital electron, can perform work on the > surroundings of the ion, and that the amount of energy released can be > greater than the initial ionization energy, provided the ion is in a > sufficiently confined space when the expansion occurs. For discussion, call this AE Mechanism 1. > This hypothesis is another expression of the idea that the excess heat from > cold fusion devices does not come from fusion, or transmutation, but from > extraction of energy from the zero point energy (ZPE) sea. This goes beyond Mechanism 1, and brings in additional mechanisms, eg the strong (nuclear) force. > This is not to > say that transmutation or conventional fusion does not occur in cold fusion > experiments, only that the heat producing source of cold fusion (CF) > devices is primarily ZPE. Hard to believe! *IF* transmutation and/or fusion is really happening (as evidence from isotopic ash, IF CORRECT, suggests), then convenional nuclear theory predicts large amounts of energy liberated from re-arrangements within the nuclei -- eg as tabulated by Robin van Spandonk's handy program. The main argument against transmutation/fusion has been that "Coulombic repulsion" prevents nuclei from coming close enough together to exchange protons or neutrons. A more likely role for ZPE in CF would be to act as CATALYST -- ie, to shield or overcome the electrostatic repulsion. This is not to say that ZPE provides *no* energy input to CF, only that its contribution is small w/r/t energy liberated from nuclear reactions. ----------------------- > HOW MUCH ENERGY AND POWER IS AVAILABLE FROM ZPE? > John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, when first examining the possibility of > vacuum energy, calculated that there is enough energy in the vacuum of a > light bulb to boil all the seas. The problem is designing a mechanism to > effectively extract this energy. Part of the problem is to find a "sink" (state of lower energy) that can be coupled to the disordered EM vacuum. Casimir's Cavity is such a sink. The quantity of extractable ZPE is the energy difference between these two states. Since both energy and entropy (disorder) are factors here, this should be analogous to the thermodynamics of a heat pump. In any case, this would be *direct* ZPE extraction, not ZPE-catalyzed transmutation. > The vacuum energy fills a vacuum. If there is not a cutoff frequency, that > energy is infinite. Assuming a cutoff frequency of near the Plank > frequency (wavelength) of about 10^-33 cm, the energy density is on the > order of 10^94 g/cm^3. Multiply by c^2 and you get a lot of energy - which > does not have to remain constant, but can replenish itself from the ZPE sea > if tapped. > > The energy density rho(w) is characterized by H. E. Puthoff (Ref. 7) by: > rho(w) dw = [w^2/pi^2*c^3]/[hw/2] dw > = (hw^3) / (2*pi^2*c^3) dw joules/m^3 Your h should be h-bar = 1.0545 x 10^-34 Joule.sec h-bar = h / 2*PI > Rearranging we have: > rho(w) dw = (h/(2*pi^2*c^3)) w^3 dw joules/m^3 > rho(w) dw = K w^3 dw, where K = (h/(2*pi^2*c^3)) joules/m^3 ok > Integrating over w=0 to w=B to get cumulative energy density f(B) to cutoff > frequency B: > f(B) = K/4 B^4 ok > Further evaluating f(B) for dimensionless frequency B (in Hz) we get: > f(B) = [1.556 x 10^-61 joules/m^3] B^4 I get K = 1.9827 x 10^-61, not 1.556 x 10^-61 -- not a big difference considering the orders of magnitude involved. More comments to come later. Best regards, Bob Flower ======================================================= Robert G. Flower, Applied Science Associates Quality Control Engineering Instrumentation Systems - Technology Transfer ======================================================= From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 14 19:51:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA28383; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 19:49:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 19:49:36 -0800 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 11:48:07 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961215115329.217f1994@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: freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Mpower (by way of Mpower ) Subject: [Fwd: Create ball lightning w/ kitchen microwave oven?] Cc: Vortex Resent-Message-ID: <"eqwu1.0.Nx6.DLtio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2741 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A Anyone here done this yet ? rbarnett wrote: > > I was doing some research into ball lightning and came across an > interesting experiment. I found this piece of material from the Journal > of Geophysical Research (Vol. 99, No. D5, Pages 10679-81, May 20, 1994). > The article is entitled "Laboratory-produced ball lightning," by the > author Robert K. Golka Jr. > > Within the article he discusses methods of short-circuiting 60-cycle > currents across copper and aluminum electrodes under water. However, at > the top of the article is an 'Abstract' section, and he writes: > > "...Although I am hoping for some other types of ball lightning to emerge > such as strictly electrostatic-electromagnetic manifestations, I have been > unlucky in finding laboratory provable evidence. Cavity-formed plasmodes > can be made by putting a 2-inch burning candle in a home kitchen microwave > oven. The plasmodes float around for as long as the microwave energy is > present." > > I am wondering if anyone has tried this for themselves. I have not yet > had a chance to put a lit burning candle in a kitchen microwave oven and > turn on the power. Has anyone done this before... do actual plasmodes of > ball lightning float around within the inside of the oven? If so, does > anyone have an explanation to why this occurs? > > Thanks much, please respond via e-mail to my address. > > rbarnett@usc.edu > > P.S.> If you destroy your kitchen microwave oven by testing out this > experiment; I am not responsible for any damages. -- ********************************************************** * http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 ******** ********************************************************** From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 14 20:02:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA30872; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 20:00:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 20:00:18 -0800 From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: How much power has ZPE? Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 04:00:07 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32b208f8.12374422@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"YDTi61.0.CY7.GVtio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2742 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:20:19 -0800, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >energy. If ZPE energy is tapped, conservation of energy is not violated, >the second law is violated, as the replacment energy ultimately comes from >elsewhere in the universe. Strictly speaking, the second law isn't violated either in that case, as it applies to closed systems. In this case, the closed system is the entire universe. [snip] 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 Dec 14 20:03:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA30906; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 20:00:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 20:00:25 -0800 From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI RIFEX kit Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 04:00:11 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32b347f8.6933628@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <199612131924.NAA06255@natashya.eden.com> In-Reply-To: <199612131924.NAA06255@natashya.eden.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"nDr6p2.0.lY7.NVtio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2743 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:24:35 -0600 (CST), Scott Little wrote: >Vortexans: > >EarthTech now has a CETI Rifex kit. The agreement we signed with CETI >prevents us from disclosing any proprietary information about the technology >but it allows us to publish our results. We will be looking for new >elements in/on the beads with x-ray fluorescence and, yes, we will analyze >the entire bead bed (and everything else in the system). Despite CETI's >statement that the Rifex kit is "not optimized" for heat production, we will >also be looking for excess heat with our dual-method calorimeter. > >Stay tuned but be patient. Careful investigation requires time. We hope to >be certain about some things within 2 months. [snip] Scott could you perhaps post any non-proprietary info about the technology? 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 Dec 14 20:34:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA04507; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 20:30:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 20:30:52 -0800 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 22:30:33 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612150430.WAA14925@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: CETI RIFEX kit Resent-Message-ID: <"YB4-L2.0.F61.wxtio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2744 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 04:00 AM 12/15/96 GMT, Robin wrote: >Scott could you perhaps post any non-proprietary info about the technology? The agreement we signed requires us (reasonably) to submit publications on our Rifex kit work to CETI first so they can ensure that no proprietary or patentable information is being disclosed. Thus I can't just blab my head off (like I usually do). However, there's just not anything that stands out (to me) right now as significant. They recommend operating the cell in much the same way as I operated my own cell using the ersatz beads we made. So, it appears to boil down to the BEADS...and I am as anxious as you to find out what their beads really do! Scott From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 15 00:21:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA10413; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 00:20:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 00:20:18 -0800 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 00:20:06 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Create ball lightning w/ kitchen microwave oven?] In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19961215115329.217f1994@po.pacific.net.sg> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"5OL9d2.0.ZY2.0Jxio"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2745 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Mpower wrote: > Anyone here done this yet ? > Yep! Nada. The candle did nothing, just burned quietly. This in a microwave oven with no rotating table. I note in other ovens that sometimes the rotating table acts to move the object under test through RF maxima, which creates much larger effects. I didn't work with the candle for very long, so perhaps there is a trick to it which I lacked the patience to discover. I then tried forcing some arcs through carbon soot by making up some soot (glass beaker held in flame from burning turpentine). The papers by Corum suggest that BL is a sort of plasma/aerogel composite, made of carbon aerogel, so I was trying to add some carbon to a microwave arc directly, rather than depending on the candle flame. Two aluminum foil fragments were placed into gentle contact, with some soot placed on the contact, then exposed to RF. Arcs erupted, but no BL appeared, and the arc seemed to blow the soot away rather than encorporate it. A similar setup occurs naturally when frozen cubed carrots are cooked. The carrot pieces form short dipoles with high resistance from the small contact area between them. Microwave arcs appear, carbonized carrot globs are the result! No BL though. Different ovens have different wattage ratings. Maybe the oven I used (500W?) is too small. Also, I believe that modern ovens have some sort of nonlinear element in the magnetron which lowers the power when there is no load in the oven cavity. So, perhaps an older oven will create "hotspots" of much higher RF voltage when there is no large volume of food (water) present. And perhaps the candle makes a difference. A smoky, sooty candle might produce results, where a clean-burning one does not. Or perhaps the opposite, if it should turn out that *too much* carbon fouls up the physics. There is a well-known report from Japan where the output of a 2.5KW oven was routed through a waveguide made of metal mesh, and the experimenters were able to trigger plasma ball formation. These I think are simply electrodeless arc discharges, which I would expect to form at nodes in the waveguide, acting sort of like a resistive shorting-bar and plugging the waveguide while absorbing the oven output. I'd expect such a phenomena to instantly wink out when the RF was turned off. Maybe a similar phenomena can exist in the oven cavity rather than in a small waveguide having higher energy density. If so, this probably has little to do with BL or Corum carbon aerogel fireballs. More fun: see "Unwise Microwave Oven Experiments" page at: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/microexp.html .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 15 09:55:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA00746; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 09:53:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 09:53:49 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 08:53:51 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: How much power has ZPE? Resent-Message-ID: <"VGaWW3.0.aB.ii3jo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2746 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >Strictly speaking, the second law isn't violated either in that case, as it >applies to closed systems. In this case, the closed system is the entire >universe. >[snip] >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk I am in superficial agreement with this, but the issues here are too deep for me. Some of the issues are proof of a finite universe and proof of a finite ZPE sea. There is too much controversy over the big bang, much less the finiteness of the universe - which, even if the big bang theory is correct, may have sprung from a momentary disruption in the ZPE sea, which could be infinite. There is also the issue of gravity and ZPE which I want to avoid entirely. It is scary enough thinking we are nothing but the thinnest of scum floating on a mutidimensional sea of nuclear density that yet does not emit gravity in the normal sense. The Atomic Expansion Hypothesis is a really simple idea aimed at achieving device design priciples and a starting point for experimentation, quantification and a practical theory. The one thing that makes me think it is reasonable to propose is that it seems to tie together so many unrelated areas where (1) heat generation is not commensurate with radiation siugnatures and (2) experimental results vary possibly due to not fully understood design principles. Being a newly arrived uneducated amateur, I'll have to leave the fancy stuff to the academics. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 15 11:18:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA18844; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 11:13:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 11:13:10 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 09:19:17 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: AEH updated - Part 1 - COMMENTS Resent-Message-ID: <"bKDiG3.0._a4.ms4jo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2750 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 7:34 PM 12/14/96, Robert G. Flower wrote: [snip] >> >> The Atomic Expansion Hypothesis (AEH) is the idea that atomic expansion >> (AE), the increase in the size of an ionized atom or molecule, like H+, >> which occurs when it takes on an orbital electron, can perform work on the >> surroundings of the ion, and that the amount of energy released can be >> greater than the initial ionization energy, provided the ion is in a >> sufficiently confined space when the expansion occurs. > >For discussion, call this AE Mechanism 1. > > > >> This hypothesis is another expression of the idea that the excess heat from >> cold fusion devices does not come from fusion, or transmutation, but from >> extraction of energy from the zero point energy (ZPE) sea. > >This goes beyond Mechanism 1, and brings in additional mechanisms, eg >the strong (nuclear) force. >From my perspective, it does not. See below. > > >> This is not to >> say that transmutation or conventional fusion does not occur in cold fusion >> experiments, only that the heat producing source of cold fusion (CF) >> devices is primarily ZPE. > >Hard to believe! Hard for me to believe othewise! But this just indicates a difference of mindsets. This AEH is just a hypothesis, though, and not a statement of fact, and intentded to be a vehicle to get some new thought and this kind of dialog going, and maybe some experiments. Personally I am not even sure ZPE exists. However, if it does, and provides the energy equilibrium that keeps matter inflated, then the AEH may give some logical insigts to mechanisms to exploit. It may be of interest that ZPE is not even necessary to the hypothesis, but is only stated to give weight to the idea that an orbital might, in confined expansion, exert work on its boundaries that is non-conservtive of energy. Even energy is only a concept anyway. It is a computed value, not a specific thing. There may be a difference here like the difference between the balance sheets of a corporation and the real corporation. All that is there is not in the numbers. > >*IF* transmutation and/or fusion is really >happening (as evidence from isotopic ash, IF CORRECT, suggests), >then convenional nuclear theory predicts large amounts of energy >liberated from re-arrangements within the nuclei -- eg as tabulated >by Robin van Spandonk's handy program. There appears to be abundant evidence of fusion, but I don't see where there is any hard evidence that conventional fusion can account for even a small part of the observed energy in most CF experiments. The heavy transmutation experiments have not reached any convincing energy balances either, that I have seen. > >The main argument against transmutation/fusion has been that >"Coulombic repulsion" prevents nuclei from coming close enough >together to exchange protons or neutrons. > >A more likely role for ZPE in CF would be to act as CATALYST -- ie, >to shield or overcome the electrostatic repulsion. My personal feelings on this are very different. As I have stated in other posts I think that condensates, i.e. "quark soup" may form in the lattice due to low relative motion, and other factors. However, I think this *reduces* the probability of conventionally understood fusion or transmutation due to co-location in the larger waveform, and simply due to multiplying thinner probability densitites by thinner probability densities. I think this reduction in fusion probability, due to the very large waveform, is overcome when a high velocity (relative to the condensate) particle, e.g. a cosmic ray, impacts a co-centered condensate waveform. This mandates a waveform colapse at the common center because the deBroglie wavelengths are relative to the motion of the observer. Every particle has an infinity of exisitances, depending on the velocity of the observer, and this is excluding relativistic (near light speed) considerations. However, the interaction of more than 2 waveforms simultaneously, especially fast waveforms mixed with slow, and producing a product with the requirment for a single outcome, generates a waveform collapse, which is instantaneous. I think it is this instantaneous collapse that is responsible for the lack of unstable products, i.e radionucleotides. A kind of quantum calculation, an infinite other dimension lifetime of the products in zero time, reduces the quark soup to its final form. This kind of wavefunction collapse can not result in energy gain or loss. Therefore, all the transmutations observed or observable do not convince me one bit that they produced any excess energy at all. Only a careful accounting of the inputs and outputs, energy and matter, and measurement of nuclear reaction products commensurate with the energy generated would be convincing that the transmutations were the source of energy. Yes, prejudiced, but that's mindset for you. I have proposed other mechanisms by which ZPE may act as a catalyst for overcoming the Coulomb barrier and creating conventional transmutations, but the routes suggested appear to have only a small possibility. Maybe you or others have some ideas on ZPE catalysis? > >This is not to say that ZPE provides *no* energy input to CF, >only that its contribution is small w/r/t energy liberated from >nuclear reactions. Energy is force applied over a distance. Atomic distances are small but atomic density is high. Very large forces applied through atomic distances in a large percentage of atoms making up a volume will result in a very large energy density. The forces that can be exerted by atoms upon atoms, shell upon shell, is large, as large as we produce in any conventional mechanisms. This hypothesis gives a key to producing unlimited energy in very large densities, if it is true that atomic inflation can be achieved *without antecedent energy supplied* as hypothesised. The crux of the hypothesis is the question: "can an orbital form in a stressed configuration without absorbing the potential energy stored in the stress (less the original ionization energy) from the proximal environment." It certainly appears that Ni and Pd provide the environment required to make this happen: high rate of H2 diffusion and interstitial space slightly too small to contain an H atom. > > >----------------------- >> HOW MUCH ENERGY AND POWER IS AVAILABLE FROM ZPE? >> John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, when first examining the possibility of >> vacuum energy, calculated that there is enough energy in the vacuum of a >> light bulb to boil all the seas. The problem is designing a mechanism to >> effectively extract this energy. > >Part of the problem is to find a "sink" (state of lower energy) that >can be coupled to the disordered EM vacuum. Casimir's Cavity is such >a sink. The quantity of extractable ZPE is the energy difference >between these two states. > >Since both energy and entropy (disorder) are factors here, this >should be analogous to the thermodynamics of a heat pump. > >In any case, this would be *direct* ZPE extraction, not ZPE-catalyzed >transmutation. I do not propose ZPE catalyzed transmutation as a source of significant or even measurable amounts of energy in CF. I do propose that ZPE through AE can be utilized to provide a *chemical* boost, i.e to help crack H2O or CO2 bonds. One mechanism I suggested be tried is impacting He ions with H2O or CO2 atoms. The hope is that the extra kick from the atomic expansion of the He will help maintain the heat of the plasma while imparting extra (free ZPE) kinetic energy to the molecule to help crack it and secondarily impacted particles. [snip] > >Best regards, >Bob Flower Comments on the calculations later. Thanks for your help and comments. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 15 13:09:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA10083; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 13:08:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 13:08:06 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 16:07:25 -0500 Message-ID: <961215160724_874548562@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: zpe Resent-Message-ID: <"1Myam3.0.TT2.rY6jo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2751 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I put together a little different story on ZPE. As published in Infinite Energy vol 1, No 5 and 6 in my paper I have found the the total energy of the universe is zero. In brief the positive energy of the universe equals a negative gravitational potential. I also state the a symmetrical relationship exists between force and gravity. In a zero point system these forces can induce negative graviational potential and the positive energy that is produced is a byproduct of the gravitational potential. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 15 17:15:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA26891; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 17:12:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 17:12:32 -0800 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 02:15:12 +0100 Message-Id: <199612160115.CAA21913@mail.bbtt.com> X-Sender: harti@bbtt.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: New theory article about Flux-Gate generator available ! X-Mailer: Resent-Message-ID: <"HDic12.0.xZ6.-7Ajo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2752 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi, my friend Dieter Bauer has published now his brand new theory article about the flux-gate generator from Brown-Ecklin-Bedini. It shows, that this generator can be designed according to conventional theory of electrodynamics. It is proven in this article, that overunity efficiency is possible ! Please download all the article, which is in 3 parts at: http://www.overunity.de/theory.htm The access is non-anonymous, so you have to give us your email address, if you want to read the article. The password for the pages will be emailed automatically to you. Regards, Stefan. email: harti@harti.de From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 15 17:20:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA27937; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 17:17:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 17:17:16 -0800 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 02:19:46 +0100 Message-Id: <199612160119.CAA21925@mail.bbtt.com> X-Sender: harti@bbtt.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: Flux-Gate generator article also has pratical use ! Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com X-Mailer: Resent-Message-ID: <"r_zRs1.0.Oq6.PCAjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2753 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hi, the article my friend Dieter Bauer has published about his theory about the flux-gate generator from Brown-Ecklin-Bedini also has many diagramms and drawings in it, so it is not only theory , but also shows how to practically build such a device and OPTIMIZE it to get a real huge output ! I bet, that is one of the best latest works done so far on these magnetic flux-gate generators ! It really shows, that this generator can be designed so that overunity efficiency is possible ! Please download all the article, which is in 3 parts at: http://www.overunity.de/theory.htm The access is non-anonymous, so you have to give us your email address, if you want to read the article. The password for the pages will be emailed automatically to you, if you fill out the order form for the password ! Regards, Stefan. email: harti@harti.de From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 15 18:44:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA07589; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 10:23:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 10:23:15 -0800 Message-ID: <32B3CE94.7BBC@worldnet.att.net> Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 00:10:28 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (Macintosh; U; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Create ball lightning w/ kitchen microwave oven?] References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9NnGl1.0.Tl1.S64jo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2749 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: William Beaty wrote: > Yep! Nada. > > The candle did nothing, just burned quietly. This in a microwave oven > with no rotating table. Yup, same here. Then I remembered the carbon arc thing - has anybody else tried that yet BTW? My battery charger is trashed, or I'd run it again with pure materials. I tried a version of it with pencil leads broken up in a shallow dish of water. Nice water-gas jets burned off on top of some of the more vigorous sparks, but no plasmoids. Leads were already slightly magnetic before arcing, and so of course was the debris. Maybe charcoal? - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 15 20:49:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA01731; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 20:46:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 20:46:51 -0800 Message-ID: <32B4D446.66F6@interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 23:47:02 -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: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Create ball lightning w/ kitchen microwave oven?]] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------501D265B568F" Resent-Message-ID: <"xjMd53.0.uQ.vGDjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2754 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. --------------501D265B568F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Second shot to send this through: Frank Stenger --------------501D265B568F Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <32B41C54.7DB7@interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 10:42:12 -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: [Fwd: Create ball lightning w/ kitchen microwave oven?] References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit William Beaty wrote: > > And perhaps the candle makes a difference. A smoky, sooty candle might > produce results, where a clean-burning one does not. Or perhaps the > opposite, if it should turn out that *too much* carbon fouls up the > physics. > I agree, Bill - there is not much new about RF arcs in air. Aviation Week mentioned, back in the 70's I think, that the military was interested in generating "ball lightning" and projecting it as a weapon using high-power radar beams as a pusher. I don't think anything came of the idea. In kitchen microwaves, Frank Znidarsic and I had good results by: 1. Get a large, clear light bulb - burned out is fine - and set it in a glass in the oven. Turn on the power and watch the display!! The reduced (argon?) pressure in the bulbs and the sharp filiment supports lead to nice discharges. 2. Frank Z. drilled a small hole in the wall of a cheap oven and inserted a well-insulated wire through to about the center of the oven cavity. He then excited the wire with high voltage to cause a corona discharge - 20 to 50 Kv works good. Good RF arcs resulted, but all die when the oven is turned off. Hats off to all those dead kitchen microwaves, Frank Stenger --------------501D265B568F-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 02:54:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA01783; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 02:52:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 02:52:02 -0800 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:33:15 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Jed's message, forwarded by bill b In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"fh6LC3.0.SR.9dIjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2755 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, William Beaty wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 02:41:51 -0800 > From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> [...] > I didn't know you were unsubscribed. I think the argument is over. But if I > have any more to say about it, I should probably e-mail directly to you as > well as Vortex, because Vortex has been dropping and delaying my messages > lately. No big deal, but why should you have to wait a week? > > > If Miles can document the sequence of events as stated by Rothwell, he > should do so; we have two opposing memories of what happened, and one of > the two must be wrong. > > Memory has nothing to do with it. Miles has letters from all parties > documenting every step. If you want copies, please write to him directly. He > does not have e-mail. His phone numbers are 619-939-1652, fax: 619-939-1617. > The address is: Department of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center, > Weapons Division, China Lake, California 93555-6001. > > > I do NOT believe that any respectable editor would allow the author of a > polemic to have one word to say about the acceptance or otherwise of the > rebuttal to the polemic. > > Oh come now. Nature, New Scientist, Scientific American and almost every other > scientific journal and newspaper in the world has printed polemics attacking > cold fusion for six years, and none has allowed any response. This is far from "over". Rothwell, in an email to me, called Steve Jones a conniving liar, and I can't let that pass without comment. I have copies of some correspondence between Jones and El-Sayed, as well as to Miles. It confirms Jones' story. I am not even sure of what Miles' story is, but I intend to find out directly from the man; thank you for the fax number, Rothwell. I have emailed El-Sayed, asking him to publish Miles' rebuttal(s); so far, no reply, but then he is no doubt still asleep as I write this. As for scientific journals "never" printing rebuttals, Rothwell ought sometime to look at my bibliography. Nature printed Fleischmann et al's rebuttal of Petrasso's polemic, back in 1990. Fusion Technology has had several such bouts. The others are not scientific journals, but magazines; there is a difference. The procedure of El-Sayed's with Miles et al is more or less unheard of, hence my concern. I am 100% sure that El-Sayed would never have given Jones a say in his decision re the rebuttal; this is just not done. Last Friday, I posted to this list, giving the dates on which Jones wrote to El-Sayed and Miles; am I the only one not to have seen that posting here? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | | http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~britz | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 05:56:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA20144; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 05:53:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 05:53:19 -0800 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:53:21 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: The case of the missing Miles rebuttal In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"t8Y443.0.gw4.DHLjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2756 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Last Friday, I posted the following to the vortex-l list, but it seems to have been limboed; so I post it again: I have not been following this list for a while, but I will emerge into the light for a bit, until the Jones vs Miles thing is cleared up. Below, with permission from Steve Jones, I reproduce what he has sent me, and it documents his correspondence with both El-Sayed and Miles himself. There are those who believe (and have told me) that Jones is a conniving liar; I don't have that impression at all. I think that he tells it as it is. He has also agreed to ask El-Sayed, the Editor of J. Phys. Chem., to publish the Miles rebuttal(s?). I may fax the man myself, putting the case. I do think, no matter how much sense a rebuttal makes (and I know nothing about Miles', not having seen it), it should be piped straight through without refereeing; this is the norm, I believe. Just after the two Jones & al papers appeared, I emailed Steve because I was surp[rised not to see any rebuttal, which usually appears in the same issue. He told me then that he thought something was on the way. Contrary to what some people have said, he cannot possibly have had anything to do with such rebuttal's not being published; no editor would ask the polemic author to pass judgement on the rebuttal! Steve's answer to me also confirms that he expected a rebuttal. It seems that El-Sayed used referees and THEY turned it down; which I regard as a scandal, grossly unfair. Here is Steve Jones's mailing (I have cut off a few email protocol lines from the top, only): ============================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 10:27:28 MST/MDT From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu To: britz@kemi.aau.dk Message-Id: <009ACB9F.89E3FE60.10@physc1.byu.edu> Subject: RE: correspondance from April 1995 clarifies actual events Dieter: Here are the correspondances to Dr. El-Sayed and Dr. Miles that took place just a few weeks prior to publication of our paper in May 1995. The interested reader can glean facts and draw his own conclusions from this exchange. We understand that it is Dr. El-Sayed's policy to require peer-review of rebuttals, and that would have meant significant delay in publication of our paper which was already in page-proof stage. (See correspondance below.) Now, over 1.5 years later, we hear of Dr. Miles rebuttal -- but he has not transmitted this to us, as we did transmit our paper to him months before publication! Finally, I will write to Dr. El-Sayed as you suggest and urge him to publish the rebuttal of Dr. Miles, although it comes such a long time after the publication of our paper. I hope this clarifies this old matter. --Steven Jones, 12-12-96 April 19, 1995 Dr. El-Sayed Editor, Journal of Physical Chemistry Fax: 404 894 0294 Dear Dr. El-Sayed, This morning, you called with a query regarding our paper, "Examination of Claims of Miles et al. in Pons-Fleischmann-Type Cold Fusion Experiments." This paper has undergone peer review and has been accepted for publication. Indeed, we have already returned the page proofs with a few final corrections. A copy of this paper in essentially final form was given to Dr. Kendall B. Johnson in [January] 1995 during his visit to BYU. Dr. Johnson works for Dr. Miles, so that in giving the paper to Dr. Johnson it was our intention that it be given to Dr. Miles and his group at China Lake. We heard no response from anyone in the Miles group regarding this paper (until you called this morning). Much earlier, in 1993, Dr. Miles wrote: "I hereby challenge Professor Jones to take his allegations regarding my work to a refereed scientific journal." This challenge was published on the internet (sci.physics.fusion), so it was issued publicly. And I publicly accepted this challenge on the internet, so that Dr. Miles was fully aware that I was working on this paper. I also sent him a letter accepting his challenge. However, he did not at that time nor any time since (until you called this morning) express a desire to write a comment concurrent with this paper. Therefore for Dr. Miles to ask at this late date for us to delay publication so that he may draft a response when our paper has already been peer-reviewed, accepted, and proofed is totally unacceptable. His several papers have been available to the scientific community for some time, and we should have an opportunity to respond to his publications without further delay. Peer-review of his response may take months, and it is by no means certain that his comments will be accepted following peer- review. The only certain result of our delaying publication for such a long period would be delay, of this and the accompanying paper. This is not acceptable to us. Of course, Dr. Miles is free to write a response or comment in the normal process without delaying our publications. Sincerely, Steven E. Jones Lee D. Hansen April 26, 1995 Dr. Melvin H. Miles Fax: 619 939-1617 Dear Dr. Miles, Thank you for your reply. In it you admit that your colleague Dr. Johnson did in fact receive a copy of our paper (from me) on 3 January 1995 during his visit to BYU, and that he did transmit the paper to you. This was even earlier than I had recollected. "I did see this version of the paper," you stated. It is the feeling of Prof. Hansen and myself that this was sufficiently early for you to respond; you did not. The paper was essentially in final form at that time and we anticipated a response -- but this was not forthcoming. Furthermore, when you wrote to BYU President Rex Lee in June 1993, "I hereby challenge Professor Jones to take his allegations regarding my work to a refereed scientific journal," I accepted that challenge, so you knew at that time that this paper was forthcoming. That is nearly two years ago! You did not indicate that you wanted to have a co-submitted response at that time either. Finally, your papers to which we are responding have already been published and are already available to the scientific community. Thus, our paper is a response to this "first round" of publications. Our decision therefore is to not delay publication of our paper. You mention the desirability of a "response back-to-back in the same issue". But to us this would best be done in the second round of comments, since we are responding to papers which are already published. That is, should you write comments, then we should write a response back-to-back with yours in the second round of comments. That would be proper. In particular, we will be looking to see whether you are now using an x-ray spectrometer instead of dental x-ray film, a reliable energy-dispersive radiation detector instead of a Geiger counter, and so on. Best Wishes, Steven E. Jones Copy to: Journal of Physical Chemistry (Dr. M.A. El-Sayed) Fax: 404 894-0294 ONR (Dr. R.J. Nowak) Fax: 703 696 6887 April 28, 1995 Dr. M. A. El-Sayed Editor, Journal of Physical Chemistry Fax: 404 894 0294 Dear Dr. El-Sayed, In his letter to you dated 27 April 1995, with copies to me and Dr. R.J. Nowak, Dr. Mel Miles states: "I request that you overrule the decision by Professor Jones not to permit publication of my response back-to-back with his criticisms of my papers. Both authors (S.E. Jones and L.D. Hansen) are full professors at BYU, hence a short delay in their publication would have no serious imipact on their careers." This is not true. One of us is an associate professor at this time, and the review process has just commenced regarding possible advancement to full professor. This review should be complete in a few months. The publication of this paper (or lack thereof) could very well affect the career in question. I have spoken about this matter again with Dr. Hansen this morning. He pointed out, as we have written before, that we are responding to papers by Miles et al. which have already been published. And we did inform Dr. Miles of our paper some time ago, despite his protestations. Indeed, Dr. Miles challenged me to write this paper back in 1993, and I agreed in 1993 in writing -- a point which his latest letter totally ignores. The correct approach at this stage would be to allow us to publish without further delay. Of course, Dr. Miles is free to write a response or comment in the normal process without delaying our publications. However, we urge him not to make charges of 'misrepresentation' or of 'sheer nonsense' (as he did in his letter cited above) without thorough and correct substantiation. It is most unfortunate that Dr. Miles has chosen to introduce such vituperative polemic into this discussion. It is totally unacceptable to us to delay publication of this paper and its companion paper, both of which have been peer- reviewed and passed the final page-proof stage. Physics Department Chair Dorian Hatch concurs with our firm decision. Sincerely, Steven E. Jones  ============================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | | http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~britz | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 07:38:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA06067; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 10:18:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 10:18:51 -0800 Message-ID: <32B41C54.7DB7@interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 10:42:12 -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: [Fwd: Create ball lightning w/ kitchen microwave oven?] References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"yFZmQ.0.tB1.p04jo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2747 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: William Beaty wrote: > > And perhaps the candle makes a difference. A smoky, sooty candle might > produce results, where a clean-burning one does not. Or perhaps the > opposite, if it should turn out that *too much* carbon fouls up the > physics. > I agree, Bill - there is not much new about RF arcs in air. Aviation Week mentioned, back in the 70's I think, that the military was interested in generating "ball lightning" and projecting it as a weapon using high-power radar beams as a pusher. I don't think anything came of the idea. In kitchen microwaves, Frank Znidarsic and I had good results by: 1. Get a large, clear light bulb - burned out is fine - and set it in a glass in the oven. Turn on the power and watch the display!! The reduced (argon?) pressure in the bulbs and the sharp filiment supports lead to nice discharges. 2. Frank Z. drilled a small hole in the wall of a cheap oven and inserted a well-insulated wire through to about the center of the oven cavity. He then excited the wire with high voltage to cause a corona discharge - 20 to 50 Kv works good. Good RF arcs resulted, but all die when the oven is turned off. Hats off to all those dead kitchen microwaves, Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 08:36:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA15760; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 08:27:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 08:27:12 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:26:03 -0500 Message-ID: <961216112601_1653227812@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: micorwave ball Resent-Message-ID: <"udQDT.0.sr3.LXNjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2757 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Give me a few days and I will post a full motion animation of the plasma ball that I made in the micowave over using a pulsed 25 KV electrical needle point. If any of you do this experiment be sure to choke off the electrode with an entry capacitor otherwise the microwaves will leak out. Frank Stenger and Ialso made a 50 amp discharge in a microwave oven with a welding generator. We got flashing but no ball lightning. We also removed the microwave sturrer and blocked the air flow though the oven. The air flow tended to draw the plasma events out of the oven. Sorry to the say the oven is now dead. It was fun. There is a move out with clips of this stuff. http://home.earthlink.net/~plutofilms/th02000.html Frank Znidarsic Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 10:05:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA04667; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:46:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:46:20 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 08:46:09 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Some AEH calculations Resent-Message-ID: <"Mtivf.0.f81.bhOjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2758 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Using: 1 eV = 1.602177 x 10^-19 J 15.426 eV = Ionization Potential of H2 13.598 eV = Ionization Potential of H ------ 1.8377 eV = Ionization potential difference 0.32 A = covalent radius of H 0.79 A = radius of H 0.61 A = radius of largest sphere fitting into Ni tetrahedral space ----- 0.18 A = d, the radial expansion difference Now, lets assume that an H+ ion takes on an electron within a Ni tetrahedral space. The 13.598 eV energy used to iononize the H+ initially is now regained in the lattice. If a 13.598 eV photon is emitted upon formint the orbital, no energy is available for the orbital formation, i.e. any work performed on distorting the lattice has no antecedent. Let's for a minute assume that no photon is emitted when the electron takes on its orbital, that all the 13.598 eV energy is available to do work presssing outward on the tetrahedral boundaries as the atom "expands". The energy available for release in the expansion is (13.6 eV)(1.602177 x 10^-19 J/eV) = 2.18 x 10^-18 J The work W that is performed in all radial directions is determined by: W = 6 * Fav * d = 2.18 x 10^-18 J Where Fav is the average force exerted on one bond, and d is the radial expansion difference 0.18 A. The work is performed in 6 directions, so we must multiply Fav by 6 to compute the total work W. We now can estimate Fav by: Fav = (2.18 x 10^-18 J)/(6*(0.18 x 10^-10 m)) Fav = 2.02 x 10^-8 N It seems likely such expansions occuring regularly enough in a lattice to support diffusion would rapidly destroy the lattice. Therefore, some mechanism not involving H atoms must be available for achieving the H diffusion in Ni. Maybe one possibiliy may be in an H3+ radical formation, or H2Ni+ complex, which could have consequences for transmutation. Now a more interresting consideration. Suppose, as hypothesized for gamma stage loading, that most of the hydrogen in the lattice is in H2 form. Suppose that heat plus other conditions, like migrating H+ ions, electric current, or other stimulation, can supply the 15.426 eV energy required to ionize an H2 molecule pinned in a Ni face hole, and break the H2 bond. This creates the unusual condition that the H atoms are free to "expand" inside their own tetrahedral spaces. They can expand from 0.18 A diameter to 0.79 A diameter. The input energy was only 15.426 eV, yet the two atoms are each free to exert the 13.598 eV of work on the lattice by the expansion. This provides 1.88 x 10^18 J of free energy per split H2. It is a kind of backwards situation that H + H -> H2 + photon produces a volume reduction, and H2 + energy -> H + H plus a volume expansion that can do more work than the energy supplied if confined to a lattice. Of course the biggest volume gain available to do work is: H+ + e- -> H + photon which may possibly be able to produce both the photon and the expansion energy. Is this all just wishful thinking? If not, another paradigm is available for energy production. The principle is to load a metal lattice with H2 molecules and then supply ionization energy that can momentarily fracture the H2 bond. It seems to me that the logical method of getting the ionizing energy into the lattice is via x-rays. Some means would need to be found to reapair the lattice, however, like runing at a high temperature or doing an annealing cycle periodically. Thoughts? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 10:37:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA15964; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:28:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:28:25 -0800 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:26:10 -0800 Message-Id: <199612161826.KAA22624@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: CETI RIFEX kit To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"7vZ_93.0.Uu3.eIPjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2759 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: December 16, 1996 Monday Are the beads in the kits made up of styrene base or the ceramic as mentioned by Mallove in his report of the kit offering? Or is this proprietary information? -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 10:59:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA26024 for billb@eskimo.com; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:59:46 -0800 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:59:46 -0800 X-Envelope-From: BOCKRIS@chemvx.tamu.edu Mon Dec 16 10:59:26 1996 Received: from chmbp1.chem.tamu.edu (CHMBP1.CHEM.TAMU.EDU [165.91.176.9]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA25949 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:59:24 -0800 From: BOCKRIS@chemvx.tamu.edu Old-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:00:13 -0600 (CST) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, CldFusion@aol.com, design73@aol.com, blue@pilot.msu.edu, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu, dennis@wazoo.com, ceti@onramp.net, g-miley@uiuc.edu, ine@padrak.com Message-Id: <961216130013.22227707@chemvx.tamu.edu> Subject: Richard Murray critism of the Miley work. X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: December 12, 1996 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Murray FROM: John Bockris SUBJECT: Your Criticisms of the Work of the Miley Team at the University of Illinois (1) I read your criticisms and accept the general idea that open criticism of scientific work is part of the meat and essence of how scientific work progresses. However, I think your points would be easier to accept and weigh were they made in a more serious and scientific way and not mixed in with vitriolic asides and jokes. One gets the impression that you set out, emotionally, to trash the work and that's not helpful to those who want to find out what's happening. (2) Now it's no use looking at Miley's work without putting it into context. Thus, among facts claimed for low temperature nuclear reactions, the most well established is tritium production. Claytor has had 5 renewals of his work at Los Alamos a place where one presumes the referees know what they are doing. I think it is therefore reasonable to assert that the formation of tritium in the pressure of deuterium in the cold is an established fact. I stopped counting papers which reported tritium formation from deuterium in mid-1994, - I got up to 137 papers. I think this is very relevant to Miley. It seems to me that the tritium work proves that a nuclear reaction can occur in the cold. This, then, makes other nuclear changes less unlikely than before, now one case had been thoroughly proven. (3) Although this work of George Miley and his team is the most detailed and thorough examination of transmutation in the cold, there have been many forerunners. The Japanese, Notoya(got radioactivity, not present in the solution), Ohmni and Mizuno, have all (separately) produced very good work, done in a Nuclear Engineering Lab with plenty of the right kind of equipment applied . Among others who have reported the same kind of results as those of Miley et al. are Matsumoto, Bush and Eagleton, Karabut, Wolf (through Passal)1, Dash, George and Stringham. Your attack on Miley would imply these scientists and their teams are all wrong. (4) As to the possibility that the substances observed by the people who report transmutation all come from impurities in the solution, that is very obvious and the first thing to say about it is that an astonishingly large number of products do come from the solution under the conditions used. Physical electrochemists often use "scavenger electrolysis" to clean up a solution. I have made a theoretical analysis of the amounts which can arise. However, a better method is to analyze the solution and see what is there (e.g., by ICP). Then, on the impurity hypothesis one would expect to find just these materials on the electrode surface. In work I carried out and published recently with Minevski, - we did analyze the solution and did find several elements from the solution on the electrode. We saw these in XPS. They faded away in some 30-40 Angstroms. Beneath that, however, we detected a different set of impurity atoms, materials not present in the solution and clearly seen in EDAX at approximately 1 micron. As these latter materials came only after electrolysis, it seems reasonable to conclude (as have some dozen others apart from Miley et al.), that they arise in the presence of H and D as the result of transmutation. Miley, et al., has used the isotopic abundance values to distinguish newly formed nucleii from those deposited from the solution. They also noted that the new nucleii depended on the nature of the alloy, - inconsistent with "everything is from the solution." The depth is a key point. Solid state diffusion coefficients limit the diffusion of impurities adsorbed on the surface to 50 Angstroms in two weeks. The Japanese in particular found new material at micron depth. Another suggestion made by Murray is that "complex electrochemical reactions" occur whereby some atoms dissolve but yet deposit in other places, etc. Such reactions are known in corrosion chemistry with free standing alloys. However, the beads which Miley et al. use were held at negative potentials to evolve hydrogen. It is true that I have not been told the potentials but to evolve hydrogen at 0.1 - 1 amp/sqcm (geometric) one would have to have an overpotential more negative than 0.5 volt. This would be expected to "protect" against anodic dissolution. Finally, I'd make a suggestion. Instead of putting vitriolic, furious attack out to a dozen readers, would it not be more helpful to send a calmly worded version of the criticisms to George and ask him to write a reply for consumption of those in the field. Thus, we could see how Richard Murray's points stack up when confronted by a reply from the people who know the details of experiment and result. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 11:37:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA07365; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 10:22:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 10:22:23 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 02:42:34 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Hefner's Geometry Resent-Message-ID: <"bELOJ2.0.Fk1.L64jo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2748 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Michael Mandeville wrote: [snip] >I am delighted about what you are doing here. I ranted in several posts >about thinking geometrically about the problems of matter and here you are, >supplying the raw data. I just love it. Now what we need is an affordable >software package to create 3-D plots. > [snip] >What I am looking for is something under, please , $500 which can plot the >above numbers, from the numbers into simple wireframes and points. I want >to tell the computer, give me lines of certain length and make a triangle, >square, circle, rectangle, pent, hex, etc. out of them. I do not want to >horse around with make believe rulers and mice to compose the basic unit >modules. I would be absolutely in love with a program which could turn the >inverse square law into curved lines which gradually change color as the >energy level shifts in magnitudes of order. I quess what I really want is >not a graphics program at all, I want real genuine, 3-D geometry which does >not require a bunch of phoney mouse movement to create basic polygons. > >Any ideas? >____________________________________ >MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing >Michael Mandeville, publisher I think what is really needed is a lot more than a CAD program. Maybe MAPLE is more along the lines of what is needed for the calculations and modelling, and there are are various differential equation visualization programs around. Also, I downloaded CrystalDesigner DR4 Demo (free). It seemed to me not very robust and reuired too much specific crytallogrphy information to be able to operate it effectively. I managed to get a Ni latice by loading some examples and changing the elements. Personally, I found that doing cross sections of the structure by compass and ruler on paper and moving a cutout paper H2 molecule about gave me a better feel for the geometry, but it took a lot more work. A virtual reality program to move an H2 model around in the matrix would be nice! CrystalDesigner doesn't do anything like that though - just pictures of little balls. Maybe the new releases are more useful. Here is some ordering info from their product: "Please note that if you decide to wait until the release of CrystalDesigner DR5 before you purchase CrystalDesigner, only one free update will be available. By the introduction of CrystalDesigner DR6 the prize is expected to increase and no free updates will then be available. Single user license The price for a single user license of CrystalDesigner DR4 will be 499 US $. For academic institutions and students the price for a single user license will be 299 US $. The license includes shipping by air mail and handling. If you want the product sent by door to door service (UPS Express Service), it will cost you an exstra 50 $. Crystal Structure Design AS can be contacted by one of the followingmethods: Crystal Structure Design AS P. O. Box 24 Blindern N-0313 Oslo, Norway mailto: info@crystaldesigner.no mailto: sales@crystaldesigner.no Fax: +47 22 46 80 14 Phone: +47 22 46 28 20" As to the need for visualization and modelling software, I couldn't agree more. Here is some old correspondence, regarding the Marshall Dudley Hypothesis, from me to an s.p.f. contributor from September 5, 1995: "In a nutshell, cramped conditions of a packed lattice provide otherwise unlikely ways for H nuclei to interact with electrons and each other in low energy conditions. In an H2 molecule the H nuclei have low relative kinetic energy, but it is this low energy which forces them to remain at a fixed distance due to the stability of the surrounding interlocked shells. Escaping this condition requires an ionizing level of energy, thus destroying the shell, and giving the H nuclei a velocity precluding the interaction hypothesized. The special circumstance of the hypothesis is, if sufficient packing of the lattice occurs, that some H nuclei are in a state where there is no room for an orbital to be formed. One or two of these nuclei could orbit a single Pd atom by giving up their electrons to an ionic bond, thus generating a net attraction to the neighboring Pd atom. This creates a hypothesized condition whereby H nuclei can approach each other with low kinetic energy by means of Faraday Shielding. This shielding is provided by modified (increased) charge probability distribution in the Pd shell induced on the shell by H nuclei, in the vicinity of the nuclei, as they approach the shell from opposite sides. I am not necessarily advocating that the observed excess energy is from fusion in the classical sense, at least not most of the energy. I think there is a more fundamental truth to be found in the details. Unless people from all over the world are quacks (a possibility I may have to face), there appears to be something unexplained going on here, regardless of the dubious manner in which all this got started. It has been six years. And still there is not even a readily available computer model people can roughly agree on. This is a sad state of affairs. One doesn't have to be a believer of anything in particular to see that effort and dollars should be spent to make a predictive model available to the world public. I am for increasing budgets for both magnetic and inertial confinement research. However, we should also spend some small portion of the huge energy research budget on a modeling effort for understanding hydrogenated condensed matter. And of course, a model needs verification,... Some experimental effort would needed. This is conventional physics to be done by conventional physicists. After all, some aspects of plasmas may not be too different from some things that can happen in a lattice." Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 11:58:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA05914; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:51:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:51:54 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961216115142.009d18ac@mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: Epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:51:43 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: LIAG, Ecklin, demystified 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: <"i32sj.0.FS1.LXQjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2760 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: <------------- View the below drawing with monospaced font and this screen width -----------------> It depends on the gap. For example take two permanent magnets in S-S configuration and iron plate like this. NNNNSSSS SSSSNNNN LEGEND: NNNNSSSS a permanent magnet with North & South oles IIIIIIII a soft iron plate (magnetic shield) CCCCCCCC an electromagnetic coil (used later) I I I I I (iron plate moving up) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- The iron plate will be pulled into the gap between the magnets like this I I NNNNSSSS I SSSSNNNN I I (iron plate moving up) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- But if the gap between the magnets is LARGER the iron plate will stop here NNNNSSSS I SSSSNNNN I I I I (iron plate moving up) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- If the magnets are oriented S-N the iron plate will also stop here because iron plate is equally attracted to North or South poles: I I NNNNSSSS I NNNNSSSS I I (iron plate moving up) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- **************************************************************************** ********* If we now consider this cycle ____________________________________________________________________________ _________ Both magnets attract the iron plate into the gap NNNNSSSS SSSSNNNN I I I I I (iron plate moving up) Fig #1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- I I NNNNSSSS I SSSSNNNN I I (iron plate moving up) Fig #2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- One of the magnets is removed or annihilated. I I NNNNSSSS I I I (iron plate moving up) Fig #3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- I I I I I (iron plate moving up) NNNNSSSS Fig #4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- We will notice that the iron plate gains more energy getting pulled between the magnets (Fig #1 & #2) then it looses during the back drag (Fig #3 & #4) because one of the magnets has been removed. One might immediately say here: "...wait a minute you just had to expend energy removing one of the magnets..." and you would be correct in the above case. HOWEVER if we were using a coil instead of the magnet we could turn it off (and the magnetic field it produces) without expending any energy So what exactly happens if we substitute on of the magnet with a coil: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- At the beginning (Fig #5) the coil sees the maximum intensity of the south pole produced by the permanent magnet. As the iron plate is pulled into the gap between the permanent magnet and the coil, the iron shield starts REDIRECTING more and more of the magnetic field (splitting the field) produced by the permanent magnet AWAY from the coil. The net result of this is that the coil starts seeing less and less of the south pole (provided by the magnet). According to the Lenz law if the circuit of the coil is closed, the coil will try to resist this change in the strength of the aforementioned south pole by circulating electric current through its windings in such a way that the coil will PRODUCE its own south pole in order to keep the intensity of the south pole near the coil exactly what it was before the iron plate (shield) started moving into the gap. The coil acts as an ultimate conservative :-) The CRUCIAL effect is that this magnetic south pole created by the coil will also attract the iron plate into the gap between the magnet and the coil just like it was happening in Fig #1. A south pole is a south pole, regardless whether it is produced by a magnet or a coil, right ?. So the moving iron plate will be attracted into the gap by BOTH the magnet and the coil analogously to Fig #1 NNNNSSSS CCCCCCCC Coil closed I I I I I (iron plate moving up) #5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- I I NNNNSSSS I CCCCCCCC Coil closed I I (iron plate moving up) #6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- I I NNNNSSSS I CCCCCCCC Coil open I I (iron plate moving up) #7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- I I I I I (iron plate moving up) NNNNSSSS CCCCCCCC Coil open #8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- In Fig #6 the iron plate will shield the coil from all of the intensity of the south pole created by the permanent magnet and if the closed coil was superconductive and didn't have any resistive losses it now WOULD be producing a hypothetic south pole of exactly the same intensity as the south pole produced by the permanent magnet in Fig #5. At the same time, the permanent magnet in Fig #6 would also be shielded by the iron plate from the hypothetical field produced by the coil and would produce the same intensity of the south pole as it did before in Fig #5. For best shielding results a double iron plate (with gap between plates) should be used. We could say we "split" the original magnetic filed by the iron plate "axe". In Fig #7 & #8 we open the coil windings which makes the coil behave as if it WASN'T THERE at all. This is analogous to annihilating the permanent magnet in Fig #3. Now the iron plate can move away (under its inertia) from the permanent magnet with 2 times less back drag than if the coil was left closed. This switching-off of the coil allows the moving iron plate to escape from the gap with more energy than it had before. One might say that the switching action introduces nonconservativness into the system and introduces order into nature. Order = negentropy = energy This cycle can repeat indefinitely (perpetually) if the iron shield is moving cyclically in a large circular path through the magnet-coil gap just like in the Ecklin, LIAG, Kromray, Bedini generators. The coil should have as little resistance as possible in order to have the maximum magnetic flux induced in it. It should be switched with low resistance relay or a MOSFET transistor with very low RdsON (ie. N-ch MegaFET MOSFETs by Harris semiconductor). The gate of the MOSFET could be energized by a high resistance, high voltage (not over 20V) coil coaxially wound with the main coil. No exotic sensors are necessary here since one can take advantage of the property that the electric current through the coil moves one way when the iron plate is approaching the gap and OTHER way when the plate moves away. Yes, a diode could be used but a diode need 0.6 volts to operate and the low resistance coil (means thick wire, few turns) will not produce anything close to 0.6V but it will produce many Amps (high current). Strong magnets, small gap, laminated or powdered (to combat eddy currents) cores and the moving plate would improve efficiency. When the coil is said to be closed it doesn't necessarily mean shorted. It can be connected to a practical load to do useful work. The interesting property of this system is that the more current you draw from the coil the more energy you extract and the faster the iron plate moves (escapes from the gap). If you don't short the coil or hook up a load to it during the iron plate approach phase the whole thing will stop working and will behave conventionally. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 12:17:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA10494; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:10:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:10:05 -0800 Date: 16 Dec 96 15:09:04 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Bockris comments on Murray Message-ID: <961216200903_72240.1256_EHB123-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"7_o1i.0.uZ2.RoQjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2761 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex John O'M Bockris made the following comments about Murray's criticism of the Miley work. Since he posted the message to a large number of people I will take the liberty of re-posting it here. I have cleaned up a few typos and spelling mistakes, and reformatted the paragraphs. The part where he says "it's no use looking at Miley's work without putting it into context" is all-important. This is what I have often repeated. Miley's results are not unexpected, because the reality of nuclear reactions in the lattice (CF) has been established. You cannot go back to square one with every new experiment, and pretend that CF does not exist, or shove the entire burden of proving it onto one experiment. Miley does not have to rigorously prove there is excess heat with every single experiment, because many other people have already done that, and because there is a trade-off between calorimetry and transmutation detection. At some point, you have to accept the reality of things like the heat and the tritium as a given. The question is: at what point? How much proof is enough? Different people have different standards, which I accept. There are gray areas. Pd results do not directly confirm Ni, although they do support them. My objection is to people who reset the game every time they play, and act as if Pons never reported a boil-off, and the French A.E.C. never confirmed it. This is not to suggest that any experiment gets a free pass so long as it confirms a previous result. - Jed Date: 16-Dec-96 14:17 EST F: INTERNET:BOCKRIS@chemvx.tamu.edu S: Richard Murray's criticism of the Miley work. December 12, 1996 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Murray FROM: John Bockris SUBJECT: Your Criticisms of the Work of the Miley Team at the University of Illinois (1) I read your criticisms and accept the general idea that open criticism of scientific work is part of the meat and essence of how scientific work progresses. However, I think your points would be easier to accept and weigh were they made in a more serious and scientific way and not mixed in with vitriolic asides and jokes. One gets the impression that you set out, emotionally, to trash the work and that's not helpful to those who want to find out what's happening. (2) Now it's no use looking at Miley's work without putting it into context. Thus, among facts claimed for low temperature nuclear reactions, the most well established is tritium production. Claytor has had 5 renewals of his work at Los Alamos a place where one presumes the referees know what they are doing. I think it is therefore reasonable to assert that the formation of tritium in the pressure of deuterium in the cold is an established fact. I stopped counting papers which reported tritium formation from deuterium in mid-1994, - I got up to 137 papers. I think this is very relevant to Miley. It seems to me that the tritium work proves that a nuclear reaction can occur in the cold. This, then, makes other nuclear changes less unlikely than before, now one case had been thoroughly proven. (3) Although this work of George Miley and his team is the most detailed and thorough examination of transmutation in the cold, there have been many forerunners. The Japanese, Notoya (got radioactivity, not present in the solution), Ohmori and Mizuno, have all (separately) produced very good work, done in a Nuclear Engineering Lab with plenty of the right kind of equipment applied. Among others who have reported the same kind of results as those of Miley et al. are Matsumoto, Bush and Eagleton, Karabut, Wolf (through Passell), Dash, George and Stringham. Your attack on Miley would imply these scientists and their teams are all wrong. (4) As to the possibility that the substances observed by the people who report transmutation all come from impurities in the solution, that is very obvious and the first thing to say about it is that an astonishingly large number of products do come from the solution under the conditions used. Physical electrochemists often use "scavenger electrolysis" to clean up a solution. I have made a theoretical analysis of the amounts which can arise. However, a better method is to analyze the solution and see what is there (e.g., by ICP). Then, on the impurity hypothesis one would expect to find just these materials on the electrode surface. In work I carried out and published recently with Minevski, - we did analyze the solution and did find several elements from the solution on the electrode. We saw these in XPS. They faded away in some 30-40 Angstroms. Beneath that, however, we detected a different set of impurity atoms, materials not present in the solution and clearly seen in EDAX at approximately 1 micron. As these latter materials came only after electrolysis, it seems reasonable to conclude (as have some dozen others apart from Miley et al.), that they arise in the presence of H and D as the result of transmutation. Miley, et al., has used the isotopic abundance values to distinguish newly formed nuclei from those deposited from the solution. They also noted that the new nuclei depended on the nature of the alloy, - inconsistent with "everything is from the solution." The depth is a key point. Solid state diffusion coefficients limit the diffusion of impurities adsorbed on the surface to 50 Angstroms in two weeks. The Japanese in particular found new material at micron depth. Another suggestion made by Murray is that "complex electrochemical reactions" occur whereby some atoms dissolve but yet deposit in other places, etc. Such reactions are known in corrosion chemistry with free standing alloys. However, the beads which Miley et al. use were held at negative potentials to evolve hydrogen. It is true that I have not been told the potentials but to evolve hydrogen at 0.1 - 1 amp/sq cm (geometric) one would have to have an overpotential more negative than 0.5 volt. This would be expected to "protect" against anodic dissolution. Finally, I'd make a suggestion. Instead of putting vitriolic, furious attack out to a dozen readers, would it not be more helpful to send a calmly worded version of the criticisms to George and ask him to write a reply for consumption of those in the field. Thus, we could see how Richard Murray's points stack up when confronted by a reply from the people who know the details of experiment and result. * End of File * From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 13:39:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA00256; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:33:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:33:31 -0800 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:30:02 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612162130.PAA09046@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: CETI RIFEX kit Resent-Message-ID: <"qmqmB.0.s3.f0Sjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2762 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 10:26 12/16/96 -0800, you wrote: >December 16, 1996 Monday > >Are the beads in the kits made up of styrene base Yes they are....another rumor (the ceramic) goes down in flames! Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 14:03:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA07566 for billb@eskimo.com; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:03:06 -0800 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:03:06 -0800 X-Envelope-From: hjscudde@hercules.rdyne.bna.boeing.com Mon Dec 16 14:03:04 1996 Received: from hercules.rdyne.bna.boeing.com (hercules.rdyne.bna.boeing.com [134.57.7.79]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA07545 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:03:03 -0800 Received: from xchrd11.rdyne.bna.boeing.com by hercules.rdyne.bna.boeing.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA22310; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:04:02 -0800 Received: by xchrd11.rdyne.bna.boeing.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BBEB5A.375CE740@xchrd11.rdyne.bna.boeing.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:05:39 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Epitaxy , Vortex-L Subject: RE: LIAG, Ecklin, demystified Old-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:01:00 -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 X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Jeff I am confused by your turning off the coil. A coil has an inductance L and takes about 4*L/R seconds to reduce the current throgh it to zero. The magnetic field goes to about 5% in this time (4 time constants). You need to solve the whole dynamics of this electro-magnetic interaction with the iron plate to determine what is going on. -Hank Scudder ---------- From: Epitaxy To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; freenrg-l@eskimo.com Subject: LIAG, Ecklin, demystified Date: Monday, December 16, 1996 11:51AM <------------- View the below drawing with monospaced font and this screen width -----------------> From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 14:32:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA12907; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:27:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:27:30 -0800 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:30:08 +0100 Message-Id: <199612162230.XAA25667@mail.bbtt.com> X-Sender: harti@bbtt.de X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: Re: CETI RIFEX kit Resent-Message-ID: <"KvIFQ3.0.X93.GpSjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2764 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: >At 10:26 12/16/96 -0800, you wrote: >>December 16, 1996 Monday >> >>Are the beads in the kits made up of styrene base > >Yes they are....another rumor (the ceramic) goes down in flames! > > >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) > > Has anyone actually from this list or the freenrg-l@eskimo.com bought the kit from CETI ? How is it ? Does it run ? Regards, Stefan. > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany NEUE Nummern : Tel: ++ 4930-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 4930-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.harti.de Webmaster of: http://www.detours.de Have a look at the future: http://www.overunity.de My favourite ladies on the WEB: http://www.nylon-fetish.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 14:38:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA10032; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:13:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:13:50 -0800 Date: 16 Dec 96 17:12:46 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Quite a rumor! Message-ID: <961216221246_72240.1256_EHB114-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"7eg9J.0.gS2.RcSjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2763 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Scott reports, "another rumor (the ceramic) goes down in flames!" Wow. Flames, huh? In what sense? Oxygen? E-mail? I have heard they have trouble with oxidation, but not on that scale . . . maybe there is more chemical fuel in these things than I thought. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 15:11:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA21773; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:52:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:52:50 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:52:48 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Some AEH calculations Resent-Message-ID: <"Q-GHb3.0.7K5.0BTjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2765 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: An extended thought regarding method: load H2 molecules into a highly confining non-conducitve lattice and zap them with microwaves to break the H2 bond and gain the AE energy. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 15:34:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA28553; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:16:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:16:48 -0800 Message-ID: <32B5D7FA.3B3C@LocalAccess.com> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:15:06 -0800 From: Nancy X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Some AEH calculations References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"wUpDD.0.2-6.TXTjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2766 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Why would the confining of H2 make this work ? Horace Heffner wrote: > > An extended thought regarding method: load H2 molecules into a highly > confining non-conducitve lattice and zap them with microwaves to break the > H2 bond and gain the AE energy. > > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 15:50:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA04088; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:47:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:47:46 -0800 From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 18:47:08 -0500 Message-ID: <961216184706_975423828@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Correa Homepage Resent-Message-ID: <"_RZxJ2.0.o_.X-Tjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2767 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: The Correas have launched a hompage whose URL is: http://www.globalserve.net/~lambdac It contains philosophical considerstions and technical details on their work, with extensive references. There is also an extensive and detailed discussion of the distinctions between their work and that of Reich and the allegations of Douglas Marett. It is more extensive than the letter to me from which I quoted in an earlier post. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 16:00:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA05889; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:58:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:58:23 -0800 X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 18:58:11 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Los Alamos MTF Resent-Message-ID: <"8-3lE2.0.uR1.U8Ujo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2768 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Some of you have asked about the Los Alamos Magnetic Target Fusion (MTF) experiment. It is not classified anymore and it is fairly well known in the hot fusion community. It consists of a pressure chamber through which a compactor bank is discharged. The wall of the pressure chamber is lined with high explosives which is detonated during the discharge thus compressing the plasma formed. The pressure achieved is about 10 mb or 10 million bars. The Russian version of this machine is much larger and goes up to about 90 mb. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 17:30:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA01444; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:27:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:27:31 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 16:27:32 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Some AEH calculations Resent-Message-ID: <"jhXUL3.0.TM.2SVjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2769 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hello Nancy, You wrote: >Why would the confining of H2 make this work ? > > >Horace Heffner wrote: >> >> An extended thought regarding method: load H2 molecules into a highly >> confining non-conducitve lattice and zap them with microwaves to break the >> H2 bond and gain the AE energy. >> Energy can be in the form of force*distance. The thought of the referenced post, "Some AEH calculations," (see below) was that such work can be applied to a Ni lattice upon the expansion of an H atom when within the Ni tetrahedral site. It appears that the energy to apply such work would come from ZPE, and would result in some "free" heating of the Ni lattice. That work can only be fully applied if the confining space is smaller than the free H atom. The logic below applies to a Ni lattice, but could also apply to a nonconductive lattice as well. A nonconductive lattice has the adantage that microwaves can penetrate it, unlike the Ni lattice, which would require x-rays or high energy particles to trigger the event. To be most significant, the confinement should consist of the bonds of the lattice directly applied to a single atom. In case you are new, the AEH is the Atomic Expansion Hypothesis which I posted earlier. I'll send you a copy if you didn't get one. The big question is whether I am making a typical amateur blunder, as I have no education or experience in this stuff. I'm just an old retired guy learning some interesting things. It's fun to think about and get others thinking too, though, so I indulge. One good idea in 100 would be very worthwhile. (I'm still waiting to have that one good one.) This little conundrum is probaly due to a conceptual mistake on my part, but we'll see, and maybe I'll learn something. The referenced post: Using: 1 eV = 1.602177 x 10^-19 J 15.426 eV = Ionization Potential of H2 13.598 eV = Ionization Potential of H ------ 1.8377 eV = Ionization potential difference 0.32 A = covalent radius of H 0.79 A = radius of H 0.61 A = radius of largest sphere fitting into Ni tetrahedral space ----- 0.18 A = d, the radial expansion difference Now, lets assume that an H+ ion takes on an electron within a Ni tetrahedral space. The 13.598 eV energy used to iononize the H+ initially is now regained in the lattice. If a 13.598 eV photon is emitted upon formint the orbital, no energy is available for the orbital formation, i.e. any work performed on distorting the lattice has no antecedent. Let's for a minute assume that no photon is emitted when the electron takes on its orbital, that all the 13.598 eV energy is available to do work presssing outward on the tetrahedral boundaries as the atom "expands". The energy available for release in the expansion is (13.6 eV)(1.602177 x 10^-19 J/eV) = 2.18 x 10^-18 J The work W that is performed in all radial directions is determined by: W = 6 * Fav * d = 2.18 x 10^-18 J Where Fav is the average force exerted on one bond, and d is the radial expansion difference 0.18 A. The work is performed in 6 directions, so we must multiply Fav by 6 to compute the total work W. We now can estimate Fav by: Fav = (2.18 x 10^-18 J)/(6*(0.18 x 10^-10 m)) Fav = 2.02 x 10^-8 N It seems likely such expansions occuring regularly enough in a lattice to support diffusion would rapidly destroy the lattice. Therefore, some mechanism not involving H atoms must be available for achieving the H diffusion in Ni. Maybe one possibiliy may be in an H3+ radical formation, or H2Ni+ complex, which could have consequences for transmutation. Now a more interresting consideration. Suppose, as hypothesized for gamma stage loading, that most of the hydrogen in the lattice is in H2 form. Suppose that heat plus other conditions, like migrating H+ ions, electric current, or other stimulation, can supply the 15.426 eV energy required to ionize an H2 molecule pinned in a Ni face hole, and break the H2 bond. This creates the unusual condition that the H atoms are free to "expand" inside their own tetrahedral spaces. They can expand from 0.18 A diameter to 0.79 A diameter. The input energy was only 15.426 eV, yet the two atoms are each free to exert the 13.598 eV of work on the lattice by the expansion. This provides 1.88 x 10^18 J of free energy per split H2. It is a kind of backwards situation that H + H -> H2 + photon produces a volume reduction, and H2 + energy -> H + H plus a volume expansion that can do more work than the energy supplied if confined to a lattice. Of course the biggest volume gain available to do work is: H+ + e- -> H + photon which may possibly be able to produce both the photon and the expansion energy. Is this all just wishful thinking? If not, another paradigm is available for energy production. The principle is to load a metal lattice with H2 molecules and then supply ionization energy that can momentarily fracture the H2 bond. It seems to me that the logical method of getting the ionizing energy into the lattice is via x-rays. Some means would need to be found to reapair the lattice, however, like runing at a high temperature or doing an annealing cycle periodically. Thoughts? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 18:51:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA17391; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 18:48:01 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 18:48:01 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961216184751.00a0b948@mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: Epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 18:47:53 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: Magnetic Shielding - for "dummies" 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: <"alkBi1.0.cF4.VdWjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2770 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: < View the below drawing with monospaced font and this screen width > MAGNETIC SHIELDING For example take two permanent magnets in S-S configuration and iron plate like this. (the plate is restricted to move only in vertical direction) LEGEND: NNNNSSSS a permanent magnet with North & South poles IIIIIIII a soft iron plate CCCCCCCC an electromagnetic --------------------------------------------------------------------- NNNNSSSS SSSSNNNN I I I I I (iron plate attracted up) --------------------------------------------------------------------- The iron plate will be pulled into the gap between the magnets like this I I NNNNSSSS I SSSSNNNN I I (iron plate stopped at equilibrium) --------------------------------------------------------------------- But if the gap between the magnets is LARGER the iron plate will stop here. This configuration is not useful for our purposes. NNNNSSSS I SSSSNNNN I I I I (iron plate stopped at equilibrium) --------------------------------------------------------------------- If the magnets are oriented S-N the iron plate will also stop here because iron plate is equally attracted to North or South poles: I I NNNNSSSS I NNNNSSSS I I (iron plate stopped at equilibrium) ********************************************************************* If we now consider this sequence of events _____________________________________________________________________ Both magnets attract the iron plate into the gap NNNNSSSS SSSSNNNN I I I I I (iron plate moving up) Fig #1 --------------------------------------------------------------------- I I NNNNSSSS I SSSSNNNN I I (iron plate moving up) Fig #2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- One of the magnets is removed or annihilated. I I NNNNSSSS I I I (iron plate moving up) Fig #3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I (iron plate moving up) NNNNSSSS Fig #4 --------------------------------------------------------------------- We will notice that the iron plate gains more energy getting pulled between the magnets (Fig #1 & #2) then it looses during the back drag (Fig #3 & #4) because one of the magnets has been removed. One might immediately say here: "...wait a minute you just had to expend energy removing one of the magnets..." and you would be correct in the above case. HOWEVER if we were using a coil instead of the magnet we could turn it off (and the magnetic field it produces) without expending any energy So what exactly happens if we substitute on of the magnet with a coil ? --------------------------------------------------------------------- At the beginning (Fig #5) the coil sees the maximum intensity of the south pole produced by the permanent magnet. As the iron plate is pulled into the gap between the permanent magnet and the coil, the iron shield starts REDIRECTING more and more of the magnetic field (splitting the field) produced by the permanent magnet AWAY from the coil. The net result of this is that the coil starts seeing less and less of the south pole (which is provided by the permanent magnet). According to the Lenz law if the circuit of the coil is closed, the coil will try to resist this change in the strength of the aforementioned south pole by circulating electric current through its windings in such a way that the coil will PRODUCE its own south pole in order to keep the intensity of the south pole near the coil exactly what it was before the iron plate (shield) started moving into the gap. The coil acts as an ultimate conservative :-) The CRUCIAL effect is that this magnetic south pole created by the coil will also attract the iron plate into the gap between the magnet and the coil just like it was happening in Fig #1. A south pole is a south pole, regardless whether it is produced by a magnet or a coil, right ?. So the moving iron plate will be attracted into the gap by BOTH the magnet and the coil analogously to Fig #1 --------------------------------------------------------------------- NNNNSSSS CCCCCCCC Coil closed (producing South pole) I I I I I (iron plate moving up) #5 --------------------------------------------------------------------- I I NNNNSSSS I CCCCCCCC Coil closed (producing South pole) I I (iron plate moving up) #6 --------------------------------------------------------------------- I I NNNNSSSS I CCCCCCCC Coil open ( inert ) I I (iron plate moving up) #7 --------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I (iron plate moving up) NNNNSSSS CCCCCCCC Coil open (inert) #8 --------------------------------------------------------------------- In Fig #6 the iron plate will shield the coil from all of the intensity of the south pole created by the permanent magnet and if the closed coil was superconductive and didn't have any resistive losses it now WOULD be producing a hypothetic south pole of exactly the same intensity as the south pole produced by the permanent magnet in Fig #5. At the same time, the permanent magnet in Fig #6 would also be shielded by the iron plate from the hypothetical field produced by the coil and would produce the same intensity of the south pole as it did before in Fig #5. For best shielding results a double iron plate (with gap between plates) should be used. We could say we "split" the original magnetic filed by the iron plate "axe". In Fig #7 & #8 we open the coil windings which makes the coil behave as if it WASN'T THERE at all. This is analogous to annihilating the permanent magnet in Fig #3. Now the iron plate can move away (under its inertia) from the permanent magnet with 2 times less back drag than if the coil was left closed. This switching-off of the coil allows the moving iron plate to escape from the gap with more energy than it had before. One might say that the switching action introduces nonconservativness into the system and introduces order into nature. Order = negentropy = energy This cycle can repeat indefinitely (perpetually) if the iron shield is moving cyclically in a large circular path through the magnet-coil gap just like in the Ecklin, LIAG, Kromray, Bedini generators. The coil should have as little resistance as possible in order to have the maximum magnetic flux induced in it. It should be switched with low resistance relay or a MOSFET transistor with very low RdsON (ie. N-ch MegaFET MOSFETs by Harris semiconductor). The gate of the MOSFET could be energized by a high resistance, high voltage (not over 20V) coil coaxially wound with the main coil. No exotic sensors are necessary here since one can take advantage of the property that the electric current through the coil moves one way when the iron plate is approaching the gap and OTHER way when the plate moves away. Yes, a diode could be used but a diode need 0.6 volts to operate and the low resistance coil (means thick wire, few turns) will not produce anything close to 0.6V but it will produce many Amps (high current). Strong magnets, small gap, laminated or powdered (to combat eddy currents) cores and the moving plate would improve efficiency. When the coil is said to be closed it doesn't necessarily mean shorted. It can be connected to a practical load to do useful work. The interesting property of this system is that the more current you draw from the coil the more energy you extract and the faster the iron plate moves (escapes from the gap). If you don't short the coil or hook up a load to it during the iron plate approach phase the whole thing will stop working and will behave conventionally. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 16 21:03:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA14753; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 21:00:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 21:00:44 -0800 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:59:16 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199612170459.XAA07529@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <32b5e940.55751511@mail.zip.com.au> (alansch@zip.com.au) Subject: Re: Ans to Swartz Concern re ZPE energy density Resent-Message-ID: <"CqIQq3.0.Qc3.wZYjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2771 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: > Do you have evidence to support this statement, Hal? I would > have thought this was mostly a suction-cup sort of effect, the=20 > force provided by air pressure (ie as you try to pull the blocks=20 > apart you have a small volume containing no air so you have=20 > 14 psi pushing the blocks back together). To prove how much > of the force is due to the Casimir effect wouldn't you have to=20 > repeat the experiment in vacuo? Been there, done that. But the result is quite opposite to what you would expect. There are five phenomena you are working with: atmospheric pressure, surface tension of any oils on the surface, Casmir effect, magnetism, and non-linear electric fields. The last two can be ignored for pure (non-alloy) non-ferrous metals Assume that you clean two flat metal surfaces completely of contaminants, working in a vacuum. Now push the two blocks together, then try to pull them apart. Done properly this is called vacuum welding, and I have produced welds that didn't show up in TDR (time delay reflectometery). The weld is exactly as strong as the surrounding metal. The reason that lots of people assert that there is very little energy there is that all the action happens in the last few dozen nanometers, so force times distance is low. But once the two surfaces are in contact, air pressure can be ignored. Try it yourself with some 1x1x4 Jo blocks put together end to end. By hand you shouldn't be able to pull them apart, and air pressure accounts for at most 15 pounds of that, but you can separate them by sliding or tipping. Now rinse all the oil off with acetone, and best, put them in a flask of acetone. Now pump down the vacuum. (Make sure you use a well vented pump with a flash suppressor if you do this.) Assuming that you got the two blocks to touch, once the vacuum is released you can put one block in a vise and hit the other with a sledge hammer. They won't separate. In fact it makes no sense to talk about two blocks--there is only a single piece of metal. In some metals, there are other factors than Casmir at work. But in metals which don't easily form covalent bonds, it is pretty much all Casmir. I've vacuum welded copper, aluminum, steel, and silver, sometimes to each other. (Aluminum is tricky, since you have to remove the oxide coat. The choices are to create a fresh surface that has never been in atmosphere, or a hydrogen plasma bath.) Oh, one last note. I once tried to figure out the Casmir force between two copper surfaces in contact. Much easier to measure it in the lab at the time, but I guess today you could churn a computer for an hour or six. The problem is that the fourth power nature of the Casmir Effect means that most of the force occurs between atoms that are in contact--you can't just average, and the amount of force requires knowing the transmission spectrum of the bulk copper as well. Oh one more thing, there are metals like Lithium--and all the alkali metals for that matter--which can be sliced like cheese. This seems to be because the outer (valence) shell contains only one electron, so the screening is imperfect at high frequencies. (A differenct way of looking at it is that the average disstance between the atomic shells is large compared to transition metals.) Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 17 01:38:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA32513; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 01:36:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 01:36:22 -0800 From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Some AEH calculations Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 09:36:11 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32bd5929.38831820@mail.netspace.net.au> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Vto2p2.0.ux7.Lccjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2772 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 08:46:09 -0900, Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >Now a more interresting consideration. Suppose, as hypothesized for gamma >stage loading, that most of the hydrogen in the lattice is in H2 form. >Suppose that heat plus other conditions, like migrating H+ ions, electric >current, or other stimulation, can supply the 15.426 eV energy required to >ionize an H2 molecule pinned in a Ni face hole, and break the H2 bond. Is 15.426 eV the energy required to ionise H2 to H2+, or perhaps to split H2 into H + H rather than H2++ (i.e. two separate protons)? >This creates the unusual condition that the H atoms are free to "expand" >inside their own tetrahedral spaces. They can expand from 0.18 A diameter >to 0.79 A diameter. The input energy was only 15.426 eV, yet the two atoms >are each free to exert the 13.598 eV of work on the lattice by the >expansion. This provides 1.88 x 10^18 J of free energy per split H2. It >is a kind of backwards situation that > >H + H -> H2 + photon [snip] 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 Tue Dec 17 05:05:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA17874 for billb@eskimo.com; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 05:05:02 -0800 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 05:05:02 -0800 X-Envelope-From: meyersr@norand.com Tue Dec 17 05:04:57 1996 Received: from cesium.norand.com (cesium.norand.com [136.179.160.16]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA17822; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 05:04:45 -0800 From: meyersr@norand.com Received: from smtpgate.norand.com (smtpgate.norand.com [136.179.64.252]) by cesium.norand.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA08207; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 07:04:14 -0600 (CST) Received: from cc:Mail by smtpgate.norand.com id AA850835229; Tue, 17 Dec 96 07:05:07 CDT Old-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 96 07:05:07 CDT Message-Id: <9611178508.AA850835229@smtpgate.norand.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Old-Return-Receipt-To: meyersr@norand.com Subject: re: Create ball lightning w/ kitchen microwave oven X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Anyone here done this yet ? > "...Although I am hoping for some other types of ball lightning to emerge > such as strictly electrostatic-electromagnetic manifestations, I have been > unlucky in finding laboratory provable evidence. Cavity-formed plasmodes > can be made by putting a 2-inch burning candle in a home kitchen microwave > oven. The plasmodes float around for as long as the microwave energy is > present." > works beautifully. except a one inch candle in a crystal candle holder. and on several attempts, it did appear to require that three inch crystal holder of the wife's (our oldest daughter speculates it's a crystal focus, (lead crystal) as other attempts with ceramics and mom's corell wear ware were unsuccessful (yes, i know, i have wonderful wife to donate her kitchen for this impromptu stuff ...) an excellent before dinner science project with the children (back across the kitchen with goggles on, they were so cute :) ). small breeze in the cavity (due to the cooling fan i would imagine.) bees wax candle (tinted pink with some unknown dye) the microwave, 750 watt, rotating type, rotating platform removed. every few seconds the flickering flame would "plasma ball", rising up, left, behind, of the standing flame. excellent audio accompaniment. (you should have seen the face on the eight year old the first time , however i bet you all can imagine the look on the wife :) - a note here, her comment about what appeared to be a bit of something as those balls flashed. "hmmmm. clean. " (the ceiling of that cavity showing no signs of any anything, and we would swear there was a bit of black at the moment of the event). well, thought i'd share. and if i may? an additional curiosity. is this phenomenon scaleable? that's what the conversation turned to over last night's dinner. does the phenomenon in that cavity scale? linear? log? step?. so, what happens with two, three, four, five, ... candles? however in this curiosity, my wife does have her limits of tolerance regarding the diversion of her kitchen appliances,and dishware ... (thank all that is :) ) stephen From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 17 06:49:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA06820; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 06:46:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 06:46:08 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961217064529.00a17950@mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: Epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 06:45:30 -0800 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: RE: LIAG, Ecklin free energy, demystified 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: <"iXB7G.0.Fe1.c8hjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2774 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: You are correct that the magnetic field from the coil cannot be turned off instantly because of the L/R relation. However in the magnetic shielding system that I have described, the action of open circuiting the coil is equivalent to raising the R to a very high value thus decreasing the magnetic field decay around the coil (L/R) to an extremely short time. The side effect of this action is the production of short high voltage pulse. Also in practical system the coil is wound with few turns and thick wire in order to maximize the current and the induced magnetic field so the inductance (L) is very low further shortening the magnetic field & electric current decay rate upon opening the coil. One might even use a thick copper sheet instead of the multi turn coil since this sheet will behave as an almost zero inductance, zero resistance, one turn coil. The problem with this is that the copper sheet cannot be turned off easily (but it can be physically removed) Furthermore in real application the current flowing through the coil during the iron plate approach phase is constantly dissipated in a useful load and the coil resistance, further shortening the decay after the coil is opened. Also the iron plate (shield) has a very real width (I don't mean thickness) which passes through the gap between the magnet and the coil for a significant time during which the change in the shielding effect and the magnetic field change perceived by the coil is much smaller than during the approach of the plate to the gap. This extra time (caused by the width of the plate) gives the system more "penalty-free" opportunity to decay the energy in the coil. Another way to look at the "coil decay" issue is to consider this: ...the current flows one way when the plate is approaching the gap and OTHER way when the plate is moving out of the gap... Since this current in the coil reverses direction it must cross zero. It is possible to turn off the coil at exactly the zero current crossing. Also during the time when the plate is in the gap the change in magnetic field shielding is lower than during the approach of the plate into the gap. All of this can be easily seen if you have an oscilloscope, coil, magnet and iron plate. Epitaxy At 02:01 PM 12/16/96 -0800, you wrote: >Jeff >I am confused by your turning off the coil. A coil >has an inductance L and takes about 4*L/R seconds >to reduce the current throgh it to zero. The >magnetic field goes to about 5% in this time >(4 time constants). You need to solve the whole >dynamics of this electro-magnetic interaction >with the iron plate to determine what is going on. > -Hank Scudder > > ---------- >From: Epitaxy >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; freenrg-l@eskimo.com >Subject: LIAG, Ecklin, demystified >Date: Monday, December 16, 1996 11:51AM > > > ><------------- View the below drawing with monospaced font and this >screen >width -----------------> > > < View the below drawing with monospaced font and this screen width > MAGNETIC SHIELDING For example take two permanent magnets in S-S configuration and iron plate like this. (the plate is restricted to move only in vertical direction) LEGEND: NNNNSSSS a permanent magnet with North & South poles IIIIIIII a soft iron plate CCCCCCCC an electromagnetic coil --------------------------------------------------------------------- NNNNSSSS SSSSNNNN I I I I I (iron plate attracted up) --------------------------------------------------------------------- The iron plate will be pulled into the gap between the magnets like this I I NNNNSSSS I SSSSNNNN I I (iron plate stopped at equilibrium) --------------------------------------------------------------------- But if the gap between the magnets is LARGER the iron plate will stop here. This configuration is not useful for our purposes. NNNNSSSS I SSSSNNNN I I I I (iron plate stopped at equilibrium) --------------------------------------------------------------------- If the magnets are oriented S-N the iron plate will also stop here because iron plate is equally attracted to North or South poles: I I NNNNSSSS I NNNNSSSS I I (iron plate stopped at equilibrium) ********************************************************************* If we now consider this sequence of events _____________________________________________________________________ Both magnets attract the iron plate into the gap NNNNSSSS SSSSNNNN I I I I I (iron plate moving up) Fig #1 --------------------------------------------------------------------- I I NNNNSSSS I SSSSNNNN I I (iron plate moving up) Fig #2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- One of the magnets is removed or annihilated. I I NNNNSSSS I I I (iron plate moving up) Fig #3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I (iron plate moving up) NNNNSSSS Fig #4 --------------------------------------------------------------------- We will notice that the iron plate gains more energy getting pulled between the magnets (Fig #1 & #2) than it looses during the back drag (Fig #3 & #4) because one of the magnets has been removed. One might immediately say here: "...wait a minute you just had to expend energy removing one of the magnets..." and you would be correct in the above case. HOWEVER if we were using a coil instead of the magnet we could turn it off (and the magnetic field it produces) without expending any energy So what exactly happens if we substitute one of the magnets with a coil ? --------------------------------------------------------------------- At the beginning (Fig #5) the coil sees the maximum intensity of the south pole produced by the permanent magnet. As the iron plate is pulled into the gap between the permanent magnet and the coil, the iron shield starts REDIRECTING more and more of the magnetic field (splitting the field) produced by the permanent magnet AWAY from the coil. The net result of this is that the coil starts seeing less and less of the south pole (which is provided by the permanent magnet). According to the Lenz law if the circuit of the coil is closed, the coil will try to resist this change in the strength of the aforementioned south pole by circulating electric current through its windings in such a way that the coil will PRODUCE its own south pole in order to keep the intensity of the south pole near the coil exactly what it was before the iron plate (shield) started moving into the gap. The coil acts as an ultimate conservative :-) The CRUCIAL effect is that this magnetic south pole created by the coil will also attract the iron plate into the gap between the magnet and the coil just like it was happening in Fig #1. A south pole is a south pole, regardless whether it is produced by a magnet or a coil, right ?. So the moving iron plate will be attracted into the gap by BOTH the magnet and the coil analogously to Fig #1 --------------------------------------------------------------------- NNNNSSSS CCCCCCCC Coil closed (producing South pole) I I I I I (iron plate moving up) #5 --------------------------------------------------------------------- I I NNNNSSSS I CCCCCCCC Coil closed (producing South pole) I I (iron plate moving up) #6 --------------------------------------------------------------------- I I NNNNSSSS I CCCCCCCC Coil open ( inert ) I I (iron plate moving up) #7 --------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I (iron plate moving up) NNNNSSSS CCCCCCCC Coil open (inert) #8 --------------------------------------------------------------------- In Fig #6 the iron plate will shield the coil from all of the intensity of the south pole created by the permanent magnet and if the closed coil was superconductive and didn't have any resistive losses it now WOULD be producing a hypothetic south pole of exactly the same intensity as the south pole produced by the permanent magnet in Fig #5. At the same time, the permanent magnet in Fig #6 would also be shielded by the iron plate from the hypothetical field produced by the coil and would produce the same intensity of the south pole as it did before in Fig #5. For best shielding results a double iron plate (with gap between plates) should be used. We could say we "split" the original magnetic filed by the iron plate "axe". In Fig #7 & #8 we open the coil windings which makes the coil behave as if it WASN'T THERE at all. This is analogous to annihilating the permanent magnet in Fig #3. Now the iron plate can move away (under its inertia) from the permanent magnet with 2 times less back drag than if the coil was left closed. This switching-off of the coil allows the moving iron plate to escape from the gap with more energy than it had before. One might say that the switching action introduces nonconservativness into the system and introduces order into nature. Order = negentropy = energy This cycle can repeat indefinitely (perpetually) if the iron shield is moving cyclically in a large circular path through the magnet-coil gap just like in the Ecklin, LIAG, Kromray, Bedini generators. The coil should have as little resistance as possible in order to have the maximum magnetic flux induced in it. It should be switched with low resistance relay or a MOSFET transistor with very low RdsON (ie. N-ch MegaFET MOSFETs by Harris semiconductor). The gate of the MOSFET could be energized by a high resistance, high voltage (not over 20V) coil coaxially wound with the main coil. No exotic sensors are necessary here since one can take advantage of the property that the electric current through the coil moves one way when the iron plate is approaching the gap and OTHER way when the plate moves away. Yes, a diode could be used but a diode need 0.6 volts to operate and the low resistance coil (means thick wire, few turns) will not produce anything close to 0.6V but it will produce many Amps (high current). Strong magnets, small gap, laminated or powdered (to combat eddy currents) cores and the moving plate would improve efficiency. When the coil is said to be closed it doesn't necessarily mean shorted. It can be connected to a practical load to do useful work. The interesting property of this system is that the more current you draw from the coil the more energy you extract and the faster the iron plate moves (escapes from the gap). If you don't short the coil or hook up a load to it during the iron plate approach phase the whole thing will stop working and will behave conventionally. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 17 06:56:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA09486; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 06:54:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 06:54:59 -0800 Message-ID: <32B621F7.1D8F@interlaced.net> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:30:47 -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: Los Alamos MTF References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Bb4Y31.0.5K2.0Hhjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2775 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Larry Wharton wrote: > > Some of you have asked about the Los Alamos Magnetic Target Fusion (MTF) (snip) > with high explosives which is detonated during the discharge thus > compressing the plasma formed. The pressure achieved is about 10 mb or 10 > million bars. Thanks, Larry! I see now that the chamber wall mass inertially (word?) contains the pressure during the explosion. When you mentioned it, I thought it was a steady-state pressure tank they pumped up! HOLY COMPRESSORS, BATMAN! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 17 08:18:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA29420; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:16:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:16:14 -0800 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:17:02 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Some AEH calculations Resent-Message-ID: <"4YseW.0.VB7.BTijo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2776 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandon asked: > >Is 15.426 eV the energy required to ionise H2 to H2+, or perhaps to split >H2 into H + H rather than H2++ (i.e. two separate protons)? It is indeed the energy to ionize H2 to a stable molecular ion, H2+. With an additional 7 eV (approx), the H2+ dissociates into H + H+ (a neutral atom and an ion). This is not all bond energy, however, because the atoms fly apart with a combined kinetic energy of about 5.5 eV. It takes about 13.6 eV to ionize neutral H to H+. It takes about 8.5 eV to dissociate H2 into two neutral H atoms w/o ionization; this is not all bond energy, however, because the atoms fly apart with a combined kinetic energy of about 3 eV. NOTE: All these numbers apply only to atoms and molecules and electrons in free space. They do NOT apply to particles inside metals. Not only are the hydrogen energy states modified by the presence of nearby lattice atoms and electrons, but the electrons in the lattice are also in different states than electrons in vacuum. It would be incorrect to apply any of these numbers to calculate AEH effects. 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 Dec 17 08:58:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA01762; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:39:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:39:16 -0800 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:40:13 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: LIAG, Ecklin free energy, demystified Resent-Message-ID: <"v9kxC.0.SR.poijo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2777 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: In all this Liang-Edklin discussion you people are forgetting some fundamentals of electromagnetic energy. It takes energy from an external power supply to set up the magnetic field of the electromagnet, even if this is a superconductor with no resistance. The external power source supplies additional energy to the electromagnet when the iron plate is attracted closer to it. You seem not to be accounting for this energy input in your reasoning. When you open the switch, you dissipate the energy remaining in the electromagnet, as heat and light in the switch. (This may not be apparent to the casual observer with small electromagnets, but opening a switch in the circuit of a large electromagnet will splatter lots of molten switch metal around.) So, you put electrical energy in and then lose it. This will not make any additional energy. 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 Dec 17 12:01:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA26448 for billb@eskimo.com; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 11:59:04 -0800 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 11:59:04 -0800 X-Envelope-From: hjscudde@hercules.rdyne.bna.boeing.com Tue Dec 17 11:55:39 1996 Received: from rdyne.bna.boeing.com (hercules.rdyne.bna.boeing.com [134.57.7.79]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA25744 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 11:55:12 -0800 Received: from xchrd11.rdyne.bna.boeing.com by rdyne.bna.boeing.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA08877; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 11:56:15 -0800 Received: by xchrd11.rdyne.bna.boeing.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BBEC11.893A9E60@xchrd11.rdyne.bna.boeing.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 11:57:54 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Vortex-L Subject: FW: Ans to Swartz Concern re ZPE energy density Old-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 11:54:00 -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 X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: RO X-Status: Voretexans, I showed the postings on this topic to my boss, who is a welding engineer, and this was his reply. Hank ---------- From: Sporny, Richard F. To: Scudder, Henry J. Subject: RE: Ans to Swartz Concern re ZPE energy density Date: Tuesday, December 17, 1996 9:00AM Hank, It sounds as if this group is excited by discovering old, well known, processes. I guess that it could be argued that they are adding a new &/or additional understanding to what is going on with the process but in this case I don't think so. The process is commonly known as diffusion bonding. In the 1964 Welding Handbook, it is called "Cold Welding" &/or "Solid State Bonding". It occurs naturally, as discribed below, with metals when their surfaces that are to be joined are flat, smooth & clean. Because each of these three things are difficult to accomplish in a production environment, they are helped along by placing the parts to be joined in an chamber that is first evacuated & then back filled with H2 (this helps the cleaning). The parts are pressed together with a dead weight (this helps the flatness & smoothness by deforming the hign spots & bringing more of the surface area in contact). The chamber is then heated to speed the process. Titanium works the best. When space vehicles were first being designed, this was a high concern. It was believed that after some time in space, that all the metal part surfaces would join - clean, flat, pressure, vacuum & heating. The major concern was with relay contacts. Of course, this was before solid state relays. ---------- From: Scudder, Henry J. To: Sporny, Richard F. Subject: FW: Ans to Swartz Concern re ZPE energy density Date: Tuesday, December 17, 1996 7:50AM Rich Have you seen this type of welding? Hank ---------- From: Robert I. Eachus To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Ans to Swartz Concern re ZPE energy density Date: Monday, December 16, 1996 8:59PM From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 17 12:37:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA27829; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 12:04:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 12:04:30 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 11:01:34 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Some AEH calculations Resent-Message-ID: <"rQcmW3.0.cn6.coljo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2778 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: At 12:36 AM 12/17/96, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >Is 15.426 eV the energy required to ionise H2 to H2+, or perhaps to split >H2 into H + H rather than H2++ (i.e. two separate protons)? > [snip > >Robin van Spaandonk At 8:17 AM 12/17/96, Schaffer@gav.gat.com wrote: [snip > >It is indeed the energy to ionize H2 to a stable molecular ion, H2+. With >an additional 7 eV (approx), the H2+ dissociates into H + H+ (a neutral >atom and an ion). This is not all bond energy, however, because the atoms >fly apart with a combined kinetic energy of about 5.5 eV. > >It takes about 13.6 eV to ionize neutral H to H+. > >It takes about 8.5 eV to dissociate H2 into two neutral H atoms w/o >ionization; this is not all bond energy, however, because the atoms fly >apart with a combined kinetic energy of about 3 eV. > >NOTE: All these numbers apply only to atoms and molecules and electrons in >free space. They do NOT apply to particles inside metals. Not only are >the hydrogen energy states modified by the presence of nearby lattice atoms >and electrons, but the electrons in the lattice are also in different >states than electrons in vacuum. It would be incorrect to apply any of >these numbers to calculate AEH effects. > >Michael J. Schaffer Thanks for the reply Michael. Yes, Robin, you are correct, that is not the energy of H2 -> H + H separation. >From my 29th edition CRC Handbook the heat of formation of H from H2 is -50.42 kilocalories/mol. From this: (50.41 Kcal/mol) (4.186 x 10^3 J/Kcal) = 2.11 x 10^5 J/mol (2.11 x 10^5 J/mol)(1/(6.022 x 10^23 atoms/mol)) = (3.50 x 10^-19 J/atom) (1/(1.602x10^-19 J/eV)) = 2.19 eV/atom or about 4.37 eV per molecule so: H2 -> H + H - 4.37 eV if I didn't make any mistakes. As an aside, while looking for the above information, I found a comment that there is a welding process, in which two tungsten electrodes with an AC arc that produces heat to utilize the above reaction, that puts atomic hydrogen right on the weld spot where the heat of reformation of the H2 is used to help provide the weld heat. Sounds like Brown's gas without the oxygen! Yes, Michael Schaeffer is also correct that it is incorrect to apply these numbers to AEH calculations, as the SE would have to involve the total neighborhood. Wish I knew how to do that kind of modelling, but I don't. However, there has to be some rough conceptual basis from which to start modelling. I think maybe Nancy's question was centered more on this foundation concept, and thus not answered appropriately as I didn't understand the nature of the question. I have been wrestling to find a clean distillation of the concept into a single sentence that will clear up the issue. Maybe attempting to distill out my assumptions, and focus on a percieved inconsistancy will work. I see orbital formation as a geometric thing. An orbital has geometric content, and, even though fuzzy, a high degree of locality. From an every day perspective, atoms are pretty hard and well defined. Atoms can be deformed by the application of pressure from an adjacent atom. Deformations take place in a quantized manner, the quantum changes being called phonons. Phonons, i.e. deformations, can propagate through a lattice, but not instantaneously, as energy transfers are involved. The fundamental assumption of the AEH is that a deformed orbital can form within a confined space. The sudden presence of a deformed obital will begin a chain of phonon exchanges that will exert force and displacement upon atoms in the vicinity. The displacement through exertion of force, represents energy, heat, added to the lattice. (Case 1.) In the calculation, I proposed, in effect, a thought experiment. The idea, intended to simplify the situation by eliminating photon creation issues, is that there exists a lattice such that the confined tetrahdral space requires the formation of a maximally deformed H orbital. The combination of a free electron and proton in the confined space produces no photon because all the energy of the orbital formation, about 13.6 eV, must go into the deformation. (Case 2.) An inconsistancy arises when you bring in an H2 molecule. The photon energy of about 13.6 eV per atom is already gone into the lattice at formation time. (It is assumed all the H enters the lattice initally as protons). The roughly 5 eV of the H2 atom formation is spent also. Now, with the application of some energy (the topic of this post) to the hypothesize H atom in the triangular tetrahedral face hole, there is the prospect of forming two H atoms in the two separate tetrahedral spaces sharing the common face in which the H2 atom was trapped. For the sake of simplicity this lattice is still assumed to be such that the confinement is maximal, i.e. identical to the lattice in Case 1. Therefore, if such orbitals are formed, they have the same potential for doing work that the orbital formed in Case 1 did. However, if such orbitals are formed, they are formed from an electron/proton pair that is in a much lower energy state than the pair in Case 1. That is the inconsistancy. The ZPE concept seems to make sense of the inconsistancy. If ZPE holds up an atom in maximal deformation, then ZPE should be able to expand the 0.32 A atom out into the tetrahedral space to fill it to the point where the maximal force is exerted. ZPE also has the nice characteristic that a photon exchange to do this is not necessary. Once the orbital is formed it is only a matter of time that the potential energy of the orbital is exerted to deform the matrix. The actual orbital formation must be independent of this, though, because the eventual conversion of the potential energy (stored in the deformed orbital) to kinetic energy is a function of things beyond the event horizon of the orbital at the time of its formation. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 17 18:33:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA31705; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 18:27:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 18:27:25 -0800 Message-ID: <32B7651D.E6E@gorge.net> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 19:29:33 -0800 From: tom@gorge.net (Tom Miller) Reply-To: tom@gorge.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Lithium Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------2CE87EAA17B2" Resent-Message-ID: <"gzAmn1.0.rk7.9Qrjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2779 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------2CE87EAA17B2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It occurs to me that if I had a better understanding of how lithium and hydrogen interact, i would be better able to understand what is happening in Cold Fusion. That is, when lithium adsorbs hydrogen gas, it gives off heat, and the resulting hydride is heated, the hydrogen is driven off. This seems to be related to CF. If anyone knows a good website, or book on lithium hydride, or other hyfdrides, it would help me a lot. The sites I have found so far have assumed that the reader knows all about the process. I did find an interesting gif of the lithium hydride molecule. It shows the hydrogen atom as larger than the lithium?! I will attempt to attach it, but if I fail, here is the url: http://www-adm.pdx.edu/user/Shusterman/LiH-3.gif Tom Miller --------------2CE87EAA17B2 Content-Type: image/gif; name="LIH-3.GIF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="LIH-3.GIF" R0lGODlhjACfAPcAAP///wAkAP/b/gCSAAC2AADaAAD9AAAAVAAjVABIVABsVACSVQC2VADa VAD9VAAAqgAkqgAA/QAj/QBJqgBtqgBI/QBs/QCSqgC2qQCR/QC1/QDaqQD9qQDa/QD9/SSS qiS2qiOR/yO1/yPaqSP/qSPa/yP//yMAqiQkqiMA/SMj/yRJqiRtqiNI/yNs/yQAACQjACMA VCMjVCNIACNsACNIVCNsVCSSACS2ACSSVCS2VSPaACP9ACPaVCP/VABIAABsANvb/9v//9ra qdr/qf/aqf/+qdqRqdq1qf+Rqf+1qdqR/9q1//+R/v+1/pKSqpK2qraSqba2qpGR/5G1/7WR /7W1/5HaqZH/qbXaqbX/qZHa/5H//7Xa/7X//5EAqpEkqrYAqbYkqZEA/ZEj/7UA/bUj/5FI qZFsqbVIqbVsqZFJ/5Ft/7VJ/7Vt/9oAqdojqf0Aqf8jqdoA/doj//0A/f8j/ttJqdttqf9J qf9tqdpJ/9pt//9J/v9t/pIAAJIjALYAALYjAJIAVJIkVLYAVLYkVJJIAJJsALZJALZsAJFI VJFsVLVIVLVsVNoAANojAP0AAP0jANoAVNojVP0AVP8jVNpIANpsAP1IAP1sANtJVNtsVf9J VP9tVZKRAJK2ALaRALa1AJGRVJG1VLWRVLW1VJHaAJH9ALXaALX9AJLbVZL/VbbbVbb/VdqR ANq1AP2RAP21ANuRVdu1Vf+RVf+1VdrZANr9AP3aAP39ANvaVdv/Vf/aVf/+VUiRqUi1qWyR qWy1qUmS/0m2/22S/222/0nbqkn/qW3bqm3/qUnb/0n//23b/23//0gAqkgkqmwAqmwkqkgA /Ugj/2wA/Wwj/0hIqUhsqWxIqWxsqUlJ/0lt/2xJ/21t/0gAAEgjAGwAAGwjAEgAVEgjVGwA VGwjVEhHAEhsAGxIAGxrAElJVUltVW1JVG1tVUmSAEm2AG2SAG22AEiRVEi1VGyRVGy1VEja AEj9AGzaAGz9AEnbVUn/VG3bVW3/VQAAACwAAAAAjACfAAcI/wABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHD hxAjSpwoMFOmgZowUtzIsaNHiJIuAtBkEcDFjABiZYzFEoCsjzBjyjwoqWamkAAkCcwocidK TbEEBpVFdKbRoxFr6tR5UWTJigRXpkw51KXAXLmQat1aU+DSnGB7itW4k2BQgUUBZNWFa6tb mF115pSbUyTdkQhfoiWYVa0utgDavh38MFKknIfl3jVJcKzPgWfVDtQrsC0uXKoAoCLMGWHN SHe7eh14tyfCyFOvAtBVeaCuzZk7ywYN9itYmo3L9kSpcvLZtIFXB1alCtVm2YQNH15+W/Rt k04HNl0pMihKgqwH9g0usLg+fMjdLv+nDcDwQdMEFyt8iVpg9oPfwYefaR7sYc8Io5fdr7Av 5YGqtKWPZgINOB9M5jE32kJyoedYWdZBJplkbQG2mmD6bIaPfAd2JImCC5ZH11c3kZaedHjh ZR1wBbWV1XEFFuSAAR1OVJ9ACZaHGHnOjaXTddcxJMt2C8UmkAEGOFBjRMoldh+OIJGV4pRC FhTbezwAYIB8Si7Z0HgEPakjjmKOpt55GEV2XWSyuKhWcaupMmBm+myZpZcM5Tjmngp9VZqJ CAX5UlbbXeaeQ0lygOdB44EJ4n06QfocVCjmhFImkanJ10PHOWAgABx4oOiiYSp4I22n6jii QUxJGWReCMX/hguHAymp5KgCddABqfWBCSWgDJ2Z0JpmTabdQIZmqYoB3wGQZZcc7AqABksq N1CZC2GrGLCMUWrQfwRZ1h0AnyaUpAOKejCtBhZkYMF81jpUn598OkTsXnoRCRF4uE47UAfv VhBwBZzd12ijZEZqom3dPmfaqwu9R5Aq73EII0HqTpvBQO8KZEHAyRlc3pMk4xZmQg9XSmWx xqrG2nvLCqSkukpK6/FAGxckwVZNBntyQ6tWRNd1u7XX2rjkJn1nQYrSCOpA1AqUQQUEEyzB 1UjlKHJSY4omrJCU5RLZXwcJ1lDGHeuMNdZHJdirwU9G+uGJuXmbslAtW7UvRVVv/0yw2kaJ ifBcCzo3InpI6XtQl09DTVDOAPwtkOQD7RyT1ox6iJ+3U6KUFWVDarYdPlm25XTjSAKAruM3 Ry451hEgmBC2OKrH8G2JcQtRX6yZbdxGaTcUgQSxd+Trl2LO/dBuZV0HukOKA2DkQf0S9O7w AxUvE3MIW8v9taoCu2pTp0FktkQaRA0A5FQ7RPxGJdfLUSSIOyRLkPfq7R7vR/7OAXhZMoAG 3OGOUOUKZ5FLoEAsF4HYaY9JIytI/BLyNVbRbVIQS0hbMmOkDdXKIOsgoAgJOIonTAR7ECxM 5pLnFdophCRCQUlaoveQddhwhO4YhQ5z+AQTLlCB2mugA/8p4j0yjQxucPtVc4LWsActJIM1 DOEIdajDJ5RQAz0sIQAeWBAuGi+CnKlglTJTKILA4Ib4IKABSsgBDvTwCenrYQa0+De2bXF+ x5Pgz1wYpW1xjlhBMRqcBAJALZ1RiiQsYQnfKIVGNvIJUtDiQYonRC8iJFUekQsLQxSRsGUl KBI7iAxgcEhE5lCRPXSkKqVgRR8SpIEA2NkQ5dUzPRnkRnsqExPFMjQJ7YUjoyTlDUVYxUWy 8pir7OEWLWcQS85OiddC4mhypzDEkIqUpSSmDg3wRkhCUpUWYKUyY8fMZn5JR8fjI0ek2Eop NWxKqKlK2AaEj3+Q8hznGKY+FOn/ADZ6wJsdcGQGHpk2WcbSgQjNFi6fyRGduEOKVFQmpaB4 rMq852IAwGY+EbnPRb6RA6sMqUQnKcQ8xQuaJj1ZNQUyTHe0EpKLXJMM81aQUA4Em4ecIioZ 6c2QitMdsRQIOYkIxiTWslfgU6JczqjNVD7ymzLBaUtP6dFu9lSkOmwblGinzoPklIQvVaUV DWI0lulPMlI15XesOKMeupGVHfBmBp5QAbqOAqg7y+sCEepMMtlSJqNEZES/6cg3Ssk0QSmU YGCE043ikIpV7eYxvZlFAiKEr7Nb6EdIBoN8NtWYYjXhmn4DEWyuw7HaLOZLU9nTbt4VqLAM al9X6DZ0/9q2iMxRDF3W8VXIOjWZruSIRm1oSqpG1qpW3SFQ6bPVMXXVq/gMoW8JG9pRcEQT 2DUtanXayp12c44VGEUFRGi1oG5xlibdGkyECdHBAnesDcMfRrBL3/qalriI3NA2+/mEUPUQ i661oggVQry+nvQonfVsIsP61B661F71pa9AtItfnaoWlRi24mthe0cGIg+pmDMVycyjSdHc 05RVRC4VLduRe+Jzu6mFbIYhO+DBiEy9CunsVxeM4bu+1iM6Pq2QpZjGROqQAzPWsAjXwdwb d2SUMJaxcmv8kJfg4iWbyUqChezYDamRikjWYQeo+DERWgC2HnagLGfbM5S2eP/IxfUxDm0Y lItEqCiJncr5zHjGfG50qgbIoaBlLOgl//C8Qr0jmzE3P9Isx8/ExaGkTxsTfEQX0lOVNDEn vQ70vnK2l0RnEm2rPMPQpUydhXNxl3xGiJTVjFxWtaZnjd9mglqFRZWfQ1SN316T0iMwAg+m ZT3rEWbAhqQsr4fP+z7kOdcosR42spl8EJZk5CVSOQtbtrOdaPd6HQYIIbpEqIFj2xCfMEi0 QdZ86wMTFT+SuDS6cQoDnFSnfqmp4Z8h/edva4C4pt1r5W59SRHftmuryl3u+HRPHWPzH3Uz K0X67G1+ExfSpPyHDBR4WYg814ggj9KEqa2QuyEEZjH/kk+4+f1idMsbpxBXCMGf6SsXfjwm bKpoYFgTtuy859JChoEDhA6DUJGyA6SUAchel+bYflgiN6fbU96pCbnA0FUEARdDdHwOens9 3QRhptPfN/NoxmvUp9JkUpdYG9IwMSY0jA0pPUBvuv8aAO/qmNi7aCMJPvdG2xKjQYA0kwHd yQHQuqlUg/eQsq99j3mciOAb4smjCQSjCFH5QdSXs/Yd2tMeL+Lj5UVBlTGPP+05yycn8xJV lDE4scGHgZzWRoGkb3IdP2g5Qy/qdG4Nk+SZlJm45USK6hwhjCvI7aU2EM8v05x4MjWfQjMY fJjNabdyCOMrt/svJhXE15o8/0zClpreSY8iioKcQerY5Gf7LCIPInzetH6QtXDn8oR0lpZu NarlC+xdV5NX3UdEjOY2o5ZrZtIjDPEUd4NdWVcZNAQgBUEz/sIxCWQB5WVegUN6DuFHIfIn 3tIbD6Evd+I0+GBAB4RAzYd7Gng5maNEpjJ8KCV+IygcvhNsBJF8TLMQlLOBonZwpReElDJ1 I8EbvnRWCdFBDmEz7MJ8zpc1Z8c9vxc34fOB3GJ8CsEm5FcZi5U0/KIlqsMBUeMuH9OD4RF1 QKMyDhMV7vQQJSgQ6QItNrM+6tcZfEQyd7EczjEpNPgtR3h/dBIj56ckBlI9ADCHZ7hVBtdC JsMgp/8HT75xcsfXEIqiAbrSIaKXS7alVBfkRKbHhpyCLAaSGRoSQOhiiAdigO7GKi50Owwh f/C0HYMiHAhBI7YCKijoJUilR6MHb21XF5+4O75DLroAHvhgJLNHKo/3KNH0K5+xOYEiJTnH Hu+xZwRBKzqojGZ3Y4uxUkrxHEGDEzKRC9NjEDRyOtroPd6jPGIkfqZRNH9oLH3xegSiJUmC jtqoiRbkZiaCb5yTCT9hVrHgH/dXjwCAD5uxNPiYj2C0dlzFQrZBPkTzhzlHKNgxMdc4EOXC kLe0iCASF+DYIIdVJfm2KQZxHBvJkaVCYr6HJvmhhmyoF+1BJGYTIARBTyr/qRCaJUZU2BBS kT+pkRa4kAu4wBrGgQsZsiEpmZPNuInQ1Ir0chFWhxf5g2eSsR3vYVNMqUIJwo724YFTB4sF 0RIFQZMYaZBbqVCm5iQKt3b+6BgZATHgki+CsUHEkZa41pOaFSKPiIV4gxb50juYgZfws0le cSZ/Qj6PARSZMhnzeBnWSJi8Zx+E4zU90SAPY4TVZpJZUZSSaTxz84wi0ogJoSbPsxdY8Zn0 oVsJSDfi2EQsI0+qoZpI4TW/+BR0cRI7cRaMKQsswSK0+RZKMZzkYxESWYQrEUhkGZzIYRdO ER0i4YAp4ZfMWZ3WeZ3YmZ3auZ3c2Z3e+Z3gGZ7i2jme5Fme5nme6Jme6rme7Nme7vme8Bmf 8jmf9Fmf9nmf+Jmf+rmf/Nmf/vmfABqgAjqg6PkPBnqgA3GgCLoRCmqgCuGg5AmhBSGhHUGh CGGh4ImhAKChE8Gh66mhHhoRIZqeIBpzHjGiBWqiBIGiDsGiKhqeJQoTKMqi2NmgNiqjLzqh CzqeMfoRM5qj39mjJwqkOlqeQnoQN5oQP2qkQEqjDLGkEdqkRCoRHGqiTmqdR8oRQnql1Zml DJqjO8qltJmkG9qgWmqjZlqmCkqgbNqmbvqmcBqnnBEQACH/C01BQ0dDb24gBAMQMQAAAAFX cml0dGVuIGJ5IEdJRkNvbnZlcnRlciAyLjMuNyBvZiBKYW4gMjksIDE5OTQAAA== --------------2CE87EAA17B2-- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 17 19:39:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA12813; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 19:32:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 19:32:48 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961218025411.00668d9c@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, 18 Dec 1996 11:54:11 +0900 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com From: Elliot Kennel Subject: Re: Lithium Resent-Message-ID: <"9nQmq2.0.e63.BNsjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2780 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Tom Miller wrote: >>t occurs to me that if I had a better understanding of how lithium and hydrogen interact, i would be better able to understand what is happening in Cold Fusion.<< Great. When you figure it out, let me know. I haven't got a clue yet. >>If anyone knows a good website, or book on lithium hydride, or other hyfdrides, it would help me a lot.,, Try The Metal-Hydrogen System: Basic Bulk Properties,Yuh Fukai, Springer Series in Material Science 21, Springer Verlag,ISBN 3-540-5537-0. See also, Metal Hydrides, W. M. Mueller, J. P. Blackledge and G. G. Libowitz (Eds), Academic Press, New York 1968. Best regards, Elliot Kennel From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 17 23:45:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA05163; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 23:44:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 23:44:06 -0800 From: warlord@LocalAccess.com Message-Id: <199612180744.XAA05140@mx1.eskimo.com> X-Sender: warlord@mail.localaccess.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 Subject: RE: LIAG, Ecklin free energy, demystified Date: Tue, 17 Dec 96 23:43:59 PSTP+0000 X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"Rryq62.0.aG1.53wjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2781 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The setup you are refering to doesn't use ANY external power supply (unless you consider permanent magnet as such) No, it doesn't take any energy to set up the magnetic field of the electromagnet if a permanent magnet is used to produce the field. No, you don't LOOSE the energy when the coil is opened because the energy can be dissipated in a load as a useful work after the switch is opened OR continuously dissipated in a load during the aprroach of the iron plate into the coil - magnet gap OR both. The energy is not lost (except for parasitic coil resistance), the energy is recollected or shuttled to a useful load for useful purposes. Read the details again and let's hear from you tommorow Extra energy is produced because the approach of the iron plate into the magnet-coil gap induces current in the coil for free. Furthermore this electric current sets up a magnetic field in the coil that oposes the change caused by the shielding effect of the iron plate. This magnetic field adds to the attraction of the iron plate into the gap, for free. After the energy in the coil is dissipated in any way (useful or useless) the coil is rendered inert (by open circuiting) and doesn't oppose the outgoing of the iron plate out of the coil-magnet gap. This further adds to the kinetic energy of the moving iron plate because it is attracted stronger during approach than during departure from the gap. At 08:40 AM 12/17/96 -0800, you wrote: > >In all this Liang-Edklin discussion you people are forgetting some >fundamentals of electromagnetic energy. > >It takes energy from an external power supply to set up the magnetic field >of the electromagnet, even if this is a superconductor with no resistance. >The external power source supplies additional energy to the electromagnet >when the iron plate is attracted closer to it. You seem not to be >accounting for this energy input in your reasoning. > >When you open the switch, you dissipate the energy remaining in the >electromagnet, as heat and light in the switch. (This may not be apparent >to the casual observer with small electromagnets, but opening a switch in >the circuit of a large electromagnet will splatter lots of molten switch >metal around.) > >So, you put electrical energy in and then lose it. This will not make any >additional energy. > >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 Dec 18 05:48:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA13626; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 05:46:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 05:46:18 -0800 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 08:44:24 -0500 (EST) From: John Schnurer To: Tom Miller cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: CF, Hydrides, ANY information about ANY subject ... Lithium In-Reply-To: <32B7651D.E6E@gorge.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"J_j3i.0.mK3.eM_jo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2782 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Tom and all Vo., Hie thee to the college libraries and look in OLD`[pre 1987]' texts on Hydrides, metallurgy, Inorganic Chema [emph on metals] .. AND.. very important pre 87 Scientific American. [Or, of course any othr subject] In Sci Am there are yearly index in TWO PARTS ... one the ariticle, one the Amateur Scientist. Sci Am is a great resource.... but it IS paper ..... and rquires you to have pencil and note book [very cool] ... and I often sit crossleggeded blocking the isles ...... [[even more cool] ....I have often over the past two or three decades blocked acesss to passageways in the top tech libraries world over ..... more real scienitsts, applied and theoretical, will simply step around you. They KNOW what you are doing.... you are digging .... On better resources ..... make sure you pay close attention to the era just past WWII and Korean War, when we passed info out of classification to public. Check the biblios [all of this seems to be becoming a lost art... and it IS art .... and detective work] Somtimes, if you are persistant and lucky you will ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO FIND OR BE ABLE TO TALK TO SOME OF THE BRAINS THAT DID THE WORK. With their own two hands... and-or the hands of others. Many many may be retired, or Professors Emeritus, or instead of working at Oak Ridgde be part of some arson squad investigation top flight people. There IS no better Holiday gift I can give you than the above. It often takes work and investigation and 'stick-to-itvity'. But it can pay big. Many of these people would love to talk to or write with some one [does not have to be hydrides] ..... this usually is and was their work..... and few care any more.... at all, about them, the work, the thinking ... the DOING ... or what happenened to it..... or care or even wonder to learn. These people, if you can get to them, will tll you of what is in NO BOOK or paper..... including their personal experiences. Write it all down, or ask permission to use atape recorder or it can and will be lost. JHS On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Tom Miller wrote: > It occurs to me that if I had a better understanding of > how lithium and hydrogen interact, i would be better > able to understand what is happening in Cold Fusion. > > That is, when lithium adsorbs hydrogen gas, it gives > off heat, and the resulting hydride is heated, the > hydrogen is driven off. This seems to be related to > CF. If anyone knows a good website, or book on > lithium hydride, or other hyfdrides, it would help > me a lot. > > The sites I have found so far have assumed that the > reader knows all about the process. I did find an > interesting gif of the lithium hydride molecule. It shows > the hydrogen atom as larger than the lithium?! I will > attempt to attach it, but if I fail, here is the url: > > http://www-adm.pdx.edu/user/Shusterman/LiH-3.gif > > Tom Miller > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 18 06:33:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA20227; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 06:30:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 06:30:53 -0800 From: warlord@LocalAccess.com Message-Id: <199612181430.GAA20194@mx1.eskimo.com> X-Sender: warlord@mail.localaccess.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 Subject: Dissipating energy is NOT a problem here Date: Wed, 18 Dec 96 06:30:35 PSTP+0000 X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"O1rgt2.0.xx4.R00ko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2783 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Re: LIAG, Ecklin, demystified and Magnetic shielding - for "dummies" The setup you are refering to doesn't use ANY external power supply (unless you consider permanent magnet as such). No, it doesn't take any energy to set up the magnetic field of the electromagnet if a permanent magnet is used to produce the field. No, you don't LOOSE the energy when the coil is opened because the energy can be dissipated in a load as a useful work after the switch is opened OR continuously dissipated in a load during the aprroach of the iron plate into the coil - magnet gap OR both. The energy is not lost (except for parasitic coil resistance), the energy is recollected or shuttled to a useful load for useful purposes. Read the details again and let's hear from you tommorow Extra energy is produced because the approach of the iron plate into the magnet-coil gap induces current in the coil for free. Furthermore this electric current sets up a magnetic field in the coil that oposes the change caused by the shielding effect of the iron plate. This magnetic field adds to the attraction of the iron plate into the gap, for free. After the energy in the coil is dissipated in any way (useful or useless) the coil is rendered inert (by open circuiting) and doesn't oppose the outgoing of the iron plate out of the coil-magnet gap. This further adds to the kinetic energy of the moving iron plate because it is attracted stronger during approach than during departure from the gap. At 08:40 AM 12/17/96 -0800, you wrote: > >In all this Liang-Edklin discussion you people are forgetting some >fundamentals of electromagnetic energy. > >It takes energy from an external power supply to set up the magnetic field >of the electromagnet, even if this is a superconductor with no resistance. >The external power source supplies additional energy to the electromagnet >when the iron plate is attracted closer to it. You seem not to be >accounting for this energy input in your reasoning. > >When you open the switch, you dissipate the energy remaining in the >electromagnet, as heat and light in the switch. (This may not be apparent >to the casual observer with small electromagnets, but opening a switch in >the circuit of a large electromagnet will splatter lots of molten switch >metal around.) > >So, you put electrical energy in and then lose it. This will not make any >additional energy. > >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 Dec 18 07:22:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA31181; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 07:19:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 07:19:09 -0800 From: warlord@LocalAccess.com Message-Id: <199612181518.HAA31068@mx1.eskimo.com> X-Sender: warlord@mail.localaccess.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 Subject: Could somemody criticize this please Date: Wed, 18 Dec 96 07:18:57 PSTP+0000 X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"U4r6O2.0._c7.gj0ko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2784 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Could somebody criticize this please. I can't find anything wrong with this. It can't be rigt >Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 18:48:02 -0800 >X-Sender: Epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com >Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 18:47:53 -0800 >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com >From: Epitaxy >Subject: Re: Magnetic Shielding - for "dummies" >X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) >Resent-Message-ID: <"jqM_Z3.0.YF4.VdWjo"@mx1> >Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com >Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/786 >X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com >Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > > >< View the below drawing with monospaced font and this screen width > > > >MAGNETIC SHIELDING > > > >For example take two permanent magnets in S-S configuration and iron plate >like this. (the plate is restricted to move only in vertical direction) > > > LEGEND: NNNNSSSS a permanent magnet with North & South poles > IIIIIIII a soft iron plate > CCCCCCCC an electromagnetic coil > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >NNNNSSSS SSSSNNNN > > > I > I > I > I > I (iron plate attracted up) > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >The iron plate will be pulled into the gap between the magnets like this > > > I > I >NNNNSSSS I SSSSNNNN > I > I (iron plate stopped at equilibrium) > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >But if the gap between the magnets is LARGER the iron plate will stop here. > This configuration is not useful for our purposes. > > > >NNNNSSSS I SSSSNNNN > I > I > I > I (iron plate stopped at equilibrium) > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >If the magnets are oriented S-N the iron plate will also stop here because >iron plate is equally attracted to North or South poles: > > > I > I >NNNNSSSS I NNNNSSSS > I > I (iron plate stopped at equilibrium) > > >********************************************************************* > > >If we now consider this sequence of events > >_____________________________________________________________________ > >Both magnets attract the iron plate into the gap > > >NNNNSSSS SSSSNNNN > > > I > I > I > I > I (iron plate moving up) > >Fig #1 >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > I > I >NNNNSSSS I SSSSNNNN > I > I (iron plate moving up) > > > >Fig #2 >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >One of the magnets is removed or annihilated. > > > I > I >NNNNSSSS I > I > I (iron plate moving up) > > > >Fig #3 >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I > I > I > I > I (iron plate moving up) > >NNNNSSSS > >Fig #4 >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >We will notice that the iron plate gains more energy getting pulled between >the magnets (Fig #1 & #2) then it looses during the back drag (Fig #3 & #4) >because one of the magnets has been removed. One might immediately say >here: "...wait a minute you just had to expend energy removing one of the >magnets..." and you would be correct in the above case. > >HOWEVER if we were using a coil instead of the magnet we could turn it off >(and the magnetic field it produces) without expending any energy > >So what exactly happens if we substitute one of the magnets with a coil ? > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >At the beginning (Fig #5) the coil sees the maximum intensity of the south >pole produced by the permanent magnet. > >As the iron plate is pulled into the gap between the permanent magnet and >the coil, the iron shield starts REDIRECTING more and more of the magnetic >field (splitting the field) produced by the permanent magnet AWAY from the >coil. The net result of this is that the coil starts seeing less and less >of the south pole (which is provided by the permanent magnet). > >According to the Lenz law if the circuit of the coil is closed, the coil >will try to resist this change in the strength of the aforementioned south >pole by circulating electric current through its windings in such a way >that the coil will PRODUCE its own south pole in order to keep the >intensity of the south pole near the coil exactly what it was before the >iron plate (shield) started moving into the gap. The coil acts as an >ultimate conservative :-) > >This electric current in the coil can be dissipated in a useful load during >the whole approach phase (or later when the coil is open circuited) > >The CRUCIAL effect is that this magnetic south pole created by the coil >will also attract the iron plate into the gap between the magnet and the >coil just like it was happening in Fig #1. A south pole is a south pole, >regardless whether it is produced by a magnet or a coil, right ?. > >So the moving iron plate will be attracted into the gap by BOTH the magnet >and the coil analogously to Fig #1 > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >NNNNSSSS CCCCCCCC Coil closed (producing South pole) > > > I > I > I > I > I (iron plate moving up) >#5 >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > I > I >NNNNSSSS I CCCCCCCC Coil closed (producing South pole) > I > I (iron plate moving up) > > > > >#6 >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > I > I >NNNNSSSS I CCCCCCCC Coil open ( inert ) > I > I (iron plate moving up) > > > > >#7 >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I > I > I > I > I (iron plate moving up) > >NNNNSSSS CCCCCCCC Coil open (inert) >#8 >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >In Fig #6 the iron plate will shield the coil from all of the intensity of >the south pole created by the permanent magnet and if the closed coil was >superconductive and didn't have any resistive losses it now WOULD be >producing a hypothetic south pole of exactly the same intensity as the >south pole produced by the permanent magnet in Fig #5. At the same time, >the permanent magnet in Fig #6 would also be shielded by the iron plate >from the hypothetical field produced by the coil and would produce the same >intensity of the south pole as it did before in Fig #5. For best shielding >results a double iron plate (with gap between plates) should be used. We >could say we "split" the original magnetic filed by the iron plate "axe". > >In Fig #7 & #8 we open the coil windings (and dissipate any leftover current >in it into a useful load), which makes the coil behave as if it WASN'T THERE. >This is analogous to annihilating the permanent magnet in Fig #3. Now the >iron plate can move away (under its inertia) from the permanent magnet with 2 >times less back drag than if the coil was left closed. This switching-off of >the coil allows the moving iron plate to escape from the gap with more energy >than it had before. One might say that the switching action introduces >nonconservativness into the system and introduces order into nature. >Order = negentropy = energy > >This cycle can repeat indefinitely (perpetually) if the iron shield is >moving cyclically in a large circular path through the magnet-coil gap just >like in the Ecklin, LIAG, Kromray, Bedini generators. > >The coil should have as little resistance as possible in order to have the >maximum magnetic flux induced in it. It should be switched with low >resistance relay or a MOSFET transistor with very low RdsON (ie. N-ch >MegaFET MOSFETs by Harris semiconductor). The gate of the MOSFET could be >energized by a high resistance, high voltage (not over 20V) coil coaxially >wound with the main coil. No exotic sensors are necessary here since one >can take advantage of the property that the electric current through the >coil moves one way when the iron plate is approaching the gap and OTHER way >when the plate moves away. Yes, a diode could be used but a diode need 0.6 >volts to operate and the low resistance coil (means thick wire, few turns) >will not produce anything close to 0.6V but it will produce many Amps (high >current). > >Strong magnets, small gap, laminated or powdered (to combat eddy currents) >cores and the moving plate would improve efficiency. > >When the coil is said to be closed it doesn't necessarily mean shorted. It >can be connected to a practical load to do useful work. The interesting >property of this system is that the more current you draw from the coil during >the approach phase the more energy you extract and the faster the iron plate >moves (escapes from the gap). The energy in the coil is dissipated either >during the whole approach phase of the iron plate into the gap or after the >coil is open circuited or both. Decaying the current in the coil after the >approach phase takes certain amount of time depending on the resistance of the >coil&load and the inductance. This coil decay time is very short because of the >low coil inductance and high load resistance. If you don't short the coil or >hook up a load to it during the iron plate approach phase the whole thing will >stop working and will behave conventionally. > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 18 07:31:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA31851; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 07:22:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 07:22:28 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9612180919.ZM11267@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 09:19:00 -0600 In-Reply-To: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) "Re: Some AEH calculations" (Dec 16, 7:29pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Some AEH calculations Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"kTThL3.0.Zn7.om0ko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2785 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Dec 16, 7:29pm, Horace Heffner wrote: > I'm just an old retired guy > learning some interesting things. It's fun to think about and get others > thinking too, though, so I indulge. One good idea in 100 would be very > worthwhile. (I'm still waiting to have that one good one.) This little > conundrum is probaly due to a conceptual mistake on my part, but we'll see, > and maybe I'll learn something. >-- End of excerpt from Horace Heffner Don't sell yourself short. Thinking in general is a rare execise in the world today, it frightens many. What a wonderful world it would be if more shared your zeal. Your insights are refreshing and reasuring. Keep up the good work. -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSS From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 18 09:37:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA26831; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 09:32:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 09:32:39 -0800 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 09:33:22 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Could somemody criticize this please Resent-Message-ID: <"AJeSF3.0.7Z6.pg2ko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2786 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: After reading the 'LIAG, Ecklin...' posts, I now confess I don't understand what they are talking about. When you get to Fig. 5: Is the electromagnetic connected to any external power source? Some sentences imply, 'Yes,' others imply, 'No." Which is it? It MAKES A DIFFERENCE! If there is a supply, tell clearly what it is doing and when. As with all these attempts to exploit magnetism, I remain highly skeptical. Is there a working model with no hidden compartments? 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 Dec 18 09:54:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA31168; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 09:50:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 09:50:31 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961218094951.00724e5c@aa.net> X-Sender: mwm@aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 09:49:53 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: Some AEH calculations Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"X3POz1.0.sc7.bx2ko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2787 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:01 AM 12/17/96 -0900, you wrote: > >I see orbital formation as a geometric thing. An orbital has geometric >content, and, even though fuzzy, a high degree of locality. From an every >day perspective, atoms are pretty hard and well defined. Atoms can be >deformed by the application of pressure from an adjacent atom. >Deformations take place in a quantized manner, the quantum changes being >called phonons. Phonons, i.e. deformations, can propagate through a >lattice, but not instantaneously, as energy transfers are involved. The >fundamental assumption of the AEH is that a deformed orbital can form >within a confined space. The sudden presence of a deformed obital will >begin a chain of phonon exchanges that will exert force and displacement >upon atoms in the vicinity. The displacement through exertion of force, >represents energy, heat, added to the lattice. > >(Case 1.) In the calculation, I proposed, in effect, a thought experiment. >The idea, intended to simplify the situation by eliminating photon creation >issues, is that there exists a lattice such that the confined tetrahdral >space requires the formation of a maximally deformed H orbital. The >combination of a free electron and proton in the confined space produces no >photon because all the energy of the orbital formation, about 13.6 eV, must >go into the deformation. hmmm, hmmm, hmmm > >(Case 2.) An inconsistancy arises when you bring in an H2 molecule. The >photon energy of about 13.6 eV per atom is already gone into the lattice at >formation time. (It is assumed all the H enters the lattice initally as >protons). The roughly 5 eV of the H2 atom formation is spent also. Now, >with the application of some energy (the topic of this post) to the >hypothesize H atom in the triangular tetrahedral face hole, there is the >prospect of forming two H atoms in the two separate tetrahedral spaces >sharing the common face in which the H2 atom was trapped. For the sake of >simplicity this lattice is still assumed to be such that the confinement is >maximal, i.e. identical to the lattice in Case 1. Therefore, if such >orbitals are formed, they have the same potential for doing work that the >orbital formed in Case 1 did. However, if such orbitals are formed, they >are formed from an electron/proton pair that is in a much lower energy >state than the pair in Case 1. That is the inconsistancy. > I follow you to this point >The ZPE concept seems to make sense of the inconsistancy. If ZPE holds up >an atom in maximal deformation, then ZPE should be able to expand the 0.32 >A atom out into the tetrahedral space to fill it to the point where the >maximal force is exerted. ZPE also has the nice characteristic that a >photon exchange to do this is not necessary. > This I just can't follow. Why ZPE? Isn't it just the electrostatic potentials manifesting? I must be missing something... >Once the orbital is formed it is only a matter of time that the potential >energy of the orbital is exerted to deform the matrix. The actual orbital >formation must be independent of this, though, because the eventual >conversion of the potential energy (stored in the deformed orbital) to >kinetic energy is a function of things beyond the event horizon of the >orbital at the time of its formation. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 18 11:19:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA17911; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 11:12:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 11:12:04 -0800 Date: 18 Dec 96 14:07:31 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo" Cc: Debbie Hagar <71431.3153@compuserve.com> Subject: CETI Forum Conference Message-ID: <961218190730_76016.2701_JHC108-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"VI5lR3.0.dN4.184ko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2788 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Vortices: On Monday night (12/16), Christian Ismert and Maria Okuniewski, of Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETI) held a open conference on the Science section of the UFO forum on Compuserve (Go UFO). Following is an edited version of the log of that conference. For the complete text, check library (13) of the UFO forum. Many interesting things were brought out, including confirmation that 40 applications for RIFEX kits have been received. I use the pseudonym "randy goose" since I moderate a competitive forum. ######################################################## Debbie/Moderator | Is cold fusion real? Can elements really be transmuted, | at room temperature? Christian Ismert and Maria | Okuniewski, of Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. (CETI), | join us tonight to give us some insight on the current | state of cold fusion. CETI has recently started | marketing the Patterson Power Cell, which has received | several U.S. Patents and has been acclaimed as the | first device to reliably demonstrate chemically assisted | nuclear reactions. 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. Welcome, Christian and Maria! | This conference is Formal and the rules will | be strictly enforced. To ask a question, type a '?' | (without quotes), and to make a comment, type a '!'. I will | call for questions in the order they're received. Christian Ismert | Well, for starters let me say I really | appreciate this opportunity to speak with you. CETI is | really excited about its technology and we are finally ready to | begin talking about it. | Let me clear a few things... Christian Ismert | This is not quite like the "Cold Fusion" from | back in 1989. | The reactions are different and so is the | theoretical model | The cold fusion from 1989 used deuterium + deuterium | reactions. This is a different kind of reactions altogether. | The reactions we are observing use light | water, rather than | heavy water. Also, they include fusion and fission | reactions. These reactions are indicated by | transmutation of elements. ie. elemental conversion. | While startling, these observations are being | verified through independent research at various labs | worldwide. Ok, questions? Debbie/Moderator | Thanks, Christian! | Mr. E, GA. Mr. E. | The cold fusion hoax(?) of 89 was proved | unreal, | have you seen any gains from fission/fusion | that can be measured and reproduced? ga Christian Ismert | What do you mean by "gains"? Mr. E. | measurable and usable charge which can be | translated into "consumer freindly power" | supply ga Christian Ismert | We are currently generating low levels of | thermal energy, in | the form of raw heat. The calcuated gains in | the form of excess heat or "overunity" | ga Mr. E. | Can we translate this raw heat into say | electricity | and come out with more power / wattage than | we put in? ga Christian Ismert | The short answer is yes. This is how we | calculate wattage in v. wattage out. | The formula is Flow rate of electrolyte * | change in Temp.* | the specific heat of the electrolyte = watts | out. Calculation. GA Tom Genereaux | Christian... | You're making some rather bold claims for the | transmutation aspect of this. Could you | describe the spectral output of, oh say, U238 | in the cell? | ga Christian Ismert | We can't respond to the U238 at this time. | But... | we can give specific transmuation products on | a nickel, | nickel, palladium and combination type system. Christian Ismert | Ok, well, hang on, we're getting that info. Debbie/Moderator | Christian, in the meantime, would you like | another question? Christian Ismert | ok, here ya go...as printed in Dr. George | Miley's paper | presented at ICCF-6 in Hokkaido, Japan | "Nuclear reaction products were obtained in all cases with | several runs resulting in concentrations of.... | over 40 atomic % of the metallic films being | Fe, Si, Mg, Cu, Cr, Zn, and Ag." | These were the elements that were of primary | interest at the time. | GA Tom Genereaux | Yes... | You give %'s - but no mention is made of | *starting* concentrations... | nor of excess neutron and proton spectra... | this leads me to believe that there are other | things going on besides transmutation... | possibly an organo-metallic reaction with | contaminants in the cell. ga Christian Ismert | Give us your address, and will send you the | paper. Send it through our WEB site at | www.cleanenergy.com/ceti. Tom Genereaux | Will do. Debbie/Moderator | Christian, thanks for joining us tonight! | When you say | that this transmutation is being verified in | independant | labs, which ones do you mean? And could you | tell us something about the Patterson cell kits that | you're marketing? GA | (And I'll be posting the paper, btw, in the | s13 library!) Christian Ismert | OK, well, at this point, many of the labs are | awaiting additional verifications and are witholding | any announcements. | The kits are intended to enable scientists | skilled in the art to reproduce these reactions. Christian Ismert | The kits are reasonably priced and come with | a research license to encourage partcipation in this | organized research effort. Debbie/Moderator | What do the kits show, though, Christian? | Is this a demonstration of overunity, as well | as transmutation? GA Christian Ismert | They will transmutate the elements in the | system. Which | is determined by scientific tests such as | NAA, SIMMS, EDX, etc. | After the cell is run, a variety of new elements emerge with | in the system. Even when care is taken to | avoid contamination. | GA Tom Genereaux | When you say new elements show up... | what are the isotopic cross sections? ga Christian Ismert | Research has been verified by Dr. Miley. Our | measurements indicate very little, if any neutron release. | Therefore, we feel that they are safe for use | by qualified researchers. | Can you explain "cross sections" We do | observe non naturally occuring isotopic shifts occuring | in several of the elements.. | GA Tom Genereaux | Cross sectioning is the profile of the | isotope ratios/element. ga Christian Ismert | Yes, then we answered your question. This is | covered in the paper. : ) | GA Debbie/Moderator | Tom, followup question? Tom Genereaux | Not for right now, thanks! ga Debbie/Moderator | Guiliana, GA. Giuliana | What is Clean Energy? GA Christian Ismert | Good Question!!! We don't know what the | novel nuclear mechanisms are, but we are looking! | We have not seen any harmful by products to | date, as is common with conventional fossil fuel and | fission/ fusion systems. | GA Debbie/Moderator | Followup question, Guiliana? | GA Giuliana | yes... | if you don't know, why marketing it? | GA Christian Ismert | This is an early stage technology and will | require long term research and development. CETI is commited | to pushing the technology forward. | The applications for the technology, include | a variety of heat products and also.... | radioactive waste amelioration applications | using the same nuclear processes taking place in the cell. | We recently received a "Notice of Allowance" | on a patent relating to this application. | We feel that this represents a new paradigm | in our understanding of nuclear physics and energy | production. | GA Daniel Roberts | What is the ratio of energy input | to output of the "Patterson Ce;ll"? ANd | please define overrunity. | GA Christian Ismert | "Overunity refers to the point at which | output exceeds input. | The ratios obtained vary depending on the | configuration of the cell, electrolytes, | electrodes(microspheres) etc. We | have obtained in a first stage prototype of a | hot water heater greater than 1000 to 1. 1000 watts | thermal heat calculated in output, to 1 electrical watt | input. GA Debbie/Moderator | Do you have a followup question, Daniel? GA Daniel Roberts | Yes... | You sate that a transmutation of elements | occurs in this cell. If so, then what | elements or compounds are present at start-up? | And does it use a palladium anode? GA Christian Ismert | The elements start with Nickel, Palladium and | Lithium and and deionized water. GA Debbie/Moderator Christian, how many of the RIFEX kits have | been sold, and will you give us the names of some of the | labs that have bought them? Thanks! GA Christian Ismert | I can't comment on who has recieved kits at | this point. We have orders for about 40 kits. We are | carefully implementing this program gradually so that | we can technically support the researchers involved | in the program. GA Debbie/Moderator | What do you expect to see out of the program, | in the short term, other than financial? GA Christian Ismert | We hope to build long terms relationships | with the researchers involved. Provide credibilty for | this emerging feild of science. Most importantly, a better | understanding of the reactions talking place will be | developed so that we can commercialize the technology for better, | more reliable products. GA Debbie/Moderator | Thanks, Christian! | Daniel, GA. Daniel Roberts | You mentioned Lithium is present at start-up. | Is this Lithium Chloride, or lithium-6? GA Christian Ismert | The program is not intended for financial | gain ( a reactor for under $4,000) but for scientific | understanding and innovation. LiSo4 GA Melinda/ASYSOP | ? Debbie/Moderator | Melinda, GA. Melinda/ASYSOP | Are those who are purchasing your kits... | set up to be like researchers and report back to you | with results? ga Christian Ismert | Well, one of our goals is to educate the | public and scientific communities about the technology. | We hope to do more in this area in the future. GA Debbie/Moderator | Followup question, Melinda? GA Melinda/ASYSOP | I don't know... | was that the answer to my question? | ga Christian Ismert | The researchers participate in an organized | program in which we all share information and data to | work in a collaborative way and build synergistic | working relationships among the groups involved. GA Debbie/Moderator | Followup, Melin? GA Melinda/ASYSOP | okay, yes... | so if I purchased one of these kits... Christian Ismert | We see this as an important educational | process neccessary in developing a new industry. GA Melinda/ASYSOP | then would I have specific instructions | provided on how to use it and report back to you?... | do I have to understand what it is I'm doing? | ga Christian Ismert | We provide an operational protocol for cell | operation. The data is reported to us and to others within | the research network on a voluntary basis. GA Melinda/ASYSOP | k, thanks! Debbie/Moderator | randy, GA. randy goose | Scott Little said only 3 showed up for the | Dec. 10 seminar. Why so few if you sold 40 kits? GA Christian Ismert | You need to be a skilled researcher and have | the neccesary equipment. | GA | Well, some of the kit recipients were not at | the conference. These were groups outside the U.S. who | bring a high level of capability to the effort. Plus, we kept | the first group small so that technical problems which may | arise can be resolved effectively. GA Debbie/Moderator | All the participants at the conference were | from outside the country? GA Christian Ismert | No, we have some truly outstanding talent in | the U.S. involved in the program. Scott Little, for | example, his group has been very hard at work in developing a | good heat measurement system. GA Debbie/Moderator | Christian, what other equipment is necessary | to operate the RIFEX kit? GA Christian Ismert | A special power supply that can accurately | measure energy output. Some special pumps and that | is really all you need to run the system. But, testing it | and using it may require experience and skill in the art. | GA Debbie/Moderator | randy, do you have a followup question? GA randy goose | Sorry, I got booted. When do you plan | another training seminar for the other recipients? GA Christian Ismert | We expect to have another in February or | March. We are being careful about it. We will wait to the | the results of the current partcipants and make some decisions | about how quickly we will proceed afterwards. ga Debbie/Moderator | Tom, GA. | (This will be the last question, Christian!) Christian Ismert | ok, ga Tom Genereaux | Skill in the art of what? Calorimetry? | Spectral Analysis? | ga COM | Alchemy : D GA. Debbie/Moderator | (COM!) Christian Ismert | Skilled in the art of nuclear physics and | calorimetry. GA Debbie/Moderator | Followup question, Tom? | GA Tom Genereaux | No followup. ga Debbie/Moderator | Does anyone else have questions? Debbie/Moderator | Kent, GA. Christian Ismert | I am a business manager and not real great | with all the | technical stuff. Kent/SL9 | So what are some of the practical | applications this could be used for in the | near future? | For us laymen........... GA Christian Ismert | Well, ok now, that is a question I can answer | ; ) Heat applications include low level thermal heat | applications such as hot water heaters, food processing, | space heaters etc. Also, radio-active waste | reduction-not through storage, but rather through elemental | conversion into safer elements. GA ############################################## A "prototype hot water heater"? Hmmmm. Is this why CETI has become silent on the heat generating properties of the cell? They have a commercial product in development? Terry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 18 13:18:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA10648; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 13:13:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 13:13:58 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 12:14:02 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Some AEH calculations and stuff Resent-Message-ID: <"lGfbz1.0.Ic2.Kw5ko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2789 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 9:49 AM 12/18/96, Michael Mandeville wrote: >At 11:01 AM 12/17/96 -0900, you wrote: [snip] >>The ZPE concept seems to make sense of the inconsistancy. If ZPE holds up >>an atom in maximal deformation, then ZPE should be able to expand the 0.32 >>A atom out into the tetrahedral space to fill it to the point where the >>maximal force is exerted. ZPE also has the nice characteristic that a >>photon exchange to do this is not necessary. >> > >This I just can't follow. Why ZPE? Isn't it just the electrostatic >potentials manifesting? I must be missing something... > [snip] >Michael Mandeville, publisher The thing missing is the energy. It could be supplied by some other force or principle than ZPE. Or the H may not expand at all - maybe simply a NiH bond may form and break a link in the Ni lattice, but there are energy considerations there too. If the small hypotheiszed energy creates one or two free protons there is an imbalance as well. However, ZPE seems to fit best here, assuming Hal Puthoff is correct about ZPE energy equilibrium supporting the atom, preventing it from collapsing, and preventing it from radiating. There is a nice little machine constucted from the Ni tetrahedral site as the cylinder and the H atom as the piston, so to speak. This is a mechanism for direct ZPE extraction. As to the electrostatic force - the H shell is negative and the nucleus positive, so that should tend to collapse the H atom further, which does not happen. Also, the negative H shell is immediately surrounded by negative lattice atom shells, so that should further compress the H shell from the electrostatic force. Only the zitterbewegung can be called upon to save the fragile little shell from collapsing. Call it ZPE, uncertainty, or whatever, something fights the electrostatic force to keep atoms from collapsing and from radiating away all their energy at the same time. This is a pretty good trick. I don't understand it, but I sure would like to use it. To that end I have kind of idea, but one that doesn't quite seem to be realistically expected to work. The idea is to build an electrolytic cell with two opposing hemi-spherical plates. The outside of the cell would be an insulator like glass or creamic. Attached to the outside of the cell would be piezoelectric crystals and these would be butted against a rigid steel framework. So far we have the makings of an almost typical sonoluminescence cell. We bring the cell to accoustic resonanace. Then using control circuitry, we apply a large pulse to the electrolytic plates at a well timed point near the peak of compression. This pulse could be expected to generate H at the cathode plate as well as break down some of the H2O in solution, possibly to make Brown's gas if the voltage is sufficient. If the electrolyte is near boiling possibly some steam bubbles could be made as well. If there are bubbles near creating sonoluinescence then the purely electrnonically generated pressure shock would act as a secondary hammer and improve the performance of the bubble. However, the other requirements of the cell seem to preclude this kind of action due to the gassy bubbly nature the electrolyte would have. The cell might further include Ni powder to act as bubble formation sites and to adsorb the H2 and be exposed to the strong pressure variations. This would also decrease the resistance of the cell and provide focal points of electrostatic field formation. One hope is to be able to use the AE energy of the H expansion to help drive a sharp pressure wave, and utilize that pressure wave to increase the resonant vibration of the cell so that the energy can be extracted piezoelectrically for the next pulse. Another hope is to is to use the ultra sharp pressure wave to drive the H into the Ni particles and the cathode to increase AE activty in the Ni due to H driven pressure waves. A third hope is to be able to utilize the H from electrolysis and the heat and steam generated from resistance heating of the electrolyte to power a generator. This sounds like too much hope and too little to go on, but it is food for thought. Some big improvements are needed. Maybe there is a way to reduce the bubbbly nature of the cell, like runing under extreme pressure. The electrolyte could be pumped into and through the cell with a piston pump, superheated, and allowed to flash steam outside the cell. Maybe the use of electrode plates could be avoided altogether by inducing the pulse in the electrolyte contained in a cirular bath that is the secondary of a large core transformer. Tough to get a sonic resonance then, but maybe that's not necessary. There must be a million variations. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 18 13:32:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA12536; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 13:21:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 13:21:49 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961218132150.0090dd6c@mail.localaccess.com> X-Sender: Epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 13:21:52 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com From: Epitaxy Subject: Re: Could somebody criticize this please 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: <"UppGu3.0.Y33.g16ko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2790 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In my post the Fig #5 simply depicts a closed circuited coil WITHOUT any power source hooked up to it. This coil can also be hooked up to a load instead of being short circuited for the same effect. "Load" is the opposite to the "power source" and the "Load" dissipates the energy produced by the coil. In that case it can be said that the coil is shorted THROUGH the load. There was a typo in the LEGEND before: was - "an electromagnetic..." should have been "an electromagnetic coil..." Could you please reply with the references to the exact places that imply "Yes" and "No" at the same time. I would like to correct the text so others do not have to wonder whether I meant "Yes" or "No" I respect your skepticism. Please try to find something specific wrong with my post, I'll appreciate any errors you might find. I am including my post at the bottom for your convenience. At 09:33 AM 12/18/96 -0800, you wrote: >After reading the 'LIAG, Ecklin...' posts, I now confess I don't understand >what they are talking about. > > When you get to Fig. 5: Is the electromagnetic connected to any >external power source? Some sentences imply, 'Yes,' others imply, 'No." >Which is it? It MAKES A DIFFERENCE! If there is a supply, tell clearly >what it is doing and when. > >As with all these attempts to exploit magnetism, I remain highly skeptical. >Is there a working model with no hidden compartments? > >Michael J. Schaffer >General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego CA 92186-5608, USA >Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 > > >Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 18:48:02 -0800 >X-Sender: Epitaxy@mail.localaccess.com >Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 18:47:53 -0800 >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com >From: Epitaxy >Subject: Re: Magnetic Shielding - for "dummies" >X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) >Resent-Message-ID: <"jqM_Z3.0.YF4.VdWjo"@mx1> >Resent-From: freenrg-l@eskimo.com >Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/786 >X-Loop: freenrg-l@eskimo.com >Resent-Sender: freenrg-l-request@eskimo.com > > >< View the below drawing with monospaced font and this screen width > > > >MAGNETIC SHIELDING > > > >For example take two permanent magnets in S-S configuration and iron plate >like this. (the plate is restricted to move only in vertical direction) > > > LEGEND: NNNNSSSS a permanent magnet with North & South poles > IIIIIIII a soft iron plate > CCCCCCCC an electromagnetic coil > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >NNNNSSSS SSSSNNNN > > > I > I > I > I > I (iron plate attracted up) > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >The iron plate will be pulled into the gap between the magnets like this > > > I > I >NNNNSSSS I SSSSNNNN > I > I (iron plate stopped at equilibrium) > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >But if the gap between the magnets is LARGER the iron plate will stop here. > This configuration is not useful for our purposes. > > > >NNNNSSSS I SSSSNNNN > I > I > I > I (iron plate stopped at equilibrium) > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >If the magnets are oriented S-N the iron plate will also stop here because >iron plate is equally attracted to North or South poles: > > > I > I >NNNNSSSS I NNNNSSSS > I > I (iron plate stopped at equilibrium) > > >********************************************************************* > > >If we now consider this sequence of events > >_____________________________________________________________________ > >Both magnets attract the iron plate into the gap > > >NNNNSSSS SSSSNNNN > > > I > I > I > I > I (iron plate moving up) > >Fig #1 >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > I > I >NNNNSSSS I SSSSNNNN > I > I (iron plate moving up) > > > >Fig #2 >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >One of the magnets is removed or annihilated. > > > I > I >NNNNSSSS I > I > I (iron plate moving up) > > > >Fig #3 >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I > I > I > I > I (iron plate moving up) > >NNNNSSSS > >Fig #4 >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >We will notice that the iron plate gains more energy getting pulled between >the magnets (Fig #1 & #2) then it looses during the back drag (Fig #3 & #4) >because one of the magnets has been removed. One might immediately say >here: "...wait a minute you just had to expend energy removing one of the >magnets..." and you would be correct in the above case. > >HOWEVER if we were using a coil instead of the magnet we could turn it off >(and the magnetic field it produces) without expending any energy > >So what exactly happens if we substitute one of the magnets with a coil ? > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >At the beginning (Fig #5) the coil sees the maximum intensity of the south >pole produced by the permanent magnet. > >As the iron plate is pulled into the gap between the permanent magnet and >the coil, the iron shield starts REDIRECTING more and more of the magnetic >field (splitting the field) produced by the permanent magnet AWAY from the >coil. The net result of this is that the coil starts seeing less and less >of the south pole (which is provided by the permanent magnet). > >According to the Lenz law if the circuit of the coil is closed, the coil >will try to resist this change in the strength of the aforementioned south >pole by circulating electric current through its windings in such a way >that the coil will PRODUCE its own south pole in order to keep the >intensity of the south pole near the coil exactly what it was before the >iron plate (shield) started moving into the gap. The coil acts as an >ultimate conservative :-) > >This electric current in the coil can be dissipated in a useful load during >the whole approach phase (or later when the coil is open circuited) > >The CRUCIAL effect is that this magnetic south pole created by the coil >will also attract the iron plate into the gap between the magnet and the >coil just like it was happening in Fig #1. A south pole is a south pole, >regardless whether it is produced by a magnet or a coil, right ?. > >So the moving iron plate will be attracted into the gap by BOTH the magnet >and the coil analogously to Fig #1 > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >NNNNSSSS CCCCCCCC Coil closed (producing South pole) > > > I > I > I > I > I (iron plate moving up) >#5 >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > I > I >NNNNSSSS I CCCCCCCC Coil closed (producing South pole) > I > I (iron plate moving up) > > > > >#6 >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > I > I >NNNNSSSS I CCCCCCCC Coil open ( inert ) > I > I (iron plate moving up) > > > > >#7 >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I > I > I > I > I (iron plate moving up) > >NNNNSSSS CCCCCCCC Coil open (inert) >#8 >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >In Fig #6 the iron plate will shield the coil from all of the intensity of >the south pole created by the permanent magnet and if the closed coil was >superconductive and didn't have any resistive losses it now WOULD be >producing a hypothetic south pole of exactly the same intensity as the >south pole produced by the permanent magnet in Fig #5. At the same time, >the permanent magnet in Fig #6 would also be shielded by the iron plate >from the hypothetical field produced by the coil and would produce the same >intensity of the south pole as it did before in Fig #5. For best shielding >results a double iron plate (with gap between plates) should be used. We >could say we "split" the original magnetic filed by the iron plate "axe". > >In Fig #7 & #8 we open the coil windings (and dissipate any leftover current >in it into a useful load), which makes the coil behave as if it WASN'T THERE. >This is analogous to annihilating the permanent magnet in Fig #3. Now the >iron plate can move away (under its inertia) from the permanent magnet with 2 >times less back drag than if the coil was left closed. This switching-off of >the coil allows the moving iron plate to escape from the gap with more energy >than it had before. One might say that the switching action introduces >nonconservativness into the system and introduces order into nature. >Order = negentropy = energy > >This cycle can repeat indefinitely (perpetually) if the iron shield is >moving cyclically in a large circular path through the magnet-coil gap just >like in the Ecklin, LIAG, Kromray, Bedini generators. > >The coil should have as little resistance as possible in order to have the >maximum magnetic flux induced in it. It should be switched with low >resistance relay or a MOSFET transistor with very low RdsON (ie. N-ch >MegaFET MOSFETs by Harris semiconductor). The gate of the MOSFET could be >energized by a high resistance, high voltage (not over 20V) coil coaxially >wound with the main coil. No exotic sensors are necessary here since one >can take advantage of the property that the electric current through the >coil moves one way when the iron plate is approaching the gap and OTHER way >when the plate moves away. Yes, a diode could be used but a diode need 0.6 >volts to operate and the low resistance coil (means thick wire, few turns) >will not produce anything close to 0.6V but it will produce many Amps (high >current). > >Strong magnets, small gap, laminated or powdered (to combat eddy currents) >cores and the moving plate would improve efficiency. > >When the coil is said to be closed it doesn't necessarily mean shorted. It >can be connected to a practical load to do useful work. The interesting >property of this system is that the more current you draw from the coil during >the approach phase the more energy you extract and the faster the iron plate >moves (escapes from the gap). The energy in the coil is dissipated either >during the whole approach phase of the iron plate into the gap or after the >coil is open circuited or both. Decaying the current in the coil after the >approach phase takes certain amount of time depending on the resistance of the >coil&load and the inductance. This coil decay time is very short because of the >low coil inductance and high load resistance. If you don't short the coil or >hook up a load to it during the iron plate approach phase the whole thing will >stop working and will behave conventionally. > > Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 23:44:06 -0800 From: warlord@LocalAccess.com X-Sender: warlord@mail.localaccess.