From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 14:15:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA19365; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960428103222_100060.173_JHB64-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fission energy economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill Page said; >> but most people don't seriously argue that therefore inciting a war is a good economic policy. << Its not "most people" who have the levers. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 14:16:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA19520; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960428103232_100060.173_JHB64-3@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill said; >> The conclusion is that particles do not move in straight lines! Instead, they execute a very tight helical "screw" type motion. It is this helical motion that corresponds to the particle's "spin" and provides the connection between spin and angular momentum << Is it too naive to suggest that this helical path connects apparent wave characteristics with particle properties? Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 14:16:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA19637; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:10:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:10:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960428103119_384830834@emout15.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Puthoff@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace asked: >Interresting, but disturbing. It is distressing to have such a >bad memory. >I felt sure it was Bohm. Any idea who's interpetation that is, >mass and >charge actually distributed in/as the wavefunction? Schrodinger himself originally thought this, that mass and charge were actually distributed as a fluid. Don't recall if he stuck to this or changed his mind. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 14:16:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA19712; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604281852.OAA03426@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cold fusion update [copy 2] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >On Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:17:53 -0700 (PDT), Jed Rothwell wrote: >[snip] >>Pd has many isotopes, so it transmutes into a confusing mixture of many >>different elements. Au has only one isotope which simplifies the problem by >>limiting outcomes. This makes it a better choice for studies of host metal Jed, can you tell us who is working with Au electrodes and something about the type of results they are getting? > >Al is also composed of 1 isotope (Al27), and is cheaper than Gold to >work with. It has the added advantage, that the positive ion is 3+. I >suspect thus that Al2(SO4)3 might make a very interesting electrolyte >in Patterson type cells. >If I say why 3+ is an advantage, you won't believe me, so I will keep >that to myself, until the cell is tested. BTW I suspect that with >heavy water this reaction may produce primarily neutrons. Ah, come on Robin, we all believe or fail to believe in a lot of things... Why not tell us why 3+ is an advantage. How does it relate to Kamada's results? Also you have said "until the cell is tested". Does this mean you are involved in such an experiment? With heavy water are you suggesting D+D -> 3He + n? Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 14:17:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA19779; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:11:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:11:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604281852.OAA03423@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >Bill Page wrote: >> >>No, Horace, Bohm's interpretation of QM does not include the "concepts of >>charge and mass being distributed in the wave function". Bohm's interpret- >>ation includes *both* point-particles and wavefunctions. >> ... >Interresting, but disturbing. It is distressing to have such a bad memory. >I felt sure it was Bohm. Any idea who's interpetation that is, mass and >charge actually distributed in/as the wavefunction? > The only formal interpretation of QM that I know of which took this approach is in the very earliest works of Schrodinger. In Max Jammer's book "The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics", John Wiley & Sons, 1974 [I recommend it highly] this is referred to as "Schrodinger's Electromagnetic Interpretation". The electromagnet interpretation had some encouraging first successes and was debated for a few years but was soon shown by Lorentz and Hiesenberg to lead to major difficulties. One of the major problems is that the wavefunction must be defined over the 3*N configuration space of an N-particle system and nobody at the time was prepared to take such "non-locality" seriously. But note that Bohm's approach also requires us to consider as "real" the notion that a field can be defined over configuration space. And this idea is less radical now that the consequences of Bell's thereom have been experimentally verified [Aspect et el.]. There were, however, other problems having to do with the classical interaction of "charge clouds" which clearly lead to inconsistencies. According to Jammer, there have been numerous attempts to revise Schrodinger's original approach and to resolve some of these problems but none of these attempts are currently favored. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 14:18:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA19916; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:12:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:12:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604282012.NAA10440@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: vtx: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Gas (MOG) Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Heffner wrote: >..... Anyone know >the H2 cross section to electron collision? The cross section is a function of energy. Its maximum is about 1.2x10^-16 cm^2 at about 50 eV. Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 14:17:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA19966; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604282025.NAA12619@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Heffner wrote: >....He goes through a series of calculations involving the fact >that B = curl A and discovers mv = eA. So, to preserve angular momentum, >the momentum formula for a charged particle in a magnetic field must be >adjusted to have two components, i.e. > >p = mv + eA > This p is commonly called the "canonical momentum". It appears in classical electrodynamics, too; it's not a quantum effect. CHANGES in A are intimately related to CHANGES in magnetic flux, and changing flux generates a force, whether because the particle moved in a static field or the flux varied while the particle was stationary. In simple words, it says that a change in magnetic flux will accelarate a charged particle. When you take the derivation all the way back to its beginning, it is just d(mv)/dt = f + qv x B, where f is the sum of all nonmagnetic forces. It is a statement of the Lorentz force you are trying to evade. The canonical form is very convenient for Hamiltonian formulations of the dynamics of conservative systems. Quantum mechanics makes frequent use of Hamiltonians. Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 15:08:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA29246; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 15:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 15:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9604282117.AA00084@giasone.teseo.it> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: conte@teseo.it (Elio Conte) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Please,answer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To all the components of vortex-l >I am in the condition to inform you that to day the biquaternion >quantum mechanics has reached another important confirmation: >do you remember the Cooper pair effect in superconductivity? and the >impossibility of the usual quantum mechanics to explain the e-e bound >on its basis?O.K.,the biquaternion quantum mechanics explains the mechanism >of e-e as due to interactions due to the overlap of the wavefunctions,and= =20 in this >condition enables to calculate the transition temperature in= superconductors. >The obtained accord between experimental and theoretical(biquaternion= quantum >mechanical) calculations is perfect.We are now sending the results for the= =20 >publication.I think the result is important also for cold fusion:after=20 all,the e-e >is one of the first cases of cold fusion!!!!!. Sincerely.Elio Conte Please,inform me also with private messages since I am not receiving= vortex-l --- Prof Elio Conte Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 15:08:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA29399; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 15:03:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 15:03:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960428172327_282721292@emout13.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: zeroPointInteraction X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I send a paper to Hal Fox on the Zero Point Interaction. I hope he publishes it. I sent a copy to Miley and to Scott Little. What do you think Scott? An older version of this paper in posted on BillB and the elecktromagnum web site. It's called ZPE. Basically I claim that the interaction of the forces changes in a zero point sytem allowing an interaction between the gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear fields. The explotation of this zero point relationship requires the formation of and electron cluster. This condensation is the maco-body that Puthoff speaks about. Three methods may be used to get electrons to condense. ............................................................................. ............................................. 1. PRESSURE The Electrochemical pressure in the Patterson cell produces the required pressure. This pressure is produced according to the Nerst equation. Volts = .058 ln (delta pressure) ............................................................................. .......................................... 2. SEEDING Just as rain will condense around seed particles so will electrons. The kind of seed needed can be inferred from the interactions seen a bubble chamber. Speeding nuclear particles produce a track. This track is a massive condensation produced by the seed particle. Henrey Morry may have seeded his gas tubes with the particles produced by a radium source. One of Reed's most promising technologies uses a variation of this technique. Does anyone have any ideas on the best way to build and electron bubble chamber?? ............................................................................. ........................................... 3. COLD Gasses condense when they get cold. So do electrons. Superconductors and superfluids are massive electron condensations. No one has tried this yet but I would like to build a superconductive ZP device that produces electricity directly. The device would harness the work produced by the Meissner Effect. This idea is similar to Puthoff's idea except that it uses the Meissner force instead of the Casimir force. The effect would be harnessed by running up the flux density until the superconductive state was killed, then lowering the flux, invoking the superconductive state. The Meissner force then does work to the system. The device would produce electrical power by extracting this work. The process would repeat in a cyclical fashion. What do you think? Hal will this work??? Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 23:12:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA26983; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604282344.TAA05907@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Norman asked: >>>Bill said; [regarding David Bohm's interpretation of relativistic QM] > >The conclusion is that particles do not move in straight lines! Instead, >they execute a very tight helical "screw" type motion. It is this helical >motion that corresponds to the particle's "spin" and provides the >connection between spin and angular momentum << > >Is it too naive to suggest that this helical path connects apparent wave >characteristics with particle properties? > Bohm's take on this is that the apparent wave characteristics reflect a fundamental property of a quantum mechanical system as a whole. In quantum mechanics the wavefunction is really only defined for the whole system - for the co-ordinates of all of the particles in the system taken at once (this is also called the configuration space of the system). Sometimes physicists speak of the wavefunction of an individual particle (and therefore its "wave-like" properties) in a system of particles, but this is really only an approximation based on "factoring" the wavefunction into a product of sub-system wavefunctions. This approximation holds only if the particle does not interact strongly with any other particles in the system. But from Bohm's point of view, particles have no intrinsic wave-like properties, their motions, however are affected by the overall wave-like properties of the whole system. The helical motion that Bohm is referring to with regard to relativistic quantum mechanics is something else. In the usual interpretation of quantum mechanics, particles are assumed to have a kind of intrinsic property called "spin" which is expressed in terms of a "quantum" of angular momentum. For example, electrons are spin 1/2 particles. It is as if the electron was sort of like a rigid spinning top that can only spin in a very restricted manner. But as usual this model is too naive and doesn't work out in detail. So instead of thinking of the electron as a "rigid rotor", Bohm's approach retains the idea of a particle as a true zero dimensional point but represents the spin property in terms of the helical motion. The remarkable thing is that this motion arises naturally in applying Bohm's interpretation to Dirac's relativistic treatment of quantum mechanics. Is this any clearer, or does it sound like something Neddie Seagoon would have said? Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 23:12:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA27092; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604282345.TAA05910@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Please,answer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Prof Elio Conte wrote: >>... the biquaternion quantum mechanics explains the mechanism >>of e-e as due to interactions due to the overlap of the wavefunctions,and >>in this condition enables to calculate the transition temperature in >>superconductors. >>The obtained accord between experimental and theoretical(biquaternion >>quantum mechanical) calculations is perfect.We are now sending the results >>for the publication.I think the result is important also for cold >>fusion:after all,the e-e is one of the first cases of cold fusion!!!!!. > Congratulation on the success of your new calculations. Although you have submiting the work for publication, could you please tell us more about the details of your approach? I am especially interested in the comparison to experimental data. Also, can you apply your calculations to the situation of the recently discovered high temperature superconductors? Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun Apr 28 23:12:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA27246; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Please,answer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >To all the components of vortex-l > >>I am in the condition to inform you that to day the biquaternion >>quantum mechanics has reached another important confirmation: >>do you remember the Cooper pair effect in superconductivity? and the >>impossibility of the usual quantum mechanics to explain the e-e bound >>on its basis?O.K.,the biquaternion quantum mechanics explains the mechanism >>of e-e as due to interactions due to the overlap of the wavefunctions,and= >=20 >in this >>condition enables to calculate the transition temperature in= > superconductors. >>The obtained accord between experimental and theoretical(biquaternion= > quantum >>mechanical) calculations is perfect.We are now sending the results for the= >=20 >>publication.I think the result is important also for cold fusion:after=20 >all,the e-e >>is one of the first cases of cold fusion!!!!!. > Sincerely.Elio Conte >Please,inform me also with private messages since I am not receiving= > vortex-l >--- >Prof Elio Conte >Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia >Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia Congratulations! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 03:57:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA16532; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 03:49:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 03:49:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: vtx: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Gas (MOG) Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Scott Little wrote: > What is the mean free path in H2 at 1 atm? I struck a hit in Glasstone & Lewis, Physical Chemistry, a good old stone age book. In an example, they arrive at the value at 0C, l = 1.67 * 10^-5 cm. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 04:00:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA16580; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 03:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 03:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: OU concept X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Norman Horwood wrote: > Mark, > > >> the energy "cost" of a nuclear plant, and found the ROI (return on > investment) to be OVER 10,000 to 1. (Energy wise.) << [...] I don't reckon this is the right place to get into an anti-nuke vs pro-nuke debate. I only want to say that there are those of us who are not gung-ho on nuclear power, so I ask y'all not to post these pro-things, thinking that we all agree with you. The potential fascinating debate, though, should be taken elsewhere. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 04:00:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA16613; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 03:49:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 03:49:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960429064238.2507b1ec@world.std.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mitchell Swartz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: cell current bottom line X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:42 AM 4/24/96 -0700, you wrote: >On Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:50:16 -0700 (PDT), FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > >>Electrolysis depends on current not on voltage. This electrolysis current >[snip] >This is true, as long as the voltage doesn't reach the point where >breakdown of the dielectric takes place, leading to avalanche >currents, and as long as the minimum voltage for electrolysis is >reached. In short there are limits. >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk In driven systems, the voltage preceeds the current. It is the electric potential which produces the various forms of transconduction and polarization (which also yields a conduction term). Check the phase angle in the equations, or check with "Dielectrics and Waves", A. vonHippel, MIT Press. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 04:01:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA16643; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 03:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 03:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960429064228.3a273c2e@world.std.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mitchell Swartz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: vtx: unsolicited recommendations and data sampling X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This is a tardive response to Mark Hugo's post a few weeks ago. Given the time, here is his post: At 12:23 PM 3/24/96 PST, you wrote: >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Can I put out an unsolicited recommendation? >- >For any of the Cold Fusion/Free Energy folks doing real experimental >work, and wanting to get into the 20th Century (21st cent?) economically >could I recommend LabTech Notebook? The operating program cost $500. The >beauty of this product is that they will send you FREE the Demo version >with which you can set up the processing you desire, before you buy the >product. You can then use the "demo" created file and as soon as you buy >the product, turn it on and attach it to your data gathering board(s). >Now the data gathering boards range from about $300 to $3000 these days, >depending on the various features you want. Much of the type of work >we would be doing can be done with boards in the $400 to $600 range, which >will work in any 386,486 or Pentium type IBM Compatible. >- >I have recently aquired the "compeditors" demos for LabTech (I'll NOT >mention those names, as I think that is uncouth....) Suffice it to say, >as I have observed with two other SUPERIOR software products, I.e. >MathSofts' "MathCad" (a fluid and easy calculational system that works >with the symbology you already ARE familiar with, on the screen) and >ALGOR's Finite Element Software (Pittsburg, PA), LabTech Notebook >offers a totaly "intuitive" enviroment which is natural and easy to >use.. >- >(Oh, I forgot two other products, "Visual Simulation", out of Groton Mass, >a linear/nonlinear signal/systems analysis and Working Model of Knowledge >Revolution) >- >If there are others who have the great distain for anything that harks of >line by line, classical "programing" techniques (such as Mathematica, there, >I violated my promise....sorry Tungsten Res.!)Then you will like the >above products.... (All under $1000) and especially the LabTech for getting >into the "state of the art" in data gathering/processing for experimental >work. >- >MDH > Sorry for the delay, but my computer system has been revamped this last 6 or so weeks. However, Marks comments are important and deserve response. I have used several data acquisition systems and would like to share info with Mark and this group. I suggest we augment each others info. I am concerned with sampling times, accuracies, things that may interfere, and resolution (8- or 16 bits). We have tried several computer boards (discussed elsewhere) the most recent evaluated includes the Computer Boards PPIO-AI8 board (Mansfield, MA courtesy of Jeff Driscoll), ezAD(TM) measureport 105 A/D converter (Boone Technologies, Inc., VA) with modules for three differential inputs, JET Technology 1280/D112, and a European system [Datel]. Recently I am working with an Allen Chamers system modified and now used with parallel port intput, connected to HP and Keithley equipment. The PPIO system has 12 bit resolution, sample and hold acquisition times of 15 microseconds to 0.01%, and 0.01% (+/-1 bit) accuracy {input impedance 10 Megohms}. On board temperature-dependent computed junction compensation is included. Some of the equipment is 16-bit, and will be discussed elsewhere. To circumvent possible sampling error, in all cases of computed data acquisition, samples are taken at rates of 1-100 Hertz, although the former used now, since the experiments span so much time. Parallel recorders are on occasion used either to test one against each other, or more recently because of the number of variable measured during the experiments. Inputs to the computers tested include through either the mouse ports (68030 and 68040) or through the more typical parallel ports [386 series Zenith Turbosport 386 or other pentium system for acquisition. At several locations within the experiment, Keithley voltmeters and electrometers are used as buffers, with their output then going on to the recorders discussed above. We use our own software which uses preprocessing and a sliding-gate time-average for one of the analyses. This augments real-time CRT output, and chart recorders, for which I have lately developed a penchant since they record a permanent record irrespective of any potential computer glitch, brownout, etc. Hope this was not too much info, or info "over the dam", but Mark was quite right about the importance and potential of our sharing this. Thanks to Scott, Horace, Michael and Robert for their comments. Looking forward to others' comments regarding this important subject (hopefully). Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 03:58:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA16680; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 03:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 03:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960429064311.3a27f11c@world.std.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mitchell Swartz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: NASA report questioned X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 02:34 PM 4/27/96 -0700, you wrote: >To: Vortex >In my "Cold Fusion update" message, I mentioned the NASA report by Niedra, >Myers et al. This was a test of a cell from Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation. >I confess I have not read the entire report, I have only received a summary of >it. I have been trying to get the entire paper. How long is the entire paper? Is it published? Is there a number to call for a copy? public. number? Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 05:14:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA28902; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 05:09:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 05:09:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960429074114.69274d5c@world.std.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mitchell Swartz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: beads & calorimeter X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:29 AM 4/24/96 -0700, Scott Little wrote: >Over the past two weeks we have continued to work with the ersatz beads and >our new calorimeter. Most of the time has been spent "in the trenches of >science" and there is little of interest to report. > .... > >Has anyone else who received ersatz beads obtained any experimental results yet? > > - Scott Little > EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 > 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) > > I have asked this before, but the comments were not sufficient to clarify. Does anyone here have the answer, or some suggestions which they might provide, either in this forum, or e-mail? 1) Is there any experimental test comparing microspheres to other non-microspherical system to see if there is any benefit? or that explains the development towars this? and if so, where is it published or located, how much was the incremental improvement? 2) Is there any experimental test comparing the various substrates vs. not having them? how much was the differential improvement? and same ?s as #1. 3) The microsphere-CETI system reportedly does not work to the superlative levels reported for the vertical system, when in the horizontal flow position? Does anyone have the detailed list of purported reason or reasons which CETI and the microsphere analysts/experimenters use. At least one of the reasons may include bubbles ruining the system, but that is not clear either. Those reasons may be supplemented by the "Potential for Positional Variation..." reasons discussed here before, and published (J. New Energy, 1,1,126-130(1996)]. As stated before, some of these systems can deliver excess enthalpic power but there may be some ways to improve the semiquantitative estimates of the actual power (and energy) gain. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 05:58:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA06139; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 05:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 05:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604291231.HAA24901@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: NASA report questioned X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 03:50 AM 4/29/96 -0700, Mitchell wrote: > How long is the entire paper? 20 pages >Is it published? looks like it. >Is there a number to call for a copy? It is entitled "Replication of the Apparent Excess Heat Effect in a Light Water--Potassium Carbonate--Nickel Electrolytic Cell" by Janis M. Niedra NYMA, Inc. Cleveland Ohio, and Ira T. Myers, Gustave C. Fralick, and Richard S. Baldwin, Lewis Research Center, NASA, Cleveland Ohio. It is NASA Technical Memorandum 107167 I found several NASA "report servers" on the web but it's not obvious how to actually get the reports they list. They're not free either. Frank Z sent us this one. I'm willing to mail out copies to folks who will send in their addresses to me. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 05:59:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA06161; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 05:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 05:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604291250.HAA25724@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Data acquisition software X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Thanks, Mitchell, for reopening this discussion. What I'm really concerned with in data acquisition is software. I've written my own acq, control and display programs in QuickBASIC and it is a lot of work, expecially the display part...and, in the end, what you get is not all that slick. However, I've also piddled around with the demos of packages like LabTECH Notebook and I think there's a real shortcoming there in that they don't seem to allow you to write your own code for special situations. For example, to stuff incoming analog data into an equation in LN you have to construct the equation out of little graphical operator blocks and one complex expression (like the Steinhart-Hart thermistor equation) ends up taking up most of the screen! Not unusable, mind you, just a hell of a lot clumsier than one line of BASIC. Lately I've been looking at Keithley-Metrabyte's new offering "Visual Test Extensions" which is a set of custom-made "controls" for Visual Basic. It uses the same "building-block" approach as others do and it includes lots of wonderful easy-to-use graphical outputs like strip-charts, etc....but you can also write blocks of in-line code. Apparently you just "wire" your data to a block, double-click the block and it opens up a code window where you can start writing. They advertise: "The power of a package...the flexibility of a language". This catchy little phrase hits my nail right on the head...but I haven't taken the plunge, yet. Has anyone in our group had any experiences with Visual Test Extensions? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 06:36:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA20248; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 06:29:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 06:29:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604291327.JAA14602@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: 28April X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) said: > No, Mark, you are wrong. I think you need to learn more about the > concept of energy "cost". About 20 years ago I worked for the Candaian > Statistical Agency in mathematical modelling. We developed detailed > energy accounting models, dealing with all the direct + indirect energy > embodied in the goods required to construct a nuclear power plant [Well > specifically, a CANDU plant, of course, but the results are not too > different for other commercial power plant designs. There is a significant > difference with many military designs, but this are not used commercially.] I've worked similar models too, and while I agree with your conclusions with regard to CANDU plants, CANDU plants are very energy intensive. No uranium enrichment required, all you need is a couple hundred tons of heavy water. But the answer you get depends on the assumptions used. If you look at the up front costs, you lose with CANDU. In a longer term view, since the deuterium can be recycled into another plant, you just have a high initial investment. (Of course coolant leaks can convert such figures into a huge loss.) In the studies of this sort I have looked at or been involved in, some PWRs (pressuized water reactors) are a net win, some lose. GE's BWRs (boiling water reactors) were significantly more efficient--not in the amount of power generated per kg of enriched uranium, but in the net efficiency of power recovery. These plant statistics are probably significantly improved by assuming enriched uranium from laser or centrifuge enrichment instead of gaseous diffusion. By the way, Philadelphia Electric figured out how to get a big win out of a PWR--superheat the steam with oil-fired burners. However, their initial project was later cancelled because of objections to the cooling towers required. However, there are HTGR (high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, similar to AGRs in Britian but using helium as a coolant) and MSRs (molten salt reactors). MSRs are extremely cheap to build--assemble a graphite core in a pot and bolt the lid on--and even cheaper to fuel. If you are impatient either use enriched uranium or spike with Plutonium to get full power out of your initial fuel load, but from then on the plant produces up to 10% surplus U-233 per year. Yes, that is U-233, MSRs are thorium fueled. The fuel excess vs. power production can be varied by changing the Th/U mix in the fuel. One of the best uses of MSRs however, is as a way of disposing of military Plutonium stocks. There are also LMFBRs, but anyone who tells you they are profitable is in the bomb making business. They look great on an energy budget, but more than half of the net operating energy produced is in the form of Pu-239. The only country currently running LMFBRs is France. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 07:46:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA04151; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 07:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 07:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604291332.JAA12850@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Non-conservative phase transformations X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Neddie Seagoon (my alter ego - how convenient, everybody should have one!) has been continuing his research into the possibility that a non-energy- conserving phase transformation might be responsible for the excess energy observed by Pons and Flieschmann and others in Pd cathodes and perhaps in some other "CF" systems. Neddie has been chidding me for being so conservative and orthodox in my recent postings to vortex-l concerning theoretical physics, so I promised I would pass along to the group more about his un-orthodoxed ideas. Most useful was a paper by Wang et al. which Neddie discovered in Henry Crun's notes to his "CF" bibliography (thanks Dieter): "Total-energy study of hydrogen ordering in PdHx (0<=x<=1)" Yan Wang, Sheng N. Sun, and M.Y. Chou, Physical Review B, vol. 53, no. 1, January 1996. This paper appears to be the latest in a long series of studies revolving around what is called the 50K anomally in highly loaded PdHx. Although there may have been some earlier observations, Neddie's interest began when he discovered a short note titled "Concerning the Feasibility of Nuclear Cooling with Palladium Hydride" by J.J. Fritz, H.J. Maria and J.G. Aston, in J. Chem. Phys., vol. 34, pp. 2185, 1961. This paper begins with the statement: Attempts to obtain nuclear cooling of protons in palladium hydride (formal composition Pd2H) were frustrated by energy evolution in this system below 1 deg. K. This lead to a longer paper by the same authors titled "Energy Evolution in Pd2H below 1 deg. K" in J. Chem. Phys. vol. 38, No. 5, March 1963. In the abstract they state: Energy evolution below 1 deg. K. has been observed in beta-phase palliadium hydride (formal compostion Pd2H). The rate of evolution