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: LIAG, Ecklin free energy, demystified Date: Tue, 17 Dec 96 23:43:59 PSTP+0000 X-Mailedby: NT SMTP/LISTSERVER v2.11 (ntmail@net-shopper.co.uk) Resent-Message-ID: <"Rryq62.0.aG1.53wjo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2781 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com The setup you are refering to doesn't use ANY external power supply (unless you consider permanent magnet as such) No, it doesn't take any energy to set up the magnetic field of the electromagnet if a permanent magnet is used to produce the field. No, you don't LOOSE the energy when the coil is opened because the energy can be dissipated in a load as a useful work after the switch is opened OR continuously dissipated in a load during the aprroach of the iron plate into the coil - magnet gap OR both. The energy is not lost (except for parasitic coil resistance), the energy is recollected or shuttled to a useful load for useful purposes. Read the details again and let's hear from you tommorow Extra energy is produced because the approach of the iron plate into the magnet-coil gap induces current in the coil for free. Furthermore this electric current sets up a magnetic field in the coil that oposes the change caused by the shielding effect of the iron plate. This magnetic field adds to the attraction of the iron plate into the gap, for free. After the energy in the coil is dissipated in any way (useful or useless) the coil is rendered inert (by open circuiting) and doesn't oppose the outgoing of the iron plate out of the coil-magnet gap. This further adds to the kinetic energy of the moving iron plate because it is attracted stronger during approach than during departure from the gap. At 08:40 AM 12/17/96 -0800, Michael Shaffer wrote: > >In all this Liang-Edklin discussion you people are forgetting some >fundamentals of electromagnetic energy. > >It takes energy from an external power supply to set up the magnetic field >of the electromagnet, even if this is a superconductor with no resistance. >The external power source supplies additional energy to the electromagnet >when the iron plate is attracted closer to it. You seem not to be >accounting for this energy input in your reasoning. > >When you open the switch, you dissipate the energy remaining in the >electromagnet, as heat and light in the switch. (This may not be apparent >to the casual observer with small electromagnets, but opening a switch in >the circuit of a large electromagnet will splatter lots of molten switch >metal around.) > >So, you put electrical energy in and then lose it. This will not make any >additional energy. > >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 Dec 18 17:21:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA30897; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 17:17:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 17:17:37 -0800 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 20:14:47 -0500 (GMT) From: Carlos Henry Castano To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Water Fuel Cell a Fraud In-Reply-To: <32b15483.21780612@mail.netspace.net.au> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"AjQOi1.0.gY7.lU9ko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2791 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Excuse me, in nowsdays i was subscribed at the list, and i lose this article "Water Fuel Cell a Fraud", any people can forward this to me. Thank you. Best regards, Carlos Henry Casta~o Giraldo. _____________________________________________________________________________ hay mas cosas en el cielo y en la tierra que ideas en la mente de los hombres ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- there are more things in heaven and earth that dream in the mind of the people _____________________________________________________________________________ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 18 21:17:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA10557; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 21:15:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 21:15:43 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 00:14:54 -0500 Message-ID: <961218235536_975781736@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, fstenger@interlaced.net, 101544.702@compuserve.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, zap@dnai.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: Yusmar animation Resent-Message-ID: <"IursH1.0.pa2.-zCko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2792 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: fwd..linked with my web page.... --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Yusmar animation Date: 96-12-18 23:53:49 EST From: FZNIDARSIC To: FZNIDARSIC Viewable on Netscape, Microsoft explorer, and any viewer that can process gif animations. Not viewable with the AOL viewer. ftp://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/yusmar.gif PICK_ME Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 19 01:53:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA14176; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 01:48:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 01:48:09 -0800 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 10:48:00 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Steven Jones Subject: The Case of the Missing Miles Rebuttal Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"7Gqhv.0.QT3.OzGko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2793 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I think I mentioned that I had sent a telefax to Melvin Miles to find out what his side of the story is; this morning his answer was here. I am beginning to see what the trouble is. I had decided that the two stories, as previously presented (i.e. Jones' as presented by Jones, and Miles' as presented by Rothwell) were incompatible, and that in this case, the Rabbi would not say "You are both right", as he does in the classic joke. It turns out that he can say it after all. The sore point in the saga is, how well was Miles informed about the Jones polemic papers, sufficiently in advance to prepare and send in a rebuttal, for simultaneous publication, as is the custom? Jones tells me (and sent me some letters documenting it) that he gave a preprint of the polemic (I am still not sure whether this refers to both, or only one) to one Kendall Johnson from China Lake, who was visiting BYU at the time, in January 1995. The submission date is September 1994; in other words, this is when Jones sent the paper to the journal. He thought that Johnson would pass the preprint on to Miles immediately, but according to Miles, he did not, until some time later (the end of January I think, when Miles returned from a trip - he was there, however, when Johnson came back from Utah). Apart from the delay, the preprint did not indicate to which journal it had been sent, so Miles was at a loss as to where to send a rebuttal. The next thing he saw was Douglas Morrison handing out copies of the thing at ICCF-5 (not sure when this was). When he eventually corresponded with Jones and El-Sayed, Jones was no longer willing to consider a "back to back" publication (polemic & rebuttal in the same issue), because he felt there had been too much delay already. Miles does not mention any involvement by Jones in the non-acceptance of the rebuttal (as hinted at by Rothwell), nor do I believe such involvement is possible. So, who is to blame? Maybe Jones, in not sending Miles the MS in September 1994, at the time of submission - this is what I would have done. Maybe Jones for not making sure that Kendall Johnson was an appropriate person to entrust the MS with; Miles says he was not. Maybe Miles for waiting until April to contact El-Sayed. I do not believe that there was any deliberate action on the part of either Jones or Miles, to thwart the other (certainly Miles was in no position to do so anyway), but there was some neglect with unfortunate results for Miles. Normally, this would have meant a rebuttal in a later issue, the next best thing. Unfortunately, the journal has this unusual policy of using referees for rebuttals as well, which then killed even that chance. I am not holding my breath, but both Steve Jones and I have appealed to El-Sayed to publish Miles' statement, and it could just happen. El-Sayed has not responded to me as yet, but I still hope he does. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | | http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~britz | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 19 12:14:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA24964; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 12:08:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 12:08:12 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 11:08:21 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Some AEH difficulties Resent-Message-ID: <"ZpxRq1.0.s56.e2Qko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2794 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: As mentioned in my post of yesterday "Re: Some AEH calculations and stuff," there must be millions of combinations of ways to attempt to utilize atomic expansion if it really is capable of being harnessed to produce energy. However, it seems to be really difficult to come up with a device that creates a large coefficient of power (COP). Even knowing the principle, it is difficult to design a practical device. This is because the conditions seem to make it difficult to gain both large per transaction energy values and a high repeat rate. There also always seems to be an energy overhead that overshadows the potential gains. Many of the methods I suggested off the top of my head yesterday for attempting to use H expansion have either been tried in whole or in part without positive or consistent reported results. Maybe some combination will actually work someday. There are other interesting and bothersome items, like symmetry for example. If there is a ZPE extraction mechanism, it seems logical that there must be a similar mechanism for pushing the energy the other way. With forward and backward ZPE mechanisms there is the problem of fighting equilibrium. There are many more candidate atoms for atomic expansion tapping than just H2 and H2O. There is an infinity of compounds to potentially utilize, and an infinity of possible lattices and device for confinement. However, another difficulty is that oxidizers typically *increase* in size when forming a covalent bond, due to increasing the number of electrons in the outer shell. This opposes the metal's contraction upon forming the bond. Here are some covalent and atomic radii (angstron units) of possible interest: El Rcov Ratom H 0.33 0.79 He 0.93 0.49 Li 1.23 2.05 Be 0.90 1.40 Na 1.54 2.23 Mg 1.36 1.72 K 2.03 2.77 Ca 1.74 2.23 B 0.82 1.17 C 0.77 0.91 N 0.75 0.75 O 0.73 0.65 F 0.72 0.57 Ar 0.98 0.88 Si 1.11 1.40 P 1.06 1.23 S 1.02 1.09 Cl 0.99 0.97 Ar 0.98 0.99 As 1.20 1.33 Se 1.16 1.22 Br 1.14 1.12 Kr 1.12 1.03 Te 1.36 1.42 I 1.33 1.32 Xe 1.31 1.24 Have fun. Happy Holidays! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 19 13:00:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA02010; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 12:53:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 12:53:52 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 11:53:59 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Some AEH difficulties Resent-Message-ID: <"2sIgX3.0.KV.VjQko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2795 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > >Here are some covalent and atomic radii (angstron units) of possible interest: > >El Rcov Ratom > >H 0.33 0.79 >He 0.93 0.49 >Li 1.23 2.05 >Be 0.90 1.40 >Na 1.54 2.23 >Mg 1.36 1.72 >K 2.03 2.77 >Ca 1.74 2.23 > >B 0.82 1.17 >C 0.77 0.91 >N 0.75 0.75 >O 0.73 0.65 >F 0.72 0.57 >Ar 0.98 0.88 >Si 1.11 1.40 >P 1.06 1.23 >S 1.02 1.09 >Cl 0.99 0.97 >Ar 0.98 0.99 >As 1.20 1.33 >Se 1.16 1.22 >Br 1.14 1.12 >Kr 1.12 1.03 >Te 1.36 1.42 >I 1.33 1.32 >Xe 1.31 1.24 > >Have fun. Happy Holidays! > Hint: B, C, N, P, S, Ar, Se, Te, and Xe appear to be special. Peace on earth, good will. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 19 13:11:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA03516; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 13:03:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 13:03:17 -0800 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 22:05:17 +0100 Message-Id: <199612192105.WAA10478@mail.bbtt.com> X-Sender: harti@bbtt.de (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: gwatson@enternet.com.au From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: Re: New article about Flux-Gate generator available ! Cc: bauer.d@krypta.aball.de, freenrg-l@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"_uCOm.0.qs.JsQko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2796 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Hi Stephan, > >I have too many years in induction generator design. Too many people >think that just because you don't move the magnet/coil somehow >nature is fooled. The reality is very simple if you realize that >the moving inductor is still part of the flux path. Look at a LIAG, >Flux Gate or whatever and you will see that the moving flux element >is still involved in a classic magent/coil arrangement with a >complex flux path. The only new item is that the moving flux element >can only undergo magnetic attraction and would seem to offer overunity >potential. But consider reality. IF no current flows in the output >coil, the force of attraction as the moving element moves toward >the point of max flux will equal the force of attraction as the moving >element moves away from the point of max flux minus any core losses/ >magnet B/H curve changes. As current is drawn from the load, things >change and the moving element is attracted less strongly on approach >and attracted more strongly on exit. This additional power must be >supplied from the rotary source and in my experience is ALWAYS more >that the power supplied via the coil. > >Damn.......Mother Nature Wins Again. > >-- >Best Regards, >Greg Watson, >Greg Watson Consulting, >Adelaide, South Australia, >gwatson@enternet.com.au > Dear Greg, here is the answer from my friend Dieter Bauer: He thinks that you have not yet read the whole article completely. He has worked out the machine and its mathematical equations directly from the Lenz law !!! and the electrodynamic induction theory and has put it all into the differential equations ! So now he can REALLY PREDICT, which parameters have to be altered to get the right effects. He says, that you are true with the coil current under certain conditions, but and that is the BIG NEWS: We have now the formular to alter all parameters and calculate the real quantitative results ! So, he has CALCULATED the overunity output using his formulars ! So if you say, it does not work you have to show, where his formulars are incorrect ! At least, until nobody can prove his formulars wrong, mathematically seen it produces overunity with his choosen parameters ! If anybody has not got the thread, here again is the URL for the article which is highly recommend to read: www.overunity.de/theory.htm Second article on this page about the Ecklin-Bedini-Flux-Gate-Converter ! Here is still his German language answer for the German folks out there: >Hallo Stefan ! > >Ich habe das Gefuehl, dass Greg Watson den Artikel garnicht genau gelesen >hat, denn das, was er kritisiert - was ich vergessen haette- ist im Ansatz >der aufgestellten Differentialgleichung alles enthalten. Ich bin ja von >der Lenz'schen Regel - dem Induktionsgesetz- ausgegangen (!!!) und der >Strom verhaelt sich ja auch bei mir im grossen und ganzen so wie er sagt >(nicht ganz so am Punkt des maximalen Flusses, wo der Strom sich umkehren >muss und weil er dazu Zeit braucht, der sich wendende Spulenstrom waehrend >eines kleinen Moments das Rausdrehmoment auf den Rotor abschwaecht), >entscheidend ist jedoch, dass durch die Rechnung man in der Lage ist, all >diese Dinge quantitativ abzuschaetzen, und man erkennt, welche Groesse man >aendern muss, damit das gewuenschte Ergebnis rauskommt. >Daher sollte er - wenn er mich wirklich konstruktiv und immanent >kritisieren will, eine Gegenrechnung machen und mir im Ansatz oder in der >Rechnung einen Fehler nachweisen - oder experimentelle Daten vorlegen, die >meinen Vorhersagen eklatant widersprechen! > >Beste Gruesse > >Dieter > Best regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany NEUE Nummern : Tel: ++ 4930-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 4930-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.harti.de Webmaster of: http://www.detours.de Have a look at the future: http://www.overunity.de My favourite ladies on the WEB: http://www.nylon-fetish.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 19 14:14:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA16781; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 14:09:44 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 14:09:44 -0800 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 17:09:24 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961219170453.2927c144@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Ans to Swartz Concern re ZPE energy density Resent-Message-ID: <"xueuI.0.364.bqRko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2797 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:29 PM 12/13/96 -0500, Hal Puthoff wrote: > >Mitchell Swartz says: > ><the maximum value of ZPE available, but IMHO >it is incredibly tiny, if it exists at all. >> > >ZPE energy density is textbook stuff. Formally, it's infinite (like many >quantum calculations). The appropriate cutoff is Planck's frequency, so the >infinity is reduced to 10^108 joules/cm-cubed, definitely enough to boil >coffee. (Wheeler likes to say there's enough in the volume of a coffee cup >to evaporate the world's oceans, more or less instantaneously. Feynman says >the most conservative estimate still puts it at nuclear energy densities.) ... >Hal Puthoff > Actually this is corrolary of what Horace claims, when he refers back to Puthoffs statement: "It doesn't work like that. The vacuum energy fills a vaccum. If there is not cutoff frequency, that energy is infinite. Assuming a cutoff frequency of near the Plank frequency (wavelength) of about 10^-33 cm, the energy density is on the order of 10^94 g/cm^3. Multiply by c^2 and you get a lot of energy - which does not have to remain constant, but can replenish itself from the ZPE sea if tapped. See the reprint on Keelynet (on www) of an article by Dr. H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum: Implications for Energy Research", Speculations in Science and Technology, vol 13, no. 4, pp. 247-257, 1990. [11 Dec 1996 05:18:44 -0800 Message-Id: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: How much power has ZPE?] 10^94 g/cm^3? This number is apparently pulled from a hat since it can have no real physical basis, at least based upon the known universe. This point this calculation seem to have ignored the very boundary condition of the number of atoms in total, in the entire universe, available. There are not 10^94 atoms in the universe. I believe <10^79 is closer, and with a proton weighing 1.67 10^-24 gms there is no chance for such erroneously calculated densities being available. Furthermore, even if the entire universe atoms were used in this hypothesis, there would be violations of special relativity and therefore no chance of such putative instanteous rearrangement beyond the distance light might transverse. 10^94 g/cm^3? This does not seem sensible. We would like ZPE to not be handwaving, but if the purported existence is based upon virtual mass densities of 10^94 g/cm^3, then the probability of this being correct may be proportional to the reciprocal of that number. >Casimir energies are not trivial. Get some Jo blocks (gauge >blocks) that are polished to optical flatness and notice how you can't pull >them apart, but must wring them apart in shear. A substantial part of that >force is Casimir. Check out Bob Forward's paper in Phys Rev B in 1984 on >"Extracting Electrical Energy from the Vacuum by the Cohesion of Charged >Foliated Conductors" for sample energy calculations. BTW assuming block separation does not have other binding energies ignores quite a bit in adhesion science and engineering, too. These contributions must be included, and their contributions removed. Were they in the paper? I will try to obtain it next week. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 19 15:21:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA01588; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 15:17:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 15:17:27 -0800 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 18:17:16 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961219181246.255f319e@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Candle in Microwave oven experiment. Resent-Message-ID: <"qECE_1.0.fO.6qSko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2798 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: sent for "Hugo, Mark D" : ----------------------------------------------- Re: Candle in Microwave oven experiment. Tried for 10 minutes. Tried like 5 positions and 30 seconds each. Tried on turntable for 30 seconds. Candle was FAT Santa candle. Suspect might need thinner geometry to get enough convection currents to suck up enough unburned material to fuel "plasmoids". Does one nul prove anything, except the conditions were not right? - Yours, Mark Hugo From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 19 16:04:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA09758; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 15:58:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 15:58:19 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 14:58:34 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Some AEH difficulties Resent-Message-ID: <"44hA93.0.NO2.PQTko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2799 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > >Here are some covalent and atomic radii (angstron units) of possible interest: > >El Rcov Ratom > >H 0.33 0.79 >He 0.93 0.49 >Li 1.23 2.05 >Be 0.90 1.40 >Na 1.54 2.23 >Mg 1.36 1.72 >K 2.03 2.77 >Ca 1.74 2.23 > >B 0.82 1.17* >C 0.77 0.91* >N 0.75 0.75* >O 0.73 0.65 >F 0.72 0.57 >Ar 0.98 0.88 >Si 1.11 1.40* >P 1.06 1.23* >S 1.02 1.09* >Cl 0.99 0.97 >Ar 0.98 0.99* >As 1.20 1.33* >Se 1.16 1.22 >Br 1.14 1.12 >Kr 1.12 1.03 >Te 1.36 1.42* >I 1.33 1.32 >Xe 1.31 1.24 Hint: B, C, N, P, S, Ar, Se, Te, and Xe appear to be special. Oops! I missed Si, and As, and Xe is outta there. Anyway, you get the jist of it. The *'ed elements seem like candidates for use in forming compunds by combining with themselves or metals, that can expand non-conservatively when confined at a macro level, not a lattice level, and reduced to component atoms. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 19 20:19:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA02077; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 20:15:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 20:15:10 -0800 From: Xkan@aol.com Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 23:14:31 -0500 Message-ID: <961219231429_1653797716@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: what is electromagnetic field anyway? Resent-Message-ID: <"Q2LOH.0.NW.BBXko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2800 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi, The discussion on ZPE compelled me to put in a related topic: the nature of electromagnetic(EM) field. Puthoff's work to unite gravity with EM maybe the right link, or Weber's electrodynamics which I will eleborate later on. We know the E and M field are vector fields, and they satisfy Maxwell's equations. So far that is all mathematics, and maybe that is all we know about the EM field. Maxwell, however, knew that good physics can NOT be just disembodied mathematics, it must have a physical model(mechanical in his words). He worked out a model called molecular vortex model, which despite some awkwardness, still united light with EM effects, and the Maxwell eqn., canonized in today's textbook, is an outcome of this model building process. Basically, molecular vortex are little rotating elastic solid balls densely packed in space, and any alignment of the rotational axes of this balls was identified as magnetic field, and the stress in the elastic media was the electric field according to Maxwell. Two words immediately grabbed my attention: 1. Vortex, was Maxwell a prophet? and what can we learn from his vortex ideas? 2. elastic solid, this is the source of the awkward parts IMO. Basically, space in his model was a big gear box with lots of spinning gears, and even smaller idel wheel particles (which is the source of charge) inbetween the gears. To sum the impression of this part of his model in one word: crude. But who could blame Maxwell? He lived in 19th century where staem engine and mechnical clocks was the crowning technologies. Today we have knowledge about more delicate forms of vortex patterns in plasma, air and water. So today's vortexians need not despair. I see a lot of discussion on the detail of experiments, which is all so neccessary, but I recommend people read some original classics in EM such as Maxwell, Weber, and histories, and forget about those muddle headed later day authorities and their text books. In them You can find inpirations, skeletons, unsung heros, dramas, something for everybody. One of the unsung hero is Weber. His electrodynamics theory was sometime called action-at-a-distance theory in the line of Newton, but it is a distortion because neither Newton nor Weber implied action-at-a-distance. Newton specifically denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance and believed only in contact type of action, consistent with field theory. They just didn't model the field inbetween the interacting bodies(charge, mass), and concentrated only on the motion of bodies. While this neglect limited its depth, this method paid off brilliantlly. Let's talk about Weber, his potential between the two charges in motion is: V(r)=Q1*Q2[1-(dr/dt)^2/(2C^2)]/r. It modified Coulomb's law with a squared term in relative radial velocity. Starting from this simple eqn., Weber was able to unite basically all aspects of the electromagnetical facts at the time, and that include most of what we know today. Radiations and light is the only problem not dealt with. What's more, his theory can explain Ampere's force between current elements, which is far better than Lorentz or Grassman's force, a glance at Graneau's book (Newtonian Electrodynamics) will convince you of this. Also, his theory is capable of explaining the origin of gravity as a residue EM force btween neutral oscillating charge dipoles. Whether this is a alternative to Puthof's ZPE field approach or equivalent to it remains a question for me. A good reference is A.K.T. Assis's book titled Weber's Electrodynamics. His theory also contains possible maens to tap free energy. But I will stop here for now. Xiaobo Kan new email address: xkan@aol.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 19 21:57:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA22409; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 21:46:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 21:46:47 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:43:57 -0500 Message-ID: <961220004356_1154718494@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Candle in Microwave oven experiment. Resent-Message-ID: <"Q2krG3.0.iS5.NWYko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2801 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Hugo remove the sturrer from the top of the microwave oven. It snaps out for cleaning. Stick the candle up into the waveguide..top center. You will get stuff. Turn the oven upside down so the plasma goes up. If you do this stuff it proves that you are just as nuts as Frank Stenger and I. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 00:29:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA19592; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:27:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:27:52 -0800 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:27:49 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Steven Jones Subject: PS to: The Missing Miles Rebuttal In-Reply-To: <961220004356_1154718494@emout05.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"pMQfx2.0.-n4.7uako"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2802 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: PS: When I sent Melvin Miles a copy of my posting to vortex-l yesterday, I realised that I had forgotten to mention one thing. There is a good possible reason for Steve Jones' not sending a preprint of the polemics right in September 1994, when he sent the MS's to the journal. For example, I never send preprints myself, until the paper has been accepted by the journal - I might look silly if I do, because at best, a paper usually contains a few weaknesses or even errors that the referee points out; at worst, he/she might reject the paper. I myself break this rule with polemics, sending these to the criticised author straight away. But I would understand if Steve doesn't do that. So there is nothing conniving or sinister about Steve waiting until January 1995 to give a copy to Miles. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | | http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~britz | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 01:11:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA24107; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 01:10:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 01:10:05 -0800 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 10:12:04 +0100 Message-Id: <199612200912.KAA12989@mail.bbtt.com> X-Sender: harti@bbtt.de X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: gwatson@enternet.com.au From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: The KEY to permanent magnet OVERUNITY ! Cc: bauer.d@krypta.aball.de, freenrg-l@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"KR0Vo2.0.bu5.hVbko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2803 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I quote from Dieter Bauer=B4s recent article part3 which can be found at: www.overubity.de/theory.htm 4. The energy balance of the Brown - Ecklin generator Normally, regarding energy balances in electrodynamics every physicist assumes that this problem is solved already in physics by the equation of energy conservation in an electromagnetic field. But if we have a more precise look at the derivation of this equation we recognize that this imagination only holds for the special case if moving charge interacts with moving charge[8]. Now comes the important part: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 But if we have a coupling of the field to permanent spins of a hard ferromagnet (not to a charge) then we have a situation which differs physically completely from the situation described by Maxwell as well as by the theory for special and general relativity which is build around electrodynamics. Then we have to realize that Ampere's idea of molecular currents gets incompatible with reality if we leave magnetostatics. For example a perfectly hard ferromagnet cannot be influenced by a changing B-field - contrary to a current loop in a coil !!! There exists no Lenz Law for spins.=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D However the law of induction (i.e. the Lenz law) is used to derive the equation of energy conservation !!! Therefore this equation must FAIL if it is applied to the time dependent coupling of a field to a spin. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Exactly this situation is exploited technologically by Brown's flux switching generator. Therefore we have to look for an energy balance elsewhere.=20 Regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany NEUE Nummern : Tel: ++ 4930-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 4930-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.harti.de Webmaster of: http://www.detours.de Have a look at the future: http://www.overunity.de My favourite ladies on the WEB: http://www.nylon-fetish.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 01:27:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA26155; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 01:26:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 01:26:14 -0800 Message-ID: <32BA5BAB.2443@worldnet.att.net> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 23:26:03 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Candle in Microwave oven experiment. References: <2.2.16.19961219181246.255f319e@world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"c-ltA.0.XO6.pkbko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2804 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > sent for "Hugo, Mark D" : > ----------------------------------------------- > Re: Candle in Microwave oven experiment. > > Tried for 10 minutes. Tried like 5 positions and 30 seconds each. Tried > on turntable for 30 seconds. Candle was FAT Santa candle. Suspect might > need thinner geometry to get enough convection currents to suck up > enough unburned material to fuel "plasmoids". Does one nul prove > anything, except the conditions were not right? > - > Yours, Mark Hugo Mark, Mitchell - Is there a wave stirrer in your machine as well as the turntable? Mine has no turntable, but does have a stirrer, which reflects the waves around in a continually changing pattern. I can't get any "plasmoids" either. I suspect we need to be using one of the simpler, cheaper machines which have no stirrer, so that we could get some areas of persistent standing waves. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 01:50:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA28491; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 01:48:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 01:48:58 -0800 Message-ID: <32BA6108.14F1@worldnet.att.net> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 23:48:59 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: what is electromagnetic field anyway? References: <961219231429_1653797716@emout01.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"G8viJ.0.5z6.84cko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2805 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Xiaobo Kan wrote: [snip] > > One of the unsung hero is Weber. His electrodynamics theory was sometime > called action-at-a-distance theory in the line of Newton, but it is a > distortion because neither Newton nor Weber implied action-at-a-distance. > Newton specifically denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance and > believed only in contact type of action, consistent with field theory. They > just didn't model the field inbetween the interacting bodies(charge, mass), > and concentrated only on the motion of bodies. While this neglect limited > its depth, this method paid off brilliantlly. Let's talk about Weber, his > potential between the two charges in motion is: > V(r)=Q1*Q2[1-(dr/dt)^2/(2C^2)]/r. It modified Coulomb's law with a squared > term in relative radial velocity. Starting from this simple eqn., Weber was > able to unite basically all aspects of the electromagnetical facts at the > time, and that include most of what we know today. Radiations and light is > the only problem not dealt with. What's more, his theory can explain Ampere's > force between current elements, which is far better than Lorentz or > Grassman's force, a glance at Graneau's book (Newtonian Electrodynamics) will > convince you of this. Also, his theory is capable of explaining the origin of > gravity as a residue EM force btween neutral oscillating charge dipoles. > Whether this is a alternative to Puthof's ZPE field approach or equivalent to > it remains a question for me. A good reference is A.K.T. Assis's book titled > Weber's Electrodynamics. His theory also contains possible maens to tap free > energy. But I will stop here for now. > > > Xiaobo Kan Thanks for posting this interesting piece on EM and Weber. More please, when you can. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 03:19:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA02013; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 03:17:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 03:17:13 -0800 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 19:03:22 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961220190737.385738d0@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: charged-mass magnet Resent-Message-ID: <"_OxAi3.0.NV.uMdko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2806 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi guys, Had one heck of a day. I'm off to Vietnam for a while, but I thought I'd leave you with a question/idea (I've run out of time for experiments - gotta go earn enough money to pay for the ones I'm already running...) If I understand the 'Searles drive' concept correctly (I have to guess about most of it, as I haven't seen much beyond the usual tantalizing hints and 'this is the machine to end all machines crapola'), he charges discs with hi voltage and rotates them at hi rps. producing some sort of theological effects, inclusive of antigravity. If nothing else, rumors of his work have prompted me to wake up yesterday morning with the glimmer of an idea... That said, I have been working on a device which needs one hell of a magnet. I abhor coil-winding, although (and probably because) I end up winding a lot of coils. I think it is the sheer mind-numbing tedium of wrapping kilometres of copper around a piece of junk I am almost certain has the wrong parameters for the job. Particularly when I am distracted by thoughts of how I could be more productive after the coil is wound... wrongly... It _shorted_out_ ! ..damn it. And I got to thinking: why not get a disk (think 'frisbee') and put conductive spokes on it connected to the axis. If I charged the spokes and then spun it at a high rate, I should (that's the question !?!) have a magnetic field. If I've got the concept right, the magnetic field should correlate linearly with V and rate of rotation. (as well as the ionization density of the conductive spokes * the mass thereof). The spokes are all charged the same, neg or pos, with respect to earth. The basic idea is to spin ions, held in place by spokes. I originally considered using a simple metal disc, but then I had this vision of the charges being whipped around (loss of field strength due to 'slippage' of the charges, and the heat that would result). I also envision a complementary, dual-disc version wherein you have two discs mounted on concentric shafts rotating in opposite directions with opposite polarity charge on each disc. The result would be a linear magnetic field between the two discs. Anybody out there 'been there, done that' ? cheers, ********************************************************** * http://home.pacific.net.sg/~mpowers8 ******** ********************************************************** From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 03:39:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA03942; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 03:31:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 03:31:25 -0800 From: alansch@zip.com.au (Alan Schneider) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: New article about Flux-Gate generator available ! Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:08:57 GMT Message-ID: <32ba87a3.2589548@mail.zip.com.au> References: <199612192105.WAA10478@mail.bbtt.com> In-Reply-To: <199612192105.WAA10478@mail.bbtt.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/16.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Message-ID: <"CfOQ-3.0.Wz.Cadko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2807 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 22:05:17 +0100, harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) wrote: [Greg Watson's contribution snipped] _>Dear Greg, here is the answer from my friend Dieter Bauer: _>He thinks that you have not yet read the whole article completely. _>He has worked out the machine and its mathematical equations _>directly from the Lenz law !!! and the electrodynamic induction theory _>and has put it all into the differential equations ! _>So now he can REALLY PREDICT, which parameters have to be altered _>to get the right effects. _>He says, that you are true with the coil current under certain = conditions, _>but and that is the BIG NEWS:=20 _>We have now the formular to alter all parameters _>and calculate the real quantitative results ! _>So, he has CALCULATED the overunity output using his formulars ! =46ine. Great, in fact. When is he going to build the unit he has calculated to prove that his formulae really represent what can happen in the "real world". If he has already built a proof-of- principle model which confirms his mathematical predictions ___please___ describe it and post the test results. Mathematics is great stuff and can be very interesting but don't get so rapt in mathematical contemplation that you lose sight of reality. Until it is able to be applied to the real world, mathematics is really nothing more than a form of mental masturbation. _>So if you say, it does not work you have to show, where his formulars _>are incorrect ! At least, until nobody can prove his formulars wrong, _>mathematically seen it produces overunity with his choosen parameters ! No! Wrong, totally wrong. Your friend has come up with a theory which _predicts_ results that seem to go counter to the predictions of currently accepted theories. And the reason these theories are accepted is that by and large the predictions made with them are borne out pretty well in the real world. (Quite apart from the fact=20 that it would probably be easier to change a leopard's spots than=20 to shake the belief of some scientists in their pet theories.) It is not up to _US_ to prove him wrong. It is up to _HIM_ to design and build an experiment which proves the predictions of his theory=20 to be correct. Until he successfully completes this step, it is just=20 another theory and theories are a dime-a-dozen. I hope his model is accurate and he can use his equations to=20 design and build practical over-unity devices. I really do. And I believe most members of this group do also.=20 But either he must translate his theories into practice or someone else must or, as a theory, it is a waste of time and bandwidth. [German answer snipped] =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=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 Fri Dec 20 07:08:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA04548; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 07:05:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 07:05:07 -0800 Date: 20 Dec 96 10:01:30 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Stuff from George Miley Message-ID: <961220150129_72240.1256_EHB109-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"FLkBs1.0.p61.Vigko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2808 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex George Miley e-mailed me copies of many e-mail messages he has written lately in response to comments and critiques. Some of it looks like private chit-chat, and some are verbatim copies without comment of things like the Bockris letter. I will post the messages that address the issues raised here. These are all written to Arthur C. Clarke. I took multiple levels of these ">>>" pointer things so that the lines do not scroll around so much, and I'll make some the paragraphs back into paragraphs. After multiple quoting things get scrawled around, line get broken. I added comments in square brackets [ . . . ] explaining who is writing to whom. I separated messages with broken lines "- - - -". - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: 20-Dec-96 00:39 EST From: "George H. Miley" > INTERNET:g-miley@uiuc.edu Reply to: Re: CETI etc Dear Arthur - Thanks for the note - not many can match your hectic schedule! Nothing new on CF since my transmutation presentation at ICCF-6. (did you get a copy of that paper? - if not let us know and I will mail one to you). The results are so astounding that many jump to the conclusion that the observations must be in error and these are simply due to impurity effects. Certainly, much more study is needed, but I have not yet found an error. For you information, I will send you, in a separate e-mail, a copy of a answer that I prepared for R. Blue who was one of my early critics, along with Doug Morrison (a professional critic!). Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, George - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Another note quoting George's response to Dick Blue.] Date: 20-Dec-96 00:49 EST Fr: "George H. Miley" > INTERNET:g-miley@uiuc.edu Sb: Reply to Dr. Richard Blue's Comments Arthur - this is the note to R. Blue that I noted in my earlier e-mail. Clearly my paper has brought out much "excitement" Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 22:14:35 To: CETI kit gp From: "George H. Miley" Subject: Reply to Dr. Richard Blue's Comments Several from the "kit" group asked me to send a copy of my response to Richard Blue which I sent out earlier. In additon to Blue's attack, Richard Murray posted a real long 4-part "smear" note on the vortex board. He raised a few interesting issues, but most were worded in such a caustic manner that I have not responded. Bockris, Shaffer and others have attempted to answer him and calm him down (if possible). That is not the way to do science. (someone else set a note to our Provost saying my experiment was dangerous and should be shut down! Fortunately it passed a safety inspection!) Regards, George Miley --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Miley quotes his own message as sent by Laura Perez.] Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:59:24 -0600 (CST) X-PH: V4.4a@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu From: "Laura J. Perez" INTERNET:g-miley@uiuc.edu Reply to: Re: Try to prove yourself wrong before. Arthur - more food for thought. George Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 23:11:45 To: DROM@vxcern.cern.ch From: "George H. Miley" Subject: Re: Try to prove yourself wrong before. Cc: ghm,lp Dear Douglas: I fully agree with you and I am now reviewing possible experiments. The electrode substitution experiment you suggest is an excellent one. Indeed I had thought about that earlier and did one run months ago with a Pt electrode replacing the Ti one. However that run was done with a multi-layer film rather than single Ni. Also, my focus then was on Cu and Ag which I view as key elements --(whereas I did not then, or now, consider Ti to be so crucial since it is generally in low concentration and could possibly come from the electrodes. Thus I used NAA only on the beads and confirmed that changing electrode materials did not cause a major change in Cu and Ag - a very interesting result)-- The Texas paper mentioned use of Pt to ck on electrode material effects, but did not give details - this is what I meant. Your suggestion to do this type of experiment with the Ni beads and look at the SIMs elements like Ti, Cr, etc is a good approach which should be done. The only problem is the time (about 3 weeks/run + a month or more for the analysis) and I only have 1 "ultra-clean" cell up and running now (incidentally - for other reasons we put a Pt electrode in it for the present run, but with yet a different type of bead.) This time limitation requires me to set priorities. Other possible experiments along these lines that I have been considering include runs with single isotope species - I am trying to secure (at low cost) some enriched elements from ORNL - they appear to have Cu and some partially separated Pd - but they are yet to get back to me about a proposed "grant" of some of these materials. Another possible approach is to load a cell with beads having two different types of coatings. Things will be slow over the holiday season, so I will have more time to mull these possibilities over. In the meantime, any further thoughts you have are welcome - As you say, I am planning to continue to try to prove myself wrong, or right, (and also hope others can duplicate the experiment) before I submit this work to a refereed journal. Best wishes for the Holiday Season, George PS - I just realized that I am not on your CF Newsletter distribution. Would it be possible to add me? Thanks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Quotes Morrison's original message in full.] At 06:46 AM 12/18/96 +0100, DROM@vxcern.cern.ch wrote: Dear George, 17 December 1996. Thanks for your message which arrived as I was finishing before leaving. So I finished the paper on neutrino masses and oscillations, but in view of your message, decided to postpone my comments on the ICCF-6 and think some more. All the good scientists I know try to prove themselves wrong before they publish. You wrote that you felt that you should publish and sit back and wait for someone to check your results. That is not the best way. Feynman spent a long time checking first. He told me that after he proved something he would repeat the calculation in a non-relativistic way - in general he would get a different answer and then he would see where the difference came from. Then if he had used the wave approach, he would repeat the calculation using the particle approach. he wanted to be quite sure himself first before publishing. I suggested a simple test for you to do. Repeat the experiment with no titanium and see if you still get production of titanium. For many suspect that some of the nickel is being transfered and some other elements are forming as gunk on the surface. You have got to try critical tests to prove yourself wrong. If you wait for someone else, and he finds a different result, it is so easy to reply that he did not do exactly the same as you. The no-titanium test is a simple and easy experiment - I am sure you can think of additional experiments to test yourself - if fact expect you have thought of them - have you not? In a paper, it is conveentional to give all relevent numbers - including the results that came out as expected - such as Si28. This is an important part of the results and all such need to be included. The Texas in Chicago meeting is very interesting and exciting - lots of new results and ideas. Best Wishes, Douglas. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * End of File * From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 08:30:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA19672; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 08:27:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 08:27:03 -0800 Date: 20 Dec 96 11:24:27 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: what is electromagnetic field anyway? Message-ID: <961220162427_76016.2701_JHC72-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"V-Oph1.0.Fp4.Kvhko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2809 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Xiaobo Kan writes: >>One of the unsung hero is Weber. His electrodynamics theory was sometime called action-at-a-distance theory in the line of Newton, but it is a distortion because neither Newton nor Weber implied action-at-a-distance.<< Another proponent for a modified concept of electromagnetic theory is Thomas Bearden. He places the blame for our misconceptions squarely on Oliver Heaviside's simplification of Maxwell's Math. Quoting Bearden: >> [snip] There exists today a small but growing number of scientists who have become aware that the presently accepted electromagnetic theory is seriously flawed. Shortcomings in the theory are readily cited. For example, in railgun experiments the Lorentz force law has been falsified. It was always an approximation, and does not adequately approximate at high energies.[1] Also completely contrary to orthodox EM theory, the EM force fields are not primary agents at all, but are effects produced in and on the physical system by the potentials. As an example, we cite the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect, which proves that, even in the total absence of the force fields, the potentials remain and can interfere at a distance to produce real effects in charged particle systems.[2] The AB effect has been proven to the satisfaction of all but the most diehard skeptics.[3] However, its fundamental impact on the basic notions underlying classical EM theory continues to be ignored by all but a handful of scientists. These EM shortcomings were not present in the original_quaternion_ EM theory by James Clerk Maxwell.[4] Indeed, the original Maxwell theory contains many things that were mistakenly eliminated from the abbreviated vector theory formulated primarily by Heaviside and Gibbs, and to a lesser extent by Hertz.[5] Further, these things that do not exist in conventional EM theory, but that exist in Maxwell's actual quaternion theory, can be used in specially designed equipment, and the operation of that equipment will be inexplicable by present-day electromagnetic theory. AB-effect laboratory apparatuses are in fact rigorous demonstrations of such a statement. [major snip] *NOTES AND REFERENCES* [1] P. Graneau, _Ampere-Neumann Electrodynamics of Metals_, Nonantum, Massachusetts, Hadronic Press, 1985. See also P. Graneau and P.N. Graneau, "Electrodynamic Explosions in Liquids," _Appl. Phys. Lett._, Vol. 46, 1985, p. 468; R. Azevedo, P. Graneau, P.N. Graneau, and C. Millet, "Powerful Water Plasma Explosions," _Phys. Lett._ Vol. 117, 1986, p. 101. [2] See Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, "Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory," _Phys. Rev._ Second Series, 115(3), Aug. 1, 1959, p. 458-491. This paper pointed out the primacy of the potentials. Instead of being causative agents, the force fields are actually _effects_ generated in and of charged particle systems from the potentials. This is in complete violation of both classical electromagnetics and classical dynamics, but it is absolutely required by quantum mechanics. For an extensive discussion of the Aharonov- Bohm effect and an extensive list of references, see S. Olariu and I. Iovitzu Popescu, "The Quantum Effects of Electromagnetic Fluxes," _Rev. Mod. Phys._ 57(2), Apr. 1985. [3] See Bertram Schwarzschild, "Currents in normal-metal rings exhibit Aharonov-Bohm Effect," _Physics Today_, 39(1), Jan. 1986, p. 17-20 for confirmation. [4] James Clerk Maxwell, _A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism_, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1873. The third edition is published by Dover, 1954. [5] Maxwell's true theory of electromagnetics is contained in some 200-odd quaternion equations, and is far more complex than the gross vector simplification developed by Heaviside and Gibbs after Maxwell's death. For a cogent argument about what might have been discovered much earlier in physics if quaternions had not been cast aside, see James D. Edmonds, Jr., "Quaternion Quantum Theory: New Physics or Number Mysticism?", _Am. J. Phys._, 42(3), Mar. 1974, p. 220-223. Just how much more powerful was Maxwell's quaternionic expression of EM theory than was Heaviside's (i.e., the modern) vector interpretation, was succinctly expressed by Josephs as follows: "Hamilton's algebra of quaternions, unlike Heaviside's algebra of vectors, is not a mere abbreviated mode of expressing Cartesian analysis, but is an independent branch of mathematics with its own rules of operation and its own special theorems. A quaternion is, in fact, a generalized or hypercomplex number..." (H.J. Josephs, "The Heaviside Papers Found at Paignton in 1957," _Electromagnetic Theory by Oliver Heaviside, Including an account of Heaviside's unpublished notes for a fourth volume, and with a foreword by Sir Edmund Whittaker_, Vol. III, Third Edition, Chelsea Publishing Co., New York, 1971, p. 660.) [snip]<< While Bearden may be in error at times, he certainly has the spirit of a Vortexian. Terry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 08:41:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA23049; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 08:38:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 08:38:10 -0800 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 08:39:03 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: charged-mass magnet Resent-Message-ID: <"dcvl51.0.vd5.l3iko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2810 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mpower asked: >And I got to thinking: why not get a disk (think 'frisbee') and put >conductive spokes on it connected to the axis. If I charged the spokes and >then spun it at a high rate, I should (that's the question !?!) have a >magnetic field. If I've got the concept right, the magnetic field should >correlate linearly with V and rate of rotation. >(as well as the ionization density of the conductive spokes........... >Anybody out there 'been there, done that' ? The moving charges will indeed generate magnetic field. It will be small, however, because: (a) you cannot put much electric charge (in absolute terms) on an object before the resulting electric field gets so large that the object discharges via a spark, and (b) the maximum speed of a spinning object is limited to 1 km/s or so before it flies apart from centrifugal force, depending on how exotically strong the material is. 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 Dec 20 09:08:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA29175; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:01:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:01:19 -0800 Date: 20 Dec 96 11:59:48 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Miley's ! should be ' Message-ID: <961220165948_72240.1256_EHB62-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"IosRP.0.l77.UPiko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2811 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Looking over this document from Miley, I realize that these exclamation points are probably meant to be single quote signs ('). They must have been corrupted by the Internet e-mail preparation programs. Sigh . . . I wish we had better standards for preserving and presenting documents. It would be nice to have proper underlines, italics, superscripts and so on. Anyway, here are corrected paragraphs. If you would like to copy Miley's comments elsewhere, please use these versions. - Jed [Paragraphs 3 and 4] Richard, back to your comments. Let me begin by saying that I feel your impurity conclusion was reached much too quickly (but you are certainly not alone and I am not surprised; the results are truly startling!). You attribute the observations to impurities solely from your analysis of the Si, Cu, Ti, Ca, SIMS data -- many other key features of the experiment are ignored, including the key mass balance of NAA elements and isotope ratios for other elements. The results must be viewed as a whole to obtain a valid picture. Indeed, because of the complex issues associated with SIMS measurements in this situation, mistakes relative to some of the many isotopes are always possible. Thus, as stated in the paper, we are placing the most reliance on NAA results. While nine NAA elements are reported, we have elected to focus on Cu and Ag relative to mass balances and isotope ratios. (This was done partly due to an earlier 'challenge' by Peter Hagelstein, who simply distrusts SIMS but likes NAA data.) Such a focus makes sense -- if only one element is clearly proven to be a non-impurity, the case for transmutations is made. The appearance of Cu and Ag in high concentrations with their high mass number relative to Ni is certainly not expected (nor are the other high mass elements). Thus, Cu and Ag represent good 'reference' elements to concentrate on, and even as I write this, we are accumulating more concentration and isotope data on both. Back to your SIMS issues. First, while you did not stress it, others pointed out that Table 3 in the Texas A & M paper has some problems, for which I apologize. Several typos appeared in the draft version used by Infinite Energy for speedy publication, but these errors are corrected in the official proceedings version (along with some other minor changes/additions). Second, we should have stressed that the table only contains net "yield" values (i.e., the amount of isotope after a run less any initial amount in the film). If this yield was zero (or slightly negative as occurred in several cases), that isotope was not included in the table due to space limits for publication. That explains some of the omissions you question. But to get to the more important issue about our assignment of the Ca, Cr, and Ti isotope values, let me say our choice was deliberate and based on a review of both low- and high-resolution SIMS plus supporting data (e.g., variations with film depth). Let me stress that there was no attempt to disguise the identification (else why give detailed tables?). Regarding the particular isotopes you indicated, as a matter of interest we initially considered arbitrary "what if" alternatives to the "base" selection provided in the paper to see what would happen relative to natural abundance. The closest to your proposed assignment was one which, as I reconstruct it now, prorated the intensity of Ti (50) based on Ti (47) and assigned the rest of mass 50 to Cr (50) (counter to our actual assignment). That still gives a difference from natural abundance for Ti (50) of about +18%; Cr (50) of about -4%, and variations for all of the other isotopes from A=40 to 54. That is still a significant difference. No matter what arbitrary assignment one gives to A=50 and 48, deviations remain. Thus, I don't understand how you conclude that the changes you cite give natural abundances. Further, even if natural abundances are assumed for these isotopes, that does not explain away the rest of the experimental observations, including the large increase in amounts of key isotopes after a run (we have done NAA on all components of the cell for the 'NAA elements,' defined in the paper as the nine detected by this method, making a reasonably accurate balance possible for them. This certainly gives sufficient accuracy to quantify the order of magnitude increases in weight observed for elements like Ag and Cu). Your emphasis on Ti being "the" key issue seems to imply that if impurities from the Ti electrode get to the beads, that proves that everything observed is due to impurities. That doesn't follow; please look at the entire spectrum of elements--where do they come from? (Aside: for your information, a Pt electrode cell was run with similar results, but with some minor variations compared to the Ti electrode case. These results were not published, but were mentioned in the Texas A & M paper. You will also note that we report results in ICCF-6 from an 'ultra-clean' Ni run done in Jim Patterson's lab which shows, to my amazement, roughly double the number of "products" found in the early run cited in the Texas A & M paper. In addition, we are analyzing a recent run with an Ag coating and also one with a Ti coating. I don't want to discuss these runs yet, however, since the work is still in progress.) [Beginning of paragraph 8] Let me hasten to add that SEL theory only deals with barrier penetration. The ability for high-Z elements to penetrate and interact to produce the large array of products observed requires a radically new theory. As indicated in the paper, I'm working on one called RIFEX, but it remains incomplete. (Several cold fusion theoreticians have told me to stick to experiments, but those who know me realize I like to dabble in theory and so can't be easily "controlled"). Since RIFEX is yet to be published, the . . . * End of File * From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 10:36:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA22027; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 10:32:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 10:32:03 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199612201824.KAA00325@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Another Antigravity Machine To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 10:24:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <32BA5BAB.2443@worldnet.att.net> from "Rick Monteverde" at Dec 19, 96 11:26:03 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: <"327iX2.0.oN5.Qkjko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2812 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A poor man's Tampere experiment. European Patent Office: Publication Number - 0 486 243 A2 Application Number - 91310395.8 Inventors - Haruro Yamashita and Takayuki Toyama Applicant - LAPLACIAN CO. LTD. of Kobe Japan Date of Filing - November 11, 1991 The inventors apply an electric charge to a dielectric disk and/or a capacitor plate (with attached dielectric) which is rotatable. Upon spinning the dielectric disk (or capacitor plate) the apparatus gains or loses weight depending on the polarity of the applied charge. In the experiment conducted by the inventors, the entire device, including a DC motor which is used to spin the disk, is placed on a scale, and has a total weight of 1300 grams. The motor has a rated speed of 3000 rpm. The capacitor (or dielectric) is charged by contact with a high voltage Van de Graff generator which is then moved away from the apparatus. The voltage level is not specified. If the apparatus is spun with the capacitor uncharged, a weight change of up to 1 gram occurs, which is attributed by the inventors to lift or drag by air currents by the spinning disk. When the capacitor is charged to high voltage, and spun up to maximum speed, it is found to gain or lose up to 10 grams in weight. The inventors conclude four things from their experiment: 1. Horizontal rotation of a charged body generates a vertical force. 2. When the polarity of the charge supplied to the rotating body is reversed, the direction of the generated vertical force is also reversed. 3. The faster the body is rotated, the stronger is the generated vertical force. 4. The direction and strength of the generated vertical force do not depend on the direction of rotation of the body. The inventors do not attempt much in the way of a theoretical explanation, except to say -- "an accelerating force is generated due to an interaction between the accelerated electrons and the gravitational field." In my opinion, it is a demonstration of the Hooper effect -- the motional electric-gravitational field. Except, the inventors have used a mechanically generated current, a convection current, rather than a conduction current. Hooper's experiments are by nature restricted to flow of negative charge (electrons). This invention permits flow of positive as well as negative charge, and gives a demonstration of polarity in the effect. Another neat thing about this experiment, is the relatively large magnitude of the measured effect, and the simple and low cost construction of the device. The inventors do not yet have a US patent. Either they did not apply, or the US patent was rejected. Maybe because it is patently obvious that the device can not work? Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 10:47:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA23942; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 10:40:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 10:40:02 -0800 Message-ID: <32BADD89.7EF8@interlaced.net> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:40:09 -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: charged-mass magnet References: <2.2.16.19961220190737.385738d0@po.pacific.net.sg> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"L7nYY3.0.rr5.zrjko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2813 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Mpower wrote: > (snip) > I also envision a complementary, dual-disc version wherein you have two > discs mounted on concentric shafts rotating in opposite directions with > opposite polarity charge on each disc. The result would be a linear magnetic > field between the two discs. > > Anybody out there 'been there, done that' ? Rotating charged bodies to generate a magnetic field is a classic old physics experiment. But, remember, one amp is moving one coulomb of charge past a point in one second! For large magnetic fields, stick to currents flowing in those pesky old wire coils! Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 11:17:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA30478; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:09:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:09:21 -0800 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:09:05 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Hope To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Another Antigravity Machine In-Reply-To: <199612201824.KAA00325@shell.skylink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"a-_pM1.0.uR7.PHkko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2814 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Robert Stirniman wrote: > A poor man's Tampere experiment. > > European Patent Office: > Publication Number - 0 486 243 A2 > Application Number - 91310395.8 > Inventors - Haruro Yamashita and Takayuki Toyama > Applicant - LAPLACIAN CO. LTD. of Kobe Japan > Date of Filing - November 11, 1991 > > The inventors apply an electric charge to a dielectric > disk and/or a capacitor plate (with attached dielectric) which > is rotatable. Upon spinning the dielectric disk (or capacitor > plate) the apparatus gains or loses weight depending on the > polarity of the applied charge. To me, this sounds like a cross between a Searle disk and a Biefeld-Brown capacitor. VERY fascinating stuff! I wonder if they did their experiments in vacuum, and what sort of voltage they used (ionizing or not). These are important conditions. If it was done in air with ionizing voltage, the entire effect might be ion winds, trivial in nature but difficult to calculate. > > In the experiment conducted by the inventors, the entire device, > including a DC motor which is used to spin the disk, is placed > on a scale, and has a total weight of 1300 grams. The motor > has a rated speed of 3000 rpm. The capacitor (or dielectric) > is charged by contact with a high voltage Van de Graff generator > which is then moved away from the apparatus. The voltage level > is not specified. If the apparatus is spun with the capacitor > uncharged, a weight change of up to 1 gram occurs, which is > attributed by the inventors to lift or drag by air currents ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ OK, this is a bad sign. > by the spinning disk. When the capacitor is charged to high > voltage, and spun up to maximum speed, it is found to gain or > lose up to 10 grams in weight. > > > Regards, > Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) > > I was on this list a year ago, but I left for a while. Then I read the archives and saw that some current anti-grav research was being discussed, so I signed back on, just to look at that topic. I left the list because, while I am very interested in CF, I don't have the materials or nuclear background to be able to understand it internally. But it's good to be back! You folks have kept this list a model of what an internet science mailing list can be. Respect is high, flames and noise are low, content is rich, involvement strong. Charles From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 11:28:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA04216 for billb@eskimo.com; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:28:05 -0800 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:28:05 -0800 X-Envelope-From: UA4B029@EPRI.EPRI.COM Fri Dec 20 11:28:00 1996 Received: from relay3.UU.NET (relay3.UU.NET [192.48.96.8]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA04177 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:27:58 -0800 Received: from atai.epri.com by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: atai.epri.com [144.58.2.61]) id QQbuyf28540; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:27:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from epri.epri.com by atai.epri.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA164373; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:30:58 -0800 Received: from EPRI.EPRI.COM by EPRINET.EPRI.COM (Soft*Switch Central V4L40P1A) id 441727110096355FEPRI; 20 Dec 1996 11:27:11 PST Message-Id: Old-Date: 20 Dec 1996 11:27:11 PST From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" Subject: Latest Joe Champion info... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Comment: EPRI UA4B029 12/20/96 11:27:16 SMTP X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Latest Joe Champion info... Supposedly a High School student in Dallas has performed one of the Joe Champion forumlations for making Gold from Ag/etc. This probably would not be too significant, except one of the members of the Vortex, with academic credentials was on a business trip and able to spend a couple of days observing. I will allow this person to speak for themselves if they so desire. Suffice to say, however, this individual alledgely affirmed the source material s had Ag/Etc. and no Au. And also saw to a final assay on the result which demonstrated an easily measurable amount of Au. Joe Champion was at least 1500 miles away at the time of the experimental work. (But we KNOW that there is this "action at a distance" that occurs, so until Joe is isolated in pressure chamber on Mars we may have some doubts as to trickery.) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 12:44:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA19843; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 12:41:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 12:41:19 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:41:17 -0900 To: chronos@enter.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: AEH updated - Part 1 - COMMENTS Resent-Message-ID: <"O-SYn1.0.zr4.kdlko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2815 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 7:34 PM 12/14/96, Robert G. Flower wrote: [snip] > >A more likely role for ZPE in CF would be to act as CATALYST -- ie, >to shield or overcome the electrostatic repulsion. > >This is not to say that ZPE provides *no* energy input to CF, >only that its contribution is small w/r/t energy liberated from >nuclear reactions. [snip] >======================================================= >Robert G. Flower, Applied Science Associates Here is some more thinking out loud about this. Robin and I both have called upon the Bose condensate as a means of achieving the coulomb barrier hop. However, I personally have not been comfortable with the notion that the condensates can form for a sufficient length of time to achieve tansmutation on a large scale, despite evidence that the transmutations must be happening. On further thought, is possble that atomic expansion can play some role in condensate formation. Large waveform condensate formation requires achieving zero relative velocity between the two or more bodies to form the condensate. This is easily accomplished in a single dimension because *any* periodic or even ranodom motion will regularly produce a temporary state of zero relative velocity - provided the two bodies are bound or constrained together, i.e don't fly apart. However, in a continuous world this is only an instantaneous event. Also a problem is that when the motion is in three dimensions there is no requirement that the relative velocity ever be zero, as zero velocity must be achieved on all three axes simultaneously. In a Ni lattice fully saturated with hydrogen some things may work together to greatly increase the likelyhood of condensate formation. The total confinement of every atom due to the packing of the lattice requires that *all* motion result in the form of phonons. This implys that all motion in the packed lattice is quantized, thus all motion occurs as descrete events and therefore that every state actualized exists for a finite non-zero time. Secondly, atomic expansion events, especially in chain reactions, may provide sufficient energy to break Ni lattice bonds. This will eventually result in many Ni atoms sharing only one or two bonds with the lattice, which would assist in making lattice vibrations tend to be propagated more in a single dimension for such atoms. This would greatly increase the likelyhood of achieving zero relative velocity between adjacent Ni atoms. However, the forming of a condensate and a transmutation are different things. I believe that the latter requires some kind of stimulus to force waveform collapse. Now, if such stimuli could tend to be "linked in time" or "lagged" to the condensate formation, then the density or number of condensate formations in the lattice could be far less to achive any particular transmutation rate. That is to say, if there is some means that the magic fast particle tends to appear right after condensate formation, then the lattice does not have to be simultaneously full of both condensates and stimulating particles at the same time. Let's assume that ionizing energy breaks the H2 bond of an H2 atom caught in the triangular face hole in the face between two tetrahedral spaces. This will, at an instant, begin the simultaneous inward motion of the three Ni atoms bounding the face hole, i.e. the tri-anvil atoms, due to the release of tension by the departing of the H toms in opposite directions from the bond. The three atoms would tend to reach maximum approach and zero relative velocity, at the same instant. This would tend to form a condensate of three Ni atoms for an instant. Simultaneously with this event would be the H atomic expansions going on in the two adjacent tetrahedral spaces. If such expansion resulted in ionizing raditation, or high speed electrons, these stimulants would tend to be in the neighborhood at just the right moment, right at or after the moment of condensate formation, perfectly lagged. In addition, secondary effects could happen from similar events being triggered in adjacent sites by the sudden energy release from the AE's. If no transmutation occurred in the inital event, the three Ni atoms would tend to vibrate in unison for a while after the initial H2 separation event, thus giving secondary events more opportunity to be effective. Just some thoughts, and an awful lot of maybes. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 12:57:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA23662; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 12:55:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 12:55:31 -0800 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 15:55:04 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: marett@mail.ican.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@ican.net (Douglas M. Marett) Subject: my comments of Nov. 14th/96 Resent-Message-ID: <"4PeGC.0.Zn5.2rlko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2816 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The Correas appear to be quite angry and upset about comments I made on vortex-L a few weeks ago. My intention was always to just point out the similarities between the work of Reich and the work of the Correas. If I made any remarks on this site that somehow suggested that the Correas were dishonest with the patent office, or that there invention was anything other than worthy of the patents they received, I wish to retract such comments. I also would like to apoligize to any members of vortex-L who might have been misled by any comments of this nature. Thank you. Doug Marett M.Sc. Dec. 20th, 1996 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 13:22:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA31847; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:19:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:19:22 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 12:19:30 -0900 To: chronos@enter.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: AEH updated - Part 1 - COMMENTS Resent-Message-ID: <"8F1p01.0.Xn7.OBmko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2817 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 7:34 PM 12/14/96, Robert G. Flower wrote: [snip] > >A more likely role for ZPE in CF would be to act as CATALYST -- ie, >to shield or overcome the electrostatic repulsion. > >This is not to say that ZPE provides *no* energy input to CF, >only that its contribution is small w/r/t energy liberated from >nuclear reactions. [snip] >======================================================= >Robert G. Flower, Applied Science Associates Here is another variation in thinking out loud about this: Let's assume that ionizing energy breaks the H2 bond of an H2 atom caught in the triangular face hole in the face between two tetrahedral spaces. This will, at an instant, begin the simultaneous inward motion of the three Ni atoms bounding the face hole, i.e. the tri-anvil atoms, due to the release of tension by the departing of the H toms in opposite directions from the bond. The three atoms would tend to reach maximum approach and zero relative velocity, at the same instant. Simultaneously with this event would be the H atomic expansions going on in the two adjacent tetrahedral spaces. The ZPE fueled electron shell expansions could result in a backlash of the electron probability clouds from the adjacent atoms, referred to earlier as a "blow-though" effect. This effect, like a shaped charge, could result in a highly focused electron probability density in the location between the approaching Ni atoms, thus providing the electron sheilding posited by Robert Flower above. In addition, the H nuleii shot outward initally would tend to rebound and reappraoch the center of origin where the dense "electron soup" would reside. Many effects are possible depending on the timing, lattice motion, etc. This would be a difficult simulation I suppose. Just some more thoughts, and even more maybes. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 14:23:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA10971; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:08:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:08:19 -0800 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:55:58 -0800 (PST) From: Nils Rognerud To: harti@harti.de cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com, Tom <100405.617@compuserve.com> Subject: Thanks for the Brown-Ecklin article... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"4y3nz2.0.Eh2.Hvmko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2818 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: You may also be interested visiting my web site about electro-gravity. Check it out and let me know what you think: http://www.best.com/~rognerud/html/physics.html The electro-gravity theory as put forth in the paper, also explains the actual physics of the Tampere "gravity-shielding" experiment (the web page with actual specific and formulas will be posted soon), but I can tell you it is not gravity shielding, it is gravity generation. More later... The electro-gravity theory also explains things like why rotating charges (like balls or capacitors) generate small electro-gravity fields (the B x v fields from moving charges). These fields exist in all electrical wires and eletronic equipment, but are usually too small to be measured (nVolts or smaller), and the fields are also almost impossible to detect directly because the fields are non-shieldable and quickly will reach an equilibrium state so there are no moving charges to measure in sensitive equipment. I apologize for my ramblings, but I enjoy the feel of this e-mail group and promise to let you know as soon as I add more to my web page. In the mean time, you may look at my web page and see what is already there. -Nils From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 16:25:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA07228; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 16:22:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 16:22:23 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961220193920.00b6f00c@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 19:40:17 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Another Antigravity Machine Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"DN24O1.0.rm1.-soko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2819 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: see my notes in the body of the Email. At 10:23 AM 12/20/96 -0800, Robert Stirniman wrote: >A poor man's Tampere experiment. > > European Patent Office: > Publication Number - 0 486 243 A2 > Application Number - 91310395.8 > Inventors - Haruro Yamashita and Takayuki Toyama > Applicant - LAPLACIAN CO. LTD. of Kobe Japan > Date of Filing - November 11, 1991 > >The inventors apply an electric charge to a dielectric >disk and/or a capacitor plate (with attached dielectric) which >is rotatable. Upon spinning the dielectric disk (or capacitor >plate) the apparatus gains or loses weight depending on the >polarity of the applied charge. > >In the experiment conducted by the inventors, the entire device, >including a DC motor which is used to spin the disk, is placed >on a scale, and has a total weight of 1300 grams. The motor >has a rated speed of 3000 rpm. The capacitor (or dielectric) >is charged by contact with a high voltage Van de Graff generator >which is then moved away from the apparatus. The voltage level >is not specified. If the apparatus is spun with the capacitor >uncharged, a weight change of up to 1 gram occurs, which is >attributed by the inventors to lift or drag by air currents >by the spinning disk. When the capacitor is charged to high >voltage, and spun up to maximum speed, it is found to gain or >lose up to 10 grams in weight. > I wonder what the diameter of the disc was? >The inventors conclude four things from their experiment: > 1. Horizontal rotation of a charged body generates a > vertical force. If anyone replicates this device could you check for a *radial* G or A/G field component ? > 2. When the polarity of the charge supplied to the rotating > body is reversed, the direction of the generated vertical > force is also reversed. > > 3. The faster the body is rotated, the stronger is the > generated vertical force. Would that relationship be directly, or to an exponent, I wonder? > 4. The direction and strength of the generated vertical > force do not depend on the direction of rotation of > the body. > It might be worth doing a measurement of a possible similarity of the field pattern to the laser-like field reportedly generated by the Podkletnov superconducting antigravity disc (oops, I mean the gravity modification disc, or the gravity *shielding*)(yeah that's it... "shielding") >The inventors do not attempt much in the way of a theoretical >explanation, except to say -- "an accelerating force is generated >due to an interaction between the accelerated electrons and >the gravitational field." > "accelerated electrons"..........interesting. >In my opinion, it is a demonstration of the Hooper effect -- the >motional electric-gravitational field. Except, the inventors have >used a mechanically generated current, a convection current, rather >than a conduction current. Hooper's experiments are by nature >restricted to flow of negative charge (electrons). This invention >permits flow of positive as well as negative charge, and gives a >demonstration of polarity in the effect. > >Another neat thing about this experiment, is the relatively large >magnitude of the measured effect, So would it then not follow that perhaps normal matter's atomic and subatomic accelerations and decelerations of charge are creating gravity fields? They would be composed of positively charged particles vibrating or oscillating creating antigravity......right there along with the negatively charged particles simultaneously orbiting, vibrating, and oscillating, creating gravity. Both of these effects might be very large, but would cancel out because they are equal and opposite....that is, the *charges* are equal and opposite. There must be a slight excess of *acceleration* of the negative charges. I wonder where *that* comes from..........(anyone?) (ZPE?) (Hal?) >and the simple and low cost >construction of the device. The inventors do not yet have a US >patent. Either they did not apply, or the US patent was rejected. >Maybe because it is patently obvious that the device can not work? >Regards, >Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) > Maybe it was classified in the US. If true, I wonder how it got as far as it did in Japan? Do I recall a rumor that Townsend Brown's device was classified when they rotated his charged discs? Naw..must be my lousy memory again... Many thanks to Robert for that posting. I just love antigravity stuff. I don't know where he gets it all, but I'm glad he's on this list. Merry Christmas to All. Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 18:41:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA07021; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 18:39:04 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 18:39:04 -0800 Message-ID: <32BB4DBE.4719@worldnet.att.net> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 16:38:58 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Another Antigravity Machine References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"onTQc3.0.Yj1.7tqko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2820 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Charles Hope wrote: [snip] > > If the apparatus is spun with the capacitor > > uncharged, a weight change of up to 1 gram occurs, which is > > attributed by the inventors to lift or drag by air currents > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > OK, this is a bad sign. [snip] Yup. I would sure like to hear about some other tests done on these rigs besides just trying to weigh them with electric wind blowing around them. How about hanging or swinging some bobs of various materials behind a barrier? If these rigs are producing or altering gravity in some way, then the effect should be unshieldable. That allows all manner of grounded metal plates or other confinements and shields to surround the gizmo and/or the bobs. For instance, try tilting the gizmo sideways and firing it up. Have bobs on long threads set up as follows: small aluminum ball next to a lead ball beside a glass ball, you get the idea - gravity will, as usual, automagically adjust itself to provide a force according to each mass so that each object will be displaced by the *same* amount regardless of its mass, dielectric or magnetic properties, etc. That would be an unmistakable sign that a force *acting* like gravity exists. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 19:52:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA24921; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 19:50:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 19:50:10 -0800 Message-ID: <32BB5E7A.252F@interlaced.net> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 22:50:18 -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: Another Antigravity Machine References: <199612201824.KAA00325@shell.skylink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"TIoQR.0.H56.mvrko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2821 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robert Stirniman wrote: > (snip) > A poor man's Tampere experiment. > (snip) Robert, when any device like this is tested, it should be placed in a vacuum tank, or, perhaps more easily, placed inside of a container (a cardboard box should work fine). Then, the whole thing - device with its container should be placed on the scale. Since no air can move across the container boundary, if the weight change holds up - then they have something. It takes good science to detect anomalous effects. A spinning charged disk in air has different aerodynamics than a spinning uncharged disk. You might call these electrohydrodynamic effects. If someone cares to do this experiment (rig-in-an-air-tight -box) I would like to hear the results. You also must make sure the force-gage (scale) used does a good job of integrating the ac force component of the vibrating machinery. Just because you can scoot yourself across the floor in a cardboard box while touching only the inside of the box, does not mean you have invented a reactionless space drive. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 21:56:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA00964; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 21:55:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 21:55:34 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961221011250.0069b06c@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 01:13:16 -0500 To: antigravity@primenet.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Another Antigravity Machine (re-post) Cc: robert@skylink.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"nUmTp2.0.wE.Kltko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2822 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:23 AM 12/20/96 -0800, Robert Stirniman wrote: >A poor man's Tampere experiment. > > European Patent Office: > Publication Number - 0 486 243 A2 > Application Number - 91310395.8 > Inventors - Haruro Yamashita and Takayuki Toyama > Applicant - LAPLACIAN CO. LTD. of Kobe Japan > Date of Filing - November 11, 1991 > >The inventors apply an electric charge to a dielectric >disk and/or a capacitor plate (with attached dielectric) which >is rotatable. Upon spinning the dielectric disk (or capacitor >plate) the apparatus gains or loses weight depending on the >polarity of the applied charge. > So maybe it doesn't matter if Weber was predicting a gravity field with electrically balanced dipoles. It may just have been the *motion* of the electrons themselves. >In the experiment conducted by the inventors, the entire device, >including a DC motor which is used to spin the disk, is placed >on a scale, and has a total weight of 1300 grams. The motor >has a rated speed of 3000 rpm. The capacitor (or dielectric) >is charged by contact with a high voltage Van de Graff generator >which is then moved away from the apparatus. The voltage level >is not specified. If you build this device to be significantly lighter, and greatly increase the charge......Voila! >If the apparatus is spun with the capacitor >uncharged, a weight change of up to 1 gram occurs, which is >attributed by the inventors to lift or drag by air currents >by the spinning disk. *Or* it might be an 'established' electromagnetic effect where electrons go to the rim of a spinning (neutral) disc. And that's a good thing. >When the capacitor is charged to high >voltage, and spun up to maximum speed, it is found to gain or >lose up to 10 grams in weight. > So we want a high strength material that is light and can 'really' hold a charge. Spin that. >The inventors conclude four things from their experiment: > 1. Horizontal rotation of a charged body generates a > vertical force. If anyone replicates this device could you please check for a *radial* G or A/G force ? > 2. When the polarity of the charge supplied to the rotating > body is reversed, the direction of the generated vertical > force is also reversed. We are *assuming* that this device can act only vertically. > > 3. The faster the body is rotated, the stronger is the > generated vertical force. If the rpm doubles does the G force double ? Think how much nicer an exponential response would be. Check that. > 4. The direction and strength of the generated vertical > force do not depend on the direction of rotation of > the body. > Is the field pattern the same as the Podkletnov superconducting antigravity disc (oops, I mean the gravity modification disc, or the gravity *shielding*)(yeah that's it... "shielding" device), or does it spread out? >The inventors do not attempt much in the way of a theoretical >explanation, except to say -- "an accelerating force is generated >due to an interaction between the accelerated electrons and >the gravitational field." > "accelerated electrons"......interesting..... Hooper's conduction electrons were (theoretically) *not* accelerating. They had constant velocity from a DC power supply. >In my opinion, it is a demonstration of the Hooper effect -- the >motional electric-gravitational field. Except, the inventors have >used a mechanically generated current, a convection current, rather >than a conduction current. Hooper's experiments are by nature >restricted to flow of negative charge (electrons). This invention >permits flow of positive as well as negative charge, and gives a >demonstration of polarity in the effect. > If I had to choose between Hooper's electron velocity conduction current or Yamashita's mechanically generated convection current, Yamashita would win hands down; It takes nano or femto amps to achieve with a charged disc what Hooper took 10 to 30 amps to achieve with his 20+ pounds of copper wire. >Another neat thing about this experiment, is the relatively large >magnitude of the measured effect, Perhaps with normal matter's atomic and subatomic charged particles vibrating, oscillating, and orbiting, we get two strongly opposing (and mostly canceling,) resultant gravitational fields ( Gravity & Antigravity ),but only a *small* amount of the 'gravity' remains, because even though the amount of charge and polarity is normally equal and opposite, there must 'also' be a slightly larger 'acceleration' or 'velocity' of negative charge to account for the normally experienced gravitational fields.... under this theory. I wonder if that extra bit of acceleration comes from the ZPE interaction with the electron orbitals. >and the simple and low cost >construction of the device. The inventors do not yet have a US >patent. Either they did not apply, or the US patent was rejected. >Maybe because it is patently obvious that the device can not work? >Regards, >Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) > Thanks Robert, for that post. It was one in a million. That's my 2 cents worth for now. Merry Christmas to All. Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 20 23:39:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA17399; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 23:37:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 23:37:54 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 22:37:55 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Carl Sagan Resent-Message-ID: <"GSMGk3.0.nF4.GFvko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2823 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I have just heard that Carl Sagan has died. Some feel it is appropriate to publically remember personal anectodes of the recently deceased, and I feel moved to do so now. This anecdote is maybe a bit out there but it is reality for me. It was probably the fall of 1972 that I was busy attempting to program horoscopes. I expected to get rich as I had a deal to produce charts and horoscopes as hostess gifts for a party plan maketing outfit. I had studied both astronomy and astrology, and had passed the exam and had become licensed to practice astrology, as my attorney had advised. I was having difficulties doing programming analysis from an old text that had obviously been filled with techniques to reduce hand calculation tedium and error. I thought there must be simple computer codes already available to do orbit calculations. I went to the Ohio State University Astronomy Department and was referred to a graduate student there. There was another person in his office and somehow we three became involved in a discussion of creating a 3D computerized atlas of the galaxies and other fun topics. Eventually the conversation got around to my problem and when it eventally arose that it was for astrological purposes there was a bit of a chuckle and the two young guys referred me down the hall to the small office of a visiting astronomer who was making a movie - who they said was an expert in such things. The office door was open and the man inside was obviously very busy. I knocked at the door and he looked up an said he was pretty busy what was it? I said so-and-so down the hall had referred me to him with an orbital calculation problem. He immediately invited me in and I explained the situation. When astrology came up he virtually exploded with emotion and a tyrade. I immediately knew the meaning of the chuckle from the two guys down the hall. After a bit he asked me what text I was using and I said Watson's "Theoretical Astronomy". He exploded again - it was as if I were an infidel who had violated a sacred document. How could I waste time and ability on Watson just for astrology? He then must have spent about a half hour lecturing me on the waste of precious time and debating the morality of practicing astrology. He also encouraged me to study astronomy seriously. Now, I can't say for complete certainty that the man in the office was Carl Sagan, because at the time I didn't know who Carl Sagan was. I don't even know for sure if Carl Sagan ever went to Columbus, Ohio. However, the man and the accent was unforgettable, and his response to astrology I later found out was like a signature to him. Besides, how many astronomers who make movies can say "billions" like he did? If I could talk to him now I would like to tell him he was right about astrology, though I have no regrets for the time spent as it led me down some strange and mysterious byways of life, and that has been my chosen lot, to take the road less travelled. That man was kind and concerned for me and gave me his time when it was precious to him, and I am greatful for it. Carl Sagan was a man filled with vision and purpose. It is a privilege to even meet such a great teacher. He brought astronomy and the excitement of scientific curiosity to the masses and the world is a better place for his being here. It is my deepest regret that he did not live to see the cold fusion issue settled as in 1989 he predicted it would be within five years. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 21 05:50:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA21467; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 05:49:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 05:49:05 -0800 Message-ID: <32BBF93A.2F3B@rt66.com> Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 06:50:35 -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: drom@vxcern.cern.ch, vortex-l@eskimo.com, 72240.1256@compuserve.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, g-miley@uiuc.edu, mica@world.std.com, ceti@onramp.net, claytor_t_n@lanl.gov, ine@padrak.com, little@eden.com, jonesse@plasma.byu.edu, blue@pilot.msu.edu, design73@aol.com, mcfee@xdiv.lanl.gov, jlogajan@skypoint.com, bockris@chemvx.tamu.edu, ghlin@greenoil.chem.tamu.edu, kennel@nhelab.iae.or.jp, dashj@sbii.sb2.pdx.edu, wireless@rmii.com, barry@math.ucla.edu Subject: Four Miley Critiques Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"b0K9i.0.GF5.Eh-ko"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2824 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: December 21, 1996 Dear Dr. Douglas Morrison, I was delighted to find on Vortex-L Jed Rothwell's forwarded messages from George Miley's answers to criticisms. Open and vigorous critical debate is the best honor we can render to important and unexpected research. In case you haven't seen my four critiques, I forwarded them to you. I think they're fairly unreadable, if you're not motivated enough to compare them with Miley's two preprints yourself, line by line, figure by figure. Oh well! Do you think my language was too "caustic"? I'm busy moving this weekend, but am getting ready to write a Fifth Miley Critique, pointing out more surprising errors in his preprints. I regret that I am finding some errors in the three reports of Mizuno's well-known transmutation claims, published in detail in Infinite Energy and in Journal of New Energy, and will soon write a Mizuno Critique. I believe that if a report itself is not almost totally impeccable, in terms of its clarity of language and visual design, free of proofreading errors, replete with basic data that allows the reader to easily and comprehensively double-check the claimed chains of data analysis, and carefully and thoroughly discussing any measurement and analysis problems, then critics have a duty to be corresponding skeptical about the entire body of research by that worker. You are quite right in emphasizing Feynman's practice of always being his own worst, and first, critic. Since Miley's responses to criticism have again and again mentioned that he has focused on Cu and Ag results as some of his clearest evidence for transmutations, I will take the space here to reiterate my after/before ratios in my first Miley Critique, calculated from his own data in Table 3 in his First Preprint, based on NAA analysis, given accuracy by him of +- 15 %: Isotope Atoms per Atoms per After/Before Ratio fresh beads reacted beads 29 Cu-63 3.57E+15 116.E+15 32.5 29 Cu-65 1.54E+15 49.7E+15 32.3 47 Ag-107 7.32E+15 76.1E+15 10.4 47 Ag-109 6.68E+15 61.4E+15 9.2 The remarkaby close agreement of these two pairs of values, which are for NAA analysis of different 10-bead samples, before and after, from runs using 1,000 beads each, indicates a simple multiplication of the initial number of atoms of the two elements, i.e., no isotopic shift effect, within the +- 15 % claimed NAA accuracy, hence, no evidence for transmutations. Please forward my Critiques freely to whoever may be interested. Richard T. Murray, M.A. Room For All 1943 Otowi Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 505-986-9103 rmforall@rt66.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 21 10:46:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA12379; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 10:30:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 10:30:57 -0800 Message-Id: <32BC2D2A.6DA1@loc100.tandem.com> Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 10:32:10 -0800 From: Bob Horst Reply-To: bhorst@loc100.tandem.com Organization: Tandem Computers Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Pure isotope experiments Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"EE8V2.0.J13.Vp2lo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2825 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Last week I sent a letter to George Miley suggesting some experiments he might try using pure isotopes. He thought is was a good suggestion, and had already thought of doing similar experiments. (Way ahead of me, naturally.) However, he has not yet obtained any materials. I am forwarding my letter in case it might prompt some vortexians to come up with other ideas, to critique the possible results, or to come up with good sources for pure isotopes. A portion of my letter follows: "... Since seeing you last in Champaign, I have been pondering other experiments that may help to rule out contamination and gain new knowledge of the phenomenon. Perhaps you have already thought of this, but if not, here is my suggestion. Prepare two new batches of beads using a single layer of isotopically pure materials. For instance, make one batch with Ni58 and another batch with Ni60, using the same substrate material for both. Run separate cells with each of the two isotopes using the purest electrolyte possible. Then perform the same SIMS and NAA analysis as in the previous experiments. Compare the results of the two runs. There could be several different outcomes of this experiment: 1. No appreciable difference in the reaction products. This result, which seems unlikely based on your previous data, would be expected if the products are merely due to contamination. 2. Similar distributions of new elements, but products of the heavier base metal are shifted up in atomic weight. This could provide clues to the reaction pathways, especially if the average shift is not the same for the four regions. 3. Similar distributions, but shifted up in atomic number. This would be a very interesting result and would indicate that neutron decay is involved in the reactions. 4. No overall trend difference in the curves, but fewer reaction products in both. This would again rule out contamination, and would suggest that interaction between different base metal isotopes is partially responsible for some of the reaction products. With fewer products, it would be easier to develop theories about the mechanisms involved. If results are measurably different, the two sets of beads might be valuable in other ways also. For instance, a few beads of the second isotope could be strategically placed in a cell with the other isotope and used as markers when running experiments to develop different cell geometries. Of course, the trend data would be even more convincing if you also prepare beads with other isotopes. If the trends hold across three different isotopes, it would be pretty hard to attribute to contamination, and the data would be valuable in determining the exact pathways responsible for the reactions. You may be the only scientist in the world who could hope to run this type of experiment successfully. I hope you will think about this as a possibility, along with the many other experiments you are undoubtedly considering." -- Bob Horst From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 21 11:44:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA25807; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 11:28:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 11:28:41 -0800 From: Xkan@aol.com Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 14:28:05 -0500 Message-ID: <961221142804_1188466270@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: what is electromagnetic field anyway? Resent-Message-ID: <"IyvST2.0.8J6.df3lo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2826 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Terry Blanton wrote: >Another proponent for a modified concept of electromagnetic theory is Thomas >Bearden. Thanks for pointing that out. IMO, Bearden is a great natural philosopher. His words inspired me a good deal. I just hope to see some of his equations, or other's paper along similar lines of thought. My frustration with his articles is precisely this. A theory without mathematics is good to read, but its practical value is like that of a piece of software without suitable hardware, and can hardly do anything. <> I whole heartly agree. But one is still left wondering: what is a potential physically? This question is the key to unravel the secrets, IMO. that is why I keep asking it. Bearden used a analogy called phase locked conjugate wave effects in laser, and his inspiration comes from Whittaker's paper on mathematical analysis of Coulomb's potential function. Again, from what I know it is still in early development stage, needing precise definition and mathematics. <> I am nuts for quarternion too. But I am afraid Maxwell himself didn't make much use of it. Most of his equations were written in x, y and z components form, they are cumbersome and messy, but it got the job down. As far as the numbers considered by Maxwell, they were same wether one used quarternion, vector or component equations. The battle of Hamiltonian quarternion vs. Heavyside's vector was fought later on, unfortunately the big bad Vector won. I would appreciate if you or somebody could explain what exactly was the part missing from the vector form of Maxwell eqn. I had also hoped to find Maxwell's work on hidden links between EM and gravity or whatever, but I have found none so far in his Treatise on Electromagnetism. I heard that Barrett had a mathematical EM theory using quarternions, but I couldn't afford yet to buy his book (Advanced Electromagnetism) priced at $125. Any ideas where I can find his work cheaplly? As I see it, any serious new theory of EM must be able to unite Maxwell's field or potential-approach with Weber's (charge-interaction) electrodynamics. This may mean parts of the Maxwell's equation (I mean the actual numerical relations, not just the form of representation for three components, i.e. quarternion vs vector) needs to be modified. <> Again, what exactly existed in the quarternion theory that is missing from the vector theory? Thanks for the informative reply. Merry Christmas Xiaobo From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 21 13:07:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA06430; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 12:52:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 12:52:35 -0800 Message-Id: <199612212052.PAA11705@mail.enter.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Robert G. Flower" Organization: Applied Science Associates To: hheffner@anc.ak.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 16:20:54 -0500 Subject: Re: AEH - COMMENTS - electron shielding Reply-to: chronos@enter.net X-Confirm-Reading-To: chronos@enter.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"xdGRw3.0.Oa1.Iu4lo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2827 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 20 Dec 96 at 12:19, Horace Heffner wrote: > Let's assume that ionizing energy breaks the H2 bond of an H2 atom caught > in the triangular face hole in the face between two tetrahedral spaces. > This will, at an instant, begin the simultaneous inward motion of the three > Ni atoms bounding the face hole, i.e. the tri-anvil atoms, due to the > release of tension by the departing of the H toms in opposite directions > from the bond. The three atoms would tend to reach maximum approach and > zero relative velocity, at the same instant. Simultaneously with this > event would be the H atomic expansions going on in the two adjacent > tetrahedral spaces. The ZPE fueled electron shell expansions could result > in a backlash of the electron probability clouds from the adjacent atoms, > referred to earlier as a "blow-though" effect. This effect, like a shaped > charge, could result in a highly focused electron probability density in > the location between the approaching Ni atoms, thus providing the electron > sheilding posited by Robert Flower above. In addition, the H nuleii shot > outward initally would tend to rebound and reappraoch the center of origin > where the dense "electron soup" would reside. Many effects are possible > depending on the timing, lattice motion, etc. This is important! During TRANSIENT events -- such as chemical bond-breaking (ionization) and nuclear reformations -- electron orbitals are *momentarily* deformed greatly from their steady-state "textbook" shapes. During these transient states, energy and momentum is sloshing back and forth between the EM field and mass-particle motions, and this could be part of the mechanism for "magical" effects (such as shielding of Coulombic repulsion). > This would be a difficult > simulation I suppose. Yes, tedious to calculate analytically. BUT a *finite-element* simulation based on Quantum Electodynamics (ie, EM field + matter field) should be able to handle this easily. Such a program would allow *rapid* evaluation of many different scenarios, under many different assumptions, approximations, etc. Horace Heffner's scenario above would be worth checking out by simulation. Any suggestions for software to use? Best regards, Bob Flower ======================================================= Robert G. Flower, Applied Science Associates Quality Control Engineering Instrumentation Systems - Technology Transfer ======================================================= From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 21 13:20:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA08363; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 13:06:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 13:06:25 -0800 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 16:05:49 -0500 Message-ID: <961221160549_1888058707@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: ZPE Papers (Puthoff) Resent-Message-ID: <"IFei_2.0.W22.F55lo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2828 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >From time to time I get requests for a list of my papers on ZPE. For those who are interested, following is the list: H. E. Puthoff, "Ground State of Hydrogen as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State," Phys. Rev. D 35, 3266 (1987). H. E. Puthoff, "Zero-Point Fluctuations of the Vacuum as the Source of Atomic Stability and the Gravitational Interaction, "Proc. of the British Soc. for the Philosophy of Science Intern'l Conf. "Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory," Imperial College, London, ed. M. C. Duffy (Sunderland Polytechnic,1988). H. E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation Force," Phys. Rev. A 39, 2333 (1989); Phys. Rev A 47, 3454 (1993). H. E. Puthoff, "On the Source of Vacuum Electromagnetic Zero-Point Energy," Phys. Rev. A 40, 4857 (1989); Errata and Comments, Phys. Rev. A 44, 3382, 3385 (1991). H. E. Puthoff, "Everything for Nothing," New Sci. 127, 52 (28 July 1990). H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum: Implications for Energy Research," Spec. in Sci. and Technology 13, 247 (1990). H. E. Puthoff, "Zero-Point Energy: An Introduction," Fusion Facts 3, No. 3, 1 (1991). H. E. Puthoff, "On the Feasibility of Converting Vacuum Electromagnetic Energy to Useful Form," Intern'l Workshop on the Zeropoint Electromagnetic Field," Cuernavaca, Mexico, March 29 - April 2, 1993. D. C. Cole and H. E. Puthoff, "Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum," Phys. Rev. E 48,1562 (1993). See also Fusion Facts 5, No. 3, 1 (1993). B. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff, "Inertia as a Zero-Point Field Lorentz Force," Phys. Rev. A 49, 678 (1994). See also Science 263, 612 (1994). B. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff, "Beyond E = mc2," The Sciences (NY Acad. of Sciences) 34, 26 (Nov/Dec 1994). H. E. Puthoff, "SETI, The Velocity-of-Light Limitation, and the Alcubierre Warp Drive: An Integrating Overview," Physics Essays 9, 156 (1996). B. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff. "Physics of the Zero-Point Field: Implications for Inertia, Gravitation and Mass," Spec. in Sci. and Technology (in press, 1996). H. E. Puthoff, "Space Propulsion: Can Empty Space Itself Provide a Solution?" Ad Astra (National Space Society), in press (Jan/Feb 1997). Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 21 16:28:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA03309; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 16:25:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 16:25:40 -0800 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 19:25:30 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961221192530.8d0f5f24@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: ZPE energy density -- Not enough mass in the universe Resent-Message-ID: <"BL652.0.dp.308lo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2829 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I have posted a criticism of ZPE that remains ignored but which would be interesting to hear the response. Horace claims, refering backto Puthoffs statement: "It doesn't work like that. The vacuum energy fills a vaccum. If there is not cutoff frequency, that energy is infinite. Assuming a cutoff frequency of near the Plank frequency (wavelength) of about 10^-33 cm, the energy density is on the order of 10^94 g/cm^3. Multiply by c^2 and you get a lot of energy - which does not have to remain constant, but can replenish itself from the ZPE sea if tapped. See the reprint on Keelynet (on www) of an article by Dr. H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum: Implications for Energy Research", Speculations in Science and Technology, vol 13, no. 4, pp. 247-257, 1990. [11 Dec 1996 05:18:44 -0800 Message-Id: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: How much power has ZPE?] CAN ZPE be real if it relies upon 10^94 g/cm^3? ============================================== 10^94 g/cm^3? This number is apparently pulled from a hat since it can have no real physical basis, at least based upon the known universe. This point this calculation seem to have ignored the very boundary condition of the number of atoms in total, in the entire universe, available. There are not 10^94 atoms in the universe. I believe <10^79 is closer, and with a proton weighing 1.67 10^-24 gms there is no chance for such erroneously calculated densities being available. Furthermore, even if the entire universe atoms were used in this hypothesis, there would be violations of special relativity and therefore no chance of such putative instanteous rearrangement beyond the distance light might transverse. 10^94 g/cm^3 does not seem sensible. Has there been an error made in reading this? We would like ZPE to not be handwaving, but if the purported existence is based upon virtual mass densities of 10^94 g/cm^3, then the probability of this being correct may be proportional to the reciprocal of that number. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 21 17:11:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA10991; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 17:09:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 17:09:55 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 16:09:51 -0900 To: chronos@enter.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: AEH - COMMENTS - electron shielding Resent-Message-ID: <"xI0Qr.0.dh2.Yf8lo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2830 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 4:20 PM 12/21/96, Robert G. Flower wrote: [snip] > >Yes, tedious to calculate analytically. BUT a *finite-element* >simulation based on Quantum Electodynamics (ie, EM field + matter >field) should be able to handle this easily. Such a program would >allow *rapid* evaluation of many different scenarios, under many >different assumptions, approximations, etc. > >Horace Heffner's scenario above would be worth checking out by >simulation. Any suggestions for software to use? > > >Best regards, >Bob Flower I almost didn't post this idea except the symmetry was just too neat not to post it. The big problem is there is no way, without invoking the Casimir force or other mechanism, to regularly get the 5 eV applied to the H2 bond to break it. The Casimir force on an H2 atom would contribute to bond separation by pullling in opposite directions on the H atoms from each adjacent tetrahedral cavity, especially if (and while) those cavities were to distort or compress in unison, thus increasing the Casimir force inversly as the 4th power of the distance. A good model of the Ni-H system would have to include ZPE calculations, and I would be very surprized to find such a model. A really good model of the Ni-H system would be of obvious use in general, as there are probably lots of things to look at. I suspect a supercomputer would be required to run such a model, but the output in the form of an animation would be easily web paged and distributed to all interested. It happens that a Cray Y-MP M98 and a T3D have recently been acquired by the Artic Region Supercomputing Center (ARSC) in Fairbanks. If it could be shown that free energy was of interest in the arctic (ha!) then maybe it would be possible to get some computer time at the ARSC to do a model. This sounds like a possible graduate student opportunity. However, I suspect the typical prejudicial screen could be raised. It *would* be much better to be able to produce a model that could run on a PC but it seems like it would take forever to run. Personally, I feel like, if there is anything at all to the idea of atomic expansion, it would take far less effort to build a working device. I like the idea of looking for a compound of B, C, N, P, S, Se, or Te to use in an expansion engine, i.e. expand a liquid compound in a cylinder under great pressure by breaking the chemical bond using electrolysis, laser, etc., then regain the heat later by recombination. Maybe H2S under pressure would be a useful compound for this purpose, or some hydrocarbon or ammonia based compound. These don't seem good due to the gaseous hydrogen atoms forming H2, and thus losing most of the expansion. It would be best if the disassociated products remained monatomic and stayed so until reformed catalytically. Maybe a high temperature process, say with a liquid sodium or potassium compound, like NaS or NaSe, would work? Just keep everything liquid. Maybe some chemists would have some input here? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 21 17:17:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA12637; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 17:16:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 17:16:06 -0800 Message-ID: <32BC8C0D.1811@intermind.net> Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 17:17:02 -0800 From: "William A. Stehl" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Carl Sagan References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"wEBi6.0.M53.Jl8lo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2831 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: snip > Carl Sagan was a man filled with vision and purpose. It is a privilege to > even meet such a great teacher. He brought astronomy and the excitement of > scientific curiosity to the masses and the world is a better place for his > being here. It is my deepest regret that he did not live to see the cold > fusion issue settled as in 1989 he predicted it would be within five years. > I too had the priviledge of a passing relationship with Dr. Sagan. He was a great teacher and a greater thinker. His vision was truly "astronomical" and he shall be missed... William A. Stehl From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 21 18:00:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA20964; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 17:58:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 17:58:38 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 20:58:00 -0500 Message-ID: <961221205758_1654046681@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Patent Resent-Message-ID: <"zKCuy2.0.R75.CN9lo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2832 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I have here a copy of a patent application. European Patent Application 91310395.8 Date 11/11/91 Inventor Yamashita, Haruo & Toyama, Takayuki 894 Fujie Akashi 673 Japan It reads: A machine comprising an electrically polarized body, and means for moving the body in one direction to accelerate electrons, thereby generating an acceleration force in another direction due to an interaction between the accelerated electrons and the gravitational field. What I see: There is a picture of a motor driven disk in a tub. The disk presses up against the sides and bottom of the tub. My opinion: Do I, Frank Znidarsic, beleive the thing works...NO! Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 21 18:43:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA28489; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 18:41:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 18:41:22 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961222024944.00732230@mail.eskimo.com> X-Sender: ghawk@mail.eskimo.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 18:49:44 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Resent-Message-ID: <"NqeMS.0.2z6.G_9lo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2833 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 05:17 PM 12/21/96 -0800, you wrote: >Horace Heffner wrote: > >snip > >> Carl Sagan was a man filled with vision and purpose. It is a privilege to >> even meet such a great teacher. He brought astronomy and the excitement of >> scientific curiosity to the masses and the world is a better place for his >> being here. It is my deepest regret that he did not live to see the cold >> fusion issue settled as in 1989 he predicted it would be within five years. >> > >I too had the priviledge of a passing relationship with Dr. Sagan. He >was a great teacher and a greater thinker. His vision was truly >"astronomical" and he shall be missed... > >William A. Stehl > > Gee, I don't know. Am I the only one who is kinda glad to see him go? I've never been much of a fan of somebody who would deny the existence of UFO's, with so much evidence of them available, for a mind that is willing to look into it. To me, anyone who can be in as key a position as Sagan, privy to all sorts of inside information, and still deny the reality of UFO's, is simply intellectually dishonest with an agenda and I'm not a fan of such. Sagan was a key cheerleader in poopoo'ing the efforts to see if there was anything more to the face on Mars than a natural anomaly. He went through some mental gymnastics to create conditions where he could say he "didn't *see* anything unusual" there. It's the nineties folks. We don't need backward thinkers anymore, these guards of closemindedness, protectors of ignorance... if he knew otherwise, and I think he did. Real science is willing to check everything out instead of closing it off. The one thing I would laud Sagan for, is the inspiring thought that he did promote with the programs like Cosmos. I just consider it very sad that he knew so well that he dared not step beyond a certain line, YET considered it quite okay to PUSH for keeping the masses on the near side of that line as well, through ridicule. Now I didn't ever meet the man personally but those were my impressions. And each new piece of information about him seemed to align with that scenario. If he would not have been so prone to violent opposition I would have been willing to say these things to his face, but freedom of thought in his world was not tolerable. I suppose the gray area is in whether he really believed the views he promoted or had some sort of ulterior motives on a social scale, which, on this planet appear to be all too often rewarded (and commonplace). But things they are a'changing. Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 21 18:57:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA30420; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 18:55:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 18:55:20 -0800 Message-ID: <32BCBEBD.937@ro.com> Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 20:53:17 -0800 From: Patrick Reavis X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Carl Sagan References: <2.2.32.19961222024944.00732230@mail.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"RUaC81.0.AR7.MCAlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2834 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gary Hawkins wrote: > > At 05:17 PM 12/21/96 -0800, you wrote: > >Horace Heffner wrote: > > > >snip > > > >> Carl Sagan was a man filled with vision and purpose. > >"astronomical" and he shall be missed... > > > >William A. Stehl > > > > > > Gee, I don't know. Am I the only one who is kinda glad to see him go? > I've never been much of a fan of somebody who would deny the existence > of UFO's, with so much evidence of them available, for a mind that is > willing to look into it. > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Now I didn't ever meet the man personally but those were my impressions. And > each new piece of information about him seemed to align with that scenario. > If he would not have been so prone to violent opposition I would have been > willing to say these things to his face, but freedom of thought in his world > was not tolerable. I suppose the gray area is in whether he really believed > the views he promoted or had some sort of ulterior motives on a social scale, > which, on this planet appear to be all too often rewarded (and commonplace). > > But things they are a'changing. > > Gary Hawkins There is no honor in in these statements. Carl Sagan was and is a hero to many. Patrick Reavis -- The Double Naught Spy From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 21 19:40:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA03763; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 19:37:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 19:37:11 -0800 From: RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com (Chuck Davis) Date: 21 Dec 96 19:37:44 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <32BCBEBD.937@ro.com> (by: Patrick Reavis ) Message-ID: Subject: Re: Carl Sagan 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: <"4HUrE1.0.jw.cpAlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2835 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 21 Dec 1996 20:53 -0800, Patrick Reavis wrote to me: > Gary Hawkins wrote: >> At 05:17 PM 12/21/96 -0800, you wrote: >>> Horace Heffner wrote: >>> snip >>>> Carl Sagan was a man filled with vision and purpose. >>> "astronomical" and he shall be missed... >>> William A. Stehl >> Gee, I don't know. Am I the only one who is kinda glad to see him go? >> I've never been much of a fan of somebody who would deny the existence >> of UFO's, with so much evidence of them available, for a mind that is >> willing to look into it. Yes, and with his Clintonian personality, you would have thought that he created the cosmos ;^)) A real bore. -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--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 Dec 21 19:47:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA04944; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 19:44:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 19:44:00 -0800 From: RoshiCorp@ROSHI.com (Chuck Davis) Date: 21 Dec 96 19:44:31 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-Reply-To: <32BC8C0D.1811@intermind.net> (by: William A. Stehl ) Message-ID: Subject: Re: Carl Sagan 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: <"ZUJ3a.0.9D1._vAlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2836 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 21 Dec 1996 17:17 -0800, William A. Stehl wrote to me: > Horace Heffner wrote: > snip >> Carl Sagan was a man filled with vision and purpose. It is a privilege = to >> even meet such a great teacher. He brought astronomy and the excitement= of >> scientific curiosity to the masses and the world is a better place for h= is >> being here. It is my deepest regret that he did not live to see the col= d >> fusion issue settled as in 1989 he predicted it would be within five yea= rs. > I too had the priviledge of a passing relationship with Dr. Sagan. He > was a great teacher and a greater thinker. His vision was truly > "astronomical" and he shall be missed... > William A. Stehl Come on. Not one original thought came from his lips. His over-blown productions, I thought, were grade school level; and that's where they will stay. -- .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ -/--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 Dec 21 19:52:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA06067; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 19:49:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 19:49:22 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961221230736.0072d204@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 23:07:39 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Patent Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"anMU33.0.hU1.0_Alo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2837 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frank: They say a pix = Kword: I don't have that picture, nor can I quite envision it. I can't see what you see, but I've read some of your theories, and I respect your opinion. I want to believe..that it is real..not false... and my gut reaction is that there 'is something' here. Is there any way we can access this patent and the pix from the Internet ? Colin Quinney. At 08:58 PM 12/21/96 -0500, you wrote: >I have here a copy of a patent application. > > >It reads: > >A machine comprising an electrically polarized body, and means for moving the >body in one direction to accelerate electrons, thereby generating an >acceleration force in another direction due to an interaction between the >accelerated electrons and the gravitational field. > >What I see: > >There is a picture of a motor driven disk in a tub. The disk presses up >against the sides and bottom of the tub. > >My opinion: > >Do I, Frank Znidarsic, beleive the thing works...NO! > >Frank Z > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 21 20:30:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA11919; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 20:27:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 20:27:33 -0800 Date: 21 Dec 96 23:19:00 EST From: Michael Forsyth <72020.45@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Candle in Microwave oven experiment. Message-ID: <961222041900_72020.45_FHH41-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"lwvZF1.0.1w2.nYBlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2838 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi all, I don't know whether you are aware of some work done at Eli Lilley on plasmas in microwave cavities. Fundamentally they used a focused laser to pulse initiate a plasma inside a container. The interest was to sterilize the inside of the container. If the node is in the wrong place the plasma punctures the bottle (yes glass). I pursued this process and saw the result. Try substituting a neon laser focused into the microwave. There is a patent on the process. -- Mike -- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 21 21:22:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA18257; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 21:19:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 21:19:46 -0800 Message-ID: <32BCC4EC.131F@worldnet.att.net> Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 19:19:42 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Carl Sagan References: <2.2.32.19961222024944.00732230@mail.eskimo.com> <32BCBEBD.937@ro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"KuOq_2.0.AT4.lJClo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2839 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Patrick Reavis wrote: [quotes by Gary Hawkins and others] > There is no honor in in these statements. Carl Sagan was and is a hero > to many. > Patrick Reavis > -- > The Double Naught Spy, Ease up on your fellow Vortexians, Patrick. This is an opinionated group, and there is real controversy around C.S. Perhaps there isn't much honor in the positions he has taken on certain subjects either, especially in the face of so much evidence contrary to that position. This bothers a lot of people about the man, as it indicates a rather strange case of intellectual dishonesty. It bothers me. Was there a higher purpose to that dishonesty? Lying in order to save lives and protect national security is good justification, and I hope that was it. There are some indications his motivation might not have been quite so honorable though, and the questions remain, regardless of his "hero" status to some. I bet it takes a long time for history to come up with a good consensus judgement on Carl Sagan's contributions. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 21 22:22:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA25169; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 22:18:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 22:18:35 -0800 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 00:18:18 -0600 Message-Id: <9612220618.AA10148@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: Carl Sagan Resent-Message-ID: <"cE6152.0.B96.vADlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2840 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Gary, I don't wish any painful death on anyone, but ... At 06:49 PM 12/21/96 -0800, you wrote: > >Gee, I don't know. Am I the only one who is kinda glad to see him go? >To me, anyone who can be in as key a position as Sagan, privy to all sorts >of inside information, and still deny the reality of UFO's, is simply >intellectually dishonest with an agenda and I'm not a fan of such. I have to agree with you. Carl Sagan was a great teacher and PR guy for science -- conventional, non-experimental science. He was against *investigating* areas of conventional wisdom (or superstition) he was personally against -- like UFOs, astrology (there is some justification for non-personal, mundane astrology) and whether or not the Earth has been visited by aliens (Sagan said no aliens have visited, even though his own calculations show that there should have been several visits, at least). Sagan was also against other areas of real, but anomalous, science, such as varieties of ESP, and was instrumental in the formation of CSICOP. What he did push was SETI, expecting to receive *radio* signals from advanced civilizations, when the window for the use of radio by advanced civilizations is probably on the order of 100 years. Gamma rays would be a more fruitful search, IMO (BTW, what were those bursts of gamma frequency radiation detected last month?). So, all-in-all, Sagan was a great promoter of orthodox science and for that I salute him. My salute wavers, though, when I think of the real science he stymied with his media power. Dean -- from Des Moines From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 22 00:18:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA07846; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 00:15:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 00:15:54 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 23:15:04 -0900 To: chronos@enter.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: AEH expansion engine compounds Resent-Message-ID: <"a4T-m3.0.Ww1.uuElo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2841 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I previously mentioned the goal of finding convenient compounds (maybe H2S, Na2S, Na2Se, Na2Te, K2Te etc.) made with B, C, N, P, S, Se, or Te to use in an expansion engine. It also appears that compounds of Br and I might also be very effective. For example NaI melts at 651 deg. C and has a density of 3.667 g/cm^3. A mol of NaI contains 22.99 g. of Na and 126.9 g of iodine, or a total of 149.89 g. This gives an atomic volume of 40.88 cm^3/mol. Sodium has an atomic volume of 23.7 cm^3/mol, and iodine has an atomic volume of 25.74 cm^3/mol. This means NaI will undergo an atomic expansion of 8.56 cm^3/mol upon electrolysis. Further, the iodine will be a gas at that temperature. There are a very large number of candidates for expansion reactions. This is an entirely new paradigm to check out for over unity capabilities. Many (almost all?) reactions produce atomic expansion or contraction. The problem in checking out candiate reactions is in knowing how the reaction is affected by very large pressures and what net energy is available fro the expansion. Building a practical engine is also hampered by the fact the piston would move very slowly with a very large force. Maybe a chemical reaction can be found that is fast and quickly reversable and can be used to drive a piezo-electric generator. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 22 02:55:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA14219; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 01:21:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 01:21:39 -0800 From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ZPE energy density -- Not enough mass in the universe Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 09:21:27 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32bef2a4.14737026@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <2.2.16.19961221192530.8d0f5f24@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19961221192530.8d0f5f24@world.std.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.354 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"A2fjY2.0.1U3.XsFlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2842 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 19:25:30 -0500, Mitchell Swartz wrote: [snip] > I have posted a criticism of ZPE that remains ignored but which would be >interesting >to hear the response. > > CAN ZPE be real if it relies upon 10^94 g/cm^3? > ============================================== > > 10^94 g/cm^3? This number is apparently pulled from a hat since it >can have no real physical basis, at least based upon the known universe. > > This point this calculation seem to have ignored the very >boundary condition of the number of atoms in total, in the entire universe, >available. [snip] I originally thought as you do, because I couldn't see how it could be. Then I saw how it could, and now I'd be willing to put money either way. One simple way of conceiving of such an energy density, might be to consider the entire universe to be at some incredibly high voltage relative to some as yet unknown "absolute zero". The energy represented by the charge on the universe at this high voltage would represent the ZPE. As is well known and understood, it is to all intents and purposes impossible to detect what voltage one is "at", if one has no access to the relevant "ground". The other way of looking at it is as a sea of standing waves. Hal has based his theory on the notion that the ZPE is an isotropic sea of travelling waves with on average one photon being emitted for every one received (hence net null result). I believe for this to be acceptable, the universe would need to be infinite in every direction, and even then, I don't see why masses which are close by e.g. the earth, wouldn't have more effect locally than those that are far away (or is this gravity?). What I could accept, is a sea of *standing* waves, as this can be "unbound" into two travelling waves, equal, but going in opposite directions. In other words there is not, "on average", one photon received for every one emitted, but "exactly" one received for every one emitted. Or at least there would be in a perfectly static universe. In the real dynamic universe in which we live, masses always move relative to one another. This movement generates doppler shifts in the base ZPE waves. It is the difference frequencies thus created which we perceive as "real" photons. And thus we don't see the ZPE itself, because all we can measure (using measuring instruments made of real matter) is the "superheterodyned" "real" photons riding on "top" of it. This of course only remains so while electromagnetic forces are perfectly linear (i.e. the principle of superposition is valid). If there is in fact some non-linearity built into nature, then we have some chance of tapping the ZPE. If such does exist, however then it must be quite small, as it is the observed linearity which is the base of our law of conservation of energy-mass. 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 Sun Dec 22 02:58:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA15002; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 01:24:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 01:24:38 -0800 From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ZPE energy density -- Not enough mass in the universe (ADDENDUM) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 09:24:25 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32bffdca.17591714@mail.netspace.net.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.354 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"j7_2C.0.Kg3.LvFlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2843 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To be fair to Hal, I must add that he says that standing waves would work equally as well as travelling waves, as nothing essential changes with the equations. 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 Sun Dec 22 03:15:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA20861; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 02:27:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 02:27:23 -0800 Date: 22 Dec 96 05:25:46 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: AEH expansion engine compounds Message-ID: <961222102546_100060.173_JHB95-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"4rUYN1.0.p55.AqGlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2844 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace, >> Maybe a chemical reaction can be found that is fast and quickly reversable and can be used to drive a piezo-electric generator. << I've often wondered about the utilisation of the very fast muscle action of some insects. Imagine a line-up of thousands of fleas all kicking away at little crystals with one end and sucking the blood of an animal with the other! The whole shebang driving a car. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 22 08:36:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA17498; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 08:33:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 08:33:00 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 11:32:21 -0500 Message-ID: <961222113220_1188554619@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ZPE energy density -- Not enough mass in the universe (ADDENDUM) Resent-Message-ID: <"609oo3.0.IH4.wAMlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2845 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: That is where Hal and I differ. I calculate the mass of the universe to one proton of matter and 9 protons of dark matter per cubic meter. (this is the currently accepted number) This number is calculated from the gravity required to produce the amount of red shift (Hubble shift) that is observed. A denser universe (energy density) would produce a dramatically different Hubble constant. If all of this zero point energy existed, it would certainly be dense. That's why the model I came up with is sort of an inside out version of Puthoff's. It works almost the same, however, the Hubble constant falls out, in my Hubble opinion, correctly. Frank Z From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 22 09:08:12 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA22357; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 09:04:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 09:04:48 -0800 Date: 22 Dec 96 12:03:21 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Meyer again Message-ID: <961222170320_100060.173_JHB85-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"4e-SB1.0.FT5.jeMlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2846 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The London "Express on Sunday", one of the better tabloids, has today virtually copied the article from the Sunday Times of a couple of weeks ago, stating that Stanley Meyer has been found guilty in an Ohio court of "gross and egregious fraud" by selling dealerships in his "water fuel cell". I understand that Meyer has also formally written to the British Press Complaints Board about the S.T. article, so the Express can expect some flak as well. I can say that my friends here have received threats of litigation from Meyer if they fail to publish his denial of guilt. However I have failed to find any signs of him having filed an appeal against the judgment, either at the County Court or the State High Court levels. Even at this stage I would be glad to hear of anyone who has managed to replicate his cell's supposed performance based on his published patents and other literature. Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 22 09:20:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA24388; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 09:16:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 09:16:25 -0800 Date: 22 Dec 96 12:14:11 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Meyer again Message-ID: <961222171410_72240.1256_EHB69-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"xYn2W1.0.zy5.epMlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2847 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex The heart sinks. It is like reading "O.J. Simpson again." - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 22 10:02:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA29517; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 09:58:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 09:58:50 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 08:59:13 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: AEH expansion engine compounds Resent-Message-ID: <"7uUaG3.0.2D7.ORNlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2848 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Horace, > >>> Maybe a >chemical reaction can be found that is fast and quickly reversable and can >be used to drive a piezo-electric generator. << > >I've often wondered about the utilisation of the very fast muscle action >of some >insects. Imagine a line-up of thousands of fleas all kicking away at little >crystals with one end and sucking the blood of an animal with the other! The >whole shebang driving a car. > >Norman This brings up a good point. Atomic expansion energy from a bulk process would not occur in nature, because to extract the energy the expansion must be opposed by a very large force at the time of expansion. Maybe inside planets, but there the other conditions for such an engine, like electrolysis current or other recycled input, are not present. Also, AE energy generated inside a lattice seems to be a one shot deal before the lattice needs repair. Powerful steel and ceramic equipment would be required for a repetitive bulk process. There could be a real synergy here to design such a process engine if it is feasible. This thought process is now in the chemist's realm. I would not be surprized to find out there are anomalies which have already been published or been discussed about energy balances in some high temperature high pressure reactions, just as there has been much discussion in the past of anomalies at the extremes of the steam table. You seem to imply this thinking out loud has gone on far too long, like the suddenly reluctant torus (SRT) thread did. If so, I'll hush up about it. Maybe an attempt at synergy like this belongs on the freenrg list or somehwere else. It is a lot of arm waving, but I just can't help the feeling it is getting somewhere. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 22 11:28:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA11248 for billb@eskimo.com; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 11:28:08 -0800 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 11:28:08 -0800 X-Envelope-From: William.Hamilton@pcshs.com Sun Dec 22 11:28:02 1996 Received: from mail.pcshs.com (mail.pcshs.com [204.99.19.70]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA11221 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 11:28:01 -0800 From: William.Hamilton@pcshs.com Received: from 204.99.62.112 by mail.pcshs.com via SMTP (951211.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH1502/940406.SGI.AUTO) id MAA05593; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 12:26:17 -0800 Message-Id: <199612222026.MAA05593@mail.pcshs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Old-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 96 00:26:32 -0700 Subject: Re: [Antigravity] Re: Another Antigravity Machine (re-post) To: Quinney , antigravity@primenet.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: robert@skylink.net In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19961221011250.0069b06c@inforamp.net> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: In the etheric theory of gravity, a sufficiently powerful, confined electric field will repel gravity and inertia - the electric field pushes back the ether. Bill H. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 22 11:50:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA11624; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 11:30:55 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 11:30:55 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961222193243.0066cce8@atlantic.net> X-Sender: johmann@atlantic.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 14:32:43 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Kurt Johmann Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Resent-Message-ID: <"KkFaA3.0.Yr2.jnOlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2849 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dean T. Miller wrote: >Hi Gary, > >I don't wish any painful death on anyone, but ... > >At 06:49 PM 12/21/96 -0800, you wrote: >> >>Gee, I don't know. Am I the only one who is kinda glad to see him go? >>To me, anyone who can be in as key a position as Sagan, privy to all sorts >>of inside information, and still deny the reality of UFO's, is simply >>intellectually dishonest with an agenda and I'm not a fan of such. > >I have to agree with you. Carl Sagan was a great teacher and PR guy for >science -- conventional, non-experimental science. He was against >*investigating* areas of conventional wisdom (or superstition) he >was personally against -- like UFOs, astrology (there is some >justification for non-personal, mundane astrology) and whether or >not the Earth has been visited by aliens (Sagan said no aliens have >visited, even though his own calculations show that there should have >been several visits, at least). > >Sagan was also against other areas of real, but anomalous, science, such >as varieties of ESP, and was instrumental in the formation of CSICOP. > >What he did push was SETI, expecting to receive *radio* signals from >advanced civilizations, when the window for the use of radio by advanced >civilizations is probably on the order of 100 years. Gamma rays would >be a more fruitful search, IMO (BTW, what were those bursts of gamma >frequency radiation detected last month?). > >So, all-in-all, Sagan was a great promoter of orthodox science and for >that I salute him. My salute wavers, though, when I think of the real >science he stymied with his media power. I agree. Sagan was a talented teacher and writer, and he served as a noisy propagandist for Establishment science. I seem to recall reading a few years ago that there was an effort to get him accepted into some prestigious group (I forget the name) but he lacked the requirement of some concrete major research contribution. Apparently it was an attempt by the Establishment to reward him with an award that he did not deserve. Fortunately, this attempt to debase the group by forcing this professional propagandist into their midst was thwarted. I for one am not sorry to hear that we have heard the last from that professional hater of alternative thinking. For the curious, my own alternative thinking is at http://www.webcom.com/johmann Kurt Johmann -- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 22 12:22:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA15902; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 11:53:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 11:53:03 -0800 Date: 22 Dec 96 14:51:03 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Paul Pantone GEET device demo in SLC Message-ID: <961222195102_76570.2270_FHU55-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"BK3N-2.0.vt3.T6Plo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2850 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Vortexians: As you will learn in IE#10, when it comes home from the printer to be sent out around Jan 1st, we have acquired a 10 HP demonstration unit from Paul Pantone (mentioned briefly in IE#7). We will be doing extensive testing on this ICE-Pantone device-fitted engine -- focusing mainly on the anomalous exhaust emissions -- which are allegedly (and I believe it) near zero ppm hydrocarbons. This, even in the face of using all kinds of "crap" fed into the motor -- gasoline or diesel with major percentages of water, pickle juice, urine, battery acid, or whatever. IE#11 hopes to have a report on the performance -- emissions and power level of the demo unit. Not expecting more than 20% to 30% energy increase with this unit over the performance of gasoline, but that's still an entirely unexpected result. Paul Pantone of GEET in Price, Utah called me just now to tell me of a public demo that will be held tomorrow (December 23, 1996) at the "Big-O" tire store in Salt Lake City at 3:00 p.m.. Those of you who can get there are welcome to attend. This is what Paul said you will see: A GEET device-retrofit 350 Chevy engine in a custom-made car mounted on a portable commercial dynamometer. There will be dynamometer readouts and continuous emissions testing. The air quality coming out of the engine will be exceptionally good. When they use Wesson ( a US brand) cooking oil, the exhaust will smell a bit like popcorn, he says. Paul says that the testing will demonstrate over 200 miles per gallon performance. Anyone willing to report directly on what you see, we will consider putting your report into Issue #11 in early 1997. Location: Big-O tire store 9th Street East -- (about #5400 to #5600 south) Salt Lake City, Utah Best Holiday wishes and Happy New Year! 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 Dec 22 18:49:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA23235; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:46:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:46:23 -0800 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:46:13 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Bockris comments on Murray (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"3Hvb91.0.zg5.z9Vlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2851 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: One vortex-digest user reported that the below message was missing. This is a re-post. .....................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: 16 Dec 96 15:09:04 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: Vortex Subject: Bockris comments on Murray Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:10:05 -0800 Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: Vortex John O'M Bockris made the following comments about Murray's criticism of the Miley work. Since he posted the message to a large number of people I will take the liberty of re-posting it here. I have cleaned up a few typos and spelling mistakes, and reformatted the paragraphs. The part where he says "it's no use looking at Miley's work without putting it into context" is all-important. This is what I have often repeated. Miley's results are not unexpected, because the reality of nuclear reactions in the lattice (CF) has been established. You cannot go back to square one with every new experiment, and pretend that CF does not exist, or shove the entire burden of proving it onto one experiment. Miley does not have to rigorously prove there is excess heat with every single experiment, because many other people have already done that, and because there is a trade-off between calorimetry and transmutation detection. At some point, you have to accept the reality of things like the heat and the tritium as a given. The question is: at what point? How much proof is enough? Different people have different standards, which I accept. There are gray areas. Pd results do not directly confirm Ni, although they do support them. My objection is to people who reset the game every time they play, and act as if Pons never reported a boil-off, and the French A.E.C. never confirmed it. This is not to suggest that any experiment gets a free pass so long as it confirms a previous result. - Jed Date: 16-Dec-96 14:17 EST F: INTERNET:BOCKRIS@chemvx.tamu.edu S: Richard Murray's criticism of the Miley work. December 12, 1996 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Murray FROM: John Bockris SUBJECT: Your Criticisms of the Work of the Miley Team at the University of Illinois (1) I read your criticisms and accept the general idea that open criticism of scientific work is part of the meat and essence of how scientific work progresses. However, I think your points would be easier to accept and weigh were they made in a more serious and scientific way and not mixed in with vitriolic asides and jokes. One gets the impression that you set out, emotionally, to trash the work and that's not helpful to those who want to find out what's happening. (2) Now it's no use looking at Miley's work without putting it into context. Thus, among facts claimed for low temperature nuclear reactions, the most well established is tritium production. Claytor has had 5 renewals of his work at Los Alamos a place where one presumes the referees know what they are doing. I think it is therefore reasonable to assert that the formation of tritium in the pressure of deuterium in the cold is an established fact. I stopped counting papers which reported tritium formation from deuterium in mid-1994, - I got up to 137 papers. I think this is very relevant to Miley. It seems to me that the tritium work proves that a nuclear reaction can occur in the cold. This, then, makes other nuclear changes less unlikely than before, now one case had been thoroughly proven. (3) Although this work of George Miley and his team is the most detailed and thorough examination of transmutation in the cold, there have been many forerunners. The Japanese, Notoya (got radioactivity, not present in the solution), Ohmori and Mizuno, have all (separately) produced very good work, done in a Nuclear Engineering Lab with plenty of the right kind of equipment applied. Among others who have reported the same kind of results as those of Miley et al. are Matsumoto, Bush and Eagleton, Karabut, Wolf (through Passell), Dash, George and Stringham. Your attack on Miley would imply these scientists and their teams are all wrong. (4) As to the possibility that the substances observed by the people who report transmutation all come from impurities in the solution, that is very obvious and the first thing to say about it is that an astonishingly large number of products do come from the solution under the conditions used. Physical electrochemists often use "scavenger electrolysis" to clean up a solution. I have made a theoretical analysis of the amounts which can arise. However, a better method is to analyze the solution and see what is there (e.g., by ICP). Then, on the impurity hypothesis one would expect to find just these materials on the electrode surface. In work I carried out and published recently with Minevski, - we did analyze the solution and did find several elements from the solution on the electrode. We saw these in XPS. They faded away in some 30-40 Angstroms. Beneath that, however, we detected a different set of impurity atoms, materials not present in the solution and clearly seen in EDAX at approximately 1 micron. As these latter materials came only after electrolysis, it seems reasonable to conclude (as have some dozen others apart from Miley et al.), that they arise in the presence of H and D as the result of transmutation. Miley, et al., has used the isotopic abundance values to distinguish newly formed nuclei from those deposited from the solution. They also noted that the new nuclei depended on the nature of the alloy, - inconsistent with "everything is from the solution." The depth is a key point. Solid state diffusion coefficients limit the diffusion of impurities adsorbed on the surface to 50 Angstroms in two weeks. The Japanese in particular found new material at micron depth. Another suggestion made by Murray is that "complex electrochemical reactions" occur whereby some atoms dissolve but yet deposit in other places, etc. Such reactions are known in corrosion chemistry with free standing alloys. However, the beads which Miley et al. use were held at negative potentials to evolve hydrogen. It is true that I have not been told the potentials but to evolve hydrogen at 0.1 - 1 amp/sq cm (geometric) one would have to have an overpotential more negative than 0.5 volt. This would be expected to "protect" against anodic dissolution. Finally, I'd make a suggestion. Instead of putting vitriolic, furious attack out to a dozen readers, would it not be more helpful to send a calmly worded version of the criticisms to George and ask him to write a reply for consumption of those in the field. Thus, we could see how Richard Murray's points stack up when confronted by a reply from the people who know the details of experiment and result. * End of File * From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 22 18:52:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA24028; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:50:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:50:34 -0800 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:50:25 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty Reply-To: William Beaty To: Tstolper@aol.com cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Missing Posts in Vortex Digest In-Reply-To: <961220110427_169247069@emout04.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"5FiPj.0.Jt5.tDVlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2853 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 20 Dec 1996 Tstolper@aol.com wrote: > Bill, > > Some topics listed in the table of contents of a couple of recent Vortex > Digests have been missing. > > The list of "Today's Topics" for Vortex Digest, V96 #153, dated Dec. 16, > 1996, had "Bockris comments on Murray" as the last item; but the item wasn't > in the Digest. > > The list of "Today's Topics" for Vortex Digest, V96 #157, dated Dec. 19, > 1996, listed ten items, but only three (the first three?) appeared in the > Digest. The most important omitted item may have been "The Case of the > Missing Miles Rebuttal." > > Have any other subscribers reported this problem? Vortex-digest subscribers, are you seeing the same problem? .....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 22 18:56:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA23564; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:48:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:48:38 -0800 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:48:27 -0800 (PST) From: William Beaty To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: The Case of the Missing Miles Rebuttal (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"sUVd62.0.wl5.4CVlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2852 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Something's screwy with vortex-digest (or more probably with eskimo.) If vortex-digest users did not earlier get the following message, here it is again. - billb (calling LD to seattle from gulf breeze Fla, on 2400b! .....................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, 19 Dec 1996 10:48:00 +0100 (MET) From: Dieter Britz Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Steven Jones Subject: The Case of the Missing Miles Rebuttal Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 01:48:09 -0800 Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com I think I mentioned that I had sent a telefax to Melvin Miles to find out what his side of the story is; this morning his answer was here. I am beginning to see what the trouble is. I had decided that the two stories, as previously presented (i.e. Jones' as presented by Jones, and Miles' as presented by Rothwell) were incompatible, and that in this case, the Rabbi would not say "You are both right", as he does in the classic joke. It turns out that he can say it after all. The sore point in the saga is, how well was Miles informed about the Jones polemic papers, sufficiently in advance to prepare and send in a rebuttal, for simultaneous publication, as is the custom? Jones tells me (and sent me some letters documenting it) that he gave a preprint of the polemic (I am still not sure whether this refers to both, or only one) to one Kendall Johnson from China Lake, who was visiting BYU at the time, in January 1995. The submission date is September 1994; in other words, this is when Jones sent the paper to the journal. He thought that Johnson would pass the preprint on to Miles immediately, but according to Miles, he did not, until some time later (the end of January I think, when Miles returned from a trip - he was there, however, when Johnson came back from Utah). Apart from the delay, the preprint did not indicate to which journal it had been sent, so Miles was at a loss as to where to send a rebuttal. The next thing he saw was Douglas Morrison handing out copies of the thing at ICCF-5 (not sure when this was). When he eventually corresponded with Jones and El-Sayed, Jones was no longer willing to consider a "back to back" publication (polemic & rebuttal in the same issue), because he felt there had been too much delay already. Miles does not mention any involvement by Jones in the non-acceptance of the rebuttal (as hinted at by Rothwell), nor do I believe such involvement is possible. So, who is to blame? Maybe Jones, in not sending Miles the MS in September 1994, at the time of submission - this is what I would have done. Maybe Jones for not making sure that Kendall Johnson was an appropriate person to entrust the MS with; Miles says he was not. Maybe Miles for waiting until April to contact El-Sayed. I do not believe that there was any deliberate action on the part of either Jones or Miles, to thwart the other (certainly Miles was in no position to do so anyway), but there was some neglect with unfortunate results for Miles. Normally, this would have meant a rebuttal in a later issue, the next best thing. Unfortunately, the journal has this unusual policy of using referees for rebuttals as well, which then killed even that chance. I am not holding my breath, but both Steve Jones and I have appealed to El-Sayed to publish Miles' statement, and it could just happen. El-Sayed has not responded to me as yet, but I still hope he does. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | | http://www.kemi.aau.dk/~britz | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 22 20:16:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA12182; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 20:14:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 20:14:02 -0800 Message-ID: <32BE1529.359B@rt66.com> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 21:16:05 -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: little@eden.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, ceti@onramp.net, g-miley@uiuc.edu Subject: Proving transmutation Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"RYcCI3.0.C-2.8SWlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2854 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Message-ID: <32BE1071.3A04@rt66.com> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 20:54:09 -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: Scott Little , vortex-l@eskimo.com, ceti@onramp.net, barry@math.ucla.edu, g-miley@uiuc.edu Subject: Proving transmutation References: <199612221659.KAA00263@natashya.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 8:20 PM Sunday, Dec. 22, 1996 Hi Scott, I just sent you my four Miley critiques. I hope you let me know the day you find any excess heat from your CETI kit-- I'll be relieved, because then there'll be confirming evidence that some sort of nuclear transmutations are occuring. I was very interested in Mitch Schwarz's theory that H is being transmuted into H-2 as the major energy producing reaction. How sensitive would mass spectrometry be for detecting H-2 production? Could the residual gases be compressed 10 or 100 fold, and examined by nuclear magnetic resonance, with what sensitivity? NMR makes it possible to monitor most nuclear products in a sealed, noninvaded, active cell. Toby Grotz in Craig, CO will soon have a mass spec system running. [wireless@rmii.com]. I'm thinking about writing a post soon about the possibility that the active micron-scale points on the cathode may be able to differentially plate out isotopes that differ by masses of 1-10 %. This hypothesis must be ruled out by experimental checks before we can assume that the claimed isotopic anomalies are due to nuclear reactions. Of course, if substantial excess heat is often carefully established, then nuclear transmutations are the almost unavoidable alternative hypothesis. Wouldn't an exact chemical analysis of all products be the best way to definitively prove the reality of new element production? But, there must be an adaquate search for evidence for H-2 and H-3, He-3 and He-4, and Ne, Ar, Kr, and Rn, which elude chemical analysis. Rich Murray From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 22 22:14:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA02170; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 22:12:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 22:12:37 -0800 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 01:11:58 -0500 Message-ID: <961223011158_676593218@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ZPE energy density -- Not enough mass in the universe Resent-Message-ID: <"FNoOO2.0.nX.IBYlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2855 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Swartz says << CAN ZPE be real if it relies upon 10^94 g/cm^3? ============================================== 10^94 g/cm^3? This number is apparently pulled from a hat since it can have no real physical basis, at least based upon the known universe. >> A ready reference for this number can be found in the textbook "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler in a chapter near the end of the book on Planck density. Indeed, the energy density associated with the ZPE is greater than the energy density of matter in the universe. However, all one sees of this energy density are local measures of departures from this average, much as voltage differences are what we measure, not absolute voltages. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 22 22:43:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA07040; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 22:41:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 22:41:26 -0800 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 07:44:14 +0100 Message-Id: <199612230644.HAA23125@mail.bbtt.com> X-Sender: harti@bbtt.de (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: Re: Meyer again Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"Wfn2X1.0.wj1.LcYlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2856 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >To: Vortex > >The heart sinks. It is like reading "O.J. Simpson again." > >- Jed > > I have 2 MPEG movie of his design , demo setup and car buggy at my site at: www.overunity.de/movies/ Look for the meyerX.mpg files ! Check it out for yourself ! Well, unfortunately one can not see, how much energy he puts into the system to generate the gas.... but it seems to work quite well ! Regards, Stefan. > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany NEUE Nummern : Tel: ++ 4930-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 4930-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.harti.de Webmaster of: http://www.detours.de Have a look at the future: http://www.overunity.de My favourite ladies on the WEB: http://www.nylon-fetish.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 23 04:00:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA01786; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 03:59:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 03:59:50 -0800 Date: 23 Dec 96 06:56:39 EST From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Mail Subject: Re: Meyer again Message-ID: <961223115638_100060.173_JHB87-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"2qeRF2.0.qR.qGdlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2857 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Stefan, >> Well, unfortunately one can not see, how much energy he puts into the system to generate the gas.... but it seems to work quite well ! << Exactly!!! No-one has yet been allowed to measure anything. Of course you can run an engine on gas - but at what cost? Ordinary electrolysis can give about 58% energy conversion, so what does the Meyer cell give? Norman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 23 06:58:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA17078; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 06:40:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 06:40:29 -0800 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 08:39:55 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612231439.IAA22514@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: rmforall@rt66.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, barry@math.ucla.edu, ceti@onramp.net, g-miley@uiuc.edu From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Proving transmutation Resent-Message-ID: <"N9g4T2.0.iA4.Rdflo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2858 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 21:16 12/22/96 -0800, Richard Thomas Murray wrote: >I just sent you my four Miley critiques. I hope you let me know the day >you find any excess heat from your CETI kit-- I'll be relieved, because >then there'll be confirming evidence that some sort of nuclear >transmutations are occuring. I agree with this. From my perspective it is a coincidental shame that the Rifex kit is "not optimized" for heat production, since we are in a good position to nail the excess heat phenomena with our dual-method calorimeter. However, maybe I'll see something...and probably my involvement at this stage will help ensure involvement when the heat producing kits become available. >I was very interested in Mitch Schwarz's theory that H is being >transmuted into H-2 as the major energy producing reaction. H-2...you mean deuterium...or molecular hydrogen? >How >sensitive would mass spectrometry be for detecting H-2 production? I'd think it would easy to tell H2 (molecular hydrogen) from D (with my newfound knowledge of mass spec). You'd need m/dm resolution of >1300 which is easy, I think for modern mass spec. >Toby Grotz in Craig, CO will soon have a mass spec system running. >[wireless@rmii.com]. Great....I'll talk with him. >I'm thinking about writing a post soon about the possibility that the >active micron-scale points on the cathode may be able to differentially >plate out isotopes that differ by masses of 1-10 %. by what mechanism would this isotopic enrichment operate? >Wouldn't an exact chemical analysis of all products be the best way to >definitively prove the reality of new element production? That's what we're going for. We need to find a good lab to do the sup-ppm analysis of the electrolyte before and after...our own XRF analysis of the beads themselves should be sufficient but, of course, the beads will remain available for destructive analysis if a confirmation is needed. Come to think of it, if my experiments indicate nuclear xformations are occurring, a confirmation WILL be needed! Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 23 07:51:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA01740; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 07:49:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 07:49:03 -0800 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 10:48:49 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961223104844.260795ac@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: ZPE energy density -- Not enough mass in the universe Resent-Message-ID: <"Pxwmu3.0.0R.jdglo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2859 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 01:11 AM 12/23/1996 -0500, Hal Puthoff wrote: > >Swartz says > ><< CAN ZPE be real if it relies upon 10^94 g/cm^3? > ============================================== > > 10^94 g/cm^3? This number is apparently pulled from a hat since it >can have no real physical basis, at least based upon the known universe. >> > >A ready reference for this number can be found in the textbook "Gravitation" >by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler in a chapter near the end of the book on Planck >density. Indeed, the energy density associated with the ZPE is greater than >the energy density of matter in the universe. It could be that the energy density associated with the ZPE is greater than the energy density of matter in the universe; and that density is not 10^94 g/cm^3. If you can show the equations with a more serious density, or a reason why you purport there can be more mass density than the entire universe (not to mention the violations of special relativity), then you might convince more people. Will check the reference again re your invocation of that number, but it would be very worthwhile if you might actually state why it is real, and relavant, to ZPE, other than to generate putative energy from nothing? BTW is the net energy, or energy for one turn of a phonons cycle? ================================================== > However, all one sees of this >energy density are local measures of departures from this average, much as >voltage differences are what we measure, not absolute voltages. >Hal Puthoff > ZPE to most people is 1/2 of a vibrational energy of a phonon. ZPE, if it is any more than 1/2 of a vibrational energy, sounds as if it is some sort of statistical variation of energy, an energy which you purport exists in, or from, a vacuum. Why should there be another term in the equation? or are there now two ZP energies? BTW the analogy may not be correct. Statistical variations deal with precision (reproducibility) and not accuracy. Also, what we measure as voltage is -1 * the difference in potential (between two points in space) that the rest of the world measures, and so would involve the sum of two (actually more because of the contact potentials) potentials. Hope that helps. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 23 08:19:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA11769; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 08:16:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 08:16:38 -0800 X-Intended-For: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961223081602.0077e754@aa.net> X-Sender: mwm@aa.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 08:16:04 +0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Michael Mandeville Subject: Re: AEH expansion engine compounds Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"zvCsW.0.pt2.b1hlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2860 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:59 AM 12/22/96 -0900, you wrote: >>Horace, >> > >There could be a real synergy here to design such a process engine if it is >feasible. This thought process is now in the chemist's realm. I would not >be surprized to find out there are anomalies which have already been >published or been discussed about energy balances in some high temperature >high pressure reactions, just as there has been much discussion in the >past of anomalies at the extremes of the steam table. > >You seem to imply this thinking out loud has gone on far too long, like the >suddenly reluctant torus (SRT) thread did. If so, I'll hush up about it. >Maybe an attempt at synergy like this belongs on the freenrg list or >somehwere else. It is a lot of arm waving, but I just can't help the >feeling it is getting somewhere. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > at least they are interesting speculations about the nature of how matter functions with possibly pay-offs in a lot of ways. keep going. i am not adding much at the moment, but i am listening. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 23 11:14:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA08838; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 11:11:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 11:11:10 -0800 From: Xkan@aol.com Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 12:54:30 -0500 Message-ID: <961223124858_1188698097@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: sapogin@cnf.madi.msk.su cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Weber electrodynamics Resent-Message-ID: <"sjlb-.0.h82.9bjlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2862 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Dear Prof. Sapogin, I am glad to provide the references about Weber's electrodynamics that I know. I will list them in the order of availability in your country (my guess anyway): 1. J.C. Maxwell, A Treatise of Electricity and Magnetism. Vol.2, article 854. 2. E.T. Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity. Pg. 201 3. A. O'Rahilly, Electromagnetic Theory. These are excellent classics works. 4. A.K.T. Assis, Weber's Electrodynamics, 1994. Kluwer Academic Publishers. You will love this book, a excellent theoretical treatment of the subject including his own work. 5. P. Graneau, Newtonian Electrodynamics, 1996. World Scientific Publishing Co. pg. 34. His experiments on exploding wires and capillary fusion (same as cold fusion?) which demonstrate the validity of Ampere's force, and the experimental refutation of Lorentz-Grassman force. I was fortunate enough to find them in SUNY, Albany's library. You might pursuade your institute to purchase them for the library as them are excellent new information on EM. 6. L. Hecht, 21st Century Science and Technology, (journal) Vol.9, No.3, Pg 21 (1996). Maxwell praised Ampere as the Newton of electricity. IMO both Weber and and Ampere should share that title, as Weber expanded Ampere's work to such a breadth. A brilliant theorist and experimentalist, Weber's theory as regards EM had lasting influence. Much of today's electric circuits theory comes directly from the application of Weber's theory by Kirchhoff and Neuman. You can use Maxwell's field equation to derive the induction law, etc, but only with some hard work. Electromagnetism without Ampere-Weber's electrodynamics is like studying gravity without Newton's Law of gravitation, and that is absurd! I don't care how great Einstein's General Relativity is, when it comes to practical things such as calculating the orbits of the planets or rockets, you use Newton's inverse square law, it is simple and accurate enough for normal purposes. You try to calculate them with Einstein's theory, you might need a super-computer. By throwing out Ampere-Weber's electrodynamics from the mainstream science and education, we lost tremendously. It is high time now to regain this lost jewel of physics. I will try my best to send some equations through email later on. Best regards. Xiaobo Kan From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 23 14:02:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA10991; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:00:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:00:17 -0800 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32BF00E7.794BDF32@math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:00:07 -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: We mean it: people are evil References: <961207050123_72240.1256_EHB95-2@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"zNevP2.0.fh2.l3mlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2863 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: IF Steve Jones is as evil as Jed and Gene say, then I think they must consider Jim Redding (of CETI) asSatan himself. After all, if CF is real, Jones has at most been an obsfuscater and impediment. But he has never been in possesion of commercially viable CF technology that he willfully misheld from the populace in an attempt to increase his companies value from mere billions to trillions. If you pin millions of virtually lost lives on Jones, I would like to know how many you tally for Redding and patterson? On the other hand, you also forget that any overnight revolution in energy technology would undoubtedly initiate great turmoil itslef, as benefactors of the old technologies struggle for new positions of dominance, quite probably leading to wars, famines and political upheavals. So, as vanguards of this revolution, I would like to know hom many deaths Gene and Jed tally for themselves? Per haps they are anticipating a net gain--- + 10 million from universal energy, - 5 million lost to the upheaval? Personally, I think all involved would do better to simple focus on the science and technology itself, and its reality or lack there of, and avoid the moral arithmetic. -- 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 Dec 23 14:29:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA13295; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:14:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:14:07 -0800 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32BF0429.59E2B600@math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:14:01 -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: Person want to observe O/U near North Carolina References: <961207084222_100060.173_JHB91-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"zFrw23.0.bF3.lGmlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2864 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Can anyone help this fellow out; my knowledge of geography and purported over unity claims collectively don't yield anything...is griggs near him?: --------------------------------- Do you know where I can go to see a demonstration of anti-gravity or over-unity devices in N. CA. This field fascinates me. Sincerely, Jason Vaughan 415-591-7741 - Direct 415-591-7754 - Fax mailto: jason@actioninc.com Action Systems Inc. http:// www.actioninc.com N. CA NT Users Group http:// www.actioninc.com/winntug.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 Mon Dec 23 14:38:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA04760; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 09:49:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 09:49:06 -0800 X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <961220162427_76016.2701_JHC72-1@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 12:48:50 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: what is electromagnetic field anyway? Resent-Message-ID: <"bjWVM2.0.8A1.FOilo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2861 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Excellent posting here by Terry Blanton on this subject. The problems Terry brought up with traditional E&M theory have not been answered but I think that they could be answered with analysis based on traditional theory. The proponents of an alternative electromagnetic force law have a major stumbling block right from the start in that they have to grant that the Lorentz force works fine for free particles but that somehow the law breaks down for charges flowing in conductors. This hypothesis does not seem reasonable and no justification or explanation of the mechanism has been given. There is almost no argument against the Lorentz force for free particles and that which there is [1] is unconvincing and treats small differences at relativistic velocities. Another problem with the alternative theories is that the Lorentz force works fine for the homopolar generator whereas the alternative theories do not. Chris Tinsley found that the cylindrical homopolar generator did not work and he thought that there was some problem with this. However, a proper analysis using standard E&M shows that it should not work and his experiment just confirms the validity of the standard theory. A look through the works of the revision advocates shows a total absence of analysis of the homopolar generator. This is because the standard theory works and their theory does not. The problems such as rail gun and breaking wires require more complex analysis and have to be worked out more accurately. I think that when that is done the traditional theory will be confirmed as in the case of the free particle and the homopolar generator. [1] Young-Sea Huang, "Has the Lorentz-covariant electromagnetic force law been directly tested experimentally?", Foundations of Physics Letters, Vol 6, No. 3, page 257-274, 1993. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 23 14:48:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA20173; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:43:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:43:21 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961223180129.00729000@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 18:01:53 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Thanks for your Electro-Gravity Web Site, Nils.. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"9SrCB1.0.7x4.8imlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2865 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dear fellow Vortexians: I just checked out Nils' Web Site, and WOW!...(Yes, I realize that WOW is a non-scientific response, but what the heck,...Check it out) May I be the first to welcome Nils to Vortex. Colin Quinney... (Pet-Anti-gravity detective :~) At 01:55 PM 12/20/96 -0800, Nils wrote: >You may also be interested visiting my web site about electro-gravity. >Check it out and let me know what you think: > >http://www.best.com/~rognerud/html/physics.html > >The electro-gravity theory as put forth in the paper, also explains the >actual physics of the Tampere "gravity-shielding" experiment (the web page >with actual specific and formulas will be posted soon), but I can tell you >it is not gravity shielding, it is gravity generation. More later... > >The electro-gravity theory also explains things like why rotating charges >(like balls or capacitors) generate small electro-gravity fields (the B x v >fields from moving charges). These fields exist in all electrical wires >and eletronic equipment, but are usually too small to be measured >(nVolts or smaller), and the fields are also almost impossible to detect >directly because the fields are non-shieldable and quickly will reach >an equilibrium state so there are no moving charges to measure in sensitive >equipment. > >I apologize for my ramblings, but I enjoy the feel of this e-mail group and >promise to let you know as soon as I add more to my web page. In the mean >time, you may look at my web page and see what is already there. > >-Nils > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 23 16:13:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA03352; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 16:10:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 16:10:31 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199612240003.QAA01392@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: what is electromagnetic field anyway? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 16:03:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: from "Larry Wharton" at Dec 23, 96 12:48:50 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: <"AZoq23.0.Iq.rznlo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2866 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Lawrence Wharton writes: > The proponents of an alternative electromagnetic force law have a > major stumbling block right from the start in that they have to grant that > the Lorentz force works fine for free particles but that somehow the law > breaks down for charges flowing in conductors. This hypothesis does not > seem reasonable and no justification or explanation of the mechanism has > been given. It is well known (Lienard-Weichart equation, Feynman, Jefimenko, etc.) that the electric field, and potential, of a moving charged particle is increased in the direction perpendicular to motion, and decreased in the direction of motion (longitudinal direction) by a factor of <1+(v/c)^^2>. Hence we find a motional electric field developed perpendicular to a flow of charge. This assumes that conduction occurs as in a metal with a flow that is not equally balanced by positive and negative charges. So here you go. An possible explanation of why there is a longitudinal force in a current carrying metal conductor, as experimentally determined by Ampere, Weber, Graneau, Assiss, and others: The background electric field of the moving electrons is decreased in the longitudinal direction, and is no longer sufficient to completely mask the charge of the positive ions in the metal. Hence, when current is flowing the unmasked positive charges are able to "see" each other, and repel each other, resulting in a longitudinal force acting to push apart the conductor along its length. Get a large enough current and things like fuses will explode into fragments in the longitudinal direction. Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@skylink.net) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 23 16:40:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA09208; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 16:38:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 16:38:15 -0800 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32BF25E7.1CFBAE39@math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 16:37:59 -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: Miley Preprints Critique References: <961207193957_72240.1256_EHB69-2@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Kh1bS1.0.lF2.rNolo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2867 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Competent researchers like Scott Little and Barry Merriman > have tried and failed to get excess power or transmutations > from their own bead experiments. > > I do not like to be harsh, Is this really Jed R. talking :-) > but the Little & Merriman work proves absolutly nothing. It was, at > best, good preparation for the real experiment. > It was a nice calibration run. > Well, while its nice to be considered competent, strictly speaking Jed is correct. However, I would say my experiment is strongly indicative of several things: the CETI results are not likely due to gross mechanical or chemical phenomena, as these would have shown up in such a similarly configured system; also, gross measurement errors are unlikely with such an experiment. Finally, my experiment indicates that it will not be easy to reproduce CETI results without their direct asssitance. I will present my own detailed criticism of Miley's paper shortly. -- 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 Dec 23 17:12:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA11627; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 16:53:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 16:53:23 -0800 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 19:53:16 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199612240053.TAA02752@spectre.mitre.org> To: bhorst@loc100.tandem.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <32BC2D2A.6DA1@loc100.tandem.com> (message from Bob Horst on Sat, 21 Dec 1996 10:32:10 -0800) Subject: Re: Pure isotope experiments Resent-Message-ID: <"kdXyS.0.Ur2.1colo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2868 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Bob Horst (bhorst@loc100.tandem.com): > Last week I sent a letter to George Miley suggesting some experiments he > might try using pure isotopes. He thought is was a good suggestion, and > had already thought of doing similar experiments. (Way ahead of me, > naturally.) However, he has not yet obtained any materials. I am > forwarding my letter in case it might prompt some vortexians to come up > with other ideas, to critique the possible results, or to come up with > good sources for pure isotopes. What a fun topic for the list: If you wanted to prepare isotopically pure metals such as copper and nickel, how to do it in the lab? Plan A: Electromagnetic separation. Worked in WWII, and still viable, especially at the quantities need here (milligrams). Plan B: Laser excitation. A more modern approach, but not necessarily better. Plan C: Gaseous diffusion. What gas do you use? Plan D: Diffusion in liquids. This looks like an easy lab setup. Get an electric current flowing one way in paper saturated with, say Nickel Cloride and with a fluid flow in the opposite direction. Adjust the flow just right, and away you go. Plan E: For completeness, diffusion in molten salts. Probably only of interest if you want ton lots. 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 Dec 23 17:25:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA17776; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:22:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:22:37 -0800 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 20:22:30 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199612240122.UAA02797@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <2.2.16.19961221192530.8d0f5f24@world.std.com> (message from Mitchell Swartz on Sat, 21 Dec 1996 19:25:30 -0500) Subject: Re: ZPE energy density -- Not enough mass in the universe Resent-Message-ID: <"leuDG1.0.gL4.S1plo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2869 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: It being close to Christmas, I'll take a shot... One of the early criticisms of Quantum Mechanics was that it required that the energy of empty space be non-zero. When computational methods came along that could compute things like the fine spectrum of hydrogen without bringing in all these "meaningless" numbers, quantum theory became accepted--but some people still have trouble with it. However there are still some calculations you can't do without taking into effect the energy of the vaccum, and it is immense. Different gage theories lead to different numbers, but the differences are small in magnitude compared to the energy level required. If the energy in one cc of vaccuum were in such a form that it created a gravitational field, it would create a black hole. How does all this energy avoid creating a gravitational effect? The two "simple" proposed answerss are that, being ubiquitous, it creates no net attraction on anything, and that the Universe is one big black hole. Obviously these answers are not mutually exclusive. But the best answer for now is that gravity only propagates in four dimensions, and those ain't them. We know that gravity (and the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces) don't diffuse through the other dimensions from measurements. But some superstring theories go a lot farther. They postulate that the universe has more than four dimensions, but the other seven--or thirty odd, depending on the theory--are "rolled up." When the universe initally expanded, it ballooned out in a few dimensions, and contracted in others. This does not make those other dimensions less real, or mean that points different from our space in those dimensions can interact with anything. Put a googol times the mass of our (perceived) universe out there, not reacting with our universe because all the forces we know only propagate in the four traditional dimensions. Strange? Yes. Impossible to believe? Maybe for you. Needed to make the math that all modern physics depends on work? Yep. Is there enough energy in the empty space in a teacup to boil all the oceans of earth? Well, not exactly...the currently accepted value for the vacuum energy is a lot higher than that. Boil Earth and a few other planets--if it is a small teacup. 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 Dec 23 17:55:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA21318; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:44:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:44:08 -0800 Message-ID: <32BF3570.3875@interlaced.net> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 20:44:16 -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: what is electromagnetic field anyway? References: <199612240003.QAA01392@shell.skylink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Da46m1.0._C5.cLplo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2871 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robert Stirniman wrote: > (snip) > Get a large enough current and things like fuses will > explode into fragments in the longitudinal direction. > This is true, Robert. But, this can also be explained by the fact that the "conventional E-M PINCH effect is unstable and leads to radial "necking" of any conductor if the magnetic pressure exceeds the conductors plastic flow strength. This is where the CONVENTIONAL E-M "sausage instability" gets its name. For an experiment to detect any NEW longitudinal force, you have to come up with a way to suppress the "noise" from the sausage instability. Also, a coaxial conductor, shorted at one end and excited from the other, shows a longitudinal tension force also predicted by conventional theory. Horace thought about this problem quite a bit - solving it ain't for sissies! Just another big sissy - Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 23 17:56:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA21197; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:43:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:43:05 -0800 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 20:42:54 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" Message-Id: <199612240142.UAA02809@spectre.mitre.org> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com In-reply-to: <961222195102_76570.2270_FHU55-1@CompuServe.COM> (message from Eugene Mallove on 22 Dec 96 14:51:03 EST) Subject: Re: Paul Pantone GEET device demo in SLC Resent-Message-ID: <"E-BQD3.0.4B5.dKplo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2870 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I love it! A car that burns Wesson oil. Maybe I'll never have to eat food cooked in Wesson oil again! (Sorry couldn't resist... I have trouble digesting corn oil, and find it gets used way too much in commercial cooking. Popcorn I can understand (and avoid), but hamburgers? And I wish Paul lots of luck with his engine, whether or not it is technically "over-unity.") 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 Dec 23 18:13:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA25765; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 18:11:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 18:11:59 -0800 Message-ID: <32BF2CBC.43FE@worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 15:07:09 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Person want to observe O/U near North Carolina References: <961207084222_100060.173_JHB91-1@CompuServe.COM> <32BF0429.59E2B600@math.ucla.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"tvmtj3.0.VI6.jlplo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2873 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Barry Merriman wrote: > > Can anyone help this fellow out; my knowledge of geography > and purported over unity claims collectively don't > yield anything...is griggs near him?: > --------------------------------- > Do you know where I can go to see a > demonstration of anti-gravity or over-unity devices in N. CA. This > field fascinates me. > > Sincerely, > > Jason Vaughan > 415-591-7741 - Direct > 415-591-7754 - Fax > mailto: jason@actioninc.com > Action Systems Inc. > http:// www.actioninc.com > N. CA NT Users Group > http:// www.actioninc.com/winntug.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 --------------------------------------------------------------- Confirmation here regarding your knowledge of geography. That's Northern California, not North Carolina. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI, formerly of N. CA From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 23 18:14:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA26102; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 18:13:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 18:13:05 -0800 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 18:12:20 -0800 (PST) From: Nils Rognerud To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: Tom <100405.617@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Thanks for your Electro-Gravity Web Site, Nils.. In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19961223180129.00729000@inforamp.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"EghzK2.0.XN6.jmplo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2874 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Thanks for the warm welcome Colin! I am glad to be part of such a facinating group. This would have been almost impossible without the internet. I would love to hear some comments from you guys on a new web page, just added today. It is called the "Heurustic Viewpoint Concerning the Nature of Gravity." Please don't be shy. I would like to get as many questions or comments as possible so I can add them to a FAQ web page. Let it rip guys/gals: http://www.best.com/~rognerud/html/free_fall_summary.html -Nils Rognerud On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Quinney wrote: > Dear fellow Vortexians: > > I just checked out Nils' Web Site, > > > and WOW!...(Yes, I realize that WOW is a non-scientific response, but what > the heck,...Check it out) > > May I be the first to welcome Nils to Vortex. > > Colin Quinney... > (Pet-Anti-gravity detective :~) > > At 01:55 PM 12/20/96 -0800, Nils wrote: > >You may also be interested visiting my web site about electro-gravity. > >Check it out and let me know what you think: > > > >http://www.best.com/~rognerud/html/physics.html > > > >The electro-gravity theory as put forth in the paper, also explains the > >actual physics of the Tampere "gravity-shielding" experiment (the web page > >with actual specific and formulas will be posted soon), but I can tell you > >it is not gravity shielding, it is gravity generation. More later... > > > >The electro-gravity theory also explains things like why rotating charges > >(like balls or capacitors) generate small electro-gravity fields (the B x v > >fields from moving charges). These fields exist in all electrical wires > >and eletronic equipment, but are usually too small to be measured > >(nVolts or smaller), and the fields are also almost impossible to detect > >directly because the fields are non-shieldable and quickly will reach > >an equilibrium state so there are no moving charges to measure in sensitive > >equipment. > > > >I apologize for my ramblings, but I enjoy the feel of this e-mail group and > >promise to let you know as soon as I add more to my web page. In the mean > >time, you may look at my web page and see what is already there. > > > >-Nils > > > > > > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 23 18:20:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA24832; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 18:06:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 18:06:07 -0800 Date: 23 Dec 96 21:03:21 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Miley Preprints Critique Message-ID: <961224020320_72240.1256_EHB62-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"QtnGo1.0.t36.Fgplo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2872 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Barry writes: "my experiment indicates that it will not be easy to reproduce CETI results without their direct assistance." Yes. For those who came in late, this is because non-CETI beads do not absorb enough hydrogen, and they do not hold together. The thin film sheds; it does not have enough structural integrity. Patterson and Miley both experienced these problems. Barry reported gross damage to his beads. Like I said at the time, I do know that's fatal even though I don't know what to do about it. It is like a Windows 95 error. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 23 21:44:09 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA26360; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 21:41:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 21:41:52 -0800 Date: 24 Dec 96 00:40:10 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: More about Morality . . . Message-ID: <961224054010_72240.1256_EHB109-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"l_4y93.0.oR6.Vqslo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2876 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex . . . so skip this message if you don't want to hear about it. I cannot resist commenting on Barry Merriman's remarks: IF Steve Jones is as evil as Jed and Gene say, then I think they must consider Jim Redding (of CETI) as Satan himself. After all, if CF is real, Jones has at most been an obsfuscater and impediment. But he has never been in possesion of commercially viable CF technology that he willfully misheld . . . I think that Reding has caused much more harm to cold fusion than Jones, but he cannot be blamed. He didn't mean to cause harm. Guilt depends upon motivation, intention and knowledge. I feel that Jones is deliberately saying things he knows are not true, and acting unethically, whereas -- as far as I can tell -- Reding sincerely believes he is doing what is best for himself and for cold fusion. Of course I cannot read minds so I may be wrong. Making moral judgements is not an exact science. But we must make them! We must do our best to determine who is good and who is evil . . . and who is merely stupid. Otherwise the bad guys will take over the world. On the other hand, you also forget that any overnight revolution in energy technology would undoubtedly initiate great turmoil itself, as benefactors of the old technologies struggle for new positions of dominance, quite probably leading to wars, famines and political upheavals. I have never forgotten that. Not for one moment. But that is an unfortunate and unavoidable side-effect. People must often suffer for the greater good of society, for posterity, or for the good of the planet to preserve nature. If we continue to use fossil fuels, it will cause far more harm and suffering than the change over to cold fusion will. There can be no social or technological progress without upheaval. Politicians and social welfare agencies are supposed to cushion the effect -- that's their job. They often do that successfully. When automobiles displaced railroads in the 1920s and '30s, railroad pension funds went bankrupt and retired rail workers lost their only means of survival. On Roosevelt's initiative the Congress passed special laws funding them directly. This was a society-wide change, largely brought about by public spending on roads, so the public as a whole had a responsibility to take care of the retired workers. (Younger people still working on the railways could find jobs elsewhere.) Politicians and other leaders are also responsible for managing change in such a way as to avoid "wars, famines and political upheaval." That, too, is their job. This generation has not shown much talent for it. So, as vanguards of this revolution, I would like to know how many deaths Gene and Jed tally for themselves? Perhaps they are anticipating a net gain--- + 10 million from universal energy, - 5 million lost to the upheaval? Right. But the gain will be many orders of magnitude better than that. Millions of people will be put out of work. A few thousand may even starve or commit suicide. But every day for hundreds of years after that, thousands of people will *not* die, or suffer for lack of water or heat. And you can say exactly the same thing for every technological breakthrough in history, right up to microcomputer. I know perfectly well that the programs I write have thrown many people out of work. My programs reduce drudgery and improve efficiency by replacing a dozen low-level secretaries and bookkeepers with a $1000 machine. Any person who works in high technology who does *not* realize he is putting uneducated people out of work is a dolt. It is a terrible shame for the secretaries, but it must go on, because you and I and everyone else will not pay inflated prices for our groceries, insurance, gas, lumber or anything else. A company that refuses to automate will be driven out of business. Furthermore, if you blame me for the computer that saves money for the bank, the car dealership, or the fruit distributor -- then you must also blame the customers who buy a car for $100 less from the guy who saves $25,000 a month with my computer. Would you pay an extra 10 cents a gallon for "full service" gasoline? Would you do it just so some guy can keep his job pumping gas? Not me! I find it faster and more convenient to run the cash card through the machine and pump the gas myself. And suppose we had a national movement to buy full service gas again. Would that be charity, and if so, what kind of favor are you doing for the guys who pump gas for a living? I do not think anyone can be fooled with make-work. People know when machines can do the job better, faster and cheaper. Nobody wants to do menial work that inanimate machinery can do better. There is no dignity in it. The *real* John Henry ended his career operating a steam spike driving machine, earning better wages than he ever did hammering by hand. (That's true! And he did not understand where the mythical song got started.) When the day comes that a pound of metal can produce as much energy as 50,000 gallons of gasoline, with no pollution, there will no longer be any dignity or meaning in a job at Exxon. You might as well cut wheat by hand as drill for oil in a world with cold fusion. Personally, I think all involved would do better to simple focus on the science and technology itself, and its reality or lack there of, and avoid the moral arithmetic. I think this is dead wrong. You must *always* consider the moral arithmetic of every action you take, every vote you cast, every book review you write. It is your duty and responsibility as a citizen and a professional. Scientists are paid by society to do a job. They are supposed to increase our knowledge of nature and help us improve technology. They are not supposed to spend their time playing political games or writing farcical books that claim the Canadians sell us used heavy water. It is immoral to ignore morality, or to pretend that there is no such thing as evil. Scientists can be as rotten, greedy, nasty and wicked as anyone else. They have plenty of opportunities to steal and cause havoc -- more than most people, in most other walks of life. There are bound to be as many thieves in a university physics departments as there are anywhere else money, status and power are up for grabs. People must be held responsible for their actions, or society will fall apart. If a major, respected scientist spends years playing dirty tricks, spreading false rumors, and publishing statements that he knows are incorrect in order further his own political ends or feather his nest, he does grave harm to the integrity of science. He hurts all scientists. The public, which pays your salaries, will not put up with that kind of corruption forever. It is the responsibility of other scientists to take a stand and censure the malevolent, the lazy, and the incompetents within their ranks. When corrupt computer programmers produce dangerous code, shoddy products or scams, the other people in our industry never fail to point this out. We make a big stink in the trade magazines, at conferences and in the national media. We never pretend that all programmers have good intentions. We never say it isn't polite to talk about people's motivations. We never avoid the moral arithmetic, because it is our job and our responsibility as free citizens to do the hard, intangible arithmetic of judging, leading, making tough choices, censuring evil people and supporting righteousness (which needs all the help it can get). I am not suggesting that every unfortunate incident and every technical fiasco is deliberately caused by evil people. I don't suppose anyone can be blamed for this sorry, tangled, 15-years-obsolete mess we call the IBM PC standard. But there are *some* situations, in some cases, in some institutions, that *are* caused by specific people. Look at the tobacco industry! - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 23 21:48:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA27701; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 21:47:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 21:47:23 -0800 X-Sender: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 20:47:17 -0900 To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Could somebody criticize this please Resent-Message-ID: <"praCb1.0.hm6.gvslo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2877 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The following are general remarks about Bruce's post below. Sorry it took me so long to get around to reading it. It is very difficult for me to change midset as my memory doesn't work very log. Specific comments are also imbedded in Bruce's post quoted further below. First, this design is difficult to discuss meaningfullly without a quantitative model, and I think that such a model would be more difficult to build and test than a real world model. The most accurate comment I can make is that the only way to find out if the concept is going to work, or lead to a better concept, is to try it. It would be easy to cite conservation of energy and leave it at that, but there is more to this than meets the eye. A very similar device was modelled and tested by Ide [Osamu Ide,"Increased voltage phenomenon in a resonant circuit of unconventional magnetic configuration", J.Appl. Phys. 77(11),1 June 1995.] Ide's configuration was pretty much identical except *both* magnets were electromagnets and their cores and the armature (moving core) were made of ferrite material to avoid inductive losses. Also the armature contained two equivalents of the moving piece of iron (moving cores) and also two pairs of stator coils were used, all 180 degrees apart for symmetry. The stators were pulsed using SRC's prior to the armature entering the gap, and the energy from the coils retrieved and fed to capacitors for firing on the next 180 degree cycle. There was a control circuit that would add current to get the capacitors back up to full voltage before the next cycle. In general most of the arguments below apply to the Ide experiment. Now, what is most interresting is that Ide did do a very careful computer analysis of the motor, and he found anomalous behavior. The true performance did not match the model. It gets better than that. The controller was set up to run the motor in two different configurations. In the first, attracting mode, the two coils were unopposed, i.e. their fields were aligned. In the second test, the opposing mode, the coil polaritites were opposed as designated by Bruce below. The difference between the two modes was merely connecting the coils in series in such a way that the magneitic fields always opposed or aligned. The test data in the first test closely matched the results through a wide range of operating conditions. This gave some confirmation of the data acquisition equipment, and the accuracy of the model geometry and component values. The test data in the second case, opposing mode, showed a clear discrepancy resulting in unexpected efficiency. Ide states: "These results can be explained from the assumption that the complex movement of the flux could generate a positive EMF: the increase in the recharge voltage is due to an EMF in the same direction as the discharge current, different from the current caused by the back EMF caused by Faraday's law. The past controversy concerning electromagnetic induction might shed some light on this viewpoint. On this topic several authors have stated that the motional EMF caused by the cutting of the magnetic flux and the induced EMF caused by Faraday's law were independent phenomena ... It can be postulated that these two types of EMF have contradicting effects within the coil, and that the motional EMF has a positive effect on the recharge voltage over a certain range of core speed. This hypothesis seems consistant with the results, but is also highly speculative." Ide did not make an o-u device, but that does not mean that a good understanding of where conventional theory errs would not yield such a device. Bruce's post follows: >>MAGNETIC SHIELDING >> >> >> >>For example take two permanent magnets in S-S configuration and iron plate >>like this. (the plate is restricted to move only in vertical direction) >> >> >> LEGEND: NNNNSSSS a permanent magnet with North & South poles >> IIIIIIII a soft iron plate >> CCCCCCCC an electromagnetic coil >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>NNNNSSSS SSSSNNNN >> >> >> I >> I >> I >> I >> I (iron plate attracted up) >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>The iron plate will be pulled into the gap between the magnets like this >> >> >> I >> I >>NNNNSSSS I SSSSNNNN >> I >> I (iron plate stopped at equilibrium) >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>But if the gap between the magnets is LARGER the iron plate will stop here. >> This configuration is not useful for our purposes. >> >> >> >>NNNNSSSS I SSSSNNNN >> I >> I >> I >> I (iron plate stopped at equilibrium) >> The above two figures are best represented by the figure above, as the differences are only quantitative. Looking at a vertical line bisecting the above diagram from top to bottom, the magnetic field strength will be exactly zero at some point on the line between the two magnets, with or without the iron plate. The field strength will be maximum at two points on opposite sides of the zero point. The fields at thos points will be facing opposite the zero point. In other words, the two south poles will create a repulsing field that will bend both up and down, producing a south pole in space facing up at the top of the diagram and down at the bottom. The iron plate will be attracted to a point of maximum flux, not the zero point. The iron atoms in the bar will align with the existing field and magify it by reinforcing it, but this produces heat in the bar and impedes forward motion of the bar, even though the bar is attracted towards the gap. The momentum lost to heat will be reflected in a slower speed when the magnet leaves the gap. Bruce's suggestion is to turn off the coil on the right magnet to avoid some of this loss. Ide's idea was to cut off both coils and avoid all the loss upon exit. The coil induction arguments are similar. >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>If the magnets are oriented S-N the iron plate will also stop here because >>iron plate is equally attracted to North or South poles: >> >> >> I >> I >>NNNNSSSS I NNNNSSSS >> I >> I (iron plate stopped at equilibrium) >> >> Yes because the magnetic field distribution is not bimodal here - there is a single point of maximum field strength. [snip] I think comments beyond this point would only create confusion, and demonstrate mine with certainty. I would like to add that in my backlog list of 30 some experiments that I would like to do that there are some similar ideas. I think a pendulum may be a very good general purpose way to approach these kinds of experiments. If a pendulum can be made to swing continually (as a perpetuum mobile) then it is easy to adapt the design to a motor. Pendulums have the advantage of an immediate readout of energy - by the pendulum max swing height. They can also be made to have very low friction. The experiments can be done with a single set of components. The most important thing is to have massive lateral pendulum strength though - because big magnets tend to torsion the thing apart or snap the pendulum laterally into a catastophic attraction. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 07:53:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA15579; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 07:52:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 07:52:36 -0800 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 10:52:25 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961224105224.24ef95b0@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Cold Fusion Times -- Vol 5, No. 1 is out Resent-Message-ID: <"FRcMP3.0.Gp3.2n_lo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2878 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: December 24, 1996 Dear colleagues: Well, it has been five (5) years. Cold Fusion Times vol 5 number 1 is out to the printer, and should be in subscribers hands shortly. As always, the COLD FUSION TIMES continues to present focused hard-core science and engineering issues, with detailed material and nuclear science analysis of developments in the cold fusion field. The color cover page, as always, is available at the COLD FUSION TIMES web site, which is located at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html Discussions and contents in this issue include the following: - More Quality Confirmations of Cold Fusion - Heat and Helium Measurements in Pd Systems - Anomalous Heat from Loaded Pd Wires - CEREM Confirms F&P BOILOFF EXPT - NAVY Results - Gas Loading - Reports from CHINA, US National Labs, .... - ICCF-6 Reviews - Book & lit. reviews - ICCF-6 (Reviews & Analysis) - Some journals you may have missed - OP-ED Column - Updates on Equipment, Supplies, Consulting Available - Practical Information and Reference Vectors - "What's Happening", "Material Science and Engineering" and more The COLD FUSION TIMES web site is located at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html and has some science references, URL pointers, on-site papers available, and the covers of past issues, and even a virtual reality site [CFT-VR site] available by browser at the CFT web page. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 08:33:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA25452; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 08:32:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 08:32:22 -0800 Message-ID: <32C005A1.EB5@interlaced.net> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 11:32:33 -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: More about Morality . . . References: <961224054010_72240.1256_EHB109-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"7_Pz42.0.bD6.KM0mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2879 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Rothwell wrote: (A philosophical discussion of good and evil.) > I begin by stating that I am fascinated by CF for its scientific implications and that, at this stage, we don't have any idea of its eventual impact on mankind. Stenger's Pollyanna list of CF goodness and light. 1. With CF, all the little people of the world will have all the energy they need and deserve. a) Same thing was said about uranium fission. b) What is the polution/energy ratio for Patterson beads? c) Free energy means free population growth - unlimited waste heat load on earth - unlimited agricultural production leading to unlimited polution of earth's hydrosphere - cut down more trees to have more room for people - no room for animals, not even livestock; go to all-vegitarian system for maximum efficiency ---. 2. CF will end corporate domination of the world. a) I'm sure this is foremost in Reding's mind! b) The lead-acid battery is a pretty simple electrochemical system, but I still plunk down 60 bucks at Sears to get a new one! 3. CF will change human morality for the better - uh, yeh, sure it will. Look! CF is a fascinating scientific field - it's just too soon to predict its impact on the human condition. MERRY HOLIDAYS TO ALL ! Grouchy old Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 09:16:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA31977; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 09:10:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 09:10:37 -0800 Message-Id: <199612241657.JAA02881@nz1.netzone.com> X-Sender: discpub@netzone.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 10:10:51 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Sharing some Holiday Cheer Resent-Message-ID: <"7XeFa2.0.Zp7.Bw0mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2880 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: During the last weeks, my schedule has been such that I had to abandon any extra activities, inclusive of this forum. However, now that the Season is upon us, it was my desire to share a little excitement with you. This last week, a 16 year old female high school student honored me by replicating the "famed" 1992 Texas A&M transmutation experiment for her science fair project in Dallas, Texas (I wonder if this is the reason Redding moved from Dallas to Florida?). Anyway, with the assistance of Dan York and associates, pictures were scanned of this event and have been posted on the Internet at the following site: http://www.netzone.com/~discpub/student.html Not that I am gloating, but I find a certain irony, that a high school student was successful in this quest. Extreme care was utilized in this experiment and the entire process was monitored by a qualified pedigreed scientist, a person whom most of you would know. And, before the question is asked; I was 1,500 miles away during the entire process. The chemical matrix utilized in the process has been published in private texts, journals and displayed at conferences. No esoteric beads in this one. It was qualified by physical extraction techniques that ~3.7 grams of new metals were produced in less than 90 seconds. The bottom line is -- this girl did a better job than the Bockris team! Additonal independent testing will be accomplished by the observing scientist and a paper will be forth coming... Happy Holidays from the Champion Family _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 09:57:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA07351; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 09:53:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 09:53:36 -0800 Date: 24 Dec 96 12:52:12 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: Programmer's Christmas Poem Message-ID: <961224175211_72240.1256_EHB74-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"5thKe3.0.lo1.VY1mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2881 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex In what has become a tradition with me, I hereby present a a kind of a Christmas poem written by someone named Dennis J., which drifted into my computer one day. This is strictly for programmers. Old programmers, at that. - Jed TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE INSTALLATION Twas the Night before installation, and all through the house; Not a program was working, not even a browse! The programmers were hung by their terminals in despair, With hopes that a miracle would soon be there. The users were nestled all snug in their beds, While visions of inquiries danced in their heads. When in the lobby there arose such a clatter, I sprang from my terminal to see what was the matter. And what to my wondering eyes should appear, But SUPER PROGRAMMER; with a six-pack of beer! His resume glowed with experience so rare, He turned out code with a bit-pusher's flair. More rapid than eagles, his programs they came; And he whistled and shouted and called them by name; On Add! On Update! On Inquiry, Delete! On Batch Jobs! On Closings! On Functions Complete! His eyes were glazed over, fingers nimble and lean; >From nights and weekends in front of his screen. A wink from his eye, and a twist from his head; Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread. He spoke not a word and went right to his work, Turning specs into code, then he turned with a jerk. And upon laying his finger on the "ENTER" key, The System came up and worked perfectly! The updates updated, the deletes they deleted, The inquires inquired and closings completed. He tested each whistle, he tested each bell; With nary an ERROR, all had gone well! The System was finished, all tests were concluded; The client's last changes were even included. And the client exclaimed with a snarl and taunt, "It's just what I asked for, BUT NOT WHAT I WANT!!!" Dennis J. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 11:42:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA21944; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 11:15:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 11:15:25 -0800 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 11:16:29 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Sharing some Holiday Cheer Resent-Message-ID: <"wwWb92.0.oM5.Bl2mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2883 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Joe Champion reported new transmutation results under this subject, viewable at his web page, http://www.netzone.com/~discpub/student.html. One puzzling feature I noted in the photograph of the burning mixture is that, although voluminous hot material is spouting out of the Hill's Bros. coffee can, the can itself is not hot. Not only is the can not glowing red, the paint is not even blistered or charred. Anyone who has burned anything in a coffee can knows that the paint or paper char in a few seconds. In a few more seconds the tin (or whatever metal it is these days) oxidizes, and if the heat is at all intense, pretty soon the sheet metal glows red. Is this a trick photograph? 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 Dec 24 11:52:32 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA18550; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 10:52:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 10:52:22 -0800 Message-ID: <32C02642.4706@interlaced.net> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 13:51:46 -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: Could somebody criticize this please References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"63ODH2.0.iX4.bP2mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2882 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > (snip) I think a pendulum may > be a very good general purpose way to approach these kinds of experiments. > If a pendulum can be made to swing continually (as a perpetuum mobile) then > it is easy to adapt the design to a motor. Pendulums have the advantage of > an immediate readout of energy - by the pendulum max swing height. They > can also be made to have very low friction. The experiments can be done > with a single set of components. The most important thing is to have > massive lateral pendulum strength though - because big magnets tend to > torsion the thing apart or snap the pendulum laterally into a catastophic > attraction. > Horace, I'm a skeptic about OU from macroscopic magnetic fields - but, I like your suggestions about pendulum devices. They can provide very sophisticated test beds at low cost (the balistic pendulum for example). Along with flexure-plate mounts and the like, they enable a wealth of easy-to-build rigs for testing energy levels, forces from EM and gravity devices, reactionless space drives, etc. If they build it, I will look -------- Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 12:16:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA03122; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:14:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:14:42 -0800 Message-Id: <199612242002.NAA17403@nz1.netzone.com> X-Sender: discpub@netzone.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 13:14:56 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Re: Sharing some Holiday Cheer Resent-Message-ID: <"rOmXK2.0.cm.nc3mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2884 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:16 AM 12/24/96 -0800, you wrote: Michael, >One puzzling feature I noted in the photograph of the burning mixture is >that, although voluminous hot material is spouting out of the Hill's Bros. >coffee can, the can itself is not hot. Not only is the can not glowing >red, the paint is not even blistered or charred. No trick photography. This a view during the few seconds. The entire burn from iginition to end is 90 seconds. By the end of the burn there is not paint remaining. However, the can stays intact. The ambient temperature at time of burn was ~25oF with a slight wind. This had a major effect of why the can did not melt. Other tests have had varying results with cans melting and or having holes burned in them. _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 12:21:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA05070; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:20:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:20:08 -0800 Message-ID: <32C03AF4.6F29@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 10:20:06 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Sharing some Holiday Cheer References: <199612241657.JAA02881@nz1.netzone.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"4h2Hl2.0.8F1.th3mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2885 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Joe Champion wrote: [snip] > The chemical matrix utilized in the process has been published in private > texts, journals and displayed at conferences. No esoteric beads in this one. Are any of these texts, journals, or details of the conference displays available publicly? Could you post references to those sources that are available please? Thanks, - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 12:30:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA07768; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:29:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:29:13 -0800 Message-ID: <32C03D15.25D7@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 10:29:12 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Programmer's Christmas Poem References: <961224175211_72240.1256_EHB74-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"g7WRm1.0.Iv1.Nq3mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2886 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jed Wrote: > "TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE INSTALLATION..." That was a very cute poem right up to the end: > And the client exclaimed with a snarl and taunt, > "It's just what I asked for, BUT NOT WHAT I WANT!!!" Too intense for small children, and maybe even me! Frighteningly, sadly true, that part at the end. . . . Merry Christmas. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 12:49:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA10623; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:46:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:46:07 -0800 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:43:54 -0800 (PST) From: Nils Rognerud To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Electrogravity: new web page - request for feedback... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"kdPaC2.0.vb2.C44mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2887 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Guys/Gals, I put together a new web page. I would love to hear some feedback from your all. I love questions and comments of all kinds, and I may even put the most interesting questions into a web FAQ page, so please be creative. http://www.best.com/~rognerud/html/free_fall_summary.html and also: http://www.best.com/~rognerud/html/physics.html http://www.best.com/~rognerud/html/contents.html Merry Christmas and all the best, -Nils Rognerud From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 12:55:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA12227; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:53:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:53:53 -0800 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 96 14:53:04 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961224145713.39d71a20@mail.airmail.net> X-Sender: danyork@mail.airmail.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Dan York Subject: Re: Sharing some Holiday Cheer Resent-Message-ID: <"RYCHc3.0.u-2.VB4mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2888 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:20 AM 12/24/96 -1000, you wrote: >Joe Champion wrote: > >[snip] > >> The chemical matrix utilized in the process has been published in private >> texts, journals and displayed at conferences. No esoteric beads in this one. > >Are any of these texts, journals, or details of the conference displays >available publicly? Could you post references to those sources that are >available please? Thanks, > >- Rick Monteverde >Honolulu, HI > > > Rick, The complete report of these experiments can be found in a paper titled "Anomalous Radioactivity and Unexpected Elements As A Result Of Heating Inorganic Mixtures" by Dr. G.H. Lin and Dr. J.O'M. Bockris published in the Proceedings of the Second Conference on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions held September 13-14, 1996 in the Journal of New Energy, Vol 1, No. 3, 1996, p 100-110. Dan From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 13:17:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA17394; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 13:15:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 13:15:37 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:15:52 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: More about Morality . . . Resent-Message-ID: <"EfCtx1.0.hF4.sV4mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2889 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:32 AM 12/24/96, Francis J. Stenger wrote: >Stenger's Pollyanna list of CF goodness and light. [snip] >Look! CF is a fascinating scientific field - it's just too soon to >predict its impact on the human condition. > >MERRY HOLIDAYS TO ALL ! > >Grouchy old Frank Stenger There are, however, some dire predictions of what life my be like without some means of stopping the CO2 emissions. For example, the UN sponsored IPCC Working Group II Reports available from: IPCC Working Group II Technical Support Unit, 300 D Street, SW, Suite 840, Washington, DC 20024, USA, phone (202) 651-8260, fax (202) 554-6858, e-mail . CO2 and atmospheric pollution just could be the grinch that ends Christmas. Working on the problem may not solve it, but it does at last give some chance. Some people say we are not going to have the big car wreck, but this does not change the value of having some auto insurance. Merry Christmas! Cantankerous old Horace Heffner From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 13:21:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA18734; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 13:20:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 13:20:31 -0800 Message-Id: <199612242107.OAA22433@nz1.netzone.com> X-Sender: discpub@netzone.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 14:20:46 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Re: Sharing some Holiday Cheer Resent-Message-ID: <"Lxjrp.0.ea4.Ua4mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2890 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:20 AM 12/24/96 -1000, you wrote: >Are any of these texts, journals, or details of the conference displays >available publicly? Could you post references to those sources that are >available please? Thanks, > >- Rick Monteverde The first journal publication to my knowledge was: G.H. Lin, R. Bhardwaj, John Bockris, "Response to Nononski et al:Observation of Beta Radiation Decay in Low Energy Nuclear Reaction,"Journal of Scientific Exploration,Vol.9, No. 2,pp.1-14, 1995 This contains the entire experiment. To save you some time, following is the chemical composition: C 300g KNO3 900g S 80g SiO2 120g FeSo4 100g Cd 30g HgCl2 100g PbO 50g Ag 5g CaO 30g _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 13:34:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA22053; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 13:33:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 13:33:08 -0800 From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 16:32:29 -0500 Message-ID: <961224163228_1323084214@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: More about Morality . . . Resent-Message-ID: <"Muvfd.0.VO5.Jm4mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2891 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 96-12-24 11:34:03 EST, Grouchy Old Frank Stenger wrote: >Stenger's Pollyanna list of CF goodness and light. >1. With CF, all the little people of the world will have all the energy > they need and deserve Probably not in the way we think, for manufacture and commerce are required. Even with electric motors and gasoline engines well understood, you have to have a certain level of technology before they can be manufactured. Semiconductors require a much higher level. We don't know how fussy o/u devices will be with 20 years development. > a) Same thing was said about uranium fission. Partially true, but it got linked to weapons technology. The same may happen to CF; we don't know what all is in the box we are trying to break open. > b) What is the polution/energy ratio for Patterson beads? An excellent question, but the better one is energy-to-fabricate/energy-released. So far no deadly radiation or radioactive byproducts. Patterson 1, Fission/Hot-fusion, 0. >c) Free energy means free population growth No. The population growth is a result of public health reducing infant mortality and extending lifetimes in societies where children are parent's only source of wealth and old age security, and women are chattel with no control over reproductive rights. Where women gain reproductive rights and there are other ways of securing old age security, the birth rate drops. >- unlimited [?really?] waste heatload on earth - Which will probably be less than the solar insolation of 1 kW/m^2. If you go directly to electricity and bypass the Carnot cycle, efficency is high, and the hyperefficient electric motors will probably be in hand. >- unlimited agricultural production >-leading to unlimited pollution of earth's hydrosphere >- cut down more trees to have more room for people >- no room for animals, not even livestock; >- go to all-vegitarian system for maximum efficiency ---. Not necessarily. We supposedly get a bit smarter and realize that we live in a closed system which will not forgive all our mistakes. But, in principle, the rest of these problems can be solved if we solve the energy problem. Without that, none of the rest will be solved. >- 2. CF will end corporate domination of the world. Hardly. As I pointed out in another post, the energy is free, but the devices to utilize it are the product of specialists and so there will be commerce and corporations. Patents expire, knowledge remains and diffuses. What will end is a political and economic power system based on the control of geographically discrete sources of concentrated energy. > a) I'm sure this is foremost in Reding's mind! Can you read his mind? He could be worried about his cash flow lasting long enough to create a commercially viable energy generator, before some other variation on the technology overtakes him. > b) The lead-acid battery is a pretty simple electrochemical system > but I still plunk down 60 bucks at Sears to get a new one! After decades of work to get a Sears Die-Hard for only 60 bucks! For about the same price you can get a computer more powerful then ENIAC you can stuff in your shirt pocket -- it took tens of thousands of man-years to accomplish that! 3. CF will change human morality for the better - uh, yeh, sure it will. Of course not, but it could reduce the pressure on a lot of people. This is somewhat like the proposition that if we can put a man on the moon, we chould be able to feed the starving children in Country X. The first is a simple problem, the second is not. Unless you are fundamentally misanthropic and would limit population by war, pestilence and starvation we need to hope for other solutions which are enabled by technology but not solved by technology. > Look! CF is a fascinating scientific field - it's just too soon to predict its impact on > the human condition. Ah, so!!!! The Good Old Days weren't all that good, and I'm amused when people get nostaglic for the '50's --- the only virtue of that time is that we know we survived it. There is the old Chinese blessing/curse: May You Live in Interesting Times. We have. We will. >MERRY HOLIDAYS TO ALL ! >Grouchy old Frank Stenger To which I add Amen! Eternal (young at heart) Optimist Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 13:41:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA23839; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 13:39:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 13:39:50 -0800 Message-ID: <32C06943.6931@ro.com> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 15:37:39 -0800 From: Patrick Reavis X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Merry Christmas to all Vortexians! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"to2sr1.0.Jq5.as4mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2892 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Walkin' Round in Women's Underwear (to be sung to "Walkin' in a Winter Wonderland") Lacy things - the wife is missin', Didn't ask - her permission, I'm wearin' her clothes , Her silk pantyhose, Walkin' round in women's underwear. In the store - there's a teddy, Little straps - like spaghetti, It holds me so tight, Like handcuffs at night, Walkin' round in women's underwear. In the office there's a guy named Melvin, He pretends that I am Murphy Brown. He'll say, "Are you ready?" We'll say,"Whoa, Man!" "Let's wait until our wives are out of town!" Later on, if you wanna, We can dress - like Madonna, Put on some eyeshade, And join the parade, Walkin' round in women's underwear! Lacy things ... Missin', Didn't ask ... permission, Wearin' her clothes, Her silk pantyhose, Walkin' round in women's underwear, Walkin' round in women's underwear, Walkin' round in women's underwear! -- The Double Naught Spy From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 14:49:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA04589; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 14:46:53 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 14:46:53 -0800 Message-ID: <32C0558B.5E1D@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:13:33 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Sharing some Holiday Cheer References: <199612242107.OAA22433@nz1.netzone.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"t9OEx1.0.d71.Qr5mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2893 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Joe Champion wrote: [snip] > The first journal publication to my knowledge was: > > G.H. Lin, R. Bhardwaj, John Bockris, "Response to Nononski et al:Observation > of Beta Radiation Decay in Low Energy Nuclear Reaction,"Journal of > Scientific Exploration,Vol.9, No. 2,pp.1-14, 1995 > > This contains the entire experiment. [snip] > Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com > http://www.netzone.com/~discpub Thanks. And is this type of experiment, other experiments and formulas, as well as suggestions for small-scale production facilities described in your books sold through the ITS bookstore (International Tesla Society)? ---------------(Since I mentioned them...)---------------- International Tesla Society PO box 5636 Colorado Springs, CO 80931 (719) 475-0918 voice (719) 475-0582 fax (800) 397-0137 fee call USA e-mail: USA-Tesla@USA.net ---------------------------------------------------------- For some reason I've always been a little bit unclear what material those books covered - whether they were more of a popular-style version of your theories and work, or whether they were more oriented towards information and recipies for hands-on replication by others. If you have the time and inclination, could you describe them briefly? Thanks again, - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 14:56:02 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA06686; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 14:54:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 14:54:36 -0800 Message-ID: <32C059E1.1CBC@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:32:05 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Sharing some Holiday Cheer References: <2.2.16.19961224145713.39d71a20@mail.airmail.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"8gIpB.0.Ke1.hy5mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2894 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dan York wrote: > Rick, > > The complete report of these experiments can be found in a paper titled > "Anomalous Radioactivity and Unexpected Elements As A Result Of Heating > Inorganic Mixtures" by Dr. G.H. Lin and Dr. J.O'M. Bockris published in the > Proceedings of the Second Conference on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions held > September 13-14, 1996 in the Journal of New Energy, Vol 1, No. 3, 1996, p > 100-110. > > Dan, Where might I find this one? The reference: > G.H. Lin, R. Bhardwaj, John Bockris, "Response to Nononski et al:Observation > of Beta Radiation Decay in Low Energy Nuclear Reaction,"Journal of > Scientific Exploration,Vol.9, No. 2,pp.1-14, 1995 ...which Joe Champion offered, couldn't be found in a seach of the index for this journal on their web site at: http://www.jse.com/ab_index.html The issue is there but the article is not listed. Maybe the index is only a partial listing? I haven't been able to find anything on Journal of New Energy on the web, so I'll try our libraries here. thanks, - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 15:38:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA13509; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 15:36:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 15:36:41 -0800 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 15:34:57 -0800 (PST) From: Nils Rognerud To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: More about Morality . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"AQPjk.0.wI3.6a6mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2895 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Yes, I agree. In fact, I put together a web page on the some with some nice visuals: http://www.best.com/~rognerud/html/pollution.html -Nils Rognerud On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Horace Heffner wrote: > At 11:32 AM 12/24/96, Francis J. Stenger wrote: > > There are, however, some dire predictions of what life my be like without > some means of stopping the CO2 emissions. For example, the UN sponsored > IPCC Working Group II Reports available from: > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 24 20:34:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA04227; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 20:19:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 20:19:41 -0800 Message-ID: <32C0AB5B.1841@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 18:19:42 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Electrogravity: new web page - request for feedback... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"eIvXh1.0.y11.SjAmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2896 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Nils, Have you built and tested any devices like the Hooper coil or similar, and seen for yourself definite signs of a subtle gravity-like force? I think your web site is *great*, BTW. It is a pleasure to browse through a site constructed with such a smooth flow to it for the user, with the excellent illustrations and all. Looking forward to your T.T. Brown section too. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 25 00:39:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA29794; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 00:37:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 00:37:30 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 23:37:50 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: AEH fuels Resent-Message-ID: <"DKQMZ.0.SH7.9VEmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2897 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In browsing around for a fuel to try an AE engine experiment, I notice a nasty tendancy for the interresting ones to form explosives. For example, carbon and silver seemed like a good choice, but Ag2C2 (silver acetylide) is very nasty stuff. One tame critter I found seems to be BBr2, boron tribromide, but how to get the bond to break conveniently. It is interresting that both B and Br are very weak conductors so there is maybe some hope for electroysis, or even microwaves. The boron would sublimate and the BBr2 would stay liquid between -46 and 91.3 deg. C. Bromine (Br2) is a liquid from -7.2 to 58.78 deg. C. Of course the effect of pressure would be all important, and would change those numbers. And there is the problem of reforming the BBr2 in later stages of the cycle. Just more food for thought. Happy Holidays, Horace From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 25 00:52:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA04846; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 00:51:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 00:51:37 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 23:51:48 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: AEH fuels Resent-Message-ID: <"67V-f2.0.aB1.NiEmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2898 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I guess BBr2 would be boron dibromide. This might make an interesting liquid to with which to attempt sonoluminescence, but it would have to run pretty cold. Merry Christmas, Horace From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 25 07:31:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA01961; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 07:30:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 07:30:21 -0800 From: Xkan@aol.com Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 10:29:41 -0500 Message-ID: <961225102939_1523710569@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: fstenger@interlaced.net cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: what is electromagnetic field anyway? Resent-Message-ID: <"CYafr2.0.ZU.CYKmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2899 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Frank Stenger wrote: <<> Get a large enough current and things like fuses will > explode into fragments in the longitudinal direction. > This is true, Robert. But, this can also be explained by the fact that the "conventional E-M PINCH effect is unstable and leads to radial "necking" of any conductor if the magnetic pressure exceeds the conductors plastic flow strength. This is where the CONVENTIONAL E-M "sausage instability" gets its name. For an experiment to detect any NEW longitudinal force, you have to come up with a way to suppress the "noise" from the sausage instability. Also, a coaxial conductor, shorted at one end and excited from the other, shows a longitudinal tension force also predicted by conventional theory.>> Sorry, but I disagree. If Conventional Theory is correct that the force responsible for wire breaking is the transverse pinch force, then the wire should be PINCHED, and at the weakest section form a thin neck like a hour glass shape until it finally breaks. That was NOT what's oberserved at all in exploding wire experiments. The actual shape of the broken wire had not shrunk in diameter, the surface of the fracture is roughly flat, a clear indication of tensile longitudinal stress in the wire, which can only be accounted for by Ampere's force or something similar, and certainly not by Lorentz's force, which has zero longitudinal force. Try to squeeze (lateral pinch force!) a wire laterally with a plier until it breaks, look at the shape of the broken section, then compare it with the photos on Page 54 in Graneau's book(Newtonian Electrodynamics), then tell me if you still believe the conventional explaination. You might need to use the cutting edge of the plier for a iron or copper wire. I tried with a cloth hanger, the broken end shaped like a ridge, not flat. To further make the point clear, let me quote a passage from the same page 54(Granneau): " When the wire is treated as a bundle of current filaments, the transverse pinch forces may be calculated with Ampere's or the Lorentz force law. Both laws predict the same pinch forces. They are capable of extruding soft wire. Northrup calculated the longitudinal thrust which would be created in a liquid metal column which was subject to the normal electrodynamic pinch forces. His calculation revealed a value of this thrust, which turns out to be about ten percent of the Ampere tensionwhich would be set up by the same current in a solid conductor. No reduction in wire diameter due to pinch forces has been observed in the experiments just described(i.e. wire explosion). This is not surprising in view of Northrup's result. There appears to be no connection between pinch forces and the brittle fractures observed in wire explosions." << Horace thought about this problem quite a bit - solving it ain't for sissies! Just another big sissy - Frank Stenger>> Hope my reply helps. :-) Solving the problem is not very hard both experimentally and experimentally. No big budget is needed. All one needs is a few big capacitors and some wire segments, and an open mind. I want to do some experiment in this area, after I land a job in physics. Just where is Santa when he is needed?? Xiaobo (bittersweet) Kan From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 25 08:41:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA06967; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 08:40:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 08:40:42 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 11:40:07 -0500 Message-ID: <961225114006_777699952@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Need help!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"5vWEq3.0.mi1.9aLmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2900 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: I am presently writing a Journal article that will show that the deBroglie wavelength of matter is a beat note. This beat note is composed of the Compton wave and its doppler shifted reflection. The equation I came up with is in the form below. At time zero the sum of the waves equals zero, are of equal magnitude, and are phase opposite. Time zero is a minimum node in the beat note pattern. I am trying to solve for t when the waves are in phase and the sum of the waves equals two. Two is a maximum node in the beat note pattern. sin(kt + pie) + sin(kt[1+v/c] ) = 2 k = (2pie)( the Comptom frequency) t = time The equation contains one unknown t , time. The domain of the function can extend over angles greater than two pie. A more general solution will involve the absolute value of the left side of the equation. I'm stuck!! Trying to solve for t and stuck. Any ideas? Frank Znidarsic fznidarsic@aol.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 25 10:31:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA18540; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 10:30:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 10:30:48 -0800 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 13:30:37 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961225133034.1097a5fe@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: Need help!!! Cc: fznidarsic@aol.com Resent-Message-ID: <"L8bUz2.0.bX4.MBNmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2901 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:40 AM 12/25/1996 -0500, you wrote: >I am presently writing a Journal article that will show that the deBroglie >wavelength of matter is a beat note. This beat note is composed of the >Compton wave and its doppler shifted reflection. The equation I came up with >is in the form below. At time zero the sum of the waves equals zero, are of >equal magnitude, and are phase opposite. Time zero is a minimum node in the >beat note pattern. I am trying to solve for t when the waves are in phase >and the sum of the waves equals two. Two is a maximum node in the beat note >pattern. > >sin(kt + pie) + sin(kt[1+v/c] ) = 2 > >k = (2pie)( the Comptom frequency) > >t = time > >The equation contains one unknown t , time. The domain of the function can >extend over angles greater than two pie. A more general solution will >involve the absolute value of the left side of the equation. I'm stuck!! > >Trying to solve for t and stuck. Any ideas? > >Frank Znidarsic >fznidarsic@aol.com > > > Frank: You may be stuck perhaps because your model ASSUMES a reflection (as you state on line 3). But there is no potential well, and no wall, so your reflection boundary condition is imaginary. As is well known to cetaceans and bats if you actually had a wall, or potential well, then you would have a time, as t = distance to wall/ velocity=c Hope that helps, with a factor of about ~2. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 25 10:50:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA21201; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 10:48:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 10:48:59 -0800 Message-ID: <32C17723.787D@interlaced.net> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 13:49:07 -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: Need help!!! References: <961225114006_777699952@emout06.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"eFalE3.0.3B5.OSNmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2902 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > > sin(kt + pie) + sin(kt[1+v/c] ) = 2 > > k = (2pie)( the Comptom frequency) > > t = time > > The equation contains one unknown t , time. The domain of the function can > extend over angles greater than two pie. A more general solution will > involve the absolute value of the left side of the equation. I'm stuck!! > > Trying to solve for t and stuck. Any ideas? > Frank: Write the equation as: f(t) = sin(kt + pie) + sin(kt[1+v/c]) - 2 = 0 Then your problem is to find the values of t that make the left side of f(t) = to zero (i.e., the "roots" of f(t)). You need (I think?) a numerical method to estimate the roots of f(t). Usable methods = 1. plot the function and home in (iterate) on the zeros. 2. the Newton-Raphson method 3. the secant method See if you can find these standard methods in a math reference you have. You can write short QBASIC programs for all of these methods if you wish. You might find info and/or a ready-made BASIC program by plugging the above phrases into a good WWW search engine. Call for a more detailed discussion. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 25 12:14:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA31030; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 12:13:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 12:13:23 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 11:13:44 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Need help!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"vrOt6.0.ma7.XhOmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2903 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:40 AM 12/25/96, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: [snip] >sin(kt + pie) + sin(kt[1+v/c] ) = 2 > >k = (2pie)( the Comptom frequency) > >t = time > [snip] > >Trying to solve for t and stuck. Any ideas? > >Frank Znidarsic I don't know about the physics for the above, but the above equation is only solvabale when both: (1) sin(kt + pie) = 1 and: (2) sin(kt[1+v/c] ) = 1 So from (1) and ignoring additional rotations: (3) kt + Pi = Pi/2 (note: we could add 2*Pi*R for R wavelengths here) (4) t = -Pi/(2k) But from (2): (5) kt[1+v/c)] = Pi/2 (ditto on adding 2*Pi*R here) (6) t = Pi/(2[1+v/c]) (assuming [1+v/c] <> 0) Which fixes the velocity because combining (4) and (5): (7) -Pi/(2k) = Pi/(2[1+v/c]) (8) -(2[1+v/c]) = 2k (9) 2k-2[1+v/c] = 0 (10) (k-1)+v/c = 0 (11) v = (1-k)c or otherwise from (6) we have [1+v/c] = 0 so: (12) v = -c I hope I got that right and it is meaningful in some way. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 25 12:24:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA32383; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 12:23:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 12:23:13 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 11:23:47 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Need help!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"Ft2uQ.0.rv7.nqOmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2904 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:40 AM 12/25/96, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: [snip] >sin(kt + pie) + sin(kt[1+v/c] ) = 2 > >k = (2pie)( the Comptom frequency) > >t = time > [snip] > >Trying to solve for t and stuck. Any ideas? > >Frank Znidarsic I don't know about the physics for the above, but the above equation is only solvabale when both: (1) sin(kt + pie) = 1 and: (2) sin(kt[1+v/c] ) = 1 So from (1) and ignoring additional rotations: (3) kt + Pi = Pi/2 (note: we could add 2*Pi*R for R wavelengths here) (4) t = -Pi/(2k) But from (2): (5) kt[1+v/c)] = Pi/2 (ditto on adding 2*Pi*R here) (6) t = Pi/(2[1+v/c]) (assuming [1+v/c] <> 0) Which fixes the velocity because combining (4) and (5): (7) -Pi/(2k) = Pi/(2[1+v/c]) (8) -(2[1+v/c]) = 2k (9) 2k-2[1+v/c] = 0 (10) (k-1)+v/c = 0 (11) v = (1-k)c or otherwise from (6) we have [1+v/c] = 0 so: (12) v = -c I hope I got that right and it is meaningful in some way. Note, if, because they are both 90 degrees, we simply set: (13) kt + Pi = kt[1+v/c] (14) kt - kt[1+v/c] = -Pi (15) kt(1-[1+v/c]) = -Pi (16) kt[v/c] = -Pi (17) t = (-Pi/k)(c/v) Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 25 12:28:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA32697; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 12:27:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 12:27:17 -0800 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 12:26:50 -0800 (PST) From: Nils Rognerud Reply-To: Nils Rognerud To: Rick Monteverde cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com, Tom <100405.617@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Electrogravity: new web page - request for feedback... In-Reply-To: <32C0AB5B.1841@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"FY6Vx.0.o-7.auOmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2905 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: THanks for your comments. Nice to hear you like the web-pages. Do you have a home-page? Regarding the Hooper-coil stuff, I have built many version, having most success with material (not copper) which has high electron-drift velocity, like semiconductors. This is opposite of what most researcher are thinking with superconductivity etc, but the formulas from Hooper and in my own paper, indicate that the drift velocity is an important element in the formula, which may be easier to manipulate than increasing currents. When you start dealing with current of 200 amperes plus, you are quickly reaching your practical limits with inexpensive electronics components. Keep in mind that drift velocities in most copper wires within the normal range of currents, are in the order of inches per hour(!). In most semiconductors the drift velocity is several orders of magnitudes faster, not to mention electron beams in vacum etc. There are many ways to improve upon the Hooper coil which only produces nanoVolts or microVolts effects. The Hooper coil design is every hard to measure and does not produce a real nice measureable effect elecrtonically or gravitionally. Let me know if this answers you question, or not. -Nils Rognerud On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Rick Monteverde wrote: > Nils, > > Have you built and tested any devices like the Hooper coil or similar, > and seen for yourself definite signs of a subtle gravity-like force? > > I think your web site is *great*, BTW. It is a pleasure to browse > through a site constructed with such a smooth flow to it for the user, > with the excellent illustrations and all. Looking forward to your T.T. > Brown section too. > > - Rick Monteverde > Honolulu, HI > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 25 16:23:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA00260; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 16:22:31 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 16:22:31 -0800 Message-ID: <32C1B253.5FC6@interlaced.net> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 18:01:39 -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: Need help!!! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"s3Iwt2.0.v3.5LSmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2906 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > (snip) > > (17) t = (-Pi/k)(c/v) > Good observation, Horace!! Now, what does it mean, Frank (Z)??? Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 25 16:51:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA04556; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 16:50:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 16:50:57 -0800 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 16:50:20 -0800 Message-Id: <199612260050.QAA24599@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Big-O-Tires & Wesson Oil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"iSkol3.0.671.mlSmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2907 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: 'Gene, you wrote: > >Vortexians: > >Paul Pantone of GEET in Price, Utah called me just now to tell me of a >public demo that will be held tomorrow (December 23, 1996) at the >"Big-O" tire store in Salt Lake City at 3:00 p.m.. Has there been any On-The-Spot observations made by a vortexian to post a report? Positive, negative, neutral, or questionable. Anything. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 25 18:58:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA00215; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 18:57:45 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 18:57:45 -0800 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 21:57:41 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961225215731.21f7b202@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: ZPE energy density -- Not enough mass in the universe Resent-Message-ID: <"ul-6V3.0.H3.ecUmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2909 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 08:22 PM 12/23/1996 -0500, Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > One of the early criticisms of Quantum Mechanics was that it >required that the energy of empty space be non-zero. When >computational methods came along that could compute things like the >fine spectrum of hydrogen without bringing in all these "meaningless" >numbers, quantum theory became accepted--but some people still have >trouble with it. ok, but mere acceptance does not mean it is correct. everyone accepted the origin of gastric ulcers. ================================= > > However there are still some calculations you can't do without >taking into effect the energy of the vaccum, and it is immense. >Different gage theories lead to different numbers, but the differences >are small in magnitude compared to the energy level required. ok, but it is immense over the solar system, and probably not with black holes densities of energy in 1/cm3 of empty space. the relative magnitude matters, and probably special relativity as well. ================================= > If the >energy in one cc of vaccuum were in such a form that it created a >gravitational field, it would create a black hole. No, it does NOT seem that it would create a black hole. Possible proof #1: if 1 cc vacuum => black hole, then 1 cc regular matter = what? and 1cc black hole is then what? a black hole squared? Thus, this seems to have no reasonable boundary conditions. Possible proof #2, if the absolute vacuum had the g-field of a proton it would be impressive; and that is not a black hole, either. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 25 21:18:10 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA02063; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 21:17:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 21:17:09 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 19:43:30 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Need help!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"RUq2A2.0.9W.KfWmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2910 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I didn't have time this morning for anything but a quick look. Had to rush to Anchorage, where we had a wonderful Christmas at the in-laws. Taking another look: >At 11:40 AM 12/25/96, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: >[snip] >>sin(kt + pie) + sin(kt[1+v/c] ) = 2 >> >>k = (2pie)( the Comptom frequency) >> >>t = time >> >[snip] >> >>Trying to solve for t and stuck. Any ideas? >> >>Frank Znidarsic > > Given: (1a) sin(kt + Pi) + sin(kt[1+v/c] ) = 2 (1b) Fc = the Compton frequency (1c) k = (2Pi)(Fc) (1d) t = time I don't know about the physics for the above, but the above equation is only solvabale when both: (2a) sin(kt + pie) = 1 and: (2b) sin(kt[1+v/c] ) = 1 So from (1) and ignoring additional rotations: (3) kt + Pi = Pi/2 + (2Pi)R (note: for arbitrary R integer wavelengths) (4) t = -Pi/(2k) + (2Pi)R/k But from (2): (5) kt[1+v/c)] = Pi/2 + (2Pi)S (note: for arbitrary S integer wavelengths) (6a) t = [Pi/2 + (2Pi)S]/(2k[1+v/c]) (assuming [1+v/c] <> 0) (6b) t = [1/4+S]/(k[1+v/c]) Which confines v to discrete values because combining (4) and (6b): (7) -Pi/(2k) + (2Pi)R/k = [1/4+S]/(k[1+v/c]) (8) -Pi/2 + (2Pi)R = [1/4+S]/[1+v/c] (9) 1+v/c = [1/4+S]/[-Pi/2+(2Pi)R] (10) v = c([1/4+S]/[-Pi/2+(2Pi)R] - 1) (for arbitrary integers S and R) (11) v = c(1/4+S+Pi/2-(2Pi)R)/[-Pi/2+(2Pi)R] The other possibility, from (6a) we have [1+v/c] = 0 so: (12) v = -c Note, if, because they are both 90 degrees, we simply set: (13) kt + Pi = kt[1+v/c] + (2Pi)N, for arbitrary integer N (14) kt - kt[1+v/c] = -Pi + (2Pi)N (15) kt(1-[1+v/c]) = -Pi + (2Pi)N (16) kt[v/c] = -Pi + (2Pi)N (17) t = (-Pi/k + (2Pi)N)(c/v) (18) t = (-1/(2f) + (2Pi)N)(c/v) (for arbitratry integer N) Hopefully the above is correct this time. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Wed Dec 25 22:29:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA00267; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 22:27:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 22:27:57 -0800 X-Sender: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 21:19:13 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Need help!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"TgzgJ2.0.54.ihXmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2911 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I didn't have time this morning for anything but a quick look. Had to rush to Anchorage, where we had a wonderful Christmas at the in-laws. Taking yet another hurried and error prone look: >At 11:40 AM 12/25/96, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: >[snip] >>sin(kt + pie) + sin(kt[1+v/c] ) = 2 >> >>k = (2pie)( the Comptom frequency) >> >>t = time >> >[snip] >> >>Trying to solve for t and stuck. Any ideas? >> >>Frank Znidarsic > > Given: (1a) sin(kt + Pi) + sin(kt[1+v/c] ) = 2 (1b) Fc = the Compton frequency (1c) k = (2Pi)(Fc) (1d) t = time I don't know about the physics for the above, but the above equation is only solvabale when both: (2a) sin(kt + Pi) = 1 and: (2b) sin(kt[1+v/c] ) = 1 So from (2a): (3) kt + Pi = Pi/2 + (2Pi)R (note: for arbitrary R integer wavelengths) (4a) t = -Pi/(2k) + (2Pi)R/k (4b) t = (1/(2(Fc)))(-1/4 + R) But from (2b): (5) kt[1+v/c)] = Pi/2 + (2Pi)S (note: for arbitrary S integer wavelengths) (6a) t = [Pi/2 + (2Pi)S]/(2k[1+v/c]) (assuming [1+v/c] <> 0) (6b) t = [1/4+S]/(k[1+v/c]) Which confines v to discrete values because combining (4b) and (6b): (7) (1/(2(Fc)))(-1/4 + R) = [1/4+S]/(k[1+v/c]) (8) (-1/4 + R)/(2(Fc)) = [1/4+S]/(2(Pi)(Fc)[1+v/c]) (9) 1+v/c = [1/4+S]/([-1/4+R](Pi)) (for arbitrary integers S and R) (10) v = c([1/4+S]/([-1/4+R](Pi)) - 1) (11a) v = c([1/4+S] - [-1/4+R]Pi)/([-1/4+R](Pi)) (11b) v = c(1/4+ S + Pi/4 -(R)(Pi))/(-Pi/4+(R)(Pi)) The other possibility, from (6a) we have [1+v/c] = 0 so: (12) v = -c Note, if, because they are both 90 degrees, we simply set: (13) kt + Pi = kt[1+v/c] + (2Pi)N, for arbitrary integer N (14) kt - kt[1+v/c] = -Pi + (2Pi)N (15) kt(1-[1+v/c]) = -Pi + (2Pi)N (16) kt[v/c] = -Pi + (2Pi)N (17) t = (-Pi/k + (2Pi)N)(c/v) (18) t = (-1/(2f) + (2Pi)N)(c/v) (for arbitratry integer N) Hopefully the above is correct this time, but I'm too tire and full to check any further. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 01:50:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA01183; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 18:53:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 18:53:26 -0800 Date: 25 Dec 96 21:50:50 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@CompuServe.COM> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Big-O-Tires & Wesson Oil Message-ID: <961226025049_76570.2270_FHU40-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"92u_A.0.LI.aYUmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2908 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: There was a glitch and the demonstration did not occur as scheduled. The equipment was not ready, for some reason -- as reported to me by Hal Fox. I will let Vortexians know further developments. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 06:21:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA04356; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 06:19:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 06:19:57 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 05:20:35 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Need help!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"qWBMZ1.0.u31.Ccemo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2912 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here's yet another correction: [snip] Note, if, because they are both 90 degrees, we simply set: (13) kt + Pi = kt[1+v/c] + (2Pi)N, for arbitrary integer N (14) kt - kt[1+v/c] = -Pi + (2Pi)N (15) kt(1-[1+v/c]) = -Pi + (2Pi)N (16) kt[v/c] = -Pi + (2Pi)N (17) t = (-Pi/k + (2Pi)N/(2Pi(Fc))(c/v) (18) t = (-1/(2Fc) + N/(Fc))(c/v) (for arbitratry integer N) (19) t = (-1/2 + N) (c/v) (1/Fc) (for arbitratry integer N) (Fc = the Compton frequency) Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 07:37:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA13852; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 07:36:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 07:36:27 -0800 X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <32C0AB5B.1841@worldnet.att.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 10:36:16 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Electrogravity: new web page - request for feedback... Resent-Message-ID: <"fkHDK2.0.MO3.wjfmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2913 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I have some feedback about the theory that gravity is just the effect of electrons rotating around the nucleus. The theory doesn't depend on the mass of the nucleus, just the charge, so the gravitational attraction between two hydrogen atoms is the same as between two deuterons. This is wrong as the gravitational attraction between the deuterons would be about twice as large. Then the L = 0 states would have no gravitational attraction as there is no electron rotation. This is also wrong. The theory calls for a motional electric field produced by moving magnetic fields which is derived by a Lorentz transformation but which is different from the normal electric field. This is incorrect. The Lorentz transformation gives only normal electric fields and gives no fields or forces that are outside of normal E&M theory. The thing to look for is some force that is not predicted by normal E&M theory. The important thing to do is to preform the experiments that can demonstrate this anomalous force and then publish the results. Once this force is proven and the properties are known the theory may then be formulated. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 09:14:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA30487; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 09:12:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 09:12:46 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 12:12:10 -0500 Message-ID: <961226121209_1155506480@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: Puthoff@aol.com, fstenger@interlaced.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Horrace found the solution I was looking for!!!!!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"chgSI1.0.DS7.E8hmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2914 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Subj: Re: Need help!!! Date: 96-12-26 09:21:14 EST From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Resent-from: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-to: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Here's yet another correction: [snip] Note, if, because they are both 90 degrees, we simply set: (13) kt + Pi = kt[1+v/c] + (2Pi)N, for arbitrary integer N (14) kt - kt[1+v/c] = -Pi + (2Pi)N (15) kt(1-[1+v/c]) = -Pi + (2Pi)N (16) kt[v/c] = -Pi + (2Pi)N (17) t = (-Pi/k + (2Pi)N/(2Pi(Fc))(c/v) (18) t = (-1/(2Fc) + N/(Fc))(c/v) (for arbitratry integer N) (19) t = (-1/2 + N) (c/v) (1/Fc) (for arbitratry integer N) (Fc = the Compton frequency) .............................................................................. ................. Horrace you have done it!!! I can't help but to think that the answer is of great value! To finish the work. Set N = -1/2 for one wavelength. And sent Fc = Mcc/h t = (c/v) (h/Mcc) tc = h/Mv tc = wavelength deBroglie wavelength = h/Mv .............................................................................. ...................... I knew there was a great answer there but I'm still not sure what it all means. I been working on this for a long time and this is what I think it means: The deBrogle wavelength has much to do with the central quantum mystery, observer determined realities. Matter is a real wave!!! The solution shows this, it is new!! It says much. The solution demonstrats that there is a potential well at the surface of matter and that a force is produced at the surface of matter. Once we know the force exists and that gravity and force share a symmetrical realtionship a model of matter my be developed that shows that this force at the potential well (surface of matter) generates gravitational mass and inertial mass. Grav field = G(dp/dt)/(ccr) I have solved this second part of puzzle on the elecktromagnum page. There you have it...an inside out version of Puthoff's model. Editors beware, I intend to publish a modified version of this stuff. Anyone have any more insights??? Frank Znidarsic .............................................................................. ....................................... From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 09:43:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA04527; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 09:41:43 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 09:41:43 -0800 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32C0EB7E.ABD322C@math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 00:53:18 -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: Carl Sagan References: <2.2.32.19961222024944.00732230@mail.eskimo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"M-v5D1.0.c61.LZhmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2915 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Gary Hawkins wrote: > > Sagan was a key cheerleader in poopoo'ing the efforts to see if there > was anything more to the face on Mars than a natural anomaly. He went > through some mental gymnastics to create conditions where he could say > he "didn't *see* anything unusual" there. > > Real science is willing to check everything out instead > of closing it off. > > But things they are a'changing. > > Gary Hawkins If you would read Sagan's Demon Haunted World, you would note there a discussion of the face on mars controversy, his criticism of the claims, but also a strong request that future Mars missions make a special effort to photograph the site in detail in order to resolve the controversy. (Also, his argument is not merely that he doesn't see anything unusual in the face photo.) -- 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 Dec 26 09:44:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA04545; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 09:41:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 09:41:48 -0800 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32C0E8F5.FF6D5DF@math.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 00:42:29 -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: Carl Sagan References: <1.5.4.32.19961222193243.0066cce8@atlantic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ckcW32.0.u61.PZhmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2916 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Kurt Johmann & Dean T. Miller concurr on: > >> Am I the only one who is kinda glad to see him go? >> To me, anyone who can be in as key a position as Sagan, >> privy to all sorts of inside information, and still deny the >> reality of UFO's, is simply intellectually dishonest Have you ever considered this might be because Sagan has never come across any convincing evidence that UFO's are extraterrestial spacecraft? (Obviously, Sagan does not deny the reality of unidentified flying objects, rather just one purported explanation of what they are). Or, are you arguing that you KNOW aliens are visiting us, and therefore Sagan is dishoinest? Of course, I could apply to same argument to "prove" you are deluded. > >I have to agree with you. Carl Sagan was a great teacher and >> PR guy for science -- conventional, non-experimental science. >> He was against *investigating* areas of conventional wisdom he > >was personally against -- like UFOs, astrology (there is some > >justification for non-personal, mundane astrology) and whether or > >not the Earth has been visited by aliens (Sagan said no aliens have > >visited, even though his own calculations show that there should have > >been several visits, at least). Sagan was also against other > >areas of real, but anomalous, science, such > >as varieties of ESP You are apparently ignorant of Sagan's opinions (which have probably varied over time). A good summary can be found in his 1995 and final book, Demon Haunted World. In there, he espouses the need for skeptical thinking, the scientific method, and a democratic society. In particular, the book makes it clear that Sagan put quite a bit of effort into investigating UFOs---certainly far more than most other academic scientists---and came up empty handed. Also, contrary to what you say, Sagan repeatedly emphasizes real experiment as a cornerstone of the scientific method and essential for the advancement of knowledge. Finally, also contrary to what you say, Sagan says there are three areas of psychic research he thinks deserve a thorough investigation (remote viewing, influence of random number generators, and memories of past lives by young children; not that he believes these are real, rather just that he feels there is sufficient cumulative evidence to justify a focused scientific effort within the mainstream of science to get to the bottom of things). Before you so vocally criticize someone, you might want to be more familiar with what they have really said, rather than what you think they have said. -- 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 Dec 26 10:21:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA16623; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 10:19:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 10:19:26 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 13:18:48 -0500 Message-ID: <961226131848_1356718674@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: plot of solution by Heffner and Znidarsic Resent-Message-ID: <"nv9Sr2.0.e34.i6imo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2917 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: plot of solution by Heffner and Znidarsic Date: 96-12-26 13:17:18 EST From: FZNIDARSIC To: FZNIDARSIC Test results PICK_ME ftp://members.aol.com/FZNIDARSIC/temp.gif Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 10:40:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA19754; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 10:39:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 10:39:00 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 09:39:16 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, Puthoff@aol.com, fstenger@interlaced.net From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Horrace found the solution I was looking for!!!!!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"1aJi12.0.Xq4.1Pimo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2918 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 12:12 PM 12/26/96, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: [snip] > >(19) t = (-1/2 + N) (c/v) (1/Fc) (for arbitratry integer N) > (Fc = the Compton frequency) > > [snip] > > Set N = -1/2 for one wavelength. > Frank, Glad to help, but this maybe isn't quite right yet because we had the assumption: "Note, if, because they are both 90 degrees, we simply set: (13) kt + Pi = kt[1+v/c] + (2Pi)N, for arbitrary integer N" If you set N = 1/2, not an integer, you are putting (kt + Pi) and (kt[1+v/c]) 180 degrees out of phase and thus solving the equation: sin(kt + Pi) + sin(kt[1+v/c] ) = 0 Not the original: (1a) sin(kt + Pi) + sin(kt[1+v/c] ) = 2 Is this OK with your interpretation? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 10:50:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA22812; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 10:49:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 10:49:17 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 09:49:40 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, Puthoff@aol.com, fstenger@interlaced.net From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Horrace found the solution I was looking for!!!!!!! Resent-Message-ID: <"i5RtK3.0.Ma5.iYimo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2919 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: sin(kt + Pi) + sin(kt[1+v/c] ) = 0 It is pure resonance isn't it Frank? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 11:00:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA24148; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 10:59:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 10:59:15 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9612261255.ZM18683@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 12:55:33 -0600 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: discpub@netzone.com Subject: Joe Champion experiment Cc: vortex-L@eskimo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"WyyYG2.0.Ev5.2iimo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2920 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >The chemical matrix utilized in the process has been published in private >texts, journals and displayed at conferences. No esoteric beads in this one. Looks like something fun to annoy the neighbors with. Can you be more specific on publications or can you post details? -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSS From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 11:14:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA26796; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 11:13:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 11:13:25 -0800 X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:13:12 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: PMM 1st and 2nd kinds Resent-Message-ID: <"83YT91.0.bY6.Kvimo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2921 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I had some more comments on perpetual motion machines (PMM) of the first and second kind. A PMM of the first kind makes energy out of nothing and violates the conservation of energy. I do not think such a machine exists because the proof of the conservation of energy (COE) is too good and it includes all known forces. Contrary to some suggestions made here there is a proof of COE for the combined effects of E&M and gravity. There is a proof of COE for quantum field theory which includes the effects of the ZPE fluctuations. In short, there is a proof of COE for all known forces acting in any combination and I see no reason to doubt it. Also if COE is violated the conservation of momentum (COM) is automatically violated. To see this on may use the Lorentz transformation to show that non COE in one frame gets directly converted to non COM in another frame. So if COM is violated then we can build spaceships that get thrust out of nothing and all the energy we need may be obtained also out of nothing. It then would be too easy to build spaceships to travel throughout the galaxy and take it over. Since no one out there has come here to take us over I consider it likely that this is impossible. While I believe a PMM of the first kind is impossible I think the work of the great investigator of there devices, Jed Rothwell, is very useful. He writes: "The devices made by Takahashi, Griggs, CETI, Mizuno, and Ohmori worked. I investigated them first hand, reported on them, and as far as I can determine they work. They have been replicated independently by other scientists. If Wharton believes "that is a very valuable service and Jed et al should be highly praised for their work" then he should accept my positive evaluations. Or at least take them seriously. It seems to me he is pleased to hear my reports of machines that fail while he ignores everything I have to say about the machines that work." I always give reports from Jed the highest weight because I have confidence in his objectivity, honesty, and determination to correctly evaluate the various devices. And after completely investigating each of these devices he always concludes that they do not work. I consider the remaining devices which he claims do work as an investigation in progress and when he has more information he will conclude that they also do not work. I do believe the reports he makes on investigations in progress but I am just waiting for the completion of the investigation. It takes time and I am confidant that in the future we will be hearing from Jed, for example, that the CETI stuff is a fraud just as he concluded that the Stanley Meyr Fuel Cell was a fraud. I did believe Jed's report of the apparent excess heat coming out of the CETI cell. However, no measurement of the chemical composition of the cell outflow verses the inflow was made so the change of the chemical potential energy was unknown. Claims of "excess enthalpy" made by George Miley are incorrect because the enthalpy was never evaluated and in any event it is not a relevant parameter. The proper parameter is the ambient temperature times the entropy change across the cell. The power given by Cv * Flow Rate * Ambient Temperature * Log ( Tout / Tin) must exceed the input power and this has never been demonstrated. If the temperature increase across the cell was associated with a chemical composition change then there is a simple way to test for it which I suggested. One may take the cell outflow, put it in an insulated container, let it sit around for a while and slosh it around a bit in order to simulates what goes on in the flow back around to the cell inflow. Then any chemical composition perturbation should have relaxed into the approximate state of the cell inflow and the temperature then may be taken. I think it likely that George Miley and the CETI people have done this test and found out that the apparent heat went away. I also think that they will never tell Jed about this and if he asks to do it himself the request will be refused. Note that after I suggested this test the most remarkable and easy to test claim from the Patterson Cell, the excess heat, has basically gone away as I predicted it would. The latest versions of the cells are intended to produce nuclear transmutations and the heat part of it is ignored. So I think that Jed's remaining list of PMMs of the first kind that work will be added to his list of frauds in the future. It is a continuous process. A new device is developed, for a time it appears that it works, but finally when enough information is obtained it is obvious that it does not work. Since PMMs of the first kind do not exist, my interest is in PMMs of the second kind which would extract energy from the ambient environment. The proof that such a device cannot exist has a problem when higher order dynamics are used (Burnett equations as opposed to Navier Stokes). Also the space ship argument does not apply as it would be very difficult to extract energy from the 3 degree black body spectrum and no thrust violating COM would be possible. Jed writes: "I have never heard of any machine like this. Such a machine would create a cold spot, which would be readily apparent. I cannot understand why Wharton would be interested in a machine that appears to violate the second law of thermodynamics, yet he is so quick to dismiss machines that he thinks violate the first law." I think it may be possible to theoretically prove that a PMM of the second kind can exist. The basic theory is described in my latest paper which I am in the process of submitting. And yes the cold spot would be readily apparent. That will make it easy to verify the operation of such a device. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 11:40:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA30588; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 11:38:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 11:38:59 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9612261335.ZM18965@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 13:35:25 -0600 In-Reply-To: "John Steck" "Joe Champion experiment" (Dec 26, 12:57pm) References: <9612261255.ZM18683@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Joe Champion experiment Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"72W653.0.oT7.IHjmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2922 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Dec 26, 12:57pm, John Steck wrote: > Subject: Joe Champion experiment > >The chemical matrix utilized in the process has been published in > private > >texts, journals and displayed at conferences. No esoteric beads in > this one. > > Looks like something fun to annoy the neighbors with. Can you be > more specific on publications or can you post details? > > -john > > -- > John E. Steck > Motorola CSS > >-- End of excerpt from John Steck Please ignore. Seems my post was delayed. -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSS From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 12:57:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA12481; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 12:54:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 12:54:35 -0800 Date: 26 Dec 96 15:52:24 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Message-ID: <961226205223_100433.1541_BHG75-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"wy2k5.0.x23.AOkmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2923 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I think that the Sagan issue (which of course has less impact here) is that someone who earlier appeared to be willing to take 'weird stuff' seriously did rather move to more conventionalist ways. I think that any populariser has to do this to a degree - he gets recognised by 'the mainstream', and then has every reason to play the tune they prefer to hear. For myself, I have little to comment on. But I did once hear this man saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," a statement so bizarre that I could hardly believe my ears. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 14:00:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA21760; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 13:58:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 13:58:21 -0800 Message-Id: <199612262144.OAA09844@nz1.netzone.com> X-Sender: discpub@netzone.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:57:46 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Joe Champion Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Resent-Message-ID: <"f2lV1.0.tJ5.xJlmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2924 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 03:52 PM 12/26/96 EST, you wrote: >For myself, I have little to comment on. But I did once hear this man >saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," a >statement so bizarre that I could hardly believe my ears. Bizarre, this is reality! _______________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 14:01:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA21842; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 13:59:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 13:59:14 -0800 Date: 26 Dec 96 16:57:06 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: PMM 1st and 2nd kinds Message-ID: <961226215705_100433.1541_BHG56-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"n91ed.0.BL5.nKlmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2925 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Larry Wharton writes: > If the temperature increase across the cell was associated with a > chemical composition change then there is a simple way to test for > it which I suggested. Oh, come on. A kilowatt out of a couple of pints of *recirculating* liquid? Some chemical change! Unless you can show me a mechanism, I beg leave to pay precisely no attention to that suggestion. And you say that you 'consider' that Jed will later find out that the machines don't work. You give no grounds for considering that. > I think it likely that George Miley and the CETI people have done > this test and found out that the apparent heat went away. And just precisely why do you think this? What grounds do you have for saying that it is 'likely'? Have you asked him? It seems to me that what you are calling 'likely' is that he is being dishonest. > So if COM is violated then we can build spaceships that get thrust > out of nothing and all the energy we need may be obtained also out > of nothing. It then would be too easy to build spaceships to > travel throughout the galaxy and take it over. Since no one out > there has come here to take us over I consider it likely that this > is impossible WHAT! This is bizarre! There happens to be rather more to taking over the Galaxy than a supply of free energy! Anyway, you could use a Bussard ramjet and a hot fusion plant - that would give a similar effect to a zpf drive ship. As for conservation of energy, that is a bit of a red herring. The original formulation was based on the lack of a PMM, and was rejected by Annalen Physik. It is now used to prove that PMMs cannot exist. the Principle is used as an assumptive basis for all of modern physics, so you can't argue that physics proves anything about the Principle. In fact, I would suggest that ultra-high precision checks on the Principle have not been done - any discrepancy is put down to experimental error nyway. The argument may be correct, but in actual logic it is based on circular reaonsing. No, I'm not arguing that the Principle is necessarily wrong, but what I *am* saying is that it is so much an article of faith that nobody ever bothers to question it. And we do not even know what 'energy' is. Conservation of Energy has needed one re-write already. It is a useful guide, but it might require further revisions in the future. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 14:29:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA26729; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:27:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:27:39 -0800 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:26:17 -0800 (PST) From: Nils Rognerud To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: Tom <100405.617@compuserve.com>, Nils Rognerud Subject: Re: Electrogravity: new web page - request for feedback... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"8e1wg3.0.ZX6.Pllmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2926 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: This is great. I was wondering where the nay-sayer, is in this group. We need a critical eye to keep all us yeah-sayers in check. I hope Larry Wharton stays around for the intire length of this email thread. His comments are most welcome, even though I think he is reacting emotionally rather than scientifically - and I'll show you why. I know the electrogravity theory tries to spit in the face of most scientists, but here is my 10 cents worth: 1) Weight of deutrons: Larry, tell me where you have read or heard anyone measuring the weight of deutrons? To my knowledge the only experiment to measure the weight (not mass) of elementray particles was en experiement on electrons at Stanford, years ago (see the introduction in my "Free Fall" paper. And, interestingly, they did not find any weight force on the electrons. The results were so disappointing that it was swept away as one with experimental errors and forgotten. I'd be most interested in any results you can refer me to. I know you will reply that mass and weight are linked together. My reply is, yes this may be true for atoms and molecules, but no experiment has shown this to be true for elementary particles, although most people make this assumption. We will not know who is right until the experiment is done. 2) Force outside of normal EM theory: I agree that there are no new fields outside of normal EM theory. However, and here is the important point: there is a way to produce a motional electric field which may look like an ordinary E-field, but in experiment it is not. I will refer to Hopper, but if you do not believe in his work, I refer you to Feynman (see ref. in my paper) who says there are some experiments that can not be explained unless we use the more fundamental vector potential, in cases where the magnetic fields are zero. Read my paper, and we'll talk more about it. 3) Theory and experiments: yes, I agree that theory should be formulated upon results and experiments, not the other way around. Most big discoveries are made by accident. For example, Hopper was puzzled in his early career to build a device to measure the speed of an airplane, through the magnetic earth field, inside a metalic container (like an airplane). His friends said it could not be done. Hooper did not agree. The Tampere experiment showed the smoke from a pipe to form special turbulence and patterns of the rotating cryogenic device. T. Brown noticed has capacitors weighed less when they were charged with high voltage (30,000-50,000 volts.) In all, there are several serious experiments and independent scientists who HAVE ALREADY DONE the experiments. What we need now is to spread the word about the elecrtogravity theory and get it applied and understood. All the best, -Nils Rognerud On Thu, 26 Dec 1996, Larry Wharton wrote: > I have some feedback about the theory that gravity is just the effect of > electrons rotating around the nucleus. The theory doesn't depend on the > mass of the nucleus, just the charge, so the gravitational attraction > between two hydrogen atoms is the same as between two deuterons. This is > wrong as the gravitational attraction between the deuterons would be about > twice as large. Then the L = 0 states would have no gravitational > attraction as there is no electron rotation. This is also wrong. The > theory calls for a motional electric field produced by moving magnetic > fields which is derived by a Lorentz transformation but which is different > from the normal electric field. This is incorrect. The Lorentz > transformation gives only normal electric fields and gives no fields or > forces that are outside of normal E&M theory. > The thing to look for is some force that is not predicted by normal E&M > theory. The important thing to do is to preform the experiments that can > demonstrate this anomalous force and then publish the results. Once this > force is proven and the properties are known the theory may then be > formulated. > > Lawrence E. Wharton > NASA/GSFC code 913 > Greenbelt MD 20771 > (301) 286-3486 > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 14:34:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA27505; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:33:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:33:08 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 13:33:33 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: AEH fuel - BBr2 or BBr3 Resent-Message-ID: <"o_LzI3.0.gj6.Zqlmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2927 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The following data from CRC Handbook, 74th edition: The density of Br2 (mol. wt. 159.808) is 2.928 (3.119) The density of B (mol. wt. 10.81) is 2.34 (2.37). The density of BBr2 (mol. wt. 250.52) is 2.6431. In parentheses are alternative forms of the substance. >From the above I calculate as follows the atomic volumes in cm^3/mol: Br2 (1/(2.928 g/cc))(159.808 g/mol) = 54.58 cm^3/mol (51.233) B (1/(2.34 g/cc))(10.81 g/mol) = 4.619 cm^3/mol (4.56) BBr2 (1/(2.928 g/cc))(250.52 g/mol) = 85.56 cm^3/mol Now 54.58 + 4.619 = 59.28 cm^3 for one gram molecular weight each of Br2 and and B. Yet combined, they form 85.56 cm^3. From this it would seem that BBr2 expands upon combination, with an expansion ratio of 1.44. However, the Sargent-Welch Scientific Co. periodic table shows the atomic diameters of B being 0.82 A covalent and 1.17 A atomic. Something is amiss here. For one, the molecular weight if 250.52 seems like it should be 159.808 + 10.81 = 170.618, a discrepancy of 79.902, about one Br atom. So, the BBr2 must be a misprint in the CRC, it *is* BBr3, boron tribromide. So we get 54.58 + 27.29 + 4.619 = 86.489 cm^3 to make 85.56 cm^3 of BBr2. That is the small expansion coefficient of only 1.01 percent. Not very good, but maybe enough to base an experiment upon, depending upon the effect of pressure on the reaction: 3 Br2 + 2 B <-> 2 BBr3 There must be something much better than this. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 15:07:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA00573; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 15:03:57 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 15:03:57 -0800 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:58:04 -0800 (PST) From: Nils Rognerud To: Quinney cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Electrogravity: new web page... In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19961224172636.0074e58c@inforamp.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"gKC1V2.0.W8.OHmmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2928 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: You may wish to check out a FAQ page that I am working on. Your questions from the recent email are in there, and please check back over the next few days as I add more replies and more questions. http://www.best.com/~rognerud/html/faq.html Please keep it up guys. You are asking very good questions. -Nils Rognerud From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 16:14:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA15865; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 16:12:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 16:12:35 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 15:12:54 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Electrogravity: new web page - request for feedback... Resent-Message-ID: <"pG_SQ.0.pt3.nHnmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2929 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 2:26 PM 12/26/96, Nils Rognerud wrote: [sniip] > >T. Brown noticed has capacitors weighed less when they were charged with >high voltage (30,000-50,000 volts.) > This is easily explained by compression of gas bubbles or insulating material due to pressure from the attraction of the plates, thus reducing the atmospheric bouyancy of the capacitor. To be valid such an experiment would have to be done in a vacuum. Was it? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 16:34:44 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA19292; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 16:33:18 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 16:33:18 -0800 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 16:32:51 -0800 (PST) From: Nils Rognerud To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Electrogravity: new web page - request for feedback... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"O8MJ32.0.Mj4.Ebnmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2930 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Yes, it sure was - for the reasons of ion air-currents. It was found to do better in vacuum. -Nilss On Thu, 26 Dec 1996, Horace Heffner wrote: > At 2:26 PM 12/26/96, Nils Rognerud wrote: > [sniip] > > > >T. Brown noticed has capacitors weighed less when they were charged with > >high voltage (30,000-50,000 volts.) > > > > > This is easily explained by compression of gas bubbles or insulating > material due to pressure from the attraction of the plates, thus reducing > the atmospheric bouyancy of the capacitor. To be valid such an experiment > would have to be done in a vacuum. Was it? > > > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 17:17:43 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA25945; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 17:15:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 17:15:48 -0800 From: Puthoff@aol.com Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 20:15:10 -0500 Message-ID: <961226201510_1855141168@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Resent-Message-ID: <"t3WrR.0.JL6.2Domo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2931 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Chris said: <> In spite of the swords I crossed with Sagan (and we did cross swords over earlier issues), I thought that this particular statement was OK! Hal From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 17:50:54 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA00737; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 17:49:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 17:49:28 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 16:49:37 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Electrogravity: new web page - request for feedback... Resent-Message-ID: <"RRYLa1.0.MB.ciomo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2932 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: A superficially shielded electrostatic effect may appear to be an unshieldable gravity effect. For example, I would like to suggest that at least one effect affecting Hooper's observations is the canellation of the normally compressing magnetic field by the opposed interleaved wires Hooper used. In an isolated wire the self induced circular magnetic field tends to compress or pinch the flowing electrons. However, if an immediately adjacent wire has electrons flowing in the opposite direction, the effect is to create a Lorentz force that drives the electrons in the second wire away from those in the first wire and vice versa. In a packed wire environement each wire, except the outside wires, is encircled by wires with opposing current. The effect should be to cancel the pinch, to cancel any lateral effect from the magnetic fields. Therefore the conduction band electrons should be free to move laterally in any direction without large magnetic effects. That direction would of course be away from the center of the bundle, resulting in a cumulatively strong negative field on the outside of the bundle. I say cumulatively, because the electrostatic repulsion of wires in inner layers adds to that of subsequent outer layers. Since the pinch effect is proportional to the current squared, and that effect is cancelled, the resulting elctrostatic effect should be proportional to the current squared. This implies that Hooper's effect might be understood completely within the realm of Maxwell's laws, depending on the nature of shielding employed in the experiment. Considering the magnetic effects in more detail: A current in a conductor out in space should have a Lorentz force induced by its own circular field that contracts the current toward the center of the conductor. Call this self induced Hall effect an "electron contraction effect". The contraction effect should leave a positive radial electric field immediately outside the wire: +.--.+ Current in two parallel conductors should generate circular magnetic fields that cause a Lorentz force that attracts the two conductors, and more specifically draws the electrons in the conductors towards the opposing curent conductors. This should leave electrons toward the closest sides and a deficit towards the outer sides, thus creating a bipolar electric field about each of the conductors: +.....- -.....+ Rows of conductors with opposed currents should produce magnetic fields that induce Lorentz forces that tend to pull electrons weekly outward in the plane of the conductors: +.....- -..+..- -..+..- -..+..- -.....+ This should create tripolar electrostatic fields in the interior conductors with an outer net positive field viewed in the plane of the conductors. In a three dimensional configuration, the opposing current in the outer conductors surrounding a central conductor is much larger than that in the central conductor, so in the central conductor the net effect should be to draw the electrons outward: + . ....... . - . - . . + . +.....- -.+++.- -.....+ . + . . - . - . ....... . + The net effect in all the inner conductors of a large bundle of wires with interleaved current directions should be to draw the electrons outward. Electrostatic field strength is additive from the central conductor outward. Net outer electrons in the central conductor should repel electrons in the next layer and so on. Net outer negative charge, and net gradient, accumulates from the central conductor through every layer except the final outer layer, where a positive increment is added. If there are many layers the radial charge increment added by the final outer layer should be exceeded by the total gradient from the many inner layers. Above I referred to the self-induced Hall effect upon a DC current in a single conductor the "electron contraction" effect in order to make sensible naming the opposite effect induced on wires internal to the bundle the "electron expansion" effect. This effect is not self induced, but rather induced by the much larger current in adjacent conductors, which carry current in the opposite direction. The large current is due to the number of adjacent conductors. The effect is characterized by the charge distribution induced on the central conductor in the prior diagram: + . ....... . - . - . . + . +.....- -.+++.- -.....+ . + . . - . - . ....... . + If the self-Hall effect can induce a positive external radial field gradient, then the larger effect, the electron expansion effect, can induce a negative radial field gradient about all internal conductors. In a large volume there are many more internal conductors than external, thus the expansion effect will prevail since the electrostatic radial field gradient is cumulative. Deep in the bundle the following diagram would be more characteristic of charge distributin in a conductor and 4 closest neighbors which have current in the opposing direction: - + -.+.+.- + - - - _ + + + -.+.+.- -.+.+.- -.+.+.- + + + - - - - + -.+.+.- + - If the wires are close enough, driving the current to the outside of the adjacent conductors only increases proximity and thus the Lorentz force, thus there is a feedback effect. The electrostatic effects should combine with the above Lorentz effects by driving more of the now "freed" outer electrons towards the outside surface of the bundle. The use of soft iron wire should magnify the Hooper effect many times, due to its high permeability. Soft iron wire is suggested as the wire of choice for the Hooper experiment because it is easy to work with due to its malleability, does not permanently magnetize (has low coercive force), has a high permeability, a high saturation flux density, and three mutually perpendicular easy directions of magnetization. Iron is an element so hopefully can be obtained in a fairly pure form, not alloyed with Si or other things which reduce its conductivity and other desirable characteristics. Iron also is less magnetostrictive than Co or Ni, so should distort less in operation. Steel is not nearly as good due to its higher coercive force and lower saturation density. If the other qualities could not be sacrificed too much, especially high perameability, high saturation flux density and low coercive force, it would be good to find an alternative with higher conductivity. Q:Has an iron wire based test of Hooper's experiment ever been conducted? It is important to note that neither a conductive wrapper shield nor grounded coil will shield the proposed effect. An outer charge will "magically" appear on a shielding conductive surface, due to displacement of the electrons outwardly, even though the net charge inside the shield does not change. Q;Was Hooper's shield grounded properly? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 17:55:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA01326; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 17:53:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 17:53:51 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 20:53:32 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: tilleyrw@digital.net (Robert Tilley) Subject: Re: CF, Hydrides, ANY information about ANY subject ... Lithium Resent-Message-ID: <"7235Q3.0.dK.jmomo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2933 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >> >> Tom Miller >> Are you the Tom Miller who attended Brigewater College during the late 1980's/early 1990's? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Tilley | "Be very careful what you wish tilleyrw@digital.net | for, you just might get it." robert.tilley-1@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov | -- Anonymous From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 18:37:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA08597; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 18:35:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 18:35:36 -0800 Message-ID: <32C34499.4D28@gorge.net> Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 19:38:01 -0800 From: tom@gorge.net (Tom Miller) Reply-To: tom@gorge.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CF, Hydrides, ANY information about ANY subject ... Lithium References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"9CWXR3.0.B62.sNpmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2934 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: sorry, but no. Twenty years earlier, and in Texas. Tom Miller tom@gorge.net From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 19:56:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA24419; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 19:54:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 19:54:51 -0800 From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Horrace found the solution I was looking for!!!!!!! Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 03:54:34 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32c7468e.20431590@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <961226121209_1155506480@emout13.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <961226121209_1155506480@emout13.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.354 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"VShfE3.0.Rz5.9Yqmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2935 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 26 Dec 1996 12:12:10 -0500, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: [snip] >Horrace you have done it!!! I can't help but to think that the answer is of >great value! >To finish the work. > > > Set N = -1/2 for one wavelength. > > And sent Fc = Mcc/h > >t = (c/v) (h/Mcc) > >tc = h/Mv > >tc = wavelength > >deBroglie wavelength = h/Mv This is reminiscent of the work of De Broglie himself isn't it? >.............................................................................. >...................... > >I knew there was a great answer there but I'm still not sure what it all >means. I been working on this for a long time and this is what I think it >means: > >The deBrogle wavelength has much to do with the central quantum mystery, > observer determined realities. Matter is a real wave!!! The solution shows >this, it is new!! It says much. I think this was also his conclusion. > >The solution demonstrats that there is a potential well at the surface of >matter and that a force is produced at the surface of matter. Whether the potential well is at the surface of particles, or at the centre, forms a crucial part of the analysis which can be found in: Jennison, R.C. "What is an Electron?" Wireless World, June 1979. p. 43. BTW Jennison also provides both an explanation for the quantum nature of matter and a working model as proof of his theory, in this article.:) >Once we know the force exists and that gravity and force share a symmetrical >realtionship a model of matter my be developed that shows that this force at >the potential well (surface of matter) generates gravitational mass and >inertial mass. > >Grav field = G(dp/dt)/(ccr) > > I have solved this second part of puzzle on the elecktromagnum page. There >you have it...an inside out version of Puthoff's model. Editors beware, I >intend to publish a modified version of this stuff. Anyone have any more >insights??? Frank, You may also be interested in the work of Charles Cagle. See: http://www.teleport.com/~singtech [snip] 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 Thu Dec 26 22:33:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA15618; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 22:25:49 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 22:25:49 -0800 Message-ID: <32C36BEA.4F5F@worldnet.att.net> Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 20:25:48 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Carl Sagan References: <961226201510_1855141168@emout09.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"IFRvS3.0.yp3.hlsmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2936 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hal Puthoff wrote: > > Chris said: > > < saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," a > statement so bizarre that I could hardly believe my ears.>> > > In spite of the swords I crossed with Sagan (and we did cross swords over > earlier issues), I thought that this particular statement was OK! > > Hal Do you mean it's ok because it's practical in the sense that you *will* have to produce extraordinary proof for some extraordinary claim you may have adopted as your own particular crusade? I suppose as a practical suggestion or as folk wisdom it's ok, but it still grates - I'm with Chris on this. It's bizarre. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Thu Dec 26 23:51:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA27483; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 23:49:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 23:49:21 -0800 Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: Carl Sagan To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 01:49:14 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <32C36BEA.4F5F@worldnet.att.net> from "Rick Monteverde" at Dec 26, 96 08:25:48 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: <"uBo0C.0.Kj6._ztmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2937 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Rick Monteverde wrote: > Hal Puthoff wrote: > > Chris said: > > < > saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," a > > statement so bizarre that I could hardly believe my ears.>> > > > > In spite of the swords I crossed with Sagan (and we did cross swords over > > earlier issues), I thought that this particular statement was OK! > > Do you mean it's ok because it's practical in the sense that you *will* > have to produce extraordinary proof for some extraordinary claim you may > have adopted as your own particular crusade? I suppose as a practical > suggestion or as folk wisdom it's ok, but it still grates - I'm with > Chris on this. It's bizarre. We have two routes to knowledge, theory and evidence. When we rail against the orthodoxy, we are disputing current theory on the premise that it is based upon incomplete or erroneous evidence. As a practical matter, we weigh the validity of evidence on its importance to whatever it is we value. If your neighbor tells you it is sunny out, you may leave home without an umbrella without demanding to know his credientals to determine weather patterns. If on the other hand he offers you investment advice regarding real estate in Florida, your requirement of evidence usually goes up. People who value fidelity to reality usually have high standards of proof for empirical evidence. People who find reality to be an inconvenience are less likely to be so demanding. Sagan's advice represents his particular subjective valuations, and it is well within the range of human norms, so the claim that it is a "bizarre" position strikes me as rather bizarre itself. -- - 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 Dec 26 23:51:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA27756; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 23:50:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 23:50:07 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961227030801.009e40c4@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 03:08:41 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Electrogravity: new web page - request for feedback... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"ZzNus1.0.Wn6.i-tmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2938 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hello Nils: Here are some ideas, and some questions for your FAQ page. At 12:26 PM 12/25/96 -0800, Nils Rognerud wrote: > >Regarding the Hooper-coil stuff, I have built many version, having most >success with material (not copper) which has high electron-drift velocity, >like semiconductors. >This is opposite of what most researcher are thinking >with superconductivity etc, but the formulas from Hooper and in my own >paper, indicate that the drift velocity is an important element in the >formula, which may be easier to manipulate than increasing currents. When >you start dealing with current of 200 amperes plus, you are quickly >reaching your practical limits with inexpensive electronics components. > Your approach to increasing the velocity instead of the current is exemplary. Several of us had noticed this in the Hooper formula, but had not yet done any experiments to utilize that advantage. You are to be congratulated. >Keep in mind that drift velocities in most copper wires within the >normal range of currents, are in the order of inches per hour(!). In most >semiconductors the drift velocity is several orders of magnitudes faster, >not to mention electron beams in vacum etc. Taking this to the extreme then, would you predict that the highest strength ANTIgravity fields may be achieved with a vortex of very high radial velocity positive ions, using perhaps, some form of light-weight cyclotron to keep them continuously circulating.? >There are many ways to improve >upon the Hooper coil which only produces nanoVolts or microVolts effects. >The Hooper coil design is every hard to measure and does not produce a real >nice measureable effect elecrtonically or gravitionally. A suggestion: If you haven't already "been there, done that", one improved technique of experimental "coil winding" could be a ribbon of semi conductive (or to a lesser effect, metalized) plastic, 'wound' zig-zag fashion to cancel the EM, and folded flat. With a very slight parabolic bend, the resulting Motional Electric Field could be focussed 'some' distance away, well away from the (residual EM) shielding, for a better S:Noise ratio on the electrometer and the other instruments. Hopefully, the Motional Electric Field will be of sufficient strength so that there can be no misinterpretation as to its nature. Regarding your Test Results; Some Questions: 1. Did you use an electrometer? What were your results? 2. On any gravitational measurements, what % weight change did you achieve? 3. Could you expand on your coil design configurations? 4. What was the actual 'high electron-drift velocity' material that you used? 5. Are you aware of any tables with the different electron-drift velocities for various types of conductors and semi-conductors? 6. Can you supply us with your completed test results, or are you intending on publishing first? Thanks for your (anticipated) response, Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 27 02:15:30 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA05815; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 02:12:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 02:12:47 -0800 Message-ID: <32C3A136.1231@worldnet.att.net> Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 00:13:25 -1000 From: Rick Monteverde X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Carl Sagan References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"tvsHO2.0.nQ1.T4wmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2939 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John Logajan wrote: > We have two routes to knowledge, theory and evidence. When we rail > against the orthodoxy, we are disputing current theory on the premise > that it is based upon incomplete or erroneous evidence. > > As a practical matter, we weigh the validity of evidence on its importance > to whatever it is we value. If your neighbor tells you it is sunny out, > you may leave home without an umbrella without demanding to know his > credientals to determine weather patterns. If on the other hand he > offers you investment advice regarding real estate in Florida, your > requirement of evidence usually goes up. > > People who value fidelity to reality usually have high standards of > proof for empirical evidence. People who find reality to be an > inconvenience are less likely to be so demanding. > > Sagan's advice represents his particular subjective valuations, > and it is well within the range of human norms, so the claim that > it is a "bizarre" position strikes me as rather bizarre itself. > > -- > - 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 - John, it's the idea of "extraordinary proof" that's the problem. Not just "evidence", as in your real estate example above. I'd want some extraordinarily good evidence for that sort of investment too. Maybe even...proof! If you prove something, then you've proven it already. The phrase "extraordinary proof" is nothing more than doublespeak designed to undermine the credibility of evidence for certain controversial subjects to which C.S. was personally opposed. It grates because so many intelligent (and other) people buy into the phrase because it sounds superficially reasonable and even catchy like some of Jesse Jackson's silly slogans, even though on closer examination it is logically nonsense. You are right about one thing, that the degree to which a claim is considered extraordinary is a subjective thing, and it does take more energy to move something in against what is essentially prejudice. And it does follow on *that* basis that the the criteria for what one considers to constitute proof shifts accordingly. That's what I was referring to in acknowledging a certain validity to it, in a sense, as if from a marketing point of view. But from a strictly rational point of view, such doublespeak is not only bizarre but unfortunate when coming from a well known and respected public figure and teacher. - Rick Monteverde Honolulu, HI From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 27 02:52:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA09191; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 02:51:40 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 02:51:40 -0800 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 21:51:32 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Big-O-Tires & Wesson Oil In-Reply-To: <961226025049_76570.2270_FHU40-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"b4swb2.0.XF2.xewmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2940 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 25 Dec 1996, Eugene Mallove wrote: > There was a glitch and the demonstration did not occur as scheduled. The > equipment was not ready, for some reason -- as reported to me by Hal Fox. > > I will let Vortexians know further developments. > This sounds remarkable familiar.... Of all the big promises only CETI has delivered what was expected (or more!) Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 27 02:56:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA09775; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 02:55:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 02:55:37 -0800 Date: 27 Dec 96 05:54:06 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Message-ID: <961227105405_100433.1541_BHG71-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ONPOk2.0.aO2.diwmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2941 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hal, > < require extraordinary evidence," a statement so bizarre that I > could hardly believe my ears.>> > > In spite of the swords I crossed with Sagan (and we did cross > swords over earlier issues), I thought that this particular > statement was OK! Well, my own view is that it is no more than a restatement of the Argument from Authority. A claim cannot require, and its extraordinariness is subjective. Accordingly, the sentence translates to mean: "I (or we) require from claims which we subjectively determine to be extraordinary, a level of evidence which we would normally not require." Of course, it implies the converse - namely that a claim we think is 'ordinary' needs little evidence before we accept it. What I find 'bizarre' about it is the apparent lack of thought with which Sagan reframed the argument from authority to make it look better than it does when stated baldly. His dictum can be applied to just about all forward leaps in science. For example, stomach ulcers were believed to be caused by stress. Sounds reasonable, it is not an 'extraordinary' claim. But there was precisely zero evidence. Every believed it, so when Marshall came along his claim of a bacterial cause was 'extraordinary', so he had to campaign for twelve years even after he had secure clinical evidence. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 27 02:56:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA09793; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 02:55:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 02:55:46 -0800 Date: 27 Dec 96 05:54:08 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Message-ID: <961227105407_100433.1541_BHG71-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"9zn8B2.0.cO2.diwmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2942 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: John, > Sagan's advice represents his particular subjective valuations, > and it is well within the range of human norms, so the claim that > it is a "bizarre" position strikes me as rather bizarre itself. I admit it. I find the entirety of humanity pretty bizarre. What I find most bizarre is that the particular humans who claim (or are considered by others to have) well-disciplined minds are just as (or frequently very much more) illogical than the ordinary fellow. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 27 03:17:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id DAA12779; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 03:15:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 03:15:17 -0800 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 22:15:10 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: PMM 1st and 2nd kinds In-Reply-To: <961226215705_100433.1541_BHG56-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"Vl20U2.0.b73.3_wmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2943 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 26 Dec 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > > As for conservation of energy, that is a bit of a red herring. The > original formulation was based on the lack of a PMM, and was rejected by > Annalen Physik. It is now used to prove that PMMs cannot exist. the > Principle is used as an assumptive basis for all of modern physics, so > you can't argue that physics proves anything about the Principle. In > fact, I would suggest that ultra-high precision checks on the Principle > have not been done - any discrepancy is put down to experimental error > nyway. The argument may be correct, but in actual logic it is based on > circular reaonsing. > > No, I'm not arguing that the Principle is necessarily wrong, but what I > *am* saying is that it is so much an article of faith that nobody ever > bothers to question it. And we do not even know what 'energy' is. > > Conservation of Energy has needed one re-write already. It is a useful > guide, but it might require further revisions in the future. > There are very sound theoretical principles that "prove" that energy and momentum are conserved. These are that time and space are isotropic. That is that there is no particular distinction between places in space-time. With this assumption it is very easy to show that energy and momentum must be conserved. Now if the very bizarre Tempere experiments really show Gravity shielding effects then both energy and momentum conserved are out the window. As John Logajan has showed, if this effect is real it is quite possible to extract energy from the device basically because there is a local region of space-time that is not isotropic. Interestingly, a high-powered theoretical Physicist, who is also a Star-Trek fan, has shown that something like FTL travel is possible with a local gravitational anomaly that moves with the vessel. This is basically the warp drive phenomena used by the Enterprise. This paper has been published in peer reviewed Journal. I asked a very good friend who specialises in General Relativity about this. He says that yes, this warp drive is a valid solution of General relativity. Of course, no one knows how to make it! Anyway, both the warp drive, and the inflationary phase of the early Universe are both examples of situations where space-time is not isotropic and neither conserve energy. Both are valid solutions of General Relativity. Both also require extremely different conditions to those prevailing in the region of Earth! Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 27 06:17:16 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id GAA26970; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 06:15:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 06:15:52 -0800 Date: 27 Dec 96 09:13:44 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Big-O-Tires & Wesson Oil Message-ID: <961227141343_76570.2270_FHU36-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"SOb6j2.0.3b6.Mezmo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2944 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Martin Sevior writes: "This sounds remarkable familiar.... Of all the big promises only CETI has delivered what was expected (or more!)" Not true at all! Paul Pantone demonstrated his device in public in Denver last April -- five times in one day - I was there! Now he is selling the devices for test -- NOT leasing them. In fact, I have one -- as I mentioned earler. Martin is also forgetting the Correas who have been extremely forthcoming with their data. They are well on the way toward commercialization because they have not acted squirrley to legitimate investment groups and serious scientists, i.e. those who do not believe that existing "accepted" physical theory is holy writ. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 27 07:23:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA02498; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:22:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:22:12 -0800 X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 10:21:59 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: zpe paper Resent-Message-ID: <"qDHJ43.0.xc.Yc-mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2945 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: A paper by Hal Putoff was mentioned on spf. I would recommend reading it for those of you interested in this topic. It is at: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/anthro/fortpages/ZPE.html Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 27 07:45:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA05655; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:44:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:44:08 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 10:43:31 -0500 Message-ID: <961227104330_371431419@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, Puthoff@aol.com, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Subject: Horrace found the answer..I cleaned it up a bit. Resent-Message-ID: <"Rrwt.0.HO1.5x-mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2946 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: MATTERS DYNAMIC ATTRIBUTES A dynamic attribute of matter, its wavelength, also results from an applied force. As stated, the original wavelength of the photon represents the Compton wavelength of matter. Equation #18 expresses the Compton wavelength. Lc = h/Mc Eq #18 Equation #19 gives the relationship between frequency and wavelength. c = (f) (L) Eq #19 Substituting Eq #19 into Eq. #18 yields Eq #20 the Compton frequency of matter. Fc = Mcc/h Eq. #20 A doppler shifted component of the original frequency is produced by the reflection at matter's surface. Classical doppler shift is given by Eq #21. F1 = F2 (1 + - v/c) Eq #21 A beat note is formed by the mixing of the doppler shifted and original components. This beat note is the deBroglie wave of matter. 13 Equation #22 and Figure #3 express a function involving the sum of two sin waves. Beat-note-pattern PICK_ME f(t)= amplitude original wave + amplitude reflected wave Eq #22 f(t) = sin(2 pie t + pie) + sin[2 pie f t(1 + - v/c)] Eq #22.1 Substituting Eq #20 into Eq #22.1 yields Eq #23. f(t) = sin[2 pie t (Mcc/h)+ pie] + sin[2 pie t(Mcc/h)(1 + - v/c)] Eq #23 A minimum in the beat note envelope occurs when the component waves are opposed in phase. At time zero the angles differ by pie radians. Time zero is a minimum in the beat note envelope. A maximum in the beat envelope occurs when the component waves are in phase. To determine the time when in phase condition occurs the angles were set equal. Refer to Equation #24. 2 pie tMcc/h + pie = 2 pie tMcc/h + - 2 pie tMcv/h Eq #24 ct = + - h/2Mv Eq #25 Ld = h/Mv Eq #26 The result, Equation #26, is the deBroglie wavelength of matter From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 27 08:13:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA10866; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 08:11:42 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 08:11:42 -0800 X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 11:11:27 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Electrogravity: new web page - request for feedback... Resent-Message-ID: <"xl79R2.0.ff2.yK_mo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2947 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In response to Nils Rognerud's comment: >1) Weight of deutrons: Larry, tell me where you have read or heard anyone >measuring the weight of deutrons? To my knowledge the only experiment to >measure the weight (not mass) of elementray particles was en experiement >on electrons at Stanford, years ago (see the introduction in my "Free >Fall" paper. And, interestingly, they did not find any weight force on >the electrons. The results were so disappointing that it was swept away as >one with experimental errors and forgotten. > >I'd be most interested in any results you can refer me to. I know you will >reply that mass and weight are linked together. My reply is, yes this may >be true for atoms and molecules, but no experiment has shown this to be >true for elementary particles, although most people make this assumption. >We will not know who is right until the experiment is done. > There is a large body of evidence showing that the gravitational force on elementary particles is equal to the gravitational acceleration times the inertial mass. It comes from the physics of planetary ionospheres. I will mention a few examples: The gravitational polarization field: In a hydrogen plasma the protons are much more massive than the electrons and an electric field given by qE = mg develops to balance the gravitational force. This field has been measured and it agrees with theory. The gravitational drift: The drift of a charged particle in a magnetic field is given by: v = c(F/q) cross B / B^2 the component from the gravitational force comes from setting F/q = mg/q and this drift is observed. Ion density drop off with altitude: The gravitational force causes an exponential ion density drop with altitude off like the effect in the neutral atmosphere. If there were no gravity the neutral atmosphere would escape out into space. The same thing would happen with the ions except that they would be constrained to move along the magnetic field lines. This does not happen and the ion density decreases with altitude due to gravity. Of course the most simple test is to weigh a hydrogen gas. At room temperature the vast majority of the electron states will be L=0 states with no electron rotation and hence the weight should be zero. Hydrogen gas has been weighed and the weight is as expected and not zero. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 27 09:52:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA31431; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 09:50:00 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 09:50:00 -0800 Message-ID: <32C41AD9.5BAC@gorge.net> Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 10:52:09 -0800 From: tom@gorge.net (Tom Miller) Reply-To: tom@gorge.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Carl Sagan References: <32C3A136.1231@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"n2QkT1.0.ug7.5n0no"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2948 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: RE: Real estate example: >From personal experience in real estate, I can tell you that : 1. A certain segment of people buying real estate prefer to take advice from anyone, even the village idiot, over "expert, informed advice." 2. When someone "falls in love" with a property, he/she does not hear any information which would cause them to turn away from it. 3. A large percentage of those who put themselves forward as "experts" in real estate are either criminally negligent or engage in intentional fraud. The same observations can be made with regard to CF, or other things which run counter to "physics experts." The *ONLY* important issue is *TRUTH*. The point is to find out the actual physical reality behind any experimental result, rather than twisting the result to conform to our prejudice, whether that prejudice is gullibility, or conformity to "laws," which may not be be valid in this specific case. Tom Miller From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 27 13:52:57 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA14710; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 13:50:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 13:50:13 -0800 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 13:46:12 -0800 (PST) From: Nils Rognerud To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: Tom <100405.617@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Electrogravity: new web page - request for feedback... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"ALXIg1.0.hb3.II4no"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2949 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: (See comments below) -Nils Rognerud On Fri, 27 Dec 1996, Larry Wharton wrote: > In response to Nils Rognerud's comment: > > >1) Weight of deutrons: Larry, tell me where you have read or heard anyone > >measuring the weight of deutrons? To my knowledge the only experiment to > >measure the weight (not mass) of elementray particles was en experiement > >on electrons at Stanford, years ago (see the introduction in my "Free > >Fall" paper. And, interestingly, they did not find any weight force on > >the electrons. The results were so disappointing that it was swept away as > >one with experimental errors and forgotten. > > > >I'd be most interested in any results you can refer me to. I know you will > >reply that mass and weight are linked together. My reply is, yes this may > >be true for atoms and molecules, but no experiment has shown this to be > >true for elementary particles, although most people make this assumption. > >We will not know who is right until the experiment is done. > > > > There is a large body of evidence showing that the gravitational force on > elementary particles is equal to the gravitational acceleration times the > inertial mass. It comes from the physics of planetary ionospheres. I will > mention a few examples: > > The gravitational polarization field: In a hydrogen plasma the protons are > much more massive than the electrons and an electric field given by > > qE = mg > > develops to balance the gravitational force. This field has been measured > and it agrees with theory. Yes... I am glad you show me this. We now have further proof that gravity is an electric field. YOu say it has been measured? This is great. You may also like to know that the Earth atmosphere also develops an electrostatic field to counte-act the electrogravity fields. This is why we have thunderclouds which on average are more negative on the bottom that top. And the electrostatic polarity of the atmoshpere is positive on top - supporting the elctrogravity theory exactly! Your experiment does not show that elementary particles have weight. It only shows that elementary particles are displaced in en electrogravity field (which still acts directly on charges without the dielectric mechanism explained on my web page: www.best.com/~rognerud/html/free_fall_summary.html) and counteracted by an equal and opposite electrostatic field. Most interesting experiment, though. Do you have an exact reference to a paper? Good work, Larry. > The gravitational drift: The drift of a charged particle in a magnetic > field is given by: > > v = c(F/q) cross B / B^2 > > the component from the gravitational force comes from setting > F/q = mg/q and this drift is observed. > > Ion density drop off with altitude: The gravitational force causes an > exponential ion density drop with altitude off like the effect in the > neutral atmosphere. If there were no gravity the neutral atmosphere would > escape out into space. The same thing would happen with the ions except > that they would be constrained to move along the magnetic field lines. > This does not happen and the ion density decreases with altitude due to > gravity. Again, you must think of gravity as two effects which can come into play depending whether you have an atom or a charged particle. Atoms will experience gravity due to the special dielectric effect, charged particles will experience gravity directly as an elecrtic field with magnitude and direction. > Of course the most simple test is to weigh a hydrogen gas. At room > temperature the vast majority of the electron states will be L=0 states > with no electron rotation and hence the weight should be zero. Hydrogen > gas has been weighed and the weight is as expected and not zero. Of course hydrogen gas will weigh something. However, are you saying that hydrogen at L=0 does not have a dielectric constant? Remember the electrogravity field will cause the hydrogen atom to experience a force due to the dielectric effect. You keep thinking of gravity as a separate force. It is not. It is only a pseduforce from the dielectric behaviour of all materials. If hydrogen gas at L=0 has a dielectric constant of zero, then the electrogravity model is flawed. However, all materials that I have seen so far, have dielectric constants <> zero - therefor electrogravity produces a force - which has been thought to be its own force (which it is not). Real good questions, Larry. You have been paying attention. Please send me more. I enjoy this very much. > Lawrence E. Wharton > NASA/GSFC code 913 > Greenbelt MD 20771 > (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 27 15:15:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA26035; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 15:13:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 15:13:52 -0800 X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 18:13:40 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: E-Quest homepage Resent-Message-ID: <"4xL-O3.0.iM6.kW5no"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2950 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: The E-Quest home page at: http://www.hooked.net/~rgeorge/sonof.html has some new reports on sono-fusion and I must say that the results seem to be very impressive. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 27 15:37:08 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA29019; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 15:35:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 15:35:29 -0800 Message-Id: <199612272335.PAA19608@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 15:36:23 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: E-Quest web site now up Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"IHARh.0.L57._q5no"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2951 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I have spent some of the holidays working to spruce up my E-Quest web site. It's at http://www.hooked.net/~rgeorge/sonof.html It is evolving day be day and I'd appreciate any comments and criticisms. Russ George From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 27 15:40:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA29595; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 15:39:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 15:39:11 -0800 X-Sender: protech@mail.frii.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 17:29:58 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: protech@frii.com (R. Wormus) Subject: Exotic Atom Model & Cold Fusion Resent-Message-ID: <"udpeu.0.HE7.Tu5no"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2952 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: An exotic atom model is described at: http://blues.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/exo.html as it may relate to Quantum Consciousness. It seems that this might also be a model for low energy transmutations. Comments. ___Ron From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Fri Dec 27 16:01:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA32645; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 16:00:20 -0800 Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 16:00:20 -0800 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 15:57:46 -0800 (PST) From: Nils Rognerud To: vortex-l@eskimo.com cc: hheffner@anc.ak.net Subject: Re: Electrogravity: new web page - request for feedback... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"uoR8N3.0._z7.JC6no"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2953 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Re. using iron wire in Hooper coil: I have not heard anyone try it. Perhaps someone should test it. Great thinking, Horace. Re. Hooper grounding: according to research assistant Francis Gibson, Hooper has some problem with his experiment until he adjusted ground to be exactly midpoint (electrically speaking) between the positive and negative terminal for his Hoooper coil. I guess you can say the shield was not Earth ground, but it was a midpoint or neutral voltage point. -Nils Rognerud From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 00:07:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA14525; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 00:05:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 00:05:58 -0800 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 09:02:08 +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: CETI Beads Resent-Message-ID: <"eiUmH.0.pY3.aJDno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2954 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I am wondering if the statement : "The beads are not optimized for heat production" is not a way of saying : "We now fail to reproduce beads which perform as well as the ones used for Monaco, SOFE and Powergen" Jean deLagarde From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 02:06:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA21460; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 01:52:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 01:52:05 -0800 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 96 01:51:56 PST From: Barry Merriman Message-Id: <9612280951.AA01508@joshua.math.ucla.edu> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI Beads Resent-Message-ID: <"bzhUq2.0.EF5.3tEno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2955 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Yes, you are correct---i.e. the reason CETI does not sell an excess heat kit is because they cannot make beads of sufficent quality in sufficient quantity for such a purpose. Supposedly, some of the early batches of beads, such as those used in their public demos, were of unusually good quality. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 08:44:47 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA27151; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 08:42:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 08:42:59 -0800 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 17:39:51 +0100 Message-Id: <199612281639.RAA00352@atom.bbtt.com> X-Sender: harti@bbtt.de (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: JNaudin509@aol.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: Re: Bedini Motor questions...??? Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com, gwatson@enternet.com.au Resent-Message-ID: <"xn9XH3.0.kd6.GuKno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2956 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jean-Louis Naudin (JNaudin509@aol.com)wrote > >I have tried to build some Bedini's machines (G-Field generator, Adams like >motor, Scalar generator...), but now, i don't find unfortunately any >overunity energy in those machines. Concerning the G-Field generator I have >built the "2.5 Watt R.Cole generator plan's" : > >I have used : > >- Two coils made with 450 turns of 0.35 mm wire (0.01 H inductance). Coils >have 2 cm X 2 cm section and its made with iron rods. >- 4 barrium ferrite magnets, drived by a "Graupner Seed 600/8.4 V motor >model" ( this motor is used on remote control scaled glider plane model, you >can find it in any air scale model shop ). > >You can find this G-field generator plan in Bedini lab's note at : >http://rand.nidlink.com/~john1/motor.html > >The G-Field generator use 2 modes for energy recovery (Voltage mode (VTG in >Bedini's picture) and Current mode (CUR in Bedini's picture)) and we could >collected energy in AC or in DC (through an AC/DC diodes bridge) > >- in Voltage mode (VTG) : The two coils are connected in serial mode (take >care of adding phase voltage). >- in Current mode (CUR) : The two coils are connected in parallel mode (take >care of adding phase current). > >RESULTS : > >G-Field generator turn at 2400 RPM with 24 Watt input ( 8 volts, 3 A DC) >Signal waveforms on scope have the same shape of Bedini's G-Field showed in >picture with frequency of 40 Hz at 2400 RPM. > >AC mode with NO LOAD > In CUR mode : 9.2 Volts RMS output > In VTG mode : 19 Volts RMS output > >AC mode with LOAD ( 5 watt 12 volt lamp ) > In CUR mode : U = 8 volts / I = 0.252 A power output about 3.5 Watt > In VTG mode : U= 11.4 volts / I = 0.31 A power output about 2 Watt > >DC mode with NO LOAD > In CUR mode : U = 15 volts > In VTG mode : U = 29.5 volts > >DC mode with LOAD ( 5 watt 12 volt lamp ) > In CUR mode : U = 8.4 volts / I = 0.25 A power output about 2.1 Watt > In VTG mode : U= 7.1 volts / I = 0.22 A power output about 1.56 Watt > >In my next message, I will attached my G-Field motor picture. > I have some remarks regarding this measurements: The measurements are made with load and without load. I am missing the power data needed to drive the motor with load and without load. The power data of the driving motor given above do not allow to estimate whether there is some hope in this setup . The difference of the power values of the motor with and without load should be compared with the power drawn from the G- field generator. Then it can be ruled out whether internal losses causes the negativ result or whether the result seems to stem from the physics. In addition I have a question: Are the cores of the coils laminated to prevent eddy currents in the iron cores ? According to Brown's observations it should be necessary ! Best regards Dieter Bauer forwarded by harti@harti.de to freenrg-l and vortex-l From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 08:45:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA27244; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 08:43:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 08:43:24 -0800 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 17:39:58 +0100 Message-Id: <199612281639.RAA00356@atom.bbtt.com> X-Sender: harti@bbtt.de (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: Energy conservation for spins ?? Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com, freenrg-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"x33XW.0.af6.duKno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2957 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: There was a very good critics of my Brown-Ecklin article by Lawrence Wharton which points to an open question: > > Sorry, but conservation of energy works just fine for spin. To see this >you need to know the equation of motion for a particle with spin. And so >this gets you into quantum mechanics since spin is intrinsically a QM >effect. The best way to look at this is with the Dirac equation. The >stress energy tensor Sab (with the a and b denoting covariant subscripts) >for the combined Dirac and electromagnetic field is: > > Sab = Tab + m P G0 Ga Gb P > >with Tab the electromagnetic stress energy tensor, m the particle mass, P >the Dirac wave function and Ga the dirac matric for index a with >G0=G1G2G3G4 . If you like you can work this out and you will see that >energy is conserved just fine. > >Lawrence E. Wharton >NASA/GSFC code 913 >Greenbelt MD 20771 >(301) 286-3486 > Being not an expert in quantum mechanics I asked some people whether there exist energy conservation relations for spins and I got no answer. Therefore I am quite pleased to get a reasonable remark now. But as far as I believe to know this formulas of Dirac refer to single electrons, but not to a collective spin system like an ferromagnetic material which is more complicated. I am not able to decide the question now. As far as I know it is the first time that quantum mechanics has to be applied in electromechanical engineering. Normally no engineer dares about that question. But nevermind, the point is an open question and should be solved ! > Please let me know any other comments about it. Best regards Dieter Bauer forwarded by harti@harti.de -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany NEUE Nummern : Tel: ++ 4930-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 4930-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.harti.de Webmaster of: http://www.detours.de Have a look at the future: http://www.overunity.de My favourite ladies on the WEB: http://www.nylon-fetish.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 09:29:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA04491; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 09:20:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 09:20:48 -0800 Date: 28 Dec 96 12:19:03 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: CETI Beads Message-ID: <961228171902_76016.2701_JHC69-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"AvmaM2.0.161.kRLno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2958 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Jean deLagarde said: >>I am wondering if the statement : "The beads are not optimized for heat production" is not a way of saying : "We now fail to reproduce beads which perform as well as the ones used for Monaco, SOFE and Powergen"<< I thought the heat producing beads had a polymer substrate and the transmutation beads used a ceramic substrate. As I posted recently, a representative of CETI stated that they were working on a prototype water heater (presumably for home use). This could be why they have clammed up on discussions of the heating phenomenon. Terry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 10:19:25 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA17434; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 10:16:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 10:16:33 -0800 Message-ID: <32C57289.5048@gorge.net> Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 11:18:33 -0800 From: tom@gorge.net (Tom Miller) Reply-To: tom@gorge.