was srongly temperature-dependent below 0.1 deg. K., but became temperature-independent between 0.1 and 1.0 deg. K. It depended upon previous history and was gretly reduced by annealing of the specimen below 50 deg. K. For specimens kept below 1 deg. K, the rate of energy production at a given temperture diminished with a half- life of about 8 h. These authors attribute the energy source to what they call "nuclear spin conversion" in PdH4 quasi-molecular units "left behind in small concentrations when the lattice is cooled through the rotational transition (at 55 deg. K) of beta-palladium hydride". In another paper "Exothermic Processes in H-Pd Alloys in the 1.2 deg. K - 4.2 deg. K Range", C.A. Mackliet and A.I. Schindler, J. Chem. Phys., vol 45, pp. 1363, 1966, the dependence of these effects on hydrogen concentration is discussed. They conclude: The above results imply, respectively, (i) that the changes responsible for the release of energy at low temperature can be reversed by annealing at higher temperature; (ii) that equilibrium is reached much more quickly at 77 deg. K than at helium temperatures; and (iii) that exothermic-process-related changes occur at temperatures as high as 50 deg. K. [...] it seems possible that the exothermic process and the specific-hear peak [found in the 35 deg - 75 deg. K range] are different aspects of a single underlying phenomena. [...] It may thus be conjectured that the movement of hydrogen nuclei from octahederal to tetrahedral interstitial positions is the mechanism that underlies both the exothermic process and the specific-heat peak. They also note that: The data in fig. 2 for the dependence of P upon hydrogen concentration yield an important result: the "spontaneous power" [P] *per unit of absorbed hydrogen* depends significantly upon hydrogen concentration. There were numerous other papers devoted more directly to the properties of palladium hydride at or near 50 deg. K. Most of these are given in the list of references to the Wang et al. paper above. Wang et al. state: One of the special properties of the Pd-H system is the so-called 50-K anomaly found in the high-density alpha' phase (sometimes also called the beta phase) at low temperatures. Researchers observed it in measurements of the specific heat, resistivity, internal friction, and Hall coefficients, for x between 0.6 and 0.8. Depending on the amount of hydrogen in the sample, the anomaly temperature varied in the 50-80 K range. A series of neutron-scattering experiments determined the origin of these anomalies due to structural changes in the deuterium (hydrogen) arrangements. It involves various ordering processes of the interstitially dissolved deuterium (hydrogen) at the octahedreal sites, including long-range ordered structures, as well as a complicated short-range order in certain concentration range. The significance of the Wang et al. paper is that it provides theoretical support for these neutron scattering observations that show surprizing large-scale symmetries in the arrangement of hydrogen in the palladium metal lattice. In particular it was found that in PdHx for x approx. 0.64 Anderson et al. found a weak but sharp superlattice reflection at the (1, 1/2,0) reciprical-lattice point [...] suggesting an interstitial structure with I4_1/amd symmetry. It is stoichiometric at x=0.5, consisting of two (420) planes of deuterium atoms followed by two empty ones. At slightly higher concentration (x = 0.76 and 0.78), neutron data found another long-range (420)-plane ordering [...] In this case deuterium atoms occupy four (420) planes and leave one empty, forming a Ni4M0-type (D1a) structure. So (looking at a two-dimensional slice) we have a structure that looks like: Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd figure 1. I4_1/amd symmetry At higher concentrations, the gap between the hydrogen planes is reduced and at stoichiometry PdH (x=1), the lattice is fully loaded with no gaps between planes. It has been reasonably well established that proton conduction (migration) occurs preferentially in the two-dimensional hydrogen loaded planes. Many well known proton conductors exhibit this sort of structure. So it is not that surprizing to find it here as the root cause of the high proton mobility in palladium. What is really notable, however, is that here we have a case where the proton conductivity in very densely loaded pallidium with x -> 1, has been observed to have an extraordinarily high value [Bartolomeo, Pons, Fleischmann et al. in proceedings of ICCF4 and in recent publications of Mengoli et al. in J. Analytic Chem. vol. 350, 1993]. This surely corresponds to the three dimensional PdH(x=1) case. Now Neddie points out that in a situation where proton conduction is occurring in a fully loaded lattice, the quantum mechanical wavefunction describing this motion necessarily has the three dimensional symmetry of the fully loaded PdH lattice. Suppose now that some of the absorbed hydrogen is lost and the x gradually falls below 1. The energetics of the Pd-H alloy is such that a sudden long-range phase transition will occur, first to the D1a lattice structure mentioned above and then to the I4_1/amd structure shown in the figure above. If this transition is fast enough, then we have an excellent candidate for a quantum non-equilibrium situation. The mobile protons will be randomly distributed in the lattice according to the original three dimensional symmetry, but the new quantum mechanical wavefunction after the phase transition will immediately take on the new two dimensional symmetry of the lattice. As a result, a large number of mobile protons will experience non-conservative forces arising from the quantum potential as discussed in Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics. After some period of time and numerous exchanges of energy and momentum with the rest of the lattice, the system will regain quantum equilibrium and the random distribution of hydrogen in the lattice will again correspond to the probability density (|psi|^2) implied by the the new wavefunction. And for those of you who are insistent on models which include energy conservation, Neddie points out that it is quite possible to express the energy arising from the quantum potential as coming from the ZPE background. There are a number of "CF" results that fit well with Neddie's hypothesis including the Pons and Fleischmann, "heat after death" experiments which show not only continuing excess heat but also a remarkable stability of the power output during this time. This is consistent with a temperature dependent phase change driven heat source. So what do you all think? Does Neddie have something here or is he just day dreaming? Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 21:33:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA27161; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Recombination X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little, It just dawned on me that you haven't seen recombination in your CETI replication, correct? Unlike the Mills' potassium carbonate / nickle system in which several of us saw apparent significant recombination. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 21:33:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA27219; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604291608.JAA31562@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 04:06 PM 4/26/96 -0700, you wrote: >Chris, you warm my heart. > >I'm doing a book review of the Newman machine for Gene. Any insights? I find >curious parallels to Alfven's electrodynamical cosmology, Osamu Ide's paper snip >By the way, that's a private opinion. I will be much more polite in my >review, letting quotations speak for themselves. > >Mike Carrell > shoot, Mike, this is nearly the same as a publicly issued review. Vortex has gotten a little too big for it to be a self-contained PRIVATE channel of communication, as I discovered recently. You never can tell if your message is going to be relayed to other people... ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 21:35:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA27663; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: vtx: A Multi-resonant Orthogonal Gas (MOG) Cell X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Scott Little wrote: > >> What is the mean free path in H2 at 1 atm? > >I struck a hit in Glasstone & Lewis, Physical Chemistry, a good old stone age >book. In an example, they arrive at the value at 0C, l = 1.67 * 10^-5 cm. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >| Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | The numbers I quoted earlier were from the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 29th Edition (1945). It shows according to Boltzmann 1.500x10^-5 cm at 0C (760 mmHg) and 17.44x10-5 cm at 20C. However, the accuracy does not seem to be to the number of digits stated because it also quotes Meyer at 15.40x10^-5 cm at 20C. However, the numbers in the 74th Edition CRC Handbook (1994) are much different showing 8.81x10^-6 cm at 0 C (760 mmHg). Correspondingly, it gives 8.81 cm at at 0.001 mmHg, which is therefore possibly close to an appropriate operating pressure for a MOG cell. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 21:39:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA28164; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:34:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:34:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604291804.LAA13063@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Data acquisition software X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 05:54 AM 4/29/96 -0700, you wrote: >Thanks, Mitchell, for reopening this discussion. > >Lately I've been looking at Keithley-Metrabyte's new offering "Visual Test >Extensions" which is a set of custom-made "controls" for Visual Basic. It >uses the same "building-block" approach as others do and it includes lots of >wonderful easy-to-use graphical outputs like strip-charts, etc....but you >can also write blocks of in-line code. Apparently you just "wire" your data >to a block, double-click the block and it opens up a code window where you >can start writing. They advertise: "The power of a package...the >flexibility of a language". This catchy little phrase hits my nail right on >the head...but I haven't taken the plunge, yet. > >Has anyone in our group had any experiences with Visual Test Extensions? > > > > > > - Scott Little > EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 > 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) > > I can't but I sure would appreciate a quick review by anyone who has! ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 21:40:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA28385; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Non-conservative phase transformations X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill Page wrote: >So (looking at a two-dimensional slice) we have a structure that looks >like: > > Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd > > Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd > > Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd > > Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd > > Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd > > Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd > > Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd > > Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd > > Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd > > Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd > > figure 1. I4_1/amd symmetry > >At higher concentrations, the gap between the hydrogen planes is reduced >and at stoichiometry PdH (x=1), the lattice is fully loaded with no gaps >between planes. Out of curiosity and confusion, is it possible it looks like this: Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Somehow this just "looks" more proton conductive to me - but looks are deceiving, and maybe it is just the point of view! [snip] > >Now Neddie points out that in a situation where proton conduction is >occurring in a fully loaded lattice, the quantum mechanical >wavefunction describing this motion necessarily has the three >dimensional symmetry of the fully loaded PdH lattice. Suppose now that >some of the absorbed hydrogen is lost and the x gradually falls below 1. >The energetics of the Pd-H alloy is such that a sudden long-range phase >transition will occur, first to the D1a lattice structure mentioned >above and then to the I4_1/amd structure shown in the figure above. > >If this transition is fast enough, then we have an excellent >candidate for a quantum non-equilibrium situation. The mobile protons >will be randomly distributed in the lattice according to the original >three dimensional symmetry, but the new quantum mechanical wavefunction >after the phase transition will immediately take on the new two >dimensional symmetry of the lattice. As a result, a large number >of mobile protons will experience non-conservative forces arising >from the quantum potential as discussed in Bohm's interpretation >of quantum mechanics. After some period of time and numerous exchanges >of energy and momentum with the rest of the lattice, the system will >regain quantum equilibrium and the random distribution of hydrogen >in the lattice will again correspond to the probability density >(|psi|^2) implied by the the new wavefunction. > [snip] > >So what do you all think? Does Neddie have something here or is he >just day dreaming? > >Cheers, >Bill Page. Good thinking Neddie! Bill, It sound like Neddie might be really on to something here. This also accounts for the increased performance of cells where the elctrolysis current has an A/C component. It may also account for the improved performance of the thin Ni and Pd layers Patterson uses in that it would more quickly respond to variations in H2 pressure due A/C components of the electrolysis current, thus forcing the subject phase change. Also the Pd/Ni boundaries might assist in guaranteeing a phase change quickly occurs instead of the H pressure wave simply migrating deeper into the lattice, i.e. forcing the phase change because of a proton diffusion barrier at the boundary rasing the pressure, thus x , to the necessary level to force the phase change. If what Neddie implies is correct, the key is developing a control system that senses the subject phase shift and adjusts the electrolysis voltage/current accordingly to oscillate the shift at it's "natural frequency", which I assume is well below 60 Hz., and thus also maintain the loading (x) at exactly the optimum level. The controll system would act like a thermostsat, but controlling x instead of T, oscillating it back and forth across the phase change boundary. It is interresting that Cravens uses a cheap Radio Shack supply that is not voltage regulated. Scott, are you using a nicley controlled power supply like I am? Bet we don't have a prayer of ou! It might be a good idea to sense resistivity of the cathode (requiring another cathode electrode) and setting up a trigger circuit such that when the resistivity reaches a certain level (Rh) it switches the electrolysis voltage from the high voltage (say 3-10 V) to a low voltage (say 0.6 V or less, maybe even 0) until the resistivity drops to a lower bound Rl. It is then a matter of recording performance to identify the optimum Rh and Rl. A "production" control unit could self optimize Rh and Rl to accomodate bead deterioration, operating temperature changes, etc. Might also be able to just use a timer to cycle the electrolysis current on and off and then fiddle with the voltage(s) and cycle time. The optimal cycle time is obviously way lower than 2 hrs - which Patterson sites as the total loading time, and probably way shorter than 1/60 s, but who knows, lots of cycles with a small delta E, and only a partial phase change, might be better than much less at a large delta E. This also opens up the question of the proton source for forcing the phase change. If it were possible to bond a proton conductor to the Pd surface it might give much better performance because it would have a fast response time and would act as a proton storage device on the deloading phase, thus avoiding the energy cost of electrolysis. It also would eliminate the variablility of bubbles and the need for beads altogether. Then, gas phase loading is a possibility also. Plated copper should work as well as pastic beads and the anode could be Ti. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 21:40:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA28533; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Some commentary for Mike Carrell: >I'm doing a book review of the Newman machine for Gene. Any insights? I find >curious parallels to Alfven's electrodynamical cosmology, Osamu Ide's paper >mentioned in a recent IE, and Bearden's most interesting paper in the last >IE. I'm mumbling confusedly to myself. As an EE, I find myself curously in a First of all you should not compare Joe Newman to Osamu Ide or Hans Alfven. Ide has been doing high quality valid work which in no way compares to Newman's gyroscopic particle theory of electromagnetism. Alfven's work is based on Maxwell's equations which in turn may be used to show conservation of energy in direct contradiction to Mr. Newman's work. As for the Newman energy machine there is no evidence that it is ou. If the device put more energy back into the battery running it than it consumed then a rechargable battery or a capacitor would work just fine. The device should run forever and the rechargable battery or the capacitor would not discharge. Mr. Newman's explanation as to why these two devices cannot power his machine should be included in your report. The claim that there is more mechanical power output than electrical energy input may be dismissed by citing the fact that the motor has never powered an electrical generator and the generated power fed back into powering the machine for a self sustaining mode. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 21:42:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA28692; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960429185916_100433.1541_BHG84-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace, Regarding my confused mumblings, you wrote: > Your knowledge of these things would make for an excellent book. > These things should not be lost. Nope. I'm very ignorant indeed. But I get irritated, because I keep finding all this stuff and then I ask questions - and I just get bluster and annoyance from most of the people I ask about them. On homopolar systems, I've seen work from the fringe people and hot air from the conventionalists. There may be some good stuff on these things, but if there is I've not yet found it. The experimental work I've seen seems very poor, and those like Guruprasad who have written extensively have made some errors - I've even forgotten what those are. If there weren't more important things in life, I would do a definitive set of homopolar experiments for my own satisfaction. Then I would do the same with the famous self-charging capacitors. Most of the rest of what I complain about is just this 'clean and tidy set of explanations' for everything electromagnetic - replete with mathematics and devoid of experimental backing. While I'm here grumbling, I'd just love to know what J J Thompson was seeing in one of his reports to Nature. August 1913, was it? He was trashing some apparent transmutation *by experimental work at the bench* and saw some very odd things indeed involving what looks like a gas of mass number 3. Wouldn't it be wunnerful if we could get some of these hotshot particle hunters to comb thru all this old stuff and find out what in hell's name was really happening? I mean - what are we doing? Is Vortex meaningful? Are we scratching at the door of C21st science? Or is this just a cyber-cafe full of geeks like me? OK, I'll buy the Griggs and Patterson devices as 'anomalous', but I become increasingly certain that the one constant (from anomalists and conventionalists alike) is human stupidity (present company here very largely excepted). And it was always thus, from the Trojan horse through to Vietnam (by way of Brit stupidity in N America). See Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly", and I've just read this book on how the first marine chronometers happened. It is PROFOUNDLY depressing. Nothing changes, the inventors and the scientists were just as bad then as now. (sigh) You ask if I could give a summary of the homopolar problems and the Ampere force stuff. I doubt I'm competent to do either. The basic difficulties (if they are difficulties) with the homopolar stuff are: 1. A Faraday disc works whether the magnet spins with the disc or not. "Not many people know that" 2. My textbook says that a cylindrical version works. It doesn't for me. 3. What about fully-enclosed flux variants? We know the emf (NOT the same as voltage) is produced between the moving and stationary circuits and I have determined that the mechanical reaction is between the disc and the brushes. I need to do more work on all this. On Ampere force, well, the Graneaus seem to have done some pretty convincing (to me) work on showing a longitudinal force within a metallic conductor. I can post references, but they'll all be on John Logajan's Web page (or Bill's). As for Hall, yes, OK. But this 'fascinating' experiment... Is it a real experiment or just more Schrodinger's Cat/Angels dancing on pinheads? I love old J J Thomson - he reviewed those solar eclipse data with a distinctly curled lip, and said that cosmology was the bunk because anybody could dream up any old universe to suit their mathematics. Here's another for my wish list. Is c invariant with direction at altitude? Morley is supposed to have found it wasn't on the top of a mountain. Anybody got any updates on *that* bit of heresy? (sigh^2) Chris (yes, I know I'm being negative. Maybe I gotta lot to be negative about?) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 21:45:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA29040; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604291956.MAA28766@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fission Economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 04:27 PM 4/26/96 -0700, you wrote: >Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. wrote: >>... Norman: That old >>arguement about nuclear plants being NET energy lost systems is just plain >>"anti nuclear" propaganda. I PERSONNALLY aquired some construction estimating >>manuals once and did some estimates of the energy "cost" of a nuclear plant, >>and found the ROI (return on investment) to be OVER 10,000 to 1. (Energy >>wise.) > >>No, Mark, you are wrong. I think you need to learn more about the >concept of energy "cost". About 20 years ago I worked for the Candaian >Statistical Agency in mathematical modelling. We developed detailed >energy accounting models, dealing with all the direct + indirect energy >embodied in the goods required to construct a nuclear power plant [Well >specifically, a CANDU plant, of course, but the results are not too >different for other commercial power plant designs. There is a significant >difference with many military designs, but this are not used commercially.] >These calculations require the solution of a very large system of linear >equations (on the order of 1000 variables) in order to get the indirect >effects (the energy embodied in the steel used to make the construction >machinery to mine the ore to produce the steel ... etc.). At the time, it >was a sort of "leading edge" type of calculation - rather routine today. > >The calculations showed that over the expected life time of a typical >plant, there is a net energy LOSS when considered from the point of >view of the economy as a whole. Of course, there is a kind of "conversion" >of energies from one form to another - which may be useful in itself, >but in this case, one could have taken all the fossil fuels used in >the construction of the plant and burnt them in an existing fossil >fuel powered plant and obtained more useful electricity then what is >possible going the nuclear route. > > >.. sorry, I guess you can see where I stand on these issues! > >Cheers, >Bill Page. > > Thanks, Bill, for setting the record straight. "FYI": The