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI Beads References: <961228171902_76016.2701_JHC69-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"tfD-l2.0.-F4.wFMno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2959 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: It occurs to me that the difference may be that the polymer substrate is a proton conductor, whereas the ceramic may not be. does anyone have any information about that? Tom Miller From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 10:48:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA28037 for billb@eskimo.com; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 10:48:48 -0800 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 10:48:48 -0800 X-Envelope-From: hjscudde@pacbell.net@aol.com Sat Dec 28 10:48:44 1996 Received: from emout03.mail.aol.com (emout03.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.94]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA28010 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 10:48:42 -0800 From: hjscudde@pacbell.net@aol.com Received: by emout03.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22411 for vortex-l@eskimo.com; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 13:48:13 -0500 Old-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 13:48:13 -0500 Message-ID: <961228134812_237346146@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, Puthoff@aol.com Subject: Re: ZPE Papers (Puthoff) X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: Puthoff@aol.com wrote: > > >From time to time I get requests for a list of my papers on ZPE. For those > who are interested, following is the list: >Hal Is there any chance that you could scan these papers, and put them on your home page? I would like to read them, but our library facilities are limited. -Hank Scudder From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 11:21:59 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA31856; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 11:12:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 11:12:59 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961228192113.00989788@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, 28 Dec 1996 11:21:13 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Gary Hawkins Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Resent-Message-ID: <"gUWkB3.0.dn7.v4Nno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2960 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >"I (or we) require from claims which we subjectively determine to be >extraordinary, a level of evidence which we would normally not require." > >Of course, it implies the converse - namely that a claim we think is >'ordinary' needs little evidence before we accept it. That sums it up very well. Again, reiterating, it is a *subjective* bent in the mix that creates the problem, and that subjective leaning does exist. Add the media in there as the determiner of who gets the air time, and you've got a problem. If a mass majority *erroniously* believe that electrons flow in a wire at the speed of light, a media darling can emerge by voicing that view. A dark shadow can then easily be cast on any heretical troublemakers for *anything* out of sync with that darling of the media (largely done in a subtle way through *attitude*, rather than openly). Most of the problems are in fact very subtle. I sensed there an eagerness for prestige through championing the safe zone, which would have been non-extraordinary, were it not for a sense of determined resolve against any change in the status quo. To wit, a closed mind, yet not merely, but a proselyzing for same. Gary Hawkins From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 11:53:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA06583; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 11:52:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 11:52:06 -0800 From: hjscudde@pacbell.net Message-ID: <32C57C60.3F54@pacbell.net> Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 12:00:32 -0800 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Jennison article Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"skmZm2.0.Xb1.ZfNno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2961 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Robin Would it be possible for you to post the Jennison article on your home page. -Hank Scudder From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 12:00:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA08231; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 11:59:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 11:59:23 -0800 From: hjscudde@pacbell.net Message-ID: <32C57E18.3052@pacbell.net> Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 12:07:52 -0800 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Sharing some Holiday Cheer References: <199612242107.OAA22433@nz1.netzone.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"siR9m2.0.S02.PmNno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2962 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Joe Champion wrote: _______________________________ Joe Are you still running your operation in Weldon CA? I was driving to Death Valley recently, and noticed a sign to the town. I was disappointed that your Vortex-L demonstration did not come off last August. I am still interested in observing it. -Hank Scudder From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 13:12:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA21217; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 13:11:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 13:11:12 -0800 From: Robert Stirniman Message-Id: <199612282103.NAA00609@shell.skylink.net> Subject: Re: Electrogravity: new web page - request for feedback... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 13:03:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: from "Horace Heffner" at Dec 26, 96 04:49:37 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: <"KRTam1.0.RB5.kpOno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2963 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Re: Horace Heffner's suggestions that the Hooper effect is possibly a manifestation of the self-Hall effect. The self-Hall effect was considered by Edwards as a possible source, and was rejected. See: "Continuing Investigation Into Possible Electric Fields Arising From Steady Conduction Currents", W.F. Edwards, C.S. Kenyon, and D.K. Lemon, Physical Review D, Vol 14 No 4, Aug 1974 Edwards measured an electric field from a non-inductive superconductor coil. The electric field varied as the square of the current in the coil. In Edward's most common configuration, the measured potential was about 20 mV, and in one configuration was as high as 100 mV. Edwards considered a variety of "conventional" explanations to explain the effect -- none of which was satisfactory. The self-Hall effect was rejected on three counts. 1.) The theorectical and measured value of the self-Hall effect in a superconductor wire is 3 to 4 orders of magnitude smaller than the measured effect. 2.) The dependence of the self-Hall effect on magnetic field was not borne out in the experiment. (variation in number of coil turns) 3.) In the special Faraday-cage configuration, no Hall potential would be expected, but the signal remained. (one of four shielding variations used by Edwards). Regards, Robert Stirniman From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 14:31:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA01629; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 14:29:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 14:29:29 -0800 Date: 28 Dec 96 17:27:45 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: PMM 1st and 2nd kinds Message-ID: <961228222744_72240.1256_EHB80-3@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"KC9L_.0.NP.7zPno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2964 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Larry Wharton writes: I am confidant (sic) that in the future we will be hearing from Jed, for example, that the CETI stuff is a fraud just as he concluded that the Stanley Meyr Fuel Cell was a fraud. I think it likely that George Miley and the CETI people have done this test and found out that the apparent heat went away. I also think that they will never tell Jed about this and if he asks to do it himself the request will be refused. If you believe CETI and Miley are frauds and liars capable of such outrageous behavior then you should ignore all of their claims. If you think that I would not take care to ask about these subjects -- after all the discussion of them on s.p.f. -- then you should disregard everything I report. As I have said here many times, Miley and I discussed the stored-and-added chemical energy hypotheses and we concluded they have no merit, for the reasons discussed here and on s.p.f. in detail. If the temperature increase across the cell was associated with a chemical composition change then there is a simple way to test for it which I suggested. One may take the cell outflow, put it in an insulated container, let it sit around for a while and slosh it around a bit in order . . . As I have pointed out many times, this hypothesis is incorrect for two reasons: 1. CF excess heat has also been observed in static calorimeters, with both Pd and Ni. Total energy output has often exceeded the limits of chemistry by many orders of magnitude. Wharton and others have proposed various highly unlikely mechanisms by which energy might be added to circulating electrolyte. I will grant these are at least debatable, but nobody has suggested any method of adding outside chemical energy to a test tube in a bath. If this can be done it would overthrow the experimental basis of thermodynamics going back to the 1790s, when this form of calorimetry was devised. 2. In some of CETI demonstrations the excess is far greater (by orders of magnitude) than all energy input from the pump and other hypothetical external sources. Warton has never addressed these issues. I am tired of pointing them out. I think he is not serious. He is evading the issues. So I hereby withdraw from this discussion. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 14:31:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA01647; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 14:29:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 14:29:32 -0800 Date: 28 Dec 96 17:27:17 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: PMM 1st and 2nd kinds Message-ID: <961228222716_72240.1256_EHB80-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"ugrR23.0.dP.9zPno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2965 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Larry Wharton writes: I am confidant (sic) that in the future we will be hearing from Jed, for example, that the CETI stuff is a fraud just as he concluded that the Stanley Meyr Fuel Cell was a fraud. I think it likely that George Miley and the CETI people have done this test and found out that the apparent heat went away. I also think that they will never tell Jed about this and if he asks to do it himself the request will be refused. If you believe CETI and Miley are frauds and liars capable of such outrageous behavior then you should ignore all of their claims. If you think that I would not take care to ask about these subjects -- after all the discussion of them on s.p.f. -- then you should disregard everything I report. As I have said here many times, Miley and I discussed the stored-and-added chemical energy hypotheses and we concluded they have no merit, for the reasons discussed here and on s.p.f. in detail. If the temperature increase across the cell was associated with a chemical composition change then there is a simple way to test for it which I suggested. One may take the cell outflow, put it in an insulated container, let it sit around for a while and slosh it around a bit in order . . . As I have pointed out many times, this hypothesis is incorrect for two reasons: 1. CF excess heat has also been observed in static calorimeters, with both Pd and Ni. Total energy output has often exceeded the limits of chemistry by many orders of magnitude. Wharton and others have proposed various highly unlikely mechanisms by which energy might be added to circulating electrolyte. I will grant these are at least debatable, but nobody has suggested any method of adding outside chemical energy to a test tube in a bath. If this can be done it would overthrow the experimental basis of thermodynamics going back to the 1790s, when this form of calorimetry was devised. 2. In some of CETI demonstrations the excess is far greater (by orders of magnitude) than all energy input from the pump and other hypothetical external sources. Warton has never addressed these issues. I am tired of pointing them out. I think he is not serious. He is evading the issues. So I hereby withdraw from this discussion. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 14:46:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA05091; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 14:45:26 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 14:45:26 -0800 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 09:45:14 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI Beads In-Reply-To: <961228171902_76016.2701_JHC69-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"KlXNw.0.SF1.4CQno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2966 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 28 Dec 1996, Terry Blanton wrote: > Jean deLagarde said: > > >>I am wondering if the statement : "The beads are not optimized for heat > production" is not a way of saying : "We now fail to reproduce beads which > perform as well as the ones used for Monaco, SOFE and Powergen"<< > > I thought the heat producing beads had a polymer substrate and the transmutation > beads used a ceramic substrate. > > As I posted recently, a representative of CETI stated that they were working on > a prototype water heater (presumably for home use). This could be why they have > clammed up on discussions of the heating phenomenon. > > Terry Did they actually say that or are you extrapolating from what you thought they meant? Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 14:49:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA05445; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 14:47:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 14:47:37 -0800 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 09:47:28 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI Beads In-Reply-To: <9612280951.AA01508@joshua.math.ucla.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"b05X53.0._K1.7EQno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2967 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Barry Merriman wrote: > Yes, you are correct---i.e. the reason CETI does not sell > an excess heat kit is because they cannot make beads of sufficent > quality in sufficient quantity for such a purpose. Supposedly, some > of the early batches of beads, such as those used in their public > demos, were of unusually good quality. > Do you have this information directly from someone in CETI or is it a second hand report from someone else? I'm curious because if this is true it could explain their bizarre behaviour early in 1996. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 15:41:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA17692; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 15:39:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 15:39:25 -0800 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 18:39:13 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961228183900.2b575abe@world.std.com> X-Sender: mica@world.std.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Mitchell Swartz Subject: Re: PMM 1st and 2nd kinds Resent-Message-ID: <"z1pd52.0.BK4.e-Qno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2968 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 02:13 PM 12/26/1996 -0500, Lawrence E. Wharton wrote: > In short, there is a proof of COE for all known forces >acting in any combination and I see no reason to doubt it. ok. > Also if COE is violated the conservation of momentum (COM) is >automatically violated. To see this on may use the Lorentz transformation >to show that non COE in one frame gets directly converted to non COM in >another frame. So if COM is violated then we can build spaceships that get >thrust out of nothing and all the energy we need may be obtained also out >of nothing. It then would be too easy to build spaceships to travel >throughout the galaxy and take it over. Since no one out there has come >here to take us over I consider it likely that this is impossible. ok regarding Conservation of momentum. However, the reasons which you give about spaceships appear ridiculous at best. However, no measurement of the chemical composition of the cell >outflow verses the inflow was made so the change of the chemical potential >energy was unknown. Claims of "excess enthalpy" made by George Miley are >incorrect because the enthalpy was never evaluated and in any event it is >not a relevant parameter. The proper parameter is the ambient temperature >times the entropy change across the cell. The power given by > >Cv * Flow Rate * Ambient Temperature * Log ( Tout / Tin) > >must exceed the input power and this has never been demonstrated. Could you please derive this, and note what assumptions might be made? Thanks. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 18:12:13 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA10524; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 17:56:23 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 17:56:23 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 16:56:55 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Electrogravity: new web page - request for feedback... Resent-Message-ID: <"DDnSm.0.Ga2.3_Sno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2969 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 1:03 PM 12/28/96, Robert Stirniman wrote: >Re: Horace Heffner's suggestions that the Hooper effect is > possibly a manifestation of the self-Hall effect. [snip] Just to be clear, I suggested exactly the opposite of the tenant that the Hooper effect is a manifestation of the self-Hall effect. In fact I made an effort to name the effect something different, however inadequately descriptive the name chosen, i.e. the "electon expansion" effect. It is still based on the Lorentz force, but some of differences are: 1. The self-Hall effect is for currents in the same conductor. The effect noted, the electron expansion effect, was from adjacent conductors with opposing current directions. 2. The self hall effect pinches the electrons inwardly, giving a positive outer charge on the affected conductor. The subject effect frees the electrons to migrate away from the center of charge of the bundle, giving a negative net outer field to the bundle. 3. The self-Hall effect is a very small effect occuring only in a locality of a small conductor. The electron expansion effect is electrostatically cumulative over the radius of the entire bundle, no matter how large, provided the wire size and current is constant, and current directions are interleaved. 4. The maximum electrostatic field strength generated in the self-Hall effect is a function of the maximum magnetic field strength generated. The electrostatic field strength generated by the electron expansion effect grows outwardly despite a fixed maximum magnetic field strength in the conductor localities. > >The self-Hall effect was considered by Edwards as a possible source, >and was rejected. See: > > "Continuing Investigation Into Possible Electric Fields Arising > From Steady Conduction Currents", W.F. Edwards, C.S. Kenyon, > and D.K. Lemon, Physical Review D, Vol 14 No 4, Aug 1974 I'll try to look this up next time I go to Anchorage, but I have had little luck obtaining literature there. Either the periodical is not carried, or the volume I need is not there. I have had very poor luck obtaining the articles relating to ZPE for example - about one in three. Is there some kind of reprint service around that is convenient and affordable? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 19:13:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA23507; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 19:10:36 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 19:10:36 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961229030950.008dc7e4@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" Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 22:09:50 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: Electrogravity: new web page - request for feedback... Resent-Message-ID: <"WQtup3.0.Dl5.g4Uno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2970 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 04:56 PM 12/28/96 -0900, you wrote: >Is there some kind of reprint service around that is convenient and affordable? > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > Does your library have an interlibrary loan service? I submit loan requests to my local library in a town of about 4K population. I put a dollar limit on what I am willing to pay and the library does the rest. In a few days I get the article as a photocopy. They haven't charged me a cent so far. Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 19:21:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA24873; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 19:19:35 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 19:19:35 -0800 Date: 28 Dec 96 22:18:18 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: CETI Beads Message-ID: <961229031817_76016.2701_JHC56-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"jORc72.0.Z46.5DUno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2971 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >>Did they actually say that or are you extrapolating from what you thought they meant? Martin Sevior<< Martin, This from a conference held by Christian Ismert of CETI on the CompuServe UFO forum (/go UFO), Science section (S13) earlier this month. I posted an edited version of the conference log on Vortex. I suppose most people failed to read it due to its length (30 kbytes) and the fact that the conference was on what Frank E. Reed refers to as a "crackpot" forum. This is unfortunate since many interesting points were brought out. Below is the exact exerpt from the conference log (unedited): >> Debbie/Moderator | Daniel, GA. Daniel Roberts | Thank You. What is the ratio of energy input | to output of the "Patterson Ce;ll"? ANd | please define overrunity. | GA Christian Ismert | "Overunity refers to the point at which | output exceeds | input. | The ratios obtained vary depending on the | configuration of | the cell, electrolytes, | electrodes(microspheres) etc. We | have obtained in a first stage prototype of a | hot water | heater greater than 1000 to 1. 1000 watts | thermal heat | calculated in output, to 1 electrical watt | input. GA<< As you can see, Christian said "first stage prototype of a hot water heater" (although it fails me why anyone needs to heat hot water ). In my previous post, I stated that I presumed him to mean a water heater which might be used in a home. Please note that Ismert is the office manager for CETI and not one of the scientists. Whether he intended to say what he did is anyone's guess. Another point made in the conference was the issue regarding how many RIFEX kits were actually requested. The moderator (who has a Masters in Mathematics and is a NASA consultant) asked: >> Debbie/Moderator | Christian, how many of the RIFEX kits have | been sold, | and will you give us the names of some of the | labs that | have bought them? Thanks! GA Christian Ismert | Sorry about the confusion on that point. : ) | I can't comment on who has recieved kits at | this point. We | have orders for about 40 kits. We are | carefully | implementing this program gradually so that | we can | technically support the researchers involved | inthe program. | GA<< Why does this not jive with Scott Little's comments on this list? An honorary aviarian asked: >> randy goose | Scott Little said only 3 showed up for the | Dec. 10 seminar. Why so | few if you sold 40 kits? GA Christian Ismert | You need to be a skilled researcher and have | the | neccesary equipment. | GA | Well, some of the kit recipients were not at | the conference. | These were groups outside the U.S. who | bring a high level | of capability to the effort. Plus, we kept | the first group | small so that technical problems which may | arise can be | resolved effectively. GA<< Which was further clarified by: >> Debbie/Moderator | randy, do you have a followup question? GA randy goose | Sorry, I got booted. When do you plan | another training seminar for the | other recipients? GA Christian Ismert | We expect to have another in February or | March. We are | being careful about it. We will wait to the | the results of the | current partcipants and make some decisions | about how | quickly we will proceed afterwards. ga<< So, it appears that either 37 of the 40 kits ordered were from outside the United States *or* CETI is prequalifying the recipients of the RIFEX kits to be sure they filter out the "crackpots" Terry, aka randy goose From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 19:35:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA27042; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 19:34:12 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 19:34:12 -0800 Date: 28 Dec 96 22:31:58 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: CETI Beads Message-ID: <961229033157_76016.2701_JHC90-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"YFMpc1.0.Nc6.nQUno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2972 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Barry Merriman wrote: >>Yes, you are correct---i.e. the reason CETI does not sell an excess heat kit is because they cannot make beads of sufficent quality in sufficient quantity for such a purpose. Supposedly, some of the early batches of beads, such as those used in their public demos, were of unusually good quality.<< To which Martin Sevior inquired: >>Do you have this information directly from someone in CETI or is it a second hand report from someone else? I'm curious because if this is true it could explain their bizarre behaviour early in 1996. << I trust you guys know how Dr. Patterson earned his first $M? He fabricated beads for a major US chemical manufacturer. This patented process actually earned him several megabucks. Earlier, I posted a copy of the CETI patent on the fabrication of the polymer substrate beads. If anyone would like a copy of the patent, you may email me at 76016.2701@compuserve.com and I will email you a copy including UUE coded diagrams. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that Dr. Patterson could not replicate the process. I believe that the opposite is true: they have perfected the process and are developing commercial products based on the design. Of course, I could be wrong. Terry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 22:51:48 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA20565; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 22:49:58 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 22:49:58 -0800 Message-Id: <199612290649.WAA03566@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 22:50:55 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: CETI Beads, making millions, nice fairy tale Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"vXPAX1.0.E15.KIXno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2973 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: About Jim Patterson making his millions making beads, that's a fairy tale Jim would laugh at. He actually worked hard as a regular working guy and made his millions buying and selling real estate through the California Silicon Valley housing market chaos of ten years ago. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sat Dec 28 23:31:46 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA25042; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 23:30:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 23:30:27 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 22:30:48 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Electrogravity: new web page - request for feedback... Resent-Message-ID: <"EMuq1.0.876.GuXno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2974 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >At 04:56 PM 12/28/96 -0900, you wrote: > >>Is there some kind of reprint service around that is convenient and >>affordable? >> >> >>Regards, >> PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >>Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 >> >> >Does your library have an interlibrary loan service? I submit loan requests >to my local library in a town of about 4K population. I put a dollar limit >on what I am willing to pay and the library does the rest. In a few days I >get the article as a photocopy. They haven't charged me a cent so far. > >Ed Strojny Thanks. I'll have to give it a try. Books inter-library loaned at the University library by guests like me are $15 if memory serves. I haven't tried papers. Never loaned books either. The price is too much of a discount towards purchase if I am that desperate to have the book. Maybe I should save up my list of titles and then enroll, so it's free. :) A commercial service, especially through internet, would be preferable if it were not too expensive. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 00:07:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA28562; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 00:06:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 00:06:07 -0800 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 09:02:18 +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: CETI Beads Resent-Message-ID: <"uqnFK.0.B-6.jPYno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2975 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Terry Blanton wrote >I thought the heat producing beads had a polymer substrate and the >transmutation >beads used a ceramic substrate. Sorry, as confirmed by Scott Little and others, the transmutation beads have the same polymer substrate as before. Ceramic was just a rumor. Jean DeLagarde From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 00:19:20 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA30150; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 00:18:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 00:18:02 -0800 Message-Id: <199612290805.BAA02719@nz1.netzone.com> From: "Joe Champion" To: Cc: "Vortex-L" Subject: Re: Russ George: CETI Beads, making millions, nice fairy tale Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 01:18:08 -0700 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: <"7UvMA3.0.-M7.uaYno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2976 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: ---------- > From: Russ George > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: CETI Beads, making millions, nice fairy tale > Date: Saturday, December 28, 1996 3:50 PM > > About Jim Patterson making his millions making beads, that's a fairy > tale Jim would laugh at. He actually worked hard as a regular working > guy and made his millions buying and selling real estate through the > California Silicon Valley housing market chaos of ten years ago. The facts vary slightly Russ, for Jim made his money, or his funds available, from his family. You see, his daddy made a bundle in the an airline deal. This is not heresay, but reality. Is there heat from "Cold Fusion?" If I had to answer the question, I would say -- NO? The reason is simple, for if energy was present why would they call it COLD? However, if one puts on their black robe and conical hat (moons and stars required), they may observe transmutation. One must face reality. In this case, it is in the eye of the observer. Or, in the case of my associates and myself, the hand of the observer. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 01:10:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA05620; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 01:09:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 01:09:27 -0800 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 20:09:14 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI Beads In-Reply-To: <961229031817_76016.2701_JHC56-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"yTHJO.0.kN1.5LZno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2977 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On 28 Dec 1996, Terry Blanton wrote: > >>Did they actually say that or are you extrapolating from what you thought > they meant? > > Martin Sevior<< > > Martin, > > This from a conference held by Christian Ismert of CETI on the CompuServe UFO > forum (/go UFO), Science section (S13) earlier this month. I posted an edited > version of the conference log on Vortex. I suppose most people failed to read > it due to its length (30 kbytes) and the fact that the conference was on what > Frank E. Reed refers to as a "crackpot" forum. This is unfortunate since many > interesting points were brought out. Below is the exact exerpt from the > conference log (unedited): > Actually I did the post in detail and I didn't remember anything about a commercial hot water heater, that's why I asked. > >> Debbie/Moderator | Daniel, GA. > Daniel Roberts | Thank You. What is the ratio of energy input > | to output of the "Patterson Ce;ll"? ANd > | please define overrunity. > | GA > Christian Ismert | "Overunity refers to the point at which > | output exceeds > | input. > | The ratios obtained vary depending on the > | configuration of > | the cell, electrolytes, > | electrodes(microspheres) etc. We > | have obtained in a first stage prototype of a > | hot water > | heater greater than 1000 to 1. 1000 watts > | thermal heat > | calculated in output, to 1 electrical watt > | input. GA<< > > As you can see, Christian said "first stage prototype of a hot water heater" > (although it fails me why anyone needs to heat hot water ). In my previous > post, I stated that I presumed him to mean a water heater which might be used in > a home. I suspect that this is the famous "POWERGEN demo cell" from December 1995 as described by Jed and documented on John Logajan's home page. I would love to know if they'd managed to replicate it. Thanks for the clarifications Terry. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 05:38:53 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA23309 for billb@eskimo.com; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 05:38:45 -0800 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 05:38:45 -0800 X-Envelope-From: JNaudin509@aol.com Sun Dec 29 05:38:41 1996 Received: from emout01.mail.aol.com (emout01.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.92]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA23280; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 05:38:40 -0800 From: JNaudin509@aol.com Received: by emout01.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12166; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 08:37:30 -0500 Old-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 08:37:30 -0500 Message-ID: <961229083729_1855432084@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: harti@bbtt.de, bauer.d@krypta.aball.de cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com, harti@harti.de, vortex-l@eskimo.com, gwatson@enternet.com.au Subject: Re : Re: Bedini Motor questions...??? X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: >From : Jean-Louis Naudin ( JNaudin509@aol.com ) To : Dieter Bauer On 28/12/1996 17:47:28, You wrote : << I have some remarks regarding this measurements: The measurements are made with load and without load. I am missing the power data needed to drive the motor with load and without load. The power data of the driving motor given above do not allow to estimate whether there is some hope in this setup . The difference of the power values of the motor with and without load should be compared with the power drawn from the G- field generator. Then it can be ruled out whether internal losses causes the negativ result or whether the result seems to stem from the physics. In addition I have a question: Are the cores of the coils laminated to prevent eddy currents in the iron cores ? According to Brown's observations it should be necessary ! Best regards Dieter Bauer forwarded by harti@harti.de to freenrg-l and vortex-l >> Dear Mr Bauer, I give you some complement of informations about my Bedini's G-Field generator tests report ( my mail of 13 dec 96 ) : Motor : model Graupner Speed 600 / 8.4V Nominal voltage : 8.4 V blocking-current drain : 70 A Operating voltage range (direct drive ) : 4.8...9.6 V Operating voltage range (inc.gearbox) : 8.4...16 V No-Load speed 15500 RPM Idle-current drain 1.8 A Current drain at max. efficiency : 11 A Max efficiency (without gearbox) 75% G-FIELD INPUT POWER : with NOLOAD : INPUT = 8.4 V / 2.8 A about 24 watts with LOAD ( lamp 12V/5W ) INPUT = 7.8 V / 3.5 A about 27 watts Notes about coils : Cores of coils are made with 5 irons rods of 4x35 mm each to prevent eddy currents. >RESULTS : > >G-Field generator turn at 2400 RPM with 24 Watt input ( 8 volts, 3 A DC) >Signal waveforms on scope have the same shape of Bedini's G-Field showed in >picture with frequency of 40 Hz at 2400 RPM. > >AC mode with NO LOAD > In CUR mode : 9.2 Volts RMS output > In VTG mode : 19 Volts RMS output > >AC mode with LOAD ( 5 watt 12 volt lamp ) > In CUR mode : U = 8 volts / I = 0.252 A power output about 3.5 Watt > In VTG mode : U= 11.4 volts / I = 0.31 A power output about 2 Watt > >DC mode with NO LOAD > In CUR mode : U = 15 volts > In VTG mode : U = 29.5 volts > >DC mode with LOAD ( 5 watt 12 volt lamp ) > In CUR mode : U = 8.4 volts / I = 0.25 A power output about 2.1 Watt > In VTG mode : U= 7.1 volts / I = 0.22 A power output about 1.56 Watt > Sincerely, Jean-Louis Naudin Email: JNaudin509@aol.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 08:02:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA05420; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 08:00:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 08:00:22 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961229155935.008e0bec@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: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 10:59:35 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: CETI Beads Resent-Message-ID: <"DQXlp3.0.XK1.LMfno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2978 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 09:02 AM 12/29/96 +0100, you wrote: >Terry Blanton wrote >>I thought the heat producing beads had a polymer substrate and the >>transmutation >>beads used a ceramic substrate. > >Sorry, as confirmed by Scott Little and others, the transmutation beads >have the same polymer substrate as before. Ceramic was just a rumor. > > Jean DeLagarde > Unless CETI finds a high temperature tolerant substrate they will not get beyond the hot water heater stage (a good start). If I were still doing research on catalysts, I certainly would look hard for a ceramic substrate. Other substrates that appeal to me are the synthetic zeolites which are like hollow spheres with openings that vary in size with the type of zeolite. Thus, you could coat the outer surface and inner surface with different/same metals to see what happens. Ed Strojny > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 09:24:17 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA14996; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 09:15:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 09:15:39 -0800 Date: 29 Dec 96 12:13:51 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: CETI Beads, making millions, nice fairy tale Message-ID: <961229171350_76016.2701_JHC33-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"A6hQU.0.Eg3.vSgno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2979 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Russ George said: >>About Jim Patterson making his millions making beads, that's a fairy tale Jim would laugh at. He actually worked hard as a regular working guy and made his millions buying and selling real estate through the California Silicon Valley housing market chaos of ten years ago.<< Russ, This may very well be true; however, Dr. Patterson led us to believe that he made his fortune in beads with Dow Chemical. Quoting his interview with NightLine: >>JAMES PATTERSON: I started making beads back in 19 and 53. MICHAEL GUILLEN: [voice-over] Seventy-four-year-old James Patterson looks about as homespun as his device, working out of a large garage in Sarasota, Florida,with more than 100 patents to his credit. Patterson had always planned on being a chemistry professor, but in 1951, while working for his Ph.D. at Berkeley, Dow Chemical made him an offer he couldn't refuse. JAMES PATTERSON: Dow hired me before I graduated, got my degree, and they paid me more than what I was going to get after I got my degree, so. MICHAEL GUILLEN: [voice-over] It was during his years at Dow that Patterson invented a recipe for making tiny beads, beads so perfectly round few people in the world can duplicate them. JAMES PATTERSON: If I have a claim to fame, I'm a good- a good cook for little beads. Well, this is my storage area, and it's almost like a library of what I've done. MICHAEL GUILLEN: [voice-over] Over the years, Patterson's beads have been used in many different ways, in water purifiers, cosmetics, even as the talcum powder inside surgical gloves. JAMES PATTERSON: I'm better than a millionaire. MICHAEL GUILLEN: Just because of the money you got from- JAMES PATTERSON: From little beads. I have converted- alchemy, little beads into gold.<< Hence, I concluded he got his millions from "little beads." Terry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 13:14:58 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA24084; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 13:13:05 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 13:13:05 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 12:13:40 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Calorimetry for measuring electric power Resent-Message-ID: <"AAdJu1.0.Eu5.Vxjno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2980 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: There are many cases for application of an accurate method for determining the coefficient of power for electrical devices which generate heat. This is meant to open discussion of potential methods of utilizing only calorimetry for measuring average electric power input when both the DC source voltage V1 can vary significantly and the measured load R3 varies wildly in resistance and other circuit characteristics. Consider the following schematic: | V1 | R1 | |---------- V2 | | R2 R3 | | |---------- | | G Each of the resistances Ri are in insulated flowing calorimetry compartments by which each of the corresponding powers Pi can be determined. However, R3 is a special load being examined for o-u behavior, and may not obey Ohm's law. It is assumed that the fluctuations in voltage are much faster than the time constant of the calorimeters by many orders of magnitude. It is desired to determine if the heat generating behavior of load R3 is above unity. In calibration, the function of resistance vs temperature is determined for R1 and R2. Assume that appropriate compensations are made for temperature changes and that R1 and R2 represent true resistances at the temperatures observed. Also assume steady state operation is achieved where the temperatures Ti do not vary measureably. Given P1, we can calculate average I1 because: P1 = R1(I1)^2 I1 = sqrt(P1/R1) Given P2 we can calculate the average current I2 by: I2 = sqrt(P2/R2) But given the average Current I2 we have the average voltage V2: V2 = (I2)(R2) Knowing I1 and I2 we have the current I3 from: I3 = I1 - I2 So we now have an estimate of the average electrical power input to the test load R3: Pe = (V2)(I3) This permits an estimate of coefficient of power Cp: Cp = Pe/P3 For calibration purposes it should be possible to use a fixed resistor R3 and a highly regulated fixed voltage V1 and determine that Cp = 1. Now the question: "How will Cp tend to err." If we look at the parameters in small enough units of time, much smaller than the time for voltage variations, then we have the DC situation used for calibration. However, errors can occur due to voltage and current being out of phase. For example, suppose the average voltage (V2) for two units of time is 1V, the average current V3 is 3A. We get Pe = 3W. However, suppose no power is delivered for one unit of time and the remainder is all delivered in the second unit of time. During the first unit the power is zero. During the second unit the voltage is double, and the current is double, so the power is 4 times greater. Averaging the power we get 4/2 the power, or twice as much for the same average voltage and average current. This factor of two could be made much worse if the power is taken in much smaller pulses. So, Cp would tend to err to the high side if the power is taken in very short pulses. However, the power will tend to err to the low side if the power is taken out of phase. One possibility for smoothing out the voltage at V2 is to bridge R2 with a very large capacitor C1 (time constant of C1 very large compared to V1 voltage fluctuation time): | V1 | R1 | ----|---------- V2 | | | C1 R2 R3 | | | ----|---------- | | G C1 could be put into the same calorimeter enclosure with R2. In the above case V2 is now fairly steady and the power relationship highly linear with respect to average current. However, this could create oscillation problems with R3 and also could create surge currents in R3 that would be destructive, so we might require a damper resistor R4: | V1 | R1 | |V2 ----|----R4---- V3 | | | C1 R2 R3 | | | ----|---------- | | G Now, Pe is an estimate of the electrical power into the R4-R3 leg. We can estimate the electric power E3 to R3 best by: E3 = Pe - P4 and the coefficient of power for the load becomes: Cp = E3/P3 Is this getting anywhere, or is this just getting nonsensical? Is there a better way? I am especially interrested in applying this where V1 is an unregulated high voltage DC and R3 is a circuit that involves gas discharge tubes. However it seems like the issues here apply to many different possible o-u devices and could act as a cross check on the electrical measurements made on the circuit. Comments? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 13:55:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA29041; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 13:53:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 13:53:17 -0800 Date: 29 Dec 96 16:51:35 EST From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Vortex Subject: CETI Beads, making millions, nice fairy Message-ID: <961229215134_72240.1256_EHB83-1@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"_Z0pU3.0.Z57.AXkno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2981 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: To: Vortex Terry quoted Patterson's interview on ABC in which he claimed he made a fortune on patents for small beads. This is what Patterson told me. He also mentioned that he made money on California real estate, as Russ George said. I have no idea how much he made in either field. There is plenty of money to be made in both, I am sure. I cannot imagine why Russ thinks it is fantasy that small beads can be lucrative. Because of their small size? People make money selling sesame seeds, for that matter. - Jed From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 14:25:37 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA02041; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 14:22:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 14:22:50 -0800 From: Xkan@aol.com Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 17:22:11 -0500 Message-ID: <961229172210_1821929994@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: what is electromagnetic field anyway? Resent-Message-ID: <"vE-BM.0.jV.uykno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2982 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Larry Wharton wrote: <> I don't know what you mean by that. Do you mean a free particle in a magnetic field? How is the magnetic field generated? So far, all I can tell from your response is that you consider Weber's theory as an alternative. This is only true in 20th century. In Weber and Maxwell's time, his theory is the very well known. When Maxwell was formulating his field theory, one of the question that probably goes through his mind often is: Using my theory, can I explain all the electromagnetic effects as well as Weber did with his theory? See Siegel's Innovation in Maxwell's Electromagnetic theory, or Whittaker's A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity for some historic account. Maxwell himself highly praised Weber and Ampere's work. It is only towards the close of 19th century, some people has worked to purge Ampere and Weber's theory out of the mainstream. I have no interest here to analyze people's motivations. Let history be the judge. Truth cannot be denied for long. <> Thanks for the reference. << Another problem with the alternative theories is that the Lorentz force works fine for the homopolar generator whereas the alternative theories do not. Chris Tinsley found that the cylindrical homopolar generator did not work and he thought that there was some problem with this. However, a proper analysis using standard E&M shows that it should not work and his experiment just confirms the validity of the standard theory. A look through the works of the revision advocates shows a total absence of analysis of the homopolar generator. This is because the standard theory works and their theory does not.>> Can you be more specific? I am not trying to hide anything here. My ignorance on homopolar motor prevents me to write on this subject. <> I have anserwed this in response to Francis Stenger. I had over ten years of experience in solid state physics research, I know that solid state is complicated, but pinch force is not responsible for the flat ended fracture in exploding wires, that may be possible with glass rods, but not with ductile metallic wires. Experiments on liquid mercury is even more striking, see the section Ampere's hairpin experiment in Graneau's book, which clearly demonstrates the existence of longitudinal force between the mercury jets and the wire ends. Francis, have you considered this experiment? Furthermore, we can do a few simple thought experiments, no messy experiemental complications involved, to expose the flaws in Lorentz force. I will post a few of them when I have more time. Regards. Xiaobo Kan From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 14:59:42 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id OAA09899; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 14:57:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 14:57:41 -0800 Message-Id: <199612292257.OAA04767@mom.hooked.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Russ George" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 14:58:33 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: CETI Beads, making millions, nice fairy Reply-to: rgeorge@hooked.net Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Resent-Message-ID: <"ryMI_2.0.VQ2.XTlno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2983 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Leave it to Jed to completely misinterpret a comment, turn it into something it never was, and get in an off handed slur. I expressed no general sentiment that money can't be made from beads or other tiny items. No one doubts that tiny beads, catalysts, resins, zeolites, and myriad other items make money. However Jim Patterson made his millions he's got it now and seems to spend it carefully. I don't really care I merely wanted to help head off what appeared some myth making here in the Vortex. Jed there are treatments available. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 15:37:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA26365; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 15:35:29 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 15:35:29 -0800 Date: 29 Dec 96 18:33:51 EST From: Terry Blanton <76016.2701@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: CETI Beads, making millions, nice fairy Message-ID: <961229233350_76016.2701_JHC124-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"rtsfc3.0.oR6._0mno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2984 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Russ George said, >> I don't really care I merely wanted to help head off what appeared some myth making here in the Vortex. << I agree that we have no absolute knowledge regarding CETI's development of a commercial product from their beads. However, I have been involved in several start-up companies and when they suddenly become silent about a topic for which they were previously quite vocal, one of two things have happened: 1) They have moved into production of prototypes of a product they consider will be lucrative; or, 2) They are ashamed of previous comments because of failure. Somehow, I don't think the evidence supports #2 considering Ismert's comment. Use of the word "prototype" definately implies production of a commercial product. Terry From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 16:13:06 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA01129; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 16:11:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 16:11:46 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 15:11:49 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Calorimetry for measuring electric power Resent-Message-ID: <"HVO_r1.0.ZH.1Zmno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2985 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: For calorimetry I proposed: | V1 | R1 | |V2 ----|----R4---- V3 | | | C1 R2 R3 | | | ----|---------- | | G I can see that there is still the problem of pulses at R1. This can be avoided by: D1 | V1 -------| | R1 | | C2 |V2 | ----|----R4---- V3 | | | | | C1 R2 R3 | | | | -------|---------- | | G where D1 is a diode bridge or diode and C2 is sufficient to smooth V1 out to a few percent wiggle. Practically doing calorimetry on the whole power supply. Ugly. There must be a better way. Maybe with C2 in the loop C1 and R4 can go: D1 | V1 -------| | R1 | | C2 |V2 | |---------- V3 | | | | R2 R3 | | | -------|---------- | | G That looks a lot cleaner. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 16:29:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA03502; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 16:28:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 16:28:32 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 15:28:55 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Calorimetry for measuring electric power Resent-Message-ID: <"ZmN7k2.0.es.komno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2986 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: For calorimetry I proposed a second look at: D1 | V1 -------| | R1 | | C2 |V2 | |---------- V3 | | | | R2 R3 | | | -------|---------- | | G However, the highly pulsed demands at R3 pass right through R1 so we are back where we started. It looks like only the following is sufficient: D1 | V1 -------| | R1 | | C2 |V2 | ----|----R4---- V3 | | | | | C1 R2 R3 | | | | -------|---------- | | G Yuk. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 17:48:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id RAA20020; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 17:44:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 17:44:59 -0800 Message-ID: <32C71EA2.7E2A@interlaced.net> Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 20:45:06 -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: what is electromagnetic field anyway? References: <961229172210_1821929994@emout09.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"ILEKI1.0.ju4.Pwnno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2987 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Xkan@aol.com wrote: > (snip) . Experiments on liquid mercury is even more striking, > see the section Ampere's hairpin experiment in Graneau's book, which clearly > demonstrates the existence of longitudinal force between the mercury jets and > the wire ends. Francis, have you considered this experiment? Furthermore, we > can do a few simple thought experiments, no messy experiemental complications > involved, to expose the flaws in Lorentz force. I will post a few of them > when I have more time. Xiaobo: I have only a partial grasp of conventional EM theory. For me, it is a very difficult field - perhaps this is why I tend to embrace the conventional theory. I have no vendetta against the "longitudinal force" but in discussions with Horace H. some time ago, it seemed to prove difficult to come up with a simple demonstration experiment that I could set up in my own limited workshop. I do not trust high speed dynamic experiments like exploding wires because such events involve too many effects like dynamic shock waves, thermodynamic explosion, etc. When materials are failed at high speed, they do not act the same as in a low-speed failure. Thus, to show the longitudinal force, I would like to see a SIMPLE, DC, steady-state test that I could power with an auto battery and, perhaps, photograph with my camcorder. Conduction in liquid metal(mercury) can also lead to complex current paths if great care is not taken. I have not studied Ampere's hairpin experiment but would like to see a good sketch of the apparatus. If I can believe in a test, and I can set it up in my shop, I will do it. Frank Stenger From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 18:43:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA29045; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 18:42:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 18:42:19 -0800 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 19:43:50 -0800 Message-Id: <199612300343.TAA22024@netserve.kfalls.net> X-Sender: me2@kfalls.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: ME2@KFALLS.NET (Don Evans) Subject: help please Resent-Message-ID: <"NnrDt1.0.h57.Amono"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2988 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: just a thought that needs a little claification i remember that if you have two sounds identicle they will cancel out each other and there will be no sound is this correct. and if it is does it also apply to electro magnetic forces ( such as radio waves) such as to identicle radio waves. if some one could take the time to explain this a little better to a lay person i wouold surely appreciate it thanks don From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 20:25:51 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA10459; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 20:23:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 20:23:38 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: what is electromagnetic field anyway? 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: Sun, 29 Dec 96 20:46:00 GMT Message-ID: <9612292056.aa22102@wierius.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"wfpib3.0.KZ2.9Fqno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2989 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi, Xiaobo (bittersweet) Kan wrote: Sorry, but I disagree. If Conventional Theory is correct that the force responsible for wire breaking is the transverse pinch force, then the wire should be PINCHED, and at the weakest section form a thin neck like a hour According to the Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, a magnetic field is the 2 dimensional residue of gravity when one of it's three dimensions of inward scalar motion is neutralized by the passing of a current, which, for example can be the motion of 1 dimensional scalar particles, electrons, through mass. An electric field is the one dimensional scalar residue of gravity when a two dimensional scalar motion neutralizes two of gravity's 3 dimensions. Simple, huh? Note that this implies that the mass of a conductor will be reduced when a current is passing through it, something that may have been observed in rail guns, and suggests ways to implement reactionless thrust! An electromagnetic wave is an entirely unrelated thing, a flux of real particles, photons, which are themselves one dimensional scalar motions oscillating in a second scalar dimension. In this theory, electrons are usually not charged inside matter and current flow is the motion of the electrons themselves, not the charge. You can see that this theory is very different from what you are used to, and it can not be mixed with the conventional view. However this theory is much better at explaining quantitively many effects that you observe in all fields of physics, from the lifetime of the neutron to the lifetimes and spectra of stars. As long as you consider electricity in conductors as the motion of charges, or that electrons are parts of atoms, you'll just never come up with much coherency. Here are a couple of papers to amplify the above: ------------------------- According to Ronald W. Satz in his paper "Theory of Electrons and Currents", Reciprocity, Vol. XIII, No. 1, Autumn 1983, "...The Reciprocal System is much more specific on the details of electron attributes that conventional theory... The electron is a spherical particle resulting from the rotation of a single photon. The frequency of the photon is 2R = 6.576115E15 cycles/second. The rotational speeds in revolutions per second around the three axes are r/pi , 2R/pi , 4R/pi or 1.0466212E15 rev/sec. , 2.0932424E15 rev/sec , 4.1864848E15 rev/sec. The electron may be charged or uncharged. If charged, the electron has an added rotational vibratory motion of R/2pi = 5.233106E14 cycles/sec. The diameter d of the electron is one natural space unit, reduced by the appropriate inter-regional ratio (142.22 here). Thus, d = 4.55884E-8 /142.22 = 3.2054 A. ------------------------------- *The Dimensions of Motion* -Dewey B. Larson Now that the existence of scalar motion has been demonstrated, it will be appropriate to examine the consequences of this existence. Some of the most significant consequences are related to the dimensions of this hitherto unrecognized type of motion. The word "dimension" is used in several different senses, but in the sense in which it is applied to space it signifies the number of independent magnitudes that are required for a complete definition of a spatial quantity. It is generally conceded that space is three-dimensional. Thus three independent magnitudes are required for a complete definition of a quantity of space. Throughout the early years of science this was taken as an indication that the *universe* is three-dimensional. Currently, the favored hypothesis is that of a four-dimensional universe, in which the three dimensions of space are joined to one dimension of time. Strangely enough, there does not appear to have been any critical examination of the question as to the number of dimensions of *motion* that are possible. The scientific community has simply taken it for granted that the limits applicable to motion coincide with those of the spatial reference system. On reviewing this situation it can be seen that this assumption is incorrect. The relation of any one of the three space magnitudes to a quantity of time constitutes a scalar motion. Thus three dimensions of scalar motion are possible. But only one dimension of motion can be accommodated within the conventional spatial reference system. The result of any motion within this reference system can be represented by a vector ( a one-dimensional expression), and the resultant of any number of such motions can be represented by the vector sum (likewise one-dimensional). Any motions that exist in the other two dimensions cannot be represented. Here again we encounter a shortcoming of the reference system. In our examination of the nature of scalar motion we saw that this type of motion cannot be represented in the reference system in its true character. The magnitude and direction attributed to such a motion in the context of the reference system are not specifically defined, but are wholly dependent on the size and position of the object whose location constitutes the reference point. Now we find that there are motions which cannot be represented in the reference system in *any* manner. it is therefore evident that the system of spatial coordinates that we use in conjunction with a clock as a system of reference for physical activity gives us a severely limited, and in some respects inaccurate, view of physical reality. In order to get the true picture we need to examine the whole range of physical activity, not merely that portion of the whole that the reference system is capable of representing. For instance, gravitation has been identified as a scalar motion, and there is no evidence that it is subject to any kind of a dimensional limitation other than that applying to scalar motion in general. We must therefore conclude that gravitation *can* act three-dimensionally. Furthermore, it can be seen that gravitation *must* act in all of the dimensions in which it *can* act. This is a necessary consequence of the relation between gravitation and mass. The magnitude of the gravitational force exerted by a material particle or aggregate ( a measure of its gravitational motion) is determined by its mass. Thus mass is a measure of the inherent negative scalar motion content of the matter. It follows that motion of any mass m is a motion of a negative scalar motion. To produce such a compound motion, a positive scalar motion v (measured as speed or velocity) must be applied to the mass. The resultant is mv, now called momentum, but known earlier as "quantity of motion," a term that more clearly expresses the nature of the quantity. In the context of a spatial reference system, the applied motion v has a direction, and is thus a vector quantity, but the direction is imparted by the coupling to the reference system and is not an inherent property of the motion itself. This motion therefore retains its positive scalar status irrespective of the vectorial direction. In the compound motion mv the negative gravitational motion acts as a resistance to the positive motion v. The gravitational motion must therefore take place in all three of the available dimensions, as any one of the three may be parallel to the dimension of the reference system, and there would be no effective resistance in any vacant dimension. We may therefore identify the gravitational motion as three-dimensional speed, which we can express as s^3/t^3, wher s and t are space and time respectively. The mass (the resistance that this negative gravitational motion offers to the applied positive motion) is then the inverse of this quantity, or t^3/s^3. Since only one dimension of *motion* can be represented in a three-dimensional spatial coordinate system, the gravitational motion in the other two dimensions has no directional effect, but its magnitude applies as a modifier of the magnitude of the motion in the dimension of the reference system. We now turn do a different kind of "dimensions." When physical quantities are resolved into component quantities of a fundamental nature, these component quantities are called dimensions. The currently accepted systems of measurement express the dimensions of *mechanical* quantities in terms of mass, length, and time, together with the dimensions, in the first sense, of these quantities, but now that mass has been identified as a motion, a relation between space and time, all of the quantities of the mechanical system can be expressed in terms of space and time only. For purposes of the present discussion the word "space" will be used instead of "length," to avoid implying that there is a some dimensional difference between space and time. On this basis the "dimensions," or "space-time dimensions" of one-dimensional speed are space divided by time, or s/t. As indicated above, mass has the dimensions t^3/s^3. The product of mass and speed (or velocity) is t^3/s^3 X s/t = t^2/s^2. This is "quantity of motion," or momentum. The product of mass and the second power of speed is t^3/s^3 X s^2/t^2 = t/s, which is energy. Acceleration, the time rate of change of speed, is s/t X 1/t = s/t^2. Multiplying acceleration by mass, we obtain t^3/s^3 X s/t^2 = t/s^2, which is force, the "quantity of acceleration, " we might call it. The dimensions of the other mechanical quantities are simply combinations of these basic dimensions. Pressure, for instance, is force divided by area, t/s^2 X 1/s^2 = t/s^4. When reduced to space-time terms in accordance with the foregoing identifications, all of the well-established mechanical relations are dimensionally consistent. To illustrate this agreement, we may consider the relations applicable to angular motion, which take a different form from those applying to translational motion, and utilize some different physical quantities. The angular system introduces a purely numerical quantity, the angle of rotation O-. The time rate of change of this angle is the angular velocity W, which has the dimensions w=O-/t=1/t. Force is applied in the form of torque, L, which is the product of force and the radius, r. L = Fr = t/s^2 X s = t/s. One other quantity entering into the angular relations is the moment of inertia, symbol I, the product of the mass and the second power of the radius. I = mr^2 = t3/s^3 X s^2 = t^3/s. The following equations demonstrate the dimensional consistency achieved by this identification of the space-time dimensions: energy (t/s) = L theta = t/s X 1 = t/s energy (t/s) = 0.5 IW^2 = t^3/s X 1/t^2 = t/s power (1/s) = Lw = t/s X 1/t = 1/s torque (t/s) = 0.5 Iw^2 = t^3/s X 1/t^2 = t/s The only dimensional discrepancy in the basic equations of the mechanical system is in the gravitational force equation, which is expressed as F = Gmm'/d^2, where G is the gravitational constant and d is the distance between the interacting masses. Although this equation is correct mathematically, it cannot qualify as a theoretically established relation. As on physics textbook puts it, this equation "is not a defining equation...and cannot be derived from defining equations. It represents an *observed relationship." The reason for this inability to arrive at a theoretical explanation of the equation becomes apparent when we examine it from a dimensional standpoint. The dimensions of force in general are those of the product of mass and acceleration. It follows that these must also be the dimensions of any specific force. For instance, the gravitational force acting on an object in the earth's gravitational field is the product of the mass and the "acceleration due to gravity." These same dimensions must likewise apply to the gravitational force in general. When we look at the gravitational equation in this light, it becomes evident that the gravitational constant represents the magnitude of the acceleration at unit values of m' and d, and that these quantities are dimensionless ratios. The dimensionally correct expression of the gravitational equation is then F=ma, where the numerical value of a is Gm'/d^2. The space-time dimensions of the quantities involved in current electricity can easily be identified in the same manner as those of the mechanical system. Most of the measurement systems currently in use add an electric quantity to the mass, length and time applicable to the mechanical system, bringing the total number of independent base quantities to four. However, the new information developed in the forgoing paragraphs enables expressing the electrical quantities of this class in terms of space and time only, in the same manner as the mechanical quantities. Electrical energy (watt-hours) is merely one form of energy in general, and therefore has the energy dimensions, t/s. Power (watts) is energy divided by time, t/s X 1/t = 1/s. Electrical force, or voltage (volts) is equivalent to mechanical force, with the dimensions t/s^2. Electric current (amperes) is power divided by voltage. I = 1/s X s^2/t = s/t. Thus current is dimensionally equal to speed. Electrical quantity (coulombs) is current multiplied by time, and has the dimensions Q=IT = s/t X t = s. Resistence (ohms) is voltage divided by current, R = t/s^2 X t/s = t^2/s^3. This is the only one of the basic quantities involved in the electric current phenomenon that has no counterpart in the mechanical system. Its significance can be appreciated when it is noted that the dimensions t^2/s^3 are those of mass per unit time. The dimensions of other electrical quantities can be obtained by combination, as noted in connection with the mechanical quantities. As can be seen from the foregoing, the quantities involved in the current electricity are dimensionally equivalent to those of the mechanical system. We could, in fact, describe the current phenomena as the mechanical aspects electricity. The only important difference is that mechanics is largely concerned with the motions of individual units or aggregates, while current electricity deals with continuous phenomena in which the individual units are not separately identified. The validity of the dimensional assignments in electricity, and the identity of the electrical and mechanical relations, can be verified by reducing the respective equations to the space-time basis. For example, in mechanics the expression for kinetic energy (or work) is W = 0.5mv^2, the dimensions of which are t^3/s^3 X s^2/t^2 = t/s. The corresponding equation for the energy of the electric current is W = I^2Rt. As mentioned above, the product Rt is equivalent to mass, while I, the current, has the dimensions of speed, s/t. Thus, like the kinetic energy, the electrical energy is the product of mass and the second power of speed, W = I^2Rt = S^2/t^2 X t^2/s^3 X t = t/s. Another expression for mechanical energy is force times distance, W = Fd = t/s^2 X s = t/s. Similarly, relations of current electricity are likewise dimensionally consistent, and equivalent to the corresponding mechanical relations, when reduced to space-time terms. Identification of the space-time dimensions of electrostatic quantities, those involving electric charge, is complicated by the fact that in present-day physical thought electric charge is not distinguished from electrical quantity. As we have seen, electric quantity is dimensionally equivalent to space. On the other hand, we can deduce from the points brought out in the preceding article that electric charge is a one-dimensional analog of mass, and is therefore dimensionally equivalent to energy. This can be verified by consideration of the relations involving *electric field intensity*, symbol E. In terms of charge, the electric field intensity is given by the expression E = Q/s^2. But the field intensity is defined as force per unit distance, and its space-time dimensions are therefore t/s^2 X 1/s = t/s^3. Applying these dimensions to the equation E = Q/s^2, we obtain Q= Es^2 = t/s^3 X s^2 = t/s. As long as the two different quantities that are called by the same name are used separately, their practical application is not affected, but confusion is introduced into the theoretical treatment of the phenomena that are involved. For instance in the relations involving capacitance (symbol C), Q=t/s in the basic equation C = Q/V = t/s X s^2/t = s. The conclusion that capacitance is dimensionally equivalent to space is confirmed observationally, as the capacitance can be calculated from geometrical measurements. However, the ususal form of the corresponding energy equation is W=QV, reflecting the definition of the volt as one joule per coulomb. In this equation, Q=W/V = t/s X s^2/t = s. Because of the lack of distinction between the two usages of Q the quantity CV, which is equal to Q in the equation C = Q/V is freely substituted for Q in equations of the W=Q/V type, leading to results such as W = C/V^2, which are dimensionally incorrect. Such findings emphasize the point that the ability to reduce all physical relations to their space-time dimensions provides us with a powerful and effective tool for analyzing physical phenomena. Its usefulness is clearly demonstrated when it is applied to an examination of *magnetism*, which has been the least understood of the major areas of physics. The currently accepted formulations of the various magnetic relations are a mixture of correct and incorrect expressions, but by using those that are most firmly based it is possible to identify the space-time dimensions of the primary magnetic quantities. This information then enables correcting existing errors in the statements of other relations, and establishing dimensional consistency over the full range of magnetic phenomena. In carrying out such a program we find that magnetism is a two-dimensional analog of electricity. The effect of the added dimension is to introduce a factor t/s into the expressions of the relations applicable to the one-dimensional electric system. Thus the magnetic analog of an electric charge, t/s, is a magnetic charge, t^2/s^2. The existence of such a charge is not recognized in present-day magnetic theory, probably because there is no independent magnetically-charged particle, but one of the methods of dealing with permanent magnets makes use of the concept of the "magnetic pole," which is essentially the same thing. The unit *pole strength* in the SI system, the measurement system now most commonly applied to magnetism, is the weber, which is equivalent to a volt-second , and therefore has the dimensions t/s^2 X t = t^2/s^2. The same units and dimensions apply to magnetic flux, a quantity that is currently used in most relations that involve magnetic charge, as well as in other applications where flux is the more appropriate term. Current ideas concerning magnetic potential, or magnetic force, are in a state of confusion. Questions as to the relation between electric potential and magnetic potential, the difference, if any, between potential and force, and the meaning of the distinctions that are drawn between various magnetic quantities such as magnetic potential, magnetic vector potential, magnetic scalar potential, and magnetomotive force, have never received definitive answers. Now, however, by analyzing these quantities into their space-time dimensions we are able to provide the answers that have been lacking. We find that force and potential have the same dimensions, and are therefore equivalent quantities. The term "potential" is generally applied to a distributed force, a force field, and the use of a special name in this context is probably justified, but is should be kept in mind that a potential is a force. On the other hand, a magnetic potential (force) is not dimensionally equivalent to an electrical potential (force), as it is subject to the additional t/s factor that relates the two-dimensional magnetic quantities to the one-dimensional electric quantities. From the dimensions t/s^2 of the electric potential, if follows that the correct dimensions of the magnetic potential are t/s X t/s^2 = t^2/s^3. This agrees with the dimensions of *magnetic vector potential*. In the SI system, the unit of this quantity is the weber per meter, or t^2/s^2 X 1/s = t^2/s^3. The corresponding cgs unit is the gilbert, which also reduces to t^2/s^3. The same dimensions should apply to *magnetomotive force* (MMF), and to *magnetic potential* where this quantity is distinguished from vector potential. But an error has been introduced into the dimensions attributed to these quantities because the accepted defining relation is an empirical expression that is dimensionally incomplete. Experiments show that the magnetomotive force can be calculated by means of the expression MMF =nI, where n is the number of turns in a coil. Since n is dimensionless, this equation indicates that MMF has the dimensions of electric current. The unit has therefore been taken as the ampere, dimensions s/t. From the discrepancy between these and the correct dimensions we can deduce that the equation MMF= nI, from which the ampere unit is derived, is lacking a quantity with the dimensions t^2/s^3 X t/s = t^3/s^4. There is enough information available to make it evident that the missing factor with these dimensions is the permeability, the magnetic analog of electrical resistance. The permeability of most substances is unity, and omitting has no effect on the numerical results of most experimental measurements. This has led to overlooking it in such relations as the one used in deriving the ampere unit for MMF. When we put the permeability (symbol u) into the empirical equation it becomes MMF = unI, with the correct dimensions, t^3/s^4 X s/t =t^2/s^3. The error in the dimensions attributed to MMF carries over into the potential gradient, the *magnetic field intensity*. By definition, this is the magnetic field potential divided by distance, t^2/s^3 X 1/s = t^2/s^4. But the unit in the SI system is the ampere per meter, the dimensions of which are s/t X 1/s = 1/t. In this case, the cgs unit, the oersted, is derived from the dimensionally correct unit of magnetic potential, and therefore has the correct dimensions, t^2/s^4. The discrepancies in the dimensions of MMF and magnetic field intensity are typical of the confusion that exists in a number of magnetic areas. Much progress has been made toward clarifying these situations in the past few decades, both active, and sometimes acrimonious, controversies still persist with respect to such quantities as magnetic moment and the two vectors usually designated by the letters B and H. In most of these cases, including those specifically mentioned, introduction of the permeability where it is appropriate, or removing it where it is inappropriate, is all that is necessary to clear up the confusion and attain dimensional validity. Correction of the errors in electric and magnetic theory that have been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, together with clarification of physical relations in other areas of confusion, enables expressing all electric and magnetic quantities and relations in terms of space and time, thus completing the consolidation of all of the various systems of measurement into one comprehensive and consistent system. An achievement of this kind is, of course, self-verifying, as the possibility that there might be more than one consistent system of dimensional assignments that agree with observations over the entire field of physical activity is negligible. But straightening out the system of measurement is only a small part of what has been accomplished in this development. More importantly, the positive identification of the space-time dimensions of any physical quantity defines the *basic physical nature* of that quantity. Consequently, any hypothesis with respect to a physical process in which this quantity participates must agree with the dimensional definition. The effect of this constraint on theory construction is illustrated by the findings with respect to the nature of current electricity that were mentioned earlier. Present-day theory views the electric current as a flow of electric charges. But the dimensional analysis shows that charge has the dimensions t/s, whereas the moving entity in the current flow has the dimensions of space, s. It follows that the current is *not* a flow of electric charges. Furthermore, the identification of the space-time dimensions of the moving entity not only tells us what the current is not, but goes on to reveal just what it *is*. According to present-day theory, the carriers of the charges, which are identified as electrons, move through the spaces between the atoms. The finding that the moving entities have the dimensions of space makes this kind of a flow pattern impossible. An entity with the dimensions of space cannot move through space, as the relation of space to space is not motion. Such an entity must move *through the matter itself*, not through the vacant spaces. This explains why the current is confined within the conductor, even if the conductor is bare. If the carriers of the current were able to move forward through vacant spaces between atoms, they should likewise be able to move laterally through similar spaces, and escape from the conductor. But since the current moves through the matter, the confinement is a necessary consequence. The electric current is a *movement of space through matter*, a motion that is equivalent, in all but direction, to movement of matter through space. This is a concept that many individuals will find hard to accept. But is should be realized that the moving entities are not quantities of the space with which we are familiar, extension space, we may call it. There are physical quantities that are dimensionally equivalent to this space of our ordinary experience, and play the same role in physical activity. One of them, capacitance, has already been mentioned in the preceding discussion. The moving entities are quantities of this kind, not quantities of extension space. Here, then, is the explanation of the fact that the basic quantities and relations of the electric current phenomena are identical with those of the mechanical system. The movement of space through matter is essentially equivalent to the movement of matter through space, and is described by the same mathematical expressions. Additionally, the identification of the electric charge as a motion explains the association between charges and certain current phenomena that has been accepted as evidence in favor of the "moving charge" theory of the electric current. One observation that has had considerable influence on scientific thought is that an electron moving in open space has the same magnetic properties as an electric current. But we can now see that the observed electron is not merely a charge. It is a particle with an added motion that constitutes the charge. The carrier of the electric current is the same particle *without the charge*. A charge that is stationary in the reference system has electrostatic properties. An uncharged electron in motion within a conductor has magnetic properties. A charged electron moving in a conductor or in a gravitational field has both magnetic and electrostatic properties. It is the motion of physical entities with the dimensions of space that produces the magnetic effect. Whether or not these entities-electrons or their equivalent- are charged is irrelevant from this standpoint. Another observed phenomenon that has contributed to the acceptance of the "moving charge" theory is the emission of charged electrons from current-carrying conductors under certain conditions. The argument in this instance is that if charged electrons come *out of* a conductor there must have been charged electrons *in* the conductor. The answer to this is that the kind of motion which constitutes the charge is easily imparted to a particle or atom (as anyone who handles one of the modern synthetic fabrics can testify), and this motion is imparted to the electrons in the process of ejection from the conductor. Since the uncharged particle cannot move through space, the acquisition of a charge is one of the requirements for escape. In addition to providing these alternative explanations for aspects of the electric current phenomena that are consistent with the "moving charge" theory, the new theory of the current that emerges from the scalar motion study also accounts for a number of features of the current flow that are difficult to reconcile with the conventional theory. But the validity of the new theory does not rest on a summation of its accomplishments. The conclusive point is that the identification of the electric current as a motion of space through matter is confirmed by agreement with the dimensions of the participating entities, dimensions that are verified by every physical relation in which the electric current is involved. The proof of validity can be carried even farther. It is possible to put the whole development of thought in this and the preceding article to a conclusive test. We have found that mass is a three-dimensional scalar motion, and that electric current is a one-dimensional scalar motion through a mass by entities that have the dimensions of space. We have further found that magnetism is a two-dimensional analog of electricity. If these findings are valid, certain consequences necessarily follow that are extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to explain in any other way. The one-dimensional, oppositely directed, flow of the current through the three-dimensional scalar motion of matter neutralizes a portion of the motion in one of the three dimensions, and should leave an observable two-dimensional (magnetic) residue. Similarly, movement of a two-dimensional (magnetic) entity through a mass, or the equivalent of such a motion, should leave a one-dimensional (electric) residue. Inasmuch as these are direct and specific requirements of the theory outlined in the foregoing paragraphs, and are not called for by any other physical theory, their presence or absence is a definitive test of the validity of the theory. The observations give us an unequivocal answer. The current flow produces a magnetic effect, and this effect is perpendicular to the direction of the current, just as it must be if it is the residue of a three-dimensional motion that remains after motion in the one dimension of the current flow is neutralized. This perpendicular direction of the magnetic effect of the current is a total mystery to present-day physical science, which has no explanation for either the origin of the effect or its direction. But both the origin and the direction are obvious and necessary consequences of our findings with respect to the nature of mass and the electric current. There is no independent magnetic particle similar to the carrier of the electric current, and no two-dimensional motion of space through matter analogous to the one-dimensional motion of the current is possible, but the same effect can be produced by mechanical movement of mass through a magnetic field, or an equivalent process. As the theory requires, the one-dimensional residue of such motion is observed to be an electric current. This process is *electromagnetic induction*. The magnetic effect of the current is *electromagnetism*. On first consideration it might seem that the magnitude of the electromagnetic effect is far out of proportion to the amount of gravitational motion that is neutralized by the current. However, this is a result of the large numerical constant, 3 E10 in cgs units (represented by the symbol c), that applies to the space-time ratio s/t where conversion from an n-dimensional quantity to an m-dimensional quantity takes place. An example that, by this time, is familiar to all, is the conversion of mass (t^3/s^3) to energy (t/s). In that process, where the relation is between a three-dimensional quantity and a one-dimensional quantity, the numerical factor is c^2. In the relation between the three-dimensional mass and the two-dimensional magnetic residue the numerical factor is c, less than c^2 but still a very large number. Thus the theory of the electric current developed in the foregoing discussion passes the test of validity in a definite and positive manner. The results that it requires are in full agreement with two observed physical phenomena of a significant nature *that are wholly unexplained* in present-day physical thought. Together with the positively established validity of the corresponding system of space-time dimensions, this test provides a verification of the entire theoretical development described in this article, a proof that meets the most rigid scientific standard. ------------------------------- 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/ | Celestial navigation is based on the premise that the Earth is the center of the universe. The premise is wrong, but the navigation works. An incorrect model can be a useful tool. -- Kelvin Throop III 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. 'Behold the turtle. He makes progress only when he sticks his neck out.' --James Bryant Conant. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 21:17:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA19445; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 21:15:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 21:15:30 -0800 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 23:14:41 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612300514.XAA27181@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Calorimetry for measuring electric power Resent-Message-ID: <"R0ntw3.0.kl4.l_qno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2990 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: You don't need all those components, Horace. V | | R | | DUT (device under test) | | G It is vital that the V be constant. Fortunately this is relatively easy to achieve using adequate filter capacitors, regulators, etc...even at high voltages. The R is calorimetrically instrumented so the heat power P liberated in it can be accurately measured. Using i=sqrt(P/R) you can thus compute the RMS i (not the average i, BTW) from the measured P. With the RMS i you can then compute the total power leaving the power supply (since V is constant) as Ptot = V*i. You can then compute the power delivered to the DUT by subtracting: Pdut = Ptot - P We have used this techique extensively to monitor the average electrical power delivered to repetitive spark discharge devices for calorimetric measurements of same. It seems to work pretty well but, since it involves two calorimetric power measurements (one for the R and a second for the DUT), it is not as clean and easy as it may seem on paper. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Sun Dec 29 23:08:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA02181; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 23:05:24 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 23:05:24 -0800 Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: help please To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 01:04:53 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <199612300343.TAA22024@netserve.kfalls.net> from "Don Evans" at Dec 29, 96 07:43:50 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"-uQ732.0._X.ocsno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2991 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Don Evans wrote: > just a thought that needs a little claification i remember that if you have > two sounds identicle they will cancel out each other and there will be no > sound is this correct. > > and if it is does it also apply to electro magnetic forces ( such as radio > waves) such as to identicle radio waves. Wave cancellation applies to radio waves, since that is the primary means by which directional antenna arrays operate. Note however that such "cancellation" is generally not dissipative (turned into random motion, i.e. heat) but rather simply doubles the energy levels (in phase additive) at some other point. There is a device marketed that when worn over the ears, acts to actively dampen sound reaching the eardrum. These earphones move to counteract the compression and rarefaction waves impinging on the eardrum. In so doing, there will be a point outside the eardrum area where the waves will double in amplitude rather than cancel. Directional antenna arrays operate along the same principles, where the phases adding constructively is the main "lobe" of the antenna. -- - 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 Dec 29 23:31:00 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id XAA04769; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 23:29:33 -0800 Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 23:29:33 -0800 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:31:05 -0800 Message-Id: <199612300831.AAA08798@netserve.kfalls.net> X-Sender: me2@kfalls.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: ME2@KFALLS.NET (Don Evans) Subject: Re: help please Resent-Message-ID: <"T1cXm2.0.NA1.Szsno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2992 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >Don Evans wrote: >> just a thought that needs a little claification i remember that if you have >> two sounds identicle they will cancel out each other and there will be no >> sound is this correct. >> >> and if it is does it also apply to electro magnetic forces ( such as radio >> waves) such as to identicle radio waves. > >Wave cancellation applies to radio waves, since that is the primary means >by which directional antenna arrays operate. > >Note however that such "cancellation" is generally not dissipative (turned >into random motion, i.e. heat) but rather simply doubles the energy >levels (in phase additive) at some other point. > >There is a device marketed that when worn over the ears, acts to actively >dampen sound reaching the eardrum. These earphones move to counteract >the compression and rarefaction waves impinging on the eardrum. In so >doing, there will be a point outside the eardrum area where the waves >will double in amplitude rather than cancel. > >Directional antenna arrays operate along the same principles, where >the phases adding constructively is the main "lobe" of the antenna. > >-- > - 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 - thanks if one was to generate a frequency such as the earths resonant frequency and focus this against a greater energy such as the earth generated frequency ( i think its called the shuman resonces?) WOULD ONE GET MORE POWER AT SOME POINT THAN THAT GENERATED AND IF SO HOW WOULD ONE CAPTURE AND USE THIS. DON From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 30 00:04:15 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA09637; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:02:09 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:02:09 -0800 Message-Id: From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) Subject: Re: help please To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 02:01:58 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <199612300831.AAA08798@netserve.kfalls.net> from "Don Evans" at Dec 30, 96 00:31:05 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: <"kew0V.0.SM2.-Rtno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2993 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Don Evans wrote: > if one was to generate a frequency such as the earths resonant > frequency and focus this against a greater energy such as the earth > generated frequency ( i think its called the shuman resonces?) WOULD ONE > GET MORE POWER AT SOME POINT THAN THAT GENERATED AND IF SO HOW WOULD ONE > CAPTURE AND USE THIS. DON Well, suppose you had a river and you used pumps to double its flow rate, then downstream you had a generating station which used the river flow to extract power. As you can see, the "doubling" effect is superfluous -- why go to all the bother if the natural flow rate can generate power on its own -- all you are doing is adding an inefficient (hence energy wasting) layer. If the earth has resonances that are tapable, "doubling" it with input power is unnecessary. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-699-9472 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 30 00:36:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA14849; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:32:48 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:32:48 -0800 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32C77E27.13728473@math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:32:39 -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 Beads References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"viHqu.0.td3.kutno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2995 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Martin Sevior wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Barry Merriman wrote: > > > Yes, you are correct---i.e. the reason CETI does not sell > > an excess heat kit is because they cannot make beads of sufficent > > quality in sufficient quantity for such a purpose. Supposedly, some > > of the early batches of beads, such as those used in their public > > demos, were of unusually good quality. > > > > Do you have this information directly from someone in CETI Direct from the horses mouth, as it were. Does not mean I believe, thats just what I was told. -- 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 Dec 30 00:37:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA14336; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:30:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:30:22 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 23:23:27 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Calorimetry for measuring electric power Resent-Message-ID: <"PVgYI2.0.nV3.Ostno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2994 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 11:14 PM 12/29/96, Scott Little wrote: >You don't need all those components, Horace. > > V > | > | > R > | > | > DUT (device under test) > | > | > G > >It is vital that the V be constant. Fortunately this is relatively easy to >achieve using adequate filter capacitors, regulators, etc...even at high >voltages. > [snip] > - Scott Little I understand the above method. However, I have "all those components", but not the voltage regulators or clean power supply, so probably that is clouding my judgement. I just want to cobble together something from what I have. I did at the time of posting think this topic might have some general application and interest though. The other bit of cloudy thinking on my part is that in a specific test I have in mind some electric power is fed back from the DUT to the DUT. If the feedback loop is over unity I will need voltage regulators to prevent runaway. So, there I am back to needing regulators anyway. I still very much like the idea of a totally calorimetric cross check of the electronic measurements though. Thanks for the info. It's helping me clear the cobwebs. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 30 00:38:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA15931; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:37:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:37:16 -0800 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32C77F34.500F9F30@math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:37:08 -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: Need a good price on Pd foil... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"zHzzr1.0.pu3.vytno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2996 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: For our CETI-independent sputter coated CF experiments, We are constructing a Pd sputtering target, for which we need a piece of Pd foil at least big enough to cover a 2.0'' diam disk, and at least 0.004'' thick. Does anyone happen to have any scrap around, or know of a good price on such. These metals can get expensive fast, and we are trying to keep it at a minimal budget for the equipment we don't already have on hand. -- 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 Dec 30 00:47:28 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA17128; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:46:13 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:46:13 -0800 Sender: barry@math.ucla.edu Message-Id: <32C7814F.7566F4CF@math.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:46:07 -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 Beads References: <961229031817_76016.2701_JHC56-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Kn86i2.0.YB4.K5uno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2997 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Terry Blanton wrote: > > This from a conference held by Christian Ismert of CETI > on the CompuServe UFO forum (/go UFO) If CETI is holding Q&A sessions on UFO forums, I think either their end is near, or they need a new PR director. -- 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 Dec 30 05:26:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA18473; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 05:24:22 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 05:24:22 -0800 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 14:21:09 +0100 Message-Id: <199612301321.OAA06749@atom.bbtt.com> X-Sender: harti@bbtt.de (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: Re: PMM 1st and 2nd kinds Cc: freenrg-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"5XlMt.0.TW4.2Ayno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2998 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: > >"The devices made by Takahashi, Griggs, CETI, Mizuno, and >Ohmori worked. I investigated them first hand, reported on them, and as far as >I can determine they work. There is still a new one: The Norwegian Finsrud PM ! Have a look at it also via an MPEG movie: http://www.overunity.de/finsrud.htm A friend of mine has visited it and it really works ! >I think it may be possible to theoretically prove that a PMM of the second >kind can exist. The basic theory is described in my latest paper which I >am in the process of submitting. And yes the cold spot would be readily >apparent. That will make it easy to verify the operation of such a device. Bernhard Schaeffer over here in Berlin, Germany has a measurement setup using 2 gas mixtures which can convert heat on a 100 % conversion process to mechanical energy. No cold pole needed ! This is also in violation to the "second law", which is by the way NO Law but just an "everyday experience"... I hope he will soon publish his results... Regards, Stefan. -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany NEUE Nummern : Tel: ++ 4930-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 4930-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.harti.de Webmaster of: http://www.detours.de Have a look at the future: http://www.overunity.de My favourite ladies on the WEB: http://www.nylon-fetish.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 30 05:27:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA18547; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 05:24:50 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 05:24:50 -0800 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 14:21:07 +0100 Message-Id: <199612301321.OAA06747@atom.bbtt.com> X-Sender: harti@bbtt.de (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: JNaudin509@aol.com From: harti@bbtt.de (Stefan Hartmann) Subject: Re: G-Field generator test (informations) Cc: bauer.d@krypta.aball.de, freenrg-l@eskimo.com, vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"hHaq3.0.eX4.VAyno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2999 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: >G-FIELD INPUT POWER : > > with NOLOAD : > INPUT = 8.4 V / 2.8 A about 24 watts > > with LOAD ( lamp 12V/5W ) > INPUT = 7.8 V / 3.5 A about 27 watts Wow, that is a very good result ! Only 3 Watts more power in, when the load is applied ! And you also got about 3.5 Watts out in one experiment ! So there is some hope, if you build it much bigger, that the input power to overcome the losses will be much less than the additional output power ! How strong were your magnets ? Did you use Neodymium magnets ? What kind of energy product (BxH) did they have ? How big were the magnets (dimensions) ? Regards, Stefan. >>From : Jean-Louis Naudin ( JNaudin509@aol.com ) >To : Dieter Bauer > >On 28/12/1996 17:47:28, You wrote : > ><< > I have some remarks regarding this measurements: > The measurements are made with load and without load. I am missing the power > > data needed to drive the motor with load and without load. The power data > of the driving motor given above do not allow to estimate whether there is > some hope in this setup . The difference of the power values of the motor > with and without load should be compared with the power drawn from the G- > field generator. Then it can be ruled out whether internal losses causes > the negativ result or whether the result seems to stem from the physics. > > In addition I have a question: Are the cores of the coils laminated to > prevent eddy currents in the iron cores ? According to Brown's > observations it should be necessary ! > > Best regards > > Dieter Bauer > > forwarded by harti@harti.de to freenrg-l and vortex-l > >> > >Dear Mr Bauer, > >I give you some complement of informations about my Bedini's G-Field >generator tests report ( my mail of 13 dec 96 ) : > >Motor : > model Graupner Speed 600 / 8.4V > Nominal voltage : 8.4 V > blocking-current drain : 70 A > Operating voltage range (direct drive ) : 4.8...9.6 V > Operating voltage range (inc.gearbox) : 8.4...16 V > No-Load speed 15500 RPM > Idle-current drain 1.8 A > Current drain at max. efficiency : 11 A > Max efficiency (without gearbox) 75% > >Notes about coils : Cores of coils are made with 5 irons rods of 4x35 mm each >to prevent eddy currents. > >>RESULTS : >> >>G-Field generator turn at 2400 RPM with 24 Watt input ( 8 volts, 3 A DC) >>Signal waveforms on scope have the same shape of Bedini's G-Field showed in >>picture with frequency of 40 Hz at 2400 RPM. >> >>AC mode with NO LOAD >> In CUR mode : 9.2 Volts RMS output >> In VTG mode : 19 Volts RMS output >> >>AC mode with LOAD ( 5 watt 12 volt lamp ) >> In CUR mode : U = 8 volts / I = 0.252 A power output about 3.5 Watt >> In VTG mode : U= 11.4 volts / I = 0.31 A power output about 2 Watt >> >>DC mode with NO LOAD >> In CUR mode : U = 15 volts >> In VTG mode : U = 29.5 volts >> >>DC mode with LOAD ( 5 watt 12 volt lamp ) >> In CUR mode : U = 8.4 volts / I = 0.25 A power output about 2.1 Watt >> In VTG mode : U= 7.1 volts / I = 0.22 A power output about 1.56 Watt >> > >Sincerely, >Jean-Louis Naudin >Email: JNaudin509@aol.com > > > -- Hartmann Multimedia Service, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann Keplerstr. 11 B, 10589 Berlin, Germany NEUE Nummern : Tel: ++ 4930-345 00 497 FAX: ++ 4930-345 00 498 email: harti@harti.de harti@bbtt.de Web site: http://www.harti.de Webmaster of: http://www.detours.de Have a look at the future: http://www.overunity.de My favourite ladies on the WEB: http://www.nylon-fetish.com From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 30 05:56:03 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id FAA23339; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 05:54:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 05:54:21 -0800 From: RMCarrell@aol.com Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 08:53:46 -0500 Message-ID: <961230085345_237570892@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI Beads Resent-Message-ID: <"LVktr1.0.bi5.Ccyno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3000 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 96-12-29 03:07:48 EST, Jean DeLegarde wrote: > Sorry, as confirmed by Scott Little and others, the transmutation beads > have the same polymer substrate as before. Ceramic was just a rumor. For what it's worth, when I visited the CETI booth at the ANS meeting, there was a small Patterson cell running in the corner and Reding and Cravens both said it used ceramic-core beads; this implies nothing with respect to the beads in the RIFEX kits, but common sense leads one to assume they are what Miley/CETI have the most experience with, plastic. I believe Reding (or was it Jed?) indicated that the power cells have limited life when run at high power levels, and this was delaying commercial realizations of power cells. To the best of my knowledge, this has nothing to do with the beads themselves, but with damage to the thin metal coatings. Patterson told me that the plastic beads could be operated well above boiling in a pressurized cell, since the beads do not melt, but sublime, which can be inhibited by pressureization. Patterson can easily replicate the bead cores, but the coatings may be another matter. Apparently, much depends on maintaining the continuity and structual integrity of the coatings under the stress of the reactions. Mike Carrell From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 30 07:12:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA05546; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 07:10:19 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 07:10:19 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961230103004.0069fe44@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 10:30:14 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: what is electromagnetic field anyway? Cc: hoyt@isus.wierius.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"eQzyH.0.aM1.Pjzno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3001 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: (please see notes in body) At 08:46 PM 12/29/96 GMT, Hoyt wrote: >According to the Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, a magnetic >field is the 2 dimensional residue of gravity when one of it's >three dimensions of inward scalar motion is neutralized by the passing >of a current, which, for example >can be the motion of 1 dimensional scalar particles, electrons, through >mass. > >An electric field is the one dimensional scalar residue of gravity >when a two dimensional scalar motion neutralizes two of gravity's 3 >dimensions. Simple, huh? > No. According to this theory, is the reciprocal also true? ie. Can a gravitational field be created using magnetic or electric configurations? .....Yes? .....How? >Note that this implies that the mass of a conductor will be reduced >when a current is passing through it, something that may have >been observed in rail guns, and suggests ways to implement reactionless >thrust! > Graneau did some extensive work with this idea, but was it the *mass* that changed? >An electromagnetic wave is an entirely unrelated thing, a flux of >real particles, photons, which are themselves one dimensional scalar >motions oscillating in a second scalar dimension. > >In this theory, electrons are usually not charged inside matter >and current flow is the motion of the electrons themselves, not >the charge. > What experimental evidence has there been to display a chargless electron? >You can see that this theory is very different from what you are used >to, and it can not be mixed with the conventional view. However >this theory is much better at explaining quantitively many effects >that you observe in all fields of physics, from the lifetime of the neutron >to the lifetimes and spectra of stars. > >As long as you consider electricity in conductors as the motion >of charges, or that electrons are parts of atoms, >you'll just never come up with much coherency. > >Here are a couple of papers to amplify the above: >------------------------- > >According to Ronald W. Satz in his paper "Theory of Electrons and Currents", >Reciprocity, Vol. XIII, No. 1, Autumn 1983, > On line? >"...The Reciprocal System is much more specific on the details of electron >attributes that conventional theory... The electron is a spherical particle >resulting from the rotation of a single photon. The frequency of the photon >is 2R = 6.576115E15 cycles/second. The rotational speeds in revolutions per >second around the three axes are r/pi , 2R/pi , 4R/pi or >1.0466212E15 rev/sec. , 2.0932424E15 rev/sec , 4.1864848E15 rev/sec. > >The electron may be charged or uncharged. If charged, the electron has an >added rotational vibratory motion of R/2pi = 5.233106E14 cycles/sec. > >The diameter d of the electron is one natural space unit, reduced by the >appropriate inter-regional ratio (142.22 here). Thus, >d = 4.55884E-8 /142.22 = 3.2054 A. > *The Dimensions of Motion* > -Dewey B. Larson > Thanks for your consideration of these questions. Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 30 07:40:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA07788; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 07:26:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 07:26:06 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 10:24:14 -0500 Message-ID: <961230102412_1889120941@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-L@eskimo.com, GeorgeHM@aol.com, zettsjs@ml.wpafb.af.mil, Puthoff@aol.com, peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro, reed@zenergy.com, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Subject: Final Frontier Magazine reports Resent-Message-ID: <"NcttB3.0.Yv1.Byzno"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3002 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Final Frontier PO box 16179 North Hollywood Calf reports in the Feb 1997 addition. "NASA is working with theorist Ning Li of the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Equipment and test materials are being prepped for a set of experiments that could, if successful, lead to new kinowledge about gravity fields. If Li's ideas work, modifiying and controlling graivty may be the outcome. Researchers in 1992 at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland first claimed to observe a gravity force shielding effect.......Eugene Podkletnov discovered that objects suspended over a rapidly spinning disc of superconducting ceramic material weighed less that normal......." Picture of NASA disc is shown. It looks like a 45 RPM record...more or less... Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 30 08:33:50 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA19415; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 08:31:28 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 08:31:28 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9612301028.ZM2635@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 10:28:06 -0600 In-Reply-To: Edwin Strojny "Re: CETI Beads" (Dec 29, 9:59am) References: <1.5.4.32.19961229155935.008e0bec@freeway.net> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CETI Beads Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"4YV7B.0.Hl4.Vv-no"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3003 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Dec 29, 9:59am, Edwin Strojny wrote: > Other substrates that appeal to me are the synthetic zeolites which are like > hollow spheres with openings that vary in size with the type of zeolite. > Thus, you could coat the outer surface and inner surface with different/same > metals to see what happens. Interesting concept, can you elaborate on these zeolites? I seem to recall reading about atomic level structures like this a few years back, but I get the impression you are talking about something a bit larger. What are these structures being used for now? -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSS From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 30 10:19:56 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA02804; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 10:04:08 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 10:04:08 -0800 From: biberian@crmc2.univ-mrs.fr Message-Id: <199612301757.SAA26251@mccir3.crmc2.univ-mrs.fr> Subject: Bonne Annee To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Mon, 30 Dec 96 18:57:54 MET In-Reply-To: ; from "Jean_de_Lagarde" at Dec 28, 96 9:02 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Resent-Message-ID: <"7OMUQ.0.jh.MG0oo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3007 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Bone Annee J'espere que cette annee sera la bonne pour la fusion froide. J'espere vous rencontrer un de ces jours a Grenoble. Jean-Paul Biberian From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 30 15:30:22 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA13866; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 15:22:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 15:22:34 -0800 X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <961228222744_72240.1256_EHB80-3@CompuServe.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 18:22:18 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: PMM 1st and 2nd kinds Resent-Message-ID: <"4iXgk2.0.XO3.tw4oo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3008 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: First of all let me state that I and not claiming that CETI and George Miley are being dishonest as has been suggested here. When you have completed your research and have found out what you can and cannot do then you bring forth your product - the CETI reflex transmutation kit and the Miley transmutation paper. If you fail to do something then there is nothing wrong or dishonest with presenting a scientific paper of a product with no mention of a claim that was show to be unattainable. It is not required to explain your failures but only to justify your alleged successes. The excess heat claim is gone now, I think because the proponents found out that it was non existent, and there is no question of honesty as the proponents have abandoned their claims in their final product and they are not required to say why. It is the end result that is important - scientific papers and products. In reference to Jed Rothwell's discussion >If you believe CETI and Miley are frauds and liars capable of such outrageous >behavior then you should ignore all of their claims. If you think that I would >not take care to ask about these subjects -- after all the discussion of them >on s.p.f. -- then you should disregard everything I report. As I have said >here many times, Miley and I discussed the stored-and-added chemical >>energy hypotheses and we concluded they have no merit, for the reasons >>discussed here and on s.p.f. in detail. The response is simply to state that there is "excess enthalpy" without actually evaluating it. The differential of the enthalpy, dH, is given by dH = T dS + V dP with T the temperature, dS the entropy differential, V the volume, and dP the pressure differential. If we ignore dP we have dH = T dS = dQ where dQ is the heat differential. So the "excess enthalpy" as used by Miley et al is just excess heat which does not include the internal chemical potential energy. The proper quantity to evaluate is the mechanical work that may be extracted from the temperature difference. Since no measurements of the chemical composition were made the possiblity of the cell exchanging thermal and potential energy up to the Carnot cycle limit cannot be excluded. Only if the apparent heat excess implies an amount of possible mechanical output energy that exceeds the input energy can the case be made for excess energy. The equation for this is: Energy excess = Normal heat excess * log( Tout / Tin ) - Energy in This formula contains the normal expression for the heat excess times the log of temperature out divided by temperature in. The energy excess using this formula is always less than zero. In all of Jed's numbers he has ignored the log( Tout / Tin ) term which substantially reduces the apparent excess. >1. CF excess heat has also been observed in static calorimeters, with both Pd >and Ni. Total energy output has often exceeded the limits of chemistry by >>many orders of magnitude. The Static calorimetry results always showed small heat excess which have tended to vanish with more precise experimental techniques as in the case of the SRI results which Jed himself has told us now are no longer reproducible. >mechanisms by which energy might be added to circulating electrolyte. I will >grant these are at least debatable, but nobody has suggested any method of >adding outside chemical energy to a test tube in a bath. There is no claim of outside chemical energy being added. My suggestion was that the cell was forcing an exchange between thermal energy and internal chemical energy. My mechanism of the cell electric field causing a shift in the Gibb's potential through the polarization interaction looks reasonable if one substitutes in the numbers. >If this can be done >it would overthrow the experimental basis of thermodynamics going back to >>the1790s, when this form of calorimetry was devised. Flow calorimetry is not valid if the change in chemical potential is not considered. >2. In some of CETI demonstrations the excess is far greater (by orders of >magnitude) than all energy input from the pump and other hypothetical >>external sources. Not with the log( Tout / Tin ) term included. >Warton has never addressed these issues. I am tired of pointing them out. I >think he is not serious. He is evading the issues. So I hereby withdraw from >this discussion. Jed should ask himself why is he still advocating the heat excess when the two principals, George Miley and CETI are not. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 30 15:52:24 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA09597; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 09:37:39 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 09:37:39 -0800 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 11:36:06 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612301736.LAA20835@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: excess enthaply - Wharton Resent-Message-ID: <"uRujV.0.RL2.It_no"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3005 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 18:39 12/28/96 -0500, Larry W wrote: >>Claims of "excess enthalpy" made by George Miley are >>incorrect because the enthalpy was never evaluated and in any event it is >>not a relevant parameter. The proper parameter is the ambient temperature >>times the entropy change across the cell. The power given by >> >>Cv * Flow Rate * Ambient Temperature * Log ( Tout / Tin) >> >>must exceed the input power and this has never been demonstrated. and then Mitchell Swartz wrote: > > Could you please derive this, and note what assumptions might be made? to which I would like to add: Yes, please. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 30 15:53:21 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA23228; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 15:50:25 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 15:50:25 -0800 From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Jennison article Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 23:50:10 GMT Organization: Improving Message-ID: <32cab2a4.11392113@mail.netspace.net.au> References: <32C57D21.6F2D@pacbell.net> In-Reply-To: <32C57D21.6F2D@pacbell.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.354 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Xz2LL3.0.mg5.zK5oo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3009 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Sat, 28 Dec 1996 12:03:45 -0800, hjscudde@pacbell.net wrote: >Robin > Would it be possible for you to post the Jennison article on your >home page? >-Hank Scudder > Sorry Hank, This would be copyright violation. Not that I agree with the concept of copyright, but until they change the law I have to follow it. 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 Mon Dec 30 15:54:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA06012; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 09:26:14 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 09:26:14 -0800 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 11:25:27 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612301725.LAA19875@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Need a good price on Pd foil... Resent-Message-ID: <"Z0NQA.0.mT1.pi_no"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3004 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 00:37 12/30/96 -0800, you wrote: >For our CETI-independent sputter coated CF experiments, >We are constructing a Pd sputtering target, for which >we need a piece of Pd foil at least big enough to cover a 2.0'' >diam disk, and at least 0.004'' thick. 1995-96 Alfa (Johnson Matthey) catalog: 50mm sq Pd (99.9%) foil .004" thick - $115 50mm sq Pd (99.99975%) foil .004" thick - $147 1992-1993 Aldrich catalog: same as 1st Alfa item - $151.45 Barry, If you can't order from Alfa, we could buy it for you and ship to you at no extra charge...they are hard to deal with as an individual. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 30 16:11:26 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id JAA10613; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 09:42:32 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 09:42:32 -0800 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 11:41:48 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612301741.LAA21379@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: Calorimetry for measuring electric power Resent-Message-ID: <"PWuEH2.0.lb2.7y_no"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3006 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 23:23 12/29/96 -0900, you wrote: >I understand the above method. However, I have "all those components", but >not the voltage regulators or clean power supply.... I have used successfully a simple xfmr, bridge, capacitor power supply running off the mains, or better yet, a small SOLA. With a big R, V is usually stable enuf without feedback regulation. One thing you need is an R that doesn't have a big temp coeff. It IS going to get hot in use (that's how you get the calorimetric result) and you need to know the value of R to compute the RMS i. We had some old HV types that look like a barber pole with a carbon deposit winding around a ceramic core. They were HORRIBLE! We ended up with some bought from Victoreen for $$ but they were EXCELLENT. Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 30 18:43:55 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA01285; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 18:33:52 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 18:33:52 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961231023141.008ea10c@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" Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 21:31:41 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Edwin Strojny Subject: Re: CETI Beads Resent-Message-ID: <"EmTUI1.0.SJ.tj7oo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3010 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 10:28 AM 12/30/96 -0600, you wrote: >On Dec 29, 9:59am, Edwin Strojny wrote: > >> Other substrates that appeal to me are the synthetic zeolites which >are like >> hollow spheres with openings that vary in size with the type of >zeolite. >> Thus, you could coat the outer surface and inner surface with >different/same >> metals to see what happens. > >Interesting concept, can you elaborate on these zeolites? I seem to >recall reading about atomic level structures like this a few years >back, but I get the impression you are talking about something a bit >larger. What are these structures being used for now? > >-john > >-- >John E. Steck >Motorola CSS > Zeolites are more commonly known under the name 'molecular sieves'. They have a silica-alumina structure with anionic charges and usually have sodium ions as cations. One text book describes them as having a cubo-octahedral structure. The inner chambers or cages have dimensions on the order of about 11 Angstoms or more. The cages are interconnected with passages of about 4 Angstroms. The cations are inside the large cages. The artificial zeolite permutit has been used for water softening by exchanging the sodium ions with the calcium ions in hard water. They have been displaced from this use by the sulfonated, cross-linked polystyrene beads known as ion exchange resins. A fair number of synthetic zeolites have been synthesized and are used commercially. The right one can be used to separate linear hydrocarbons from branched hydrocarbons, hence the name molecular sieve. Molecular sieves are used in gas analysis by gas chromatography. Hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide can be separated and their concentrations measured. Trace amounts of water in organic liquids can be trapped by using the right molecular sieve. The most notable use is their use as a catalyst for the conversion of methanol to gasoline. New Zealand has at least one and possibly more such manufacturing plants. The prime supplier (and only supplier?) is Mobil Oil. I'm sure that the patents on the synthesis of these zeolites have expired, but there are many use patents. Mobil Oil gaurds their expertise in this field carefully. It has been 10 years since I've retired as a chemist so I don't know what the situation is now. By writing to Mobil Oil one can get brochures describing the stucture and uses of zeolites. The sodium ions can be removed from the cages by displacing with other metal ions. The readily reducible ions can be reduced by hydrogen. The conversion of the zeolite to the acid form is done by dispalcing the sodium ions with ammonium ions and driving off the ammonia at a high temperature (350-400 deg C). One can thus place Pd or Ni in the cages and sputter Pd or Ni on the surface (for electrical contact?). Ed Strojny From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 30 18:52:18 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA02665; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 18:39:59 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 18:39:59 -0800 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 18:37:36 -0800 (PST) From: Nils Rognerud To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Hooper Lab: the forgotten finer details... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"s0pRu3.0.3f.Up7oo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3011 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi Folks, Just added a new small web page on the details of the Hooper coil experiment and some of the problems he had. The web page includes a couple of images you may not have seen before. -Nils From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 30 18:59:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA05427; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 18:53:10 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 18:53:10 -0800 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 18:48:10 -0800 (PST) From: Nils Rognerud To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Hooper Lab: the forgotten finer details... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"UNpvI3.0.zI1.X_7oo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: formail -D 8192 msgid.cache X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: And, of course - the address is (sorry I forgot in the first email): http://www.best.com/~rognerud/html/hooper.html -Nils On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Nils Rognerud wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Just added a new small web page on the details of the Hooper coil > experiment and some of the problems he had. The web page includes a couple > of images you may not have seen before. > > -Nils > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Mon Dec 30 19:15:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id TAA09401; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 19:13:30 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 19:13:30 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961230223317.006ad5f4@inforamp.net> X-Sender: quinney@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 22:33:20 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Quinney Subject: Re: Hooper Lab: the forgotten finer details... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <"zGkyY3.0.pI2.QJ8oo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: formail -D 8192 msgid.cache X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 06:48 PM 12/30/96 -0800, you wrote: >And, of course - the address is (sorry I forgot in the first email): >http://www.best.com/~rognerud/html/hooper.html >-Nils Is anyone else having trouble getting onto Nils' Web Site? I've tried several times today... and no luck, even now. Colin Quinney. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 00:52:45 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id AAA12942; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 00:23:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 00:23:17 -0800 Message-ID: <32C8DC34.7EA6@gorge.net> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 01:26:12 -0800 From: tom@gorge.net (Tom Miller) Reply-To: tom@gorge.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: zeolites/yttrium References: <1.5.4.32.19961231023141.008ea10c@freeway.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"hE3xr3.0.0A3.prCoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3014 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Here are two sites about a recently discovered "proton bond" in zeolites. It is said to be not predicted by quantum theory. http://ci.mond.org/9604/960409.html http://acsinfo.acs.org/plweb/journals/jpchax/100/i09/html/jp9523231.html Yttrium: the Dec. 96 issue of Popular Science (p 31) mentions a window film made of yttrium hydride. It says that applied voltage causes the yttrium metal to take up hydrogen, making it a transparent semiconductor. Apparently, the degree of hydrogen attachment varies with voltage. Does anyone know more about this? Tom miller From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 02:13:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id BAA21032; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 01:52:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 01:52:37 -0800 Date: 27 Dec 96 09:52:00 EST From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:vortex-l@eskimo.com" Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Message-ID: <961227145200_76570.2270_FHU36-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"zNlQx.0.Y85.Z9Eoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3015 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Chris wrote: "What I find 'bizarre' about it is the apparent lack of thought with which Sagan reframed the argument from authority to make it look better than it does when stated baldly. His dictum can be applied to just about all forward leaps in science. For example, stomach ulcers were believed to be caused by stress. Sounds reasonable, it is not an 'extraordinary' claim. But there was precisely zero evidence. Every believed it, so when Marshall came along his claim of a bacterial cause was 'extraordinary', so he had to campaign for twelve years even after he had secure clinical evidence." Right on, Chris! You have gotten straight to the point. The Sagan dictum is nothing more than a call to support argument from authority. I agree with you fully. Rick Monteverde hit the nail on the head too: "The phrase "extraordinary proof" is nothing more than doublespeak designed to undermine the credibility of evidence for certain controversial subjects to which C.S. was personally opposed. It grates because so many intelligent (and other) people buy into the phrase because it sounds superficially reasonable and even catchy...." In practice, what "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" has come to mean is this: If the experimental evidence does NOT agree with established theory, no matter how good and voluminous that evidence appears to be, we (the Scientific Establishment) will force you to be called idiots and fools, charlatans and frauds for years until WE understand how such evidence can fit with our theories. One of Sagan's buddies in CSICOP had this to say about cold fusion -- and quite a few other things: "Why are the people of every culture so anxiously embracing claptrap that should have been left behind...? Part of the reason is to be found in the uncritical acceptance and promotion of these notions by the media, prominent personalities, and government agencies........The 'cold fusion' farce should have been tossed onto the trash heap long ago, but justifiable fear of legal actions by offended supporters has stifled opponents........At the risk of being unbearably realistic, I must tell you that Elvis Presley is really dead, the sky is not falling, perpetual motion is a chimera, cold fusion is a dead duck, the earth is not flat, and the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves." James Randi, American Physical Society News, June 1994 I speak as a former friend of Carl Sagan. I had much written communication with him in the 70s and 80's. We were on a "first name" basis when we met in public on several occasions. He was kind enough to cite my 1989 book, The Starflight Handbook, in his "The Pale Blue Dot." I used to admire what Carl was doing for public understanding of science, but I grew to realize that he was not -- as he claimed -- intellectually honest in all things. His public power, I think, corrupted him. He came to believe that he and his CSICOP colleagues were arbiters of truth -- far from it! His dismissive position on UFO evidence, for example, is totally untenable and unscientific. Hypocritical too, in light of his other, earlier writings. It will make an interesting study in the future -- something I intend to do. Incidentally, Barry Merriman's citation of Sagan's alleged openness on the Cydonia morphology --the Mars Face --does not mention his brutal, anti-scientific assaults on the *scientific* investigation of Cydonia by Carlotto, et al. Sagan in Parade newspaper supplement used the highly inappropriate -- blatantly incorrect-- analogy of the New Hampshire "Man in the Mountain" geological feature. Also, he used the comparison of an egg plant that looked like Richard Nixon and a tortilla chip that looked like Jesus. This was his supposed scientific treatment of a serious scientific question! Typical of CSICOP tactics. Extraordinary claims do *not* require extraordinary proof -- just proof! That tritium has been *generated* in dozens of cold fusion experiments -- not as the result of contamination or fraud -- is proved. That CF tritium is not believed by the hot fusioneers and HE physicists is because it does not fit with their theories (or wallets). Period. Gene Mallove From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 02:39:27 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id CAA25541 for billb@eskimo.com; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 02:39:25 -0800 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 02:39:25 -0800 X-Envelope-From: bill@survival.demon.co.uk Tue Dec 31 02:39:23 1996 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA25500 for ; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 02:39:22 -0800 Received: from survival.demon.co.uk ([158.152.67.232]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa606620; 31 Dec 96 10:23 GMT From: Bill Wright Organization: Survival Power To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Old-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 10:21:37 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: subscribe Reply-to: bill@survival.demon.co.uk X-Confirm-Reading-To: bill@survival.demon.co.uk X-pmrqc: 1 Old-Return-receipt-to: bill@survival.demon.co.uk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42) Message-ID: <852027802.66620.0@survival.demon.co.uk> X-Diagnostic: Added to the subscriber list X-Envelope-To: vortex-l Status: O X-Status: subscribe From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 05:01:34 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id EAA03404; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 04:53:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 04:53:37 -0800 Message-Id: <199612311251.AA11894@gateway1.srs.gov> Alternate-Recipient: prohibited Disclose-Recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 07:37:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Kirk L Shanahan Subject: Re: zeolites/yttrium To: tom , Private_User@srs.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 07:45:00 -0400 (EDT) Importance: normal Priority: normal A1-Type: MAIL Hop-Count: 2 Resent-Message-ID: <"XVX4Z2.0.6r.FpGoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3016 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: Tom miller wrote: > Yttrium: the Dec. 96 issue of Popular Science (p 31) mentions a window > film made of yttrium hydride. It says that applied voltage causes the > yttrium metal to take up hydrogen, making it a transparent semiconductor. > Apparently, the degree of hydrogen attachment varies with voltage. Does > anyone know more about this? C&E News had a brief on it in the March 25, 1996 issue, pg. 9, with pictures. The technical ref. is Nature, 380 (1996) 231. The work was done at Vrije University in Amsterdam, and Phillips has bought up patent rights. The brief mentions pressure control of the phenomenon, but not voltage control, but does say that the possibilty of electrical switching bears investigation. Looks like it works... They also mention the use of lanthanum as well. Kirk Shanahan {{My opinions...noone else's}} From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 07:12:29 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA19966; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 21:44:03 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 21:44:03 -0800 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 16:42:44 +1100 (EST) From: Martin Sevior To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: PMM 1st and 2nd kinds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"FV4CL.0.rt4.XWAoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3013 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Larry Wharton wrote: > First of all let me state that I and not claiming that CETI and George > Miley are being dishonest as has been suggested here. When you have > completed your research and have found out what you can and cannot do then > you bring forth your product - the CETI reflex transmutation kit and the > Miley transmutation paper. If you fail to do something then there is > nothing wrong or dishonest with presenting a scientific paper of a product > with no mention of a claim that was show to be unattainable. It is not > required to explain your failures but only to justify your alleged > successes. The excess heat claim is gone now, [snip] This is not true. CETI have not retracted their POWERGEN claim and at the ANS meeting Dennis Cravens was observed to be running a 1 watt in, 5 watts out device. Martin Sevior From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 07:51:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA25872; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 07:43:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 07:43:16 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 10:42:39 -0500 Message-ID: <961231104103_843147965@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Fwd: Similarity between Lorentz Force and Magnus Effect Resent-Message-ID: <"oNcXP2.0.AK6.JIJoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3017 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I picked this up on another news group. The only thing I saw on that group that ever interested me. Frank Z --------------------- Forwarded message: From: zap@dnai.com (zeropoint) To: zap@dnai.com (zeropoint) Date: 96-12-30 18:05:23 EST On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, zeropoint wrote: >> parallel@bluesky.net.au (earthling) writes: >> uuummm...don't flame me ! But any constructive criticism is always >> appreciated. This is my very first posting on the usenet. >> >> Has anyone ever noticed the similarities between the Lorentz Force and >> the Magnus Effect ? >> >> For those who have never heard of either term, a simple definition of >> each follows :- >> >> ---> The Lorentz Force is the centripetal force experienced by a >> MOVING CHARGED particle as it travels through a magnetic field. Only >> that component of the particle velocity at right angles to the field >> is involved. The field does not add any energy to the particle >> velocity. The field, the velocity, and the force are always at right >> angles to each other, so as the direction of travel of the particle >> changes the force also rotates accordingly. The particle ends up >> travelling in a circle or a spiral path, depending on the angle at >> which it enters the magnetic field. Loss of kinetic energy should also >> be taken into consideration. For those who prefer an equation, here it >> is.. >> F = Bq (V sinq), where B is the field strength, q is charge, V is >> velocity, and q is the angle between the (total) velocity and the >> field. If all of the particle velocity is at right angles to the >> field, then sin90 = 1, means maximum force experienced by the >> particle. >> >> ---> The Magnus Effect is the centripetal force experienced by a >> MOVING SPINNING object as it travels through a fluid medium. (The >> proviso is that the object be capable of dragging some of the >> surrounding fluid around it's 'equator' as it spins - i.e. it needs to >> have a rough surface...like a golf ball or a tennis ball). Only that >> component of the object velocity at right angles to the spin axis is >> involved. The rate of spin does not add any energy to the object >> velocity. The spin axis, the velocity, and the force are always at >> right angles to each other, so as the direction of travel of the >> object changes the force also rotates accordingly. The object would >> end up travelling a full circle if gravity and fluid fluctuations did >> not act upon it. Golfers and tennis players use the Magnus Effect all >> the time, when they use backspin or sidespin to good effect for their >> game. Assuming a spinning golf ball travels through the air and drags >> some of that air around its equator, it creates a slight vacuum on one >> side (at the surface of the ball) where the air is hauled away from >> the oncoming wind. On the opposite side, the fluid is thrown into the >> oncoming wind and the pressure is increased. The net force on the ball >> causes it to change direction continuously. The equation describing >> the Magnus Effect is a little complicated for my liking...look it up >> if you wish. >> >> Pretty damn similar I think and not just a coincidence ! I do have >> more thoughts on the matter, but I wont waffle on unless I get a >> positive response or two (then try and stop me..hehe). >> >> >>>>> > > > > > > >Z.A.P., Zero Air Pollution, a partnership >Berkeley California > __ > ~/__|o\__ > '@----- @'---(= Onward toward The Zero Point. > >We design and build electric vehicles, including wheelchairs since 1964. > >http://www.dnai.com/~zap/ >ftp://ftp.dnai.com/users/z/zap/ (accessible through your browser) > > > > > > From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 08:01:41 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id HAA26933; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 07:52:56 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 07:52:56 -0800 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 09:52:06 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612311552.JAA01796@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: Bose Resent-Message-ID: <"yfWkx2.0.ca6.KRJoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3018 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: In a recent Wall Street Journal: Bose Packs Concert Acoustics Into Home-Speaker Systems By WILLIAM M. BULKELEY Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL FRAMINGHAM, Mass. -- Amar Bose has made a career of turning the world of acoustics on its ear. Over and over again, Dr. Bose, a 67-year-old Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor and chairman of speaker-maker Bose Corp., has defied the conventional wisdom.... He says he takes out only a salary, plowing all the company's profits back into research and development -- some of which isn't even related to acoustics. Five years ago, in the wake of the hullabaloo about "cold fusion" supposedly producing energy from water, Dr. Bose assigned six engineers to work on the issue, although it has no relationship to sound. They built what one Bose engineer claims is the world's most accurate calorimeter for measuring heat, and replicated many of the cold-fusion experiments. They concluded, as did many others who tried to reproduce the cold-fusion findings, that the process didn't put out any more energy than was put in. Does anyone have any useful info on these efforts? Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 08:08:35 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA28616; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 08:00:07 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 08:00:07 -0800 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 09:59:20 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612311559.JAA02297@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: NOVA Resources Resent-Message-ID: <"NfO7M.0.0_6.4YJoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3019 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On the back of most issues of IE is a full-page color ad for Nova Resources Group. They offer ready made CF experiment stations, etc. Who are these guys? Does anyone know what they are up to? Does their CF cell reliably produce excess heat? Do they guarantee excess heat? Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 08:20:36 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA30694; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 08:12:02 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 08:12:02 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 11:11:23 -0500 Message-ID: <961231111112_812640567@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: quinney@inforamp.net, vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: This and that...again. Resent-Message-ID: <"4e-4I1.0.VV7.GjJoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3020 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Quinney, I been out of town for the Hollidays and did not have much time to talk. The charged disc of Yamashita Haruo will not work because it is IMPOSSIBLE to induce a gravitational field using any type of electromagnetic field. They are different types of fields. Many have tried to do this and failed (me to). The strong nuclear force is different to. Each of the forces exhibits different symmetries. The electromagnetic exhibits a symmetry around the electric and magnetic fields, the gravitational exhibits a symmetry around force and graivity, and the strong nuclear (well I'm not sure). As I have been saying for years... see may paper on BillB's site and the Elektromagnum site..."The zero point interaction"...This situation changes within systems of condensed charges ( a zero point system). I take this for what it is worth (see the 95 date on my elektomagnum paper) I correctly predicted the results of a Tampere type of experiment in 1995. I held this postition since the publication of my 1989 Elementary Antigravity. Ref last chapter. The Yamashia device will not work, in my opinion, because I does not involve a system of condensed charges? Another method may be with the use of plasma. Injecting wavelengths longer than the plasma''s wavelength of evanscence into the plasma may induce graviational effects. The zero point interaction actually results in an evanscence of the Fermi energy level in a solid. Another method may be with intense magnetic fields. Fields that are strong enough to break down the superconductive Fermi level within a solid. In this case the breakdown is brought about by the Meissner effect rather then an evanscent effect. Anything that does not operate by any of the above methods in not within one of my paradigms. I've been right so far and I think history will repeat. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 08:54:05 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id IAA05239; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 08:45:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 08:45:38 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 07:46:20 -0900 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) Subject: Re: Hooper Lab: the forgotten finer details... Resent-Message-ID: <"f3H4-.0.nH1.lCKoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3021 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: At 6:37 PM 12/30/96, Nils Rognerud wrote: >Hi Folks, > >Just added a new small web page on the details of the Hooper coil >experiment and some of the problems he had. The web page includes a couple >of images you may not have seen before. > >-Nils Nice web page Nils! I see an implication that the Hooper coil (the "generator") is at least partially shielded with a grounded shield as it is coated with a "heavy coat of conductive silver shielding the rest of the generator and grounded." The "rest of the generator" phrase, however, implies that the shielding may not be present beneath the capacitor plates. If so, the neutrality of the coil would be all important, and that seems to hinge entirely upon the value of the two 600 ohm resistors, which are used to balance the voltages applied to the coil input and output, being exactly equal at all temperatures of the operating range - a very unlikely occurance. There is even evidence for the non-neutrality of the generator in that different results are obtained when the power leads to the generator are exchanged. In Hoopers words: "The question arose as to why there would be a difference in readings due to an unbalance in the power source, as the inner capacitor plate is grounded, and the law is that there would be no electrostatic charge on the outside of a grounded enclosure." Even if the Cooper coil is surrounded by a grounded shield, an electrostatic charge could be induced on the shield dynamically, i.e. due to ripple in the power supply. The electrometer is a "Keithly Vibrating Capacitor Electrometer." If the electrometer motion is sympathetic at all with the ripple in the Hooper coil power supply, then it is logical that a net rms DC voltage would arise, and the polarity of that voltage would reverse when the power connection to the Hooper coil was reversed. Another thought is that an oscillating magnetic field would penetrate a siver conductive shield, and such an oscillating magnetic field could induce a voltage in the ground wire to the shield, giving the same effect as the "motional E field" that Hooper posits to cause the effect. Just supposition as food for thought. There really is not enough detail to come to any conclusions. BTW, the supply to that little coil is maxed at 275 V at 30 A, or about 8 KW. It shouldn't take much of an error to generate a microvolt reading! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 09:07:14 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id VAA18941; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 21:24:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 21:24:06 -0800 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 23:20:35 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612310520.XAA11843@natashya.eden.com> X-Sender: little@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Scott Little Subject: Re: excess enthaply - Wharton Resent-Message-ID: <"dG6we.0.zc4.XDAoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3012 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I have noticed that Larry's expression: P = Cv * Flow Rate * Ambient Temperature * Log ( Tout / Tin) (Eqn #1) gives the same result as the "usual" expression: P = Cv * FLow Rate * (Tout-Tin) (Eqn #2) only when the Ambient Temperature is the average of Tout and Tin.... Now, I am the one of the last persons you would look to for expert help in thermodynamics but looky here: Say you have some 20C water and you wish to heat it to make 21C water. Assume for now that this water is in a really well insulated container so that heat exchanges with the environment can be ignored. Now, according to Eqn #2, a 4.187 watt heater will be able to convert 1 gm/sec of the 20C water into 21C water...period. According to Eqn #1, however, this will only hold when the room temperature is 20.5C. If it is HOT in the room, Eqn #1 says it takes more heater power to do the same job...and, conversely, if it is cold in the room, it takes less than 4.187 watts to do the same job...in fact, if the room is cooled off to absolute zero, it takes ZERO power to raise 1 gm/sec of the 20C water to 21C....according to Eqn #1. Is something wrong here, Larry?...or is this just the final straw in my lifelong struggle to truly understand thermodynamics? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-342-2185 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 10:32:23 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA30741; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 10:22:47 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 10:22:47 -0800 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 10:21:24 -0800 Message-Id: <199612311821.KAA00547@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Bose To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"FcGg92.0.KV7.cdLoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3023 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: December 31, 1996 Scott refers to the WSJ left column article. I saw this article also and am suggesting IE (Eugene Mallove) to look into his Alma Mater to see what furthur details can be obtained from Bose. Not just on the experiments themselves but especially on the 'world most accurate calorimeter' since Stanley Pons had described their use of an own design calorimeter made in IMRA France at the ICCF-6. -AK- From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 10:41:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA00943; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 10:32:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 10:32:11 -0800 Date: 31 Dec 96 13:29:11 EST From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Subject: Re: PMM 1st and 2nd kinds Message-ID: <961231182910_100433.1541_BHG66-2@CompuServe.COM> Resent-Message-ID: <"a0yrr3.0.AE.YmLoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3024 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Larry Wharton writes: > Jed should ask himself why is he still advocating the heat excess > when the two principals, George Miley and CETI are not. Well, since Miley and CETI are indeed still claiming heat excess, I think Larry should ask himself why he keeps saying things that aren't so. By the way, if Larry is any doubt as to my assertion, I suggest he asks these people himself. Chris From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 11:01:52 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id KAA08526; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 10:52:15 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 10:52:15 -0800 From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 13:50:36 -0500 Message-ID: <961231114038_943815389@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, little@eden.com Subject: Fwd: NOVA Resources Resent-Message-ID: <"sC5Qi2.0.m42.H3Moo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3025 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I met the President of NOVA, Chip Ransford, at Dr. Storms' home in New Mexico. Chip showed me his plans. He is not making a cold fusion device, rather, he is making a high pressure vessel to place cold fusion cells into. I have no idea of who he is selling the vessels to. Frank Z --------------------- Forwarded message: From: little@eden.com (Scott Little) Resent-from: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-to: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: 96-12-31 11:06:33 EST On the back of most issues of IE is a full-page color ad for Nova Resources Group. They offer ready made CF experiment stations, etc. Who are these guys? Does anyone know what they are up to? Does their CF cell reliably produce excess heat? Do they guarantee excess heat? Scott Little, EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759, USA 512-342-2185 (voice), 512-346-3017 (FAX), little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 11:22:01 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA14266; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 11:11:46 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 11:11:46 -0800 From: "John Steck" Message-Id: <9612311306.ZM8528@me525.ecg.csg.mot.com> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 13:06:52 -0600 In-Reply-To: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com "Fwd: Similarity between Lorentz Force and Magnus Effect" (Dec 31, 9:42am) References: <961231104103_843147965@emout06.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Fwd: Similarity between Lorentz Force and Magnus Effect Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"HNR6Q2.0.2U3.YLMoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3026 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: On Dec 31, 9:42am, FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > Subject: Fwd: Similarity between Lorentz Force and Magnus Effect > >> ---> The Magnus Effect is the centripetal force experienced by a > >> MOVING SPINNING object as it travels through a fluid medium. (The > >> proviso is that the object be capable of dragging some of the > >> surrounding fluid around it's 'equator' as it spins - i.e. it needs to > >> have a rough surface...like a golf ball or a tennis ball). Rough surface *impeeds* the dragging effect by introducing surface turbulence and reducing friction. Been researching Tesla bladeless pumps and turbines lately, and the design relies heavily on surface tension and the viscosity of the medium(steam/water/sludge). Polished disks were found to increase the motive potential of the pump by enhancing surface tension and minimizing turbulence. I'm in the process of building a simplified pump to test some of the principles. The technology has been around for a long time and sucessfully utilized in many industries, but it just never caught on. To me, the applications seem limitless. Good info on the design is hard to find, but one site I have found that covers the basics is: http://phyhepsun1.ucr.edu:80/~boswell/testurb.html -john -- John E. Steck Motorola CSS From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 11:47:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id LAA20771; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 11:33:37 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 11:33:37 -0800 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 11:30:03 -0800 Message-Id: <199612311930.LAA09369@dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Japan achieves fusion breakeven! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Resent-Message-ID: <"lg6SS.0.O35.TfMoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3027 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: December 31, 1996 This is a re-post from the S.P.F. that appeared early this morning. Posted by cdean@aol.com. I wonder how this affects the latest future hot fusion programs in the U.S. Also attitudes toward CF. -AK- >Just wanted to let everyone know about the latest: >(Typed verbatim from Fusion Power Associates January Newsletter) >In JT-60U Experiment Report #39, dated November 11, 1996, scientists at the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute state that "a high fusion performance satisfying the break-even plasma condition was achieved on October 31, 1996". The results, obtained in a deuterium-only plasma, were equivalent to an energy multiplication factor Q(DT) {the value expected if a 50-50 mixture of deuterium and tritium had been used} of 1.05. Energy confinement time of 0.97 seconds, ion temperature of 16.5 keV, and electron density of 9.7 x 10^19 m^-3 were reported. The report states, >"This achievement demonstrates the feasibility of bootstrap -current -driven steady-state tokamak fusion reactors whose primary operational scheme is the negative magnetic shear discharge. Information on JT-60U results can be found on their web page >( http://www-jt60.naka.jaeri.go.jp ) >I guess all of you pessimists out there will have to rethink your >position on fusion power generation... then again, probably not. From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 13:16:07 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA11560; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 12:40:17 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 12:40:17 -0800 From: hjscudde@pacbell.net Message-ID: <32C97C30.7681@pacbell.net> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 12:48:48 -0800 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Candle in microwave oven experiment Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"K4cjW1.0.Rq2.keNoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3028 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: I used a brand new candle, about 2" high and 1.75" diameter, with an unused wick about 5/8" long. I lit the candle, stuck in in the oven, closed the door, started the microwave, and watched three plasma balls, looking like broken off pieces of flame rise to the top, and disappear in a period of about 10 seconds. By this time, the wick was down to about 1/4". The flame, initially tall before the plasma bursts, was also much shorter, and huddled about its base. The flame looked like it was being blown down gently by the internal fan. The microwave is an old (1982) Montgomery Ward unit, without a rotating plate. Repeated tries did not lead to any more plasma balls, and I quit because my wife needed it. I suspect the wick length is an important parameter. Hank Scudder From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 13:28:33 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id MAA13568; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 12:53:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 12:53:16 -0800 X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199612281639.RAA00356@atom.bbtt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 15:53:03 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: Energy conservation for spins ?? Resent-Message-ID: <"NDL_Z3.0.wJ3.xqNoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3029 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Dieter Bauer has asked about energy conservation for spins. >> Sorry, but conservation of energy works just fine for spin. To see this >>you need to know the equation of motion for a particle with spin. And so >>this gets you into quantum mechanics since spin is intrinsically a QM >>effect. The best way to look at this is with the Dirac equation. The >>stress energy tensor Sab (with the a and b denoting covariant subscripts) >>for the combined Dirac and electromagnetic field is: >> >> Sab = Tab + m P G0 Ga Gb P >> >>with Tab the electromagnetic stress energy tensor, m the particle mass, P >>the Dirac wave function and Ga the dirac matric for index a with >>G0=G1G2G3G4 . If you like you can work this out and you will see that >>energy is conserved just fine. >Being not an expert in quantum mechanics I asked some people whether there >exist energy conservation relations for spins and I got no answer. >Therefore I am quite pleased to get a reasonable remark now. But as far as >I believe to know this formulas of Dirac refer to single electrons, but >not to a collective spin system like an ferromagnetic material which is >more complicated. I am not able to decide the question now. As far as I >know it is the first time that quantum mechanics has to be applied in >electromechanical engineering. To see that the conservation of energy works for spin we have to put this stress tensor in the form appearing in the standard model. We would then have Sab = Tab + P G0 Ga (Ab + i d/dxb)Gb P where I have used the Dirac equation and the term in the parenthesis is the canonical momentum operator with Ab the electromagnetic vector potential of covarient index b. The interaction term between the Dirac field and the electromagnetic field is P G0 Ga Ab Gb P Any text with the standard theory should show how energy is conserved with this interaction term. Any text book on relativistic quantum theory in the presence of the electromagnetic field should show how this interaction term includes the energy of the spin. So to see conservation of energy for spin you have to look at the proof of conservation of energy in the standard model and then see that the Dirac equation used to describe the electron automatically includes the spin. This result may be applied to systems with any number of electrons and it should work for ferromagnetic materials. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 14:04:39 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id NAA19577; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 13:20:38 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 13:20:38 -0800 X-Sender: wharton@128.183.251.148 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199612301736.LAA20835@natashya.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 16:20:21 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Larry Wharton Subject: Re: excess enthaply - Wharton Resent-Message-ID: <"B1KD_2.0.on4.ZEOoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3030 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: There have been some questions about my result giving the available mechanical work associated with excess heat in a flow calorimetry device. The derivation is given here. Lets suppose that the inflow temperature, Tin, is at the ambient environment temperature and we are going to produce mechanical work from the heat excess of the cell outflow at temperature Tout. The mechanical work that could be generated is at most (from the Carnot cycle) W = Cv Int(T-> Tin to Tout){ 1 - Tin / T} = Cv { Tout - Tin - Tin Log (Tin / Tout) } The Log term may be expanded as Log (Tin / Tout) = Log [ 1 + (Tin-Tout) / Tout] = (Tin-Tout) / Tout + 1/2 [(Tin-Tout) / Tout]^2+ . . . which gives W = Cv/2 (Tin-Tout)^2 / Tout This would give approximately the result Energy excess = Normal heat excess *1/2 log( Tout / Tin ) - Energy in I did not include the factor of 1/2 in my posting because the available mechanical work is higher if the heat excess is associated with a change in the chemical potential. In that case the work is about twice as high. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 15:23:04 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA01149; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 15:14:27 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 15:14:27 -0800 Message-Id: <199612312301.QAA18575@nz1.netzone.com> From: "Joe Champion" To: "Vortex-L" Subject: Radio Talk Show Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 16:14:42 -0700 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: <"IYauY3.0.rH.IvPoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3031 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: For those interested, I just completed a one hour interview with the Radio Talk Network, hosted by the International Tesla Society. It will air nationwide at 6:00PM PST. I was questioned about CETI. To avoid from being removed from this forum, I will not state at this time what I said. I am suppose to receive a listing of the radio stations carrying this broadcast on the 2nd. If anyone is interested you may contact me direct outside of the forum. ___________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 15:43:38 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id PAA08191; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 15:35:16 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 15:35:16 -0800 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 15:36:10 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Bose Resent-Message-ID: <"akuz-1.0.f_1.oCQoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3032 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Scott little posted: [snip] > Five years > ago, in the wake of the hullabaloo about "cold fusion" > supposedly producing energy from water, Dr. Bose > assigned six engineers to work on the issue, although it > has no relationship to sound. They built what one Bose > engineer claims is the world's most accurate calorimeter > for measuring heat, and replicated many of the > cold-fusion experiments. They concluded, as did many > others who tried to reproduce the cold-fusion findings, > that the process didn't put out any more energy than was > put in. > >Does anyone have any useful info on these efforts? I read a paper from Bose Corp. on a cold fusion experiment that was published in Fusion Technology, early 1996 or sometime 1995. I'll have to go through my collection of papers... I am pretty sure, if my memory has not gotten too bad, that the Bose experiment described in that paper tried to replicate the Mills Ni-light water-K2CO3 cold fusion cell. I seem to remember that the experiments were carefully done, better than the NASA ones. No excess energy was observed outside the rather small range of experimental uncertainty. A bit later, a letter from someone associated with Mills was published in Fusion Technology, criticising the Bose work. There was a rebuttal letter from the Bose researchers, also published in FT. I remember that this rebuttal defended their work quite well. 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 Dec 31 16:12:40 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id QAA13145; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 16:00:34 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 16:00:34 -0800 From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 16:01:10 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: PMM 1st and 2nd kinds Resent-Message-ID: <"6rM7U1.0.ID3.WaQoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3033 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Larry, I just caught up on e-mail and read the thread on enthalpy, etc... 1. Scott Little has already pointed out that, in the absence of chemical potential, your formula for enthalpy is the same as the one commonly used in Patterson cell flow calorimetry experiments. 2. Now I am puzzled that you are talking about excess energy as MECHANICAL work. While mechanical work would certainly be desireable, enthalpy alone is all that is being measured. It is also true that one can put enthalpy into a water load (water heater or space heater) from electrical input via a heat pump, up to the Carnot-allowable COP, but that is not the point. The point is to establish whether a previously unobserved physical effect is present or not. 3. In my own Patterson cell experiments of early 1995, we were aware of the theoretical possiblity of an electrochemically driven heat pump. A heat pump would exhibit a cold point. We searched a bit but did not find a cold point. (However, we did not find any excess thermal power, either!) People doing this kind of calorimetry really do need to check for and rule out a possible heat pump if they see an apparent excess heat. 4. A change in chemical potential occurs if there is either (1) a change in concentration of one or more substances, or (2) a change of chemical species (chemical reaction). The former involve much less energy per molecule than the latter. It is easy to show that, even at the extreme level of 5 eV per chemical bond, the long-duration cold fusion experiments yield far more than can be accounted by chemistry, so long as there were no gross measurement errors. 5. Pons and Fleischmann and the French Atomic Energy group both presented what I thought was rather strong evidence for ~100% excess heat at 100 C temperature at ICCF6. 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 Dec 31 18:45:19 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA13734; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 18:23:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 18:23:51 -0800 To: quinney@inforamp.net, vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: what is electromagnetic field anyway? 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, 31 Dec 96 17:57:00 GMT Message-ID: <9612311902.aa26134@wierius.com> Resent-Message-ID: <"cR-GJ2.0.TM3.rgSoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3034 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Hi, Colin replied: At 08:46 PM 12/29/96 GMT, Hoyt wrote: >According to the Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, a magnetic >field is the 2 dimensional residue of gravity when one of it's >three dimensions of inward scalar motion is neutralized by the passing >of a current, which, for example >can be the motion of 1 dimensional scalar particles, electrons, through >mass... According to this theory, is the reciprocal also true? ie. Can a gravitational field be created using magnetic or electric configurations? Larson, to my knowlege never addressed this question directly. I suggest that it could be by adding charge to an uncharged particle such as an uncharged electron. Charge is easily imparted by rubbing or thermally, and causes 2 dimensional motions to span 3 space. Note that in RS theory, gravity is not a field at all. It doesn't propagate, so appears to have infinite speed. It is merely the property that matter has to move toward all other points in space, occupied or not (the reverse of the expansion of the universe, which is 3D outward scalar motion, equivalent to 15 femtoG's repulsion: that's why stars don't approach closer than about 3 light years, and globular clusters are stable). >Note that this implies that the mass of a conductor will be reduced >when a current is passing through it, something that may have >been observed in rail guns, and suggests ways to implement reactionless >thrust! > Graneau did some extensive work with this idea, but was it the *mass* that changed? As in other theories, gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent in RS theory. >In this theory, electrons are usually not charged inside matter >and current flow is the motion of the electrons themselves, not >the charge. > What experimental evidence has there been to display a chargless electron? I'm tempted to say lots of experiments, like holding a piece of metal. Without lots of theoretical epicycles, that much charge that current theory postulates inside a solid is completely untenable, but really, I don't recall one specifically addressing that. Uncharged electrons are massless almost undetectable neutrino like particles, but they flood all of space, so you might be able to show how a conductor devoid of many will acquire them from the environment. I even blue-skyed a thruster design based on collecting uncharged electrons from space, giving them a charge (which is not conserved in RS) and ejecting them from an electron gun. It's the charge that adds mass, not the particle, since the charge causes the scalar motion to span all 3 scalar dimensions. I recall lots of experiments lead one to the conclusion that static electricity (behavior of charges) and "current" electricity are fundamentally different things, and lots of effort has been expended trying to make the theories fit based on the erroneous assumption that "current" electricity is movement of charges. > >According to Ronald W. Satz in his paper "Theory of Electrons and Currents", >Reciprocity, Vol. XIII, No. 1, Autumn 1983, > On line? There are no papers online on the Web page, I hope webmaster Jan Sammer adds some. I've posted many on Usenet over the last few years and can email them on request. Here's another one: A New Derivation of Planck's Constant To present-day physical science the numerical value of Planck's constant is a mystery: quantum mechanics does not have a theoretical method for its calculation. By contrast the Reciprocal System of theory derives the value of all physical constants, including Planck's constant, from its fundamental postulates. Consider the linear vibration of the photon. The oscillation takes place over one space unit--which, simultaneously, is also one time unit. In the material sector of the universe, we define frequency to be cycles/sec, because here it is time that appears to have a uniform progression; in the cosmic sector of the universe, hypothetical cosmic observers would define frequency to be cycles/cm, because there it is space that would appear to have a uniform progression. Actually, the photon exists at the boundary between the two sectors, where both space and time progress uniformly. Here the correct, natural definition of frequency must be cycles/(cm-sec). To put it another way, frequency in the natural sense is the number of cycles per space-time unit. Photons of all frequencies can be observed in both sectors. This then causes Planck's constant to have the actual dimensions of erg-cm-sec. However, if the dimensions of frequency are assumed to be cycles/sec, then the dimensions of Planck's constant are erg-sec. Let E be photon energy, h be Planck's constant, and v be photon frequency. Then, as usual, we have E=hv. In space time terms, E=hv is expressed as: t/s = t^2/((t/s)/(t/s)) 1/st In cgs units this is: erg = sec^2/((sec/cm)/erg) (1/(cm sec)) Observe in both cases the dimensional consistency. The term (128*(1+2/9)) = 156.4444 is called the inter-regional ratio in RS, and is derived from the degrees of freedom the motions constituting an atom have. Since the oscillation of the photon takes place within a unit of space-time, the interregional ratio must be contained within Planck's constant: We must divide by (128*(1+2/9)) = 156.4444. With the dimensional information above, Planck's constant is: h = (1/156.4444) * t^2/((sec/cm)/erg). Because energy contains a mass term (e=mc^2), and because mass is an independent unit in cgs, but defined in terms of space and time in RS, to convert energy in space-time units to cgs, we must use the hybrid conversion factor c^3/N (mass cgs/mass RS), N = avogadro's number. h = ( (c^3/N)*(1/2R)^2 ) /(128*(1+2/9)), R is the Rydberg frequency in sec-1. h = 6.6102652 E-27 erg-sec. This is 99.77% of the experimental value of 6.6256 E-27 erg-sec. Given the uncertainties involved in the determination of Avogadro's constant and the natural unit of time, the result is satisfactory. Any improvement in the accuracy of these values would be reflected in an improvement in the accuracy of the calculation of Planck's constant. References: 1. Ronald W. Satz, "A New Derivation of Planck's Constant", Reciprocity, Autumn, 1989. 2. Dewey B. Larson, "The Structure of the Physical Universe, North Pacific Publishers, pp. 117-118. 3.-- "Nothing But Motion, North Pacific Publishers, pp157-168. Sincerely, -- 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/ | >From Seth Speaks, Session 512 " The ego is a jealous god, and it wants its interests served. It does not want to admit the reality of any dimensions except those within which it feels comfortable and can understand. It was meant to be an aid but it has been allowed to become a tyrant. Even so, it is much more resilient and eager to learn than is generally supposed. It is not natively as rigid as it seems. Its curiosity can be of great value." "We are taught to conform, and nowhere more so than in interpretation of reality. As we grow up, we learn to ignore certain aspects of reality that are considered rediculous or hallucinatory by adults around us. We learn to see geometric forms. We reach a consensus about the existence of the three dimensions. We come to agreements about what the world should look like. There is no objective reality, and we do not just observe the physical world. We participate with it. Our senses are not separate from what is 'out there', but we are involved in a complex physiological process of actually creating what is out there." --Lyall Watson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the facts do not conform to your theory, they must be disposed of. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tue Dec 31 18:52:11 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id SAA14621; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 18:31:11 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 18:31:11 -0800 Message-Id: <199701010218.TAA08434@nz1.netzone.com> From: "Joe Champion" To: "Vortex-L" Subject: Repost: It's on Sunday Jan. 5, 1997 at 6:00PM PST Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 19:28:35 -0700 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: <"NzsYH3.0.Ka3.jnSoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3035 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: Sorry, I forgot to put in the correct date!!!!!! For those interested, I just completed a one hour interview with the Radio Talk Network, hosted by the International Tesla Society. It will air nationwide at Sunday Jan. 5, 1997 6:00PM PST. I was questioned about CETI. To avoid from being removed from this forum, I will not state at this time what I said. I am suppose to receive a listing of the radio stations carrying this broadcast on the Jan. 2, 1997. If anyone is interested you may contact me direct outside of the forum. ___________________________ Joe Champion discpub@netzone.com http://www.netzone.com/~discpub From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 20:42:31 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id UAA01990; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 20:21:06 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 20:21:06 -0800 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 20:20:26 -0800 Message-Id: <199701010420.UAA01821@dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com> From: aki@ix.netcom.com (Akira Kawasaki ) Subject: Re: Barry, May I suggest: To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: barry@math.ucla.edu Resent-Message-ID: <"6du0z2.0.0V.mOUoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3036 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: O X-Status: December 31, 1996 Dear Barry, You wrote: >For our CETI-independent sputter coated CF experiments, >We are constructing a Pd sputtering target, for which >we need a piece of Pd foil at least big enough to cover --- A publication by Strem Chemicals, Inc., the other alternative chemical supply house, Vol XVI No. 1 July, 1996 has an interesting article which may have direct bearing on your attempt to duplicate the Patterson Bead coating independantly. Or at least create an active bead coating. It seems they can sell chemicals to individuals. The authors are Brian V. Fraser and Herbert D. Kaesz Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry University of California, Los Angeles. Heck, they are on the same campus you are in. You might look them up and they should be able to help you. The article is: DEPOSITION OF THIN FILMS OF METALLIC AND INTERMETALLIC CONDUCTORS BY MOCVD. (that is, Metal Organic Chemical Vapor Deposition) It would be best to get the article and talk to the authors relative to your needs of coatings of nickel, palladium, platinum. MOCVD coating is presented as a superior conformal (bead!) coating method as contrasted with limitations of vapor deposition methods of which sputter technique is one. Who knows, maybe this is the method Patterson used. If need be, I can fax the article to you. The technique used is to use liquid organometallic compounds (precursors) as coating which decomposes to leave pure metal film. Strem Chemicals carried the article in conjunction with their ability to furnish the necessary organometallic compounds. The Strem Chemiker Strem Chemicals, Inc. 7 Mulliken Way Dexter Industrial Park Newburyport, MA 01950-4098 fax: 800-517-8736 tel: 800-647-8736 It wouldn't hurt to try the glass beads again along with other substrate materials such as the cross polymer styrene or ceramic beads. The reason for the vortex posting rather than a direct e-mail is obvious. There may be others interested to try MOCVD out. Maybe even CETI. Good Luck! I do not have lab facilities to try it myself. Happy New Year EVERYBODY!! Sincerely, Akira Kawasaki From vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Tue Dec 31 22:24:49 1996 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) id WAA15819; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 22:03:21 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 22:03:21 -0800 From: hjscudde@pacbell.net Message-ID: <32CA0030.27B7@pacbell.net> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 22:12:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-PBXE (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Candle in microwave oven Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"k22FN2.0.5t3.duVoo"@mx1> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3037 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-request@eskimo.com Status: RO X-Status: A possible explanation of the "plasma ball" phenomena that the wick of the candle acts as a microwave antenna, and absorbs a lot of energy quickly, causing the wick to disintegrate. The dimensions are about right. The operating frequency of mine is 2450 MHz, with a wavelength of 1.22 cm. The .625" length of my candle was reduced to about .25" or about a length of .375", or .952 cm, which is close enough for kitchen physics. there was probably some liquid wax burning while the wick disintegrated, which rose by convection, producing the "plasma balls". -Hank Scudder