Pacific Northwest was set to build something like six nuclear power reactors during the 1970's when the sort of input/output study you mention above was perfomed, all of which started from the work of some professor in Florida, whose name I have forgotten. With grosssly understated costs for decommissioning and with grossly overstated estimates of plant life, the "absolute energy net loss" was evident. It scared the politicians sufficiently that they went along with the "WHOOPS" default, the $5 billion public bond default, rather than continue down the road to eventual bankruptcy. Seattle City Light, which is very knowledgeable about the economics of power generation, was influential in destroying the nuclear momentum here. As the region's biggest load, outside the aluminum manufacturers, they could clearly see that the investment was not worth while and so refused to assume any "guarantees". They made an about face from a mildly aggressive expansion policy and adopted a radical conservation policy, which has paid off handsomely in the past twenty years. Naturally, the county PUD's took notice and most of them adopted Seattle City Light's position, which made continuence of the nuclear program in the PNW impossible. So, if anyone is looking for additional info regarding these sorts of systems analyses, contact Seattle City Light and see if they can find something in their archives, or look into the library database of the Univerity of Florida or the University of Washington. The first publication date was I believe 1969 or 1970, or maybe as late as 1972. I picked up the first study from the Florida professor in 1973 as a part of my thesis work in PNW regional resource management and was absolutely horrified. So were a lot of other people. There isn't a ghost's chance anywhere in North America that the nuclear fission industry will ever recover. It is rightfully seen as one of the greatest scams of the 20th century. The stench of the lying, cynical misrepresentation, and politically crooked manipulation will linger long into the 21st century. Hell, it is still going on with respect to the nuclear waste issue. The whole thing is phoney, crooked, and incredibly rigged. There is not a single word or behavior of people who are nomimally responsible for these affairs in whom one can vest a single shard of credibility. The more you look, the more you find a vast system of Chineese boxes of one cynical ploy within another, and endless game of dodging the consequences. I must now include the environmentalists in this broadside as well, because they collectively have rendered any attempt to clean up the situation a political impossibility. All in all, at the start of the nuclear age, the issue was broached whether humanity was collectively mature enough to deal with such a technology. As a child I read such material. As a child, I thought humanity had found a magical escape from the limitations of the past. But like everybody else I had been duped by a bunch of self-seeking scam artists who invented their truth out of thin air, full speed ahead and damn the consequences. Some of these scam artists are still known as eminent physicists (it is possible to fool some people all of the time). The answer is, with 50 years of hindsite, humanity is clearly not mature enough. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon Apr 29 21:48:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA29868; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:43:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:43:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960429230020_100060.173_JHB31-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill, >> So instead of thinking of the electron as a "rigid rotor", Bohm's approach retains the idea of a particle as a true zero dimensional point but represents the spin property in terms of the helical motion. The remarkable thing is that this motion arises naturally in applying Bohm's interpretation to Dirac's relativistic treatment of quantum mechanics. Is this any clearer, or does it sound like something Neddie Seagoon would have said? Cheers, Bill Page. << Surprisingly, I am a little clearer However, this reminds me of an experiment I saw on video where an electron "gun" with a very finely pointed tungsten electrode was fired in vacuo past a +ve charged wire normal to the trajectory of the electrons. The lecturer at the Royal Institution was Dr Tonomura, and was sponsored by Hitachi. This arrangement fired one electron at a time, which finally impacted on an array which recorded every impact. The final pattern of arrivals was exactly the same interference banding which is obtained from coherent light shining thru a narrow slit. The individual electrons behaved statistically as though they were a continuous wave. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 07:32:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA23708; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:26:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:26:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: RECOMBINATION \ IRRITATION X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 04/30/96 06:51 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: RECOMBINATION \ IRRITATION OK Joe, YOU'VE SUCCEEDED! You DO have me irritated. Instead of this continuous SPECULATION....Go down to Radio Shack. Buy a power supply. Go out to the grocery store. By some steel wool, buy some nickel fiber somewhere, put it in a pot. Close it up with some epoxy. Experiment! You will find that internal recombination is HARD to achieve. - Combine that with the fact that: A. I have measured gas evolution from the Patterson device, and it matches the expected Faradaic generation rate for the current applied, and B. the input power is miniscule. (And their ARE no problems with "mystery power" coming from the power supplies.) I'm just curious, if I was putting .2 amps into an electrolysis cell, just how many CC/Min. @ STP would you expect to measure Joe????? From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 07:34:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA24107; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 04/29/96 22:40 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, Chris: I LOVE your comment about comsmology being a bunch of "bunk". YES! Indeed, consider the quandry of condensed matter physics. Consider the recent work with METALLIC hydrogen. Hey boys! Hydrogen becomes a METAL under high pressure (like in the Sun). How can these guys explain the "big bang" when they don't have the SLIGHTEST idea of what happens to matter under these conditions???? - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 07:37:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA24658; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:31:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:31:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: RECOMBINATION \ IRRITATION X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Joe Flynn wrote: [snip] > >Forced recombination in a Patterson Cell is easy to achieve. >And even becomes easier with pulsed input, as with the Mills >arrangement. Recombination can be ignored, removed as a >variable, or it can be investigated. Only an experiment will >give the correct answer, as to it's significance. If the same >logic, (Can't be the reason for...because....1000 reasons why >not) were used by CF pioneers like P & F, Mills and Patterson, >CF wouldn't have been attempted in the first place! > >Joe Flynn Joe, what is stopping you from doing this investigation to your satisfaction? You undoubtedly have the electronic equipment. If you need thermistors I'll calibrate and send a couple to you, and 200 ml of 1m Li2SO4 electrolyte. I'll even throw in a 5" piece of Pt wire. All you need is a small pump but you have a good magnet, maybe you could use MHD to let the electrolysis current pump for you, or maybe you have a pump. If you use HF AC it pobably won't make any difference what you use for electrode material - you could just use nichrome wire, or maybe get some sheet titanium, and you won't need a pump. I envy those who live near an aircraft manufacturer surplus materials outlet! Nice source of titanium, etc. Hardware stores sell plastic tubing cheap. You could buy some plastic, cut and glue it together to make a cell. Patterson uses epoxy in some of his cells so that should be OK. Or maybe you have some glassware. The main thing you need to show is that when the H2 and O2 are recombined that more energy is produced than it takes to separate them by electrolysis. Everything else has already been accounted for experimentally in numerous experiments - the electrode current and the evolved gas volume. It is assumed that the gas that does not get measured is recombined, that the electrolysis energy was transferred to the solution as heat. This heat is deducted from the excess energy total by subtracting the electrolysis watt hours. Similarly, when "recombination is accounted for" the potential energy stored in the measured volume of gas is added to the excess heat energy total, becuase it represents stored energy. The early Patterson experimental analysis involved this adding (or factoring) back in, but the later ones did not. So, *all* the evolved gas represents even more excess energy than was accounted for in the power factor for the PPC experiments of late. All that being said, it is important to determine the composition or at least the potential energy of the evolved gas. If it is all O2 or mostly O2 or predominantly O2 and water vapor plus maybe NH3, H2O2, H2S, etc., to the extent the gas will not explode, then there is a very clear error in adding the energy content of the evolved gas to the excess energy total. You might be able to ignite it in a closed container under water and do static calorimetry on it. Pretty exciting. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 07:38:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA25222; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:33:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:33:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Recombination X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > at 20mA ... I collected only about 70% of the expected gas. > At higher currents ... about 5% low There should have been a corresponding excess heat (after correcting for 1.48*I) in your calorimetry results, no? -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 07:40:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA25365; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960430135705.66d73dd0@world.std.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mitchell Swartz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: RECOMBINATION \ IRRITATION X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:36 AM 4/30/96 -0700, Joe Flynn wrote: > >>Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:28:54 -0700 (PDT) >>From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) >>Subject: Recombination > >>Scott Little, > >>It just dawned on me that you haven't seen recombination in >your CETI >>replication, correct? > >>Unlike the Mills' potassium carbonate / nickle system in which >several of >>us saw apparent significant recombination. > >I still think recombination should be investigated as I stated >in several >earlier post's, much to the irritation of Mark Hugo. Irritation >is a by-product of all of the sciences, perhaps some >Preperation H will soothe Marks. > >Forced recombination in a Patterson Cell is easy to achieve. >And even becomes easier with pulsed input, as with the Mills >arrangement. Recombination can be ignored, removed as a >variable, or it can be investigated. Only an experiment will >give the correct answer, as to it's significance. If the same >logic, (Can't be the reason for...because....1000 reasons why >not) were used by CF pioneers like P & F, Mills and Patterson, >CF wouldn't have been attempted in the first place! In a DC system, using V*I as the input power makes the recombination issue moot. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 07:43:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA25546; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604302008.PAA24256@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: RECOMBINATION \ IRRITATION X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:33 4/30/96 -0700, Joe Flynn wrote: >Forced recombination in a Patterson Cell is easy to achieve. Please explain how you would force the gases to recombine. I might like to use the method to get rid of my bubble problem...and to eliminate the need to correct the heat output results for the fuel value of the gases that I'm presently allowing to excape. Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 07:46:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA26332; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604302237.RAA06843@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Denver conference? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Jed (or anyone who went), how about a little report on the conference? Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 07:45:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA26389; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605010007.KAA23783@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Martin Edmund Sevior To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Recombination X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: John Logajan wrote: > > Scott Little, > > It just dawned on me that you haven't seen recombination in your CETI > replication, correct? > > Unlike the Mills' potassium carbonate / nickle system in which several of > us saw apparent significant recombination. > Actally something like that thought occurred to me too although in a different context. Maybe you could clarify this point for me. When you say you see exactly the same heat out for electrical power in, does that mean you correct for the energy required to dissociate water? Thanks Scott. Martin Sevir From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 07:48:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA26447; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960501032105_76570.2270_FHU66-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: ZPE Tapping in SL to be Annointed in Phys Rev! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hey fellow rocket scientists! Phys. Rev. is going to annoint ZPE energy tapping! I bet pretty soon they'll be singing the praises of the Hydrosonic pump -- Great! Hal, do you know Claudia? Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D., Editor-in-Chief INFINITE ENERGY: Cold Fusion and New Energy Technnology Cold Fusion Technology P.O. Box 2816 Concord, NH 03302-2816 Fax: 603-224-5975 Phone: 603-228-4516 PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 267 April 23, 1996 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein A NEW THEORY OF SONOLUMINESCENCE. Sound energy, in the form of a beam of ultrasonic waves, can be partly converted into light energy by aiming the sound at an air bubble in a sample of water. The sound causes the bubble to collapse and to emit sharp (less than 12 picosecond) light pulses. The light's spectrum implies that the source of the radiation is similar to a black-body object at a temperature of tens of thousands of kelvins. Theorists have tried to explain sonoluminescence by saying, for example, that the radiation comes from a plasma formed by the collapse of the bubble. But mostly the mechanism behind the production of the pulses remains a mystery. Now Claudia Eberlein of Cambridge University (cce20@phy.cam.ac.uk, 44-1223-337-458) offers a more daring explanation. She believes the light is being emitted by the vacuum surrounding the bubble. Modern quantum theory holds that unseeable virtual photons abound in the vacuum. The behavior of these "zero-point fluctuations" is influenced by the properties of the surrounding medium. The rapidly moving air-water interface (where two media different indices of refraction come together) may facilitate the conversion of virtual photons into real photons. In fact, Eberlein says, sonoluminescence may represent the first observable manifestation of quantum vacuum radiation. This scenario can be compared to the "Unruh effect," a hypothetical phenomenon in which photons are emitted by a mirror accelerating through a vacuum. "Hawking radiation," the hypothetical emission of particles from black holes, is yet another example of energy seemingly coming out of nowhere; at the black hole's Schwarzschild radius (inside of which, light cannot excape), space is so warped that energy from the black hole can be converted into particle-antiparticle pairs; one particle falls back into the hole while its partner escapes. Eberlein asserts that researchers can put her theory to an experimental test and compare the results to other models of sonoluminescence. (Claudia Eberlein, upcoming article in Physical Review Letters.) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 07:50:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA26598; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:40:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:40:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Thanks to Tony Leff for finding this latest web site: http://wwwnde.esa.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.htm It is a Claytor, Jackson, Tuggle on-line paper about their tritium producing CF work at LANL. Complete with multi-color graphs and diagrams. This is the way scientific papers *ought* to be published!! On-line and available to everyone! I have a link to it in my url below, as well. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 07:49:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA26775; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960501061011_100060.173_JHB69-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fission Economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Michael M. said re: fission power prodn.; >> full speed ahead and damn the consequences. Some of these scam artists are still known as eminent physicists (it is possible to fool some people all of the time). << I wonder what the French expect to do with their nuke plants which I think produce some 75% of their national power consumption. At least the prevailing wind is from us to them!! Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 07:50:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA27000; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:42:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:42:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960501115201_100276.261_JHF35-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Wolfram Bahmann <100276.261@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: Data aquisition X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: to Scott Little, Michael Mandeville and other data freaks, I searched a lonf time now for some easy-to-use but to-date software to aquire data by computer; temperatures, voltages, current, counts. 2 years ago I had some mixed experiences with National Instruments' LabVIEW. This package was downgraded from workstations and did not work easily enough to be a good compagnon. (Maybe that changed with V4.0; but the software is rather expensive) LavWindows is not bad because you have an open C-interface; but you need to be a good C-programmer. Last year HP introduced their VEE what is similar to NI's LV. Meanwhile I did some VisualBasic programming and liked the easy way off adding 3rd-party tools for different tasks. So I was excited about the approach of Keithley Metrabyte selecting this way to go and add a powerful group of utilities esp .the graphic tools which I never would be able or willing to code. I read some brief test results but did not check the handiness myself. But I think for the scientist who searches a tool and not a new profession in data quisition and informatics the Visual Test Extensions look best of the mentioned ones. You have all the incredible capabilities of VB4.0 even 32-bit post-processing and SQL/ODBC-data bank links available; and you have excellent support channels under COmpuserve and in the Internet for this product line. Hoping you take your advantage of this brief description. ------------------------------ Wolfram Bahmann INE & P.A.C.E. board member Feyermuehler Str.12 D-53894 MECHERNICH Germany fax: Int+49/ 2443-8221 e-mail: 100276.261@compuserve.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/wbahmann From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 07:53:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA27622; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:45:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:45:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605011331.JAA08574@dgs.drenet.dnd.ca> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Non-conservative phase transformations X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: [I am still a bit unsure about vortex-l. No messages arrived this morning, so I am copying this directly to Horace as well as vortex-l.] Horace Heffner wrote: >Bill Page wrote: >... >Out of curiosity and confusion, is it possible it looks like this: > > Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd > > Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd Pd > > Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd > > Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd H Pd > >... >Somehow this just "looks" more proton conductive to me - but looks are >deceiving, and maybe it is just the point of view! Yes this is prettier, but remember that these are supposed to be the octahedral sites in an 3-d fcc lattice, I wasn't trying for a "true" representation in my picture and I am not sure whether your picture is any more accurate - given the poor resolution of ASCII graphics. Anyway, I think you get the idea. >... >It sound like Neddie might be really on to something here. This also >accounts for the increased performance of cells where the elctrolysis >current has an A/C component. It may also account for the improved >performance of the thin Ni and Pd layers Patterson uses in that it would >more quickly respond to variations in H2 pressure due A/C components of the >electrolysis current, thus forcing the subject phase change. > >Also the Pd/Ni boundaries might assist in guaranteeing a phase change >quickly occurs instead of the H pressure wave simply migrating deeper into >the lattice, i.e. forcing the phase change because of a proton diffusion >barrier at the boundary rasing the pressure, thus x , to the necessary >level to force the phase change. > >If what Neddie implies is correct, the key is developing a control system >that senses the subject phase shift and adjusts the electrolysis >voltage/current accordingly to oscillate the shift at it's "natural >frequency", which I assume is well below 60 Hz., and thus also maintain the >loading (x) at exactly the optimum level. The controll system would act >like a thermostsat, but controlling x instead of T, oscillating it back and >forth across the phase change boundary. > >It is interresting that Cravens uses a cheap Radio Shack supply that is not >voltage regulated. Scott, are you using a nicley controlled power supply >like I am? Bet we don't have a prayer of ou! > >It might be a good idea to sense resistivity of the cathode (requiring >another cathode electrode) and setting up a trigger circuit such that when >the resistivity reaches a certain level (Rh) it switches the electrolysis >voltage from the high voltage (say 3-10 V) to a low voltage (say 0.6 V or >less, maybe even 0) until the resistivity drops to a lower bound Rl. It is >then a matter of recording performance to identify the optimum Rh and Rl. >A "production" control unit could self optimize Rh and Rl to accomodate >bead deterioration, operating temperature changes, etc. > I think these are all very good ideas and observations, Horace. Could it be that the mysterious inductor that Dieter Britz says Fleischmann included by "mistake" in their power supply circuit might have something to do with this? It is also interesting to note that at the last two ICCF meetings, Fleischmann spent much more time talking about "feedback" and control systems theory then he did about electrochemistry - rather odd for an electrochemist, no? Fleischmann has spoken repeatedly about the so-called "feedback" effect that he points out is observed in both their experiments as well as some of the (in)famous negative experiments (Harwell, etc.). Pons and Fleischmann use an "online" calibration method in their cells which periodically applies a known additional input power to a resistive heater in the cell. By measuring the heating and cooling curves associated with this pulse, they get a good measure of the current calorimeter constant - on the fly. There is an apparent asymmetry in the heating and cooling rates that can be seen in the measurements of the calibration heat pulses - the cell heats up faster than it cools down - indicating some sort of heat release mechanism is triggered by the slight increase in temperature caused by the calibration pulse. This is apparently seen only when the cell is in or is just about to enter the excess heat mode. To me this also strongly suggests a phase change related excess heat mechanism. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 20:43:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA06247; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:33:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:33:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9605011600.AA04505@giasone.teseo.it> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: conte@teseo.it (Elio Conte) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Please,answer X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:08:04 -0700 (PDT) >Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Precedence: bulk >From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: Re: Please,answer >X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas > >Prof Elio Conte wrote: >>>... the biquaternion quantum mechanics explains the mechanism >>>of e-e as due to interactions due to the overlap of the wavefunctions,and >>>in this condition enables to calculate the transition temperature in >>>superconductors. >>>The obtained accord between experimental and theoretical(biquaternion >>>quantum mechanical) calculations is perfect.We are now sending the= results >>>for the publication.I think the result is important also for cold >>>fusion:after all,the e-e is one of the first cases of cold fusion!!!!!. >> > >Congratulation on the success of your new calculations. > >Although you have submiting the work for publication, could you >please tell us more about the details of your approach? I am >especially interested in the comparison to experimental data. >Also, can you apply your calculations to the situation of the >recently discovered high temperature superconductors? > >Cheers, >Bill Page. >=20 > Yes,it has been just applied. Sincerely.Elio Conte --- Prof Elio Conte Centro Studi Radioattivit=E0 e Radioecologia Libero Istituto Universitario Internazionale Bari, Italia From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 20:49:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA06620; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: Data aquisition X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 05/01/96 07:50 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: RE: Data aquisition Keithly is GIVING away their data gathering program when you buy their boards!! !!!!! And I'm going to a day long seminar on how to use, 5/16/96 for $50.... - I think they have their act together! MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 20:44:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA06727; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605011742.KAA02560@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Recombination X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: John Logajan wrote: >Scott Little, > >It just dawned on me that you haven't seen recombination in your CETI >replication, correct? > >Unlike the Mills' potassium carbonate / nickle system in which several of >us saw apparent significant recombination. We have been running electrolysis with Scott's "ersatz" cathode beads in Li2SO4 solution in a Patterson geometry cell. We always measure gas production when we take data readings. We find negligible gas combination (ie. H2 + O2 recovery 100% commensurate with cell current) at high currents (above ~100 mA). However, at low current (ie. 20 mA) the recombination can be ~50%. At 50 mA the recombined gas is usually no more than ~10%. These numbers are, of course, specific to our particular cell. One must always measure the actual gas production. We measure the liquid and gas flow rates in a 30 ml syringe that is in series in the return line from the cell and just above the reservoir. The reservoir is a 500 ml wash bottle with a rubber bung in its top and two holes through. One hole passes a tube from the syringe for liquid to enter, the other vents gas. A valve and short lengths of tube join the reservoir and the bottom of the syringe. The syringe has a rubber bung in its top with two holes through, one for the electrolyte-plus-gas to enter from the cell, the other for gas vent. Normally the fluid just drips through the syringe and down into the reservoir, and the gas vents off, so the syringe is also our gas separator. To measure liquid flow we close the valve between the syringe and the reservoir, and we measure how long it takes to fill the syringe with liquid; the gas is allowed to vent out the top of the syringe. Then, to measure gas flow, we close the syringe top vent and open the valve between the syringe bottom and the reservoir; the gas then slowly displaces water from the syringe, and we read delta volume, usually for a 10-20 min interval. We assume that the solution gets saturated with H2 + O2 after a few passes through the cell (about 2 pass/hr -- we usually run about 15 ml/min and usually have 500 ml of solution in the reservoir and loop), because the only communication with the outside environment is via the two small vents described above. If this assumption, which we have not tested, is true, then there is no question about dissolution of H2 and O2 during the measurement. We have not been correcting for water vapor partial pressure, which is a maximum of 5% correction (at our temperatures < 30 C) to the H2 + O2 moles. We have occasionally run at currents in the 0.5 A range. At such high currents the bubbles leaving the cell are very small and very numerous, making the electrode appear milky. These fine bubbles separate much more slowly than the large, infrequent ones common at low current, and so our setup looses accuracy under these conditions. It could be remedied by using a larger volume syringe. Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 20:44:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA06859; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:37:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:37:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Non-conservative phase transformations X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: About the layered distribtion of H in the Pd lattice, it looks likely that the Pd bond distance is smaller in the H empty layers than the populated layers. The presence of the H distorts the lattice which is maybe what causes the layering effect to begin with. The two inner layers are "compressed" thus preventing the H from diffusing readily into or through them. This might make diffusion in the already stretched zones more likely. Bockris has a good discussion of all this starting on page 1330 under the topic "11.2.22 The Preferential Diffusion of Adsorbed Hydrogen to Regions of Stress in Metal". Of special interest is the diagram showing the non-linearity of stress as a function of strain when the linear region applicable to Hooke's law is exceeded. This may represent the very non-linearity sought and discussed here so often. It may be possible to establish a kind of Carnot cycle in a plane of H2 loading and temperature. It is interresting that H2 seeks areas of stress in the lattice. Stretching a metal leads to increased hydrogen absorbtion. As a metal membrane is strained the hydrogen permeation increases, even if the strain is not externally induced. This may help in explaining the special efficiency of the Patterson bead structure, and the delicacy of the operating parameters. The multiple metal layers will induce internal stress due to differences in thermal expansion coefficients. Also, the plasticity and thermal coefficient of the plastic core may provide just the right amount of stretch to the outer film to activate the conditions, ie. enable much of the lattice to be at the required phase boundary condition, without destroying the outer film. Part of the trick is achieving the right amount of stretch without ever exceeding it. Another part is achieving the right amount of loading without ever exceeding it. The problem is to avoid bubble formation and the subsequent blistering and cracking, and hydrogen embrittlement, which is a permanent condition. So, the control problem is one of sensing the metal membrane condition and cycling loading current and temperature in the correct phases and ranges i1, i2, T1, T2. It is interresting that the flowing electrolyte may provide a very good mechanism for doing just (or close to) the required temperature variation. As H2 is evolved the surface is insulated, preventing additional current in the locality of the bubble. However, H2 continues to be fed to the bubble both from negative direction (outward) diffusion and from electrolysis at the bubble boundaries. The metal is momentarily hot due to the electrolysis current and then the insulation of the bubble, but then cooled toward the middle of the interface by the expansion of the H at the surface as it reverse diffuses into the bubble due to lack of electrolysis current to maintain pressure. When the bubble detatches, the electrolysis current resumes at the locality, but there is a momentary drop in temperature due to exposure of the surface to the flowing electrolyte. Then the internal heat and pressure increases from compression and current resistance, and a bubble begins to form again, repeating the cycle. Adding "excess heat" due to a phase transition would only make the temperature fluctuations even more extreme, but would make avoiding film destruction more difficult, and would make controlling the range of T more diffcult due to the non-linearities. It appears that, if the phase transtion model is correct, a gas phase cell may be much easier to control due to the lack of bubbles. The idea would be to build multi-layered (nm thick layers) electrodes and H load with a DC current applied to a plasma created with AC. The heat could be extracted from the "back side" of the electrodes using pressurized water or a high boiling point liquid. What do you think? Neddie is on to something is what I think. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 20:46:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA07066; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:38:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:38:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605011754.NAA01407@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fission Economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Norman Horwood (100060.173@CompuServe.COM) asks: > I wonder what the French expect to do with their nuke plants which > I think produce some 75% of their national power consumption. At > least the prevailing wind is from us to them!! Didn't you read my previous posting? They are a source of Plutoium for their weapons program. The power production can be viewed as incidental, as it was at Hanford for many years. Don't get me wrong,once amortized, LMFBRs are net power sources, but a huge fraction of their power budget is measured in kilos of Plutoium, both as capital cost and product. And if there ever is a failure at a Phoenix or SuperPhoenix reactor, the damage done by the sodium will probably be greater than that from the radiation. (If you think acid rain is bad, the rain downwind from an LMFBR will be several molar lye solutions. Just the thing to dissolve skin.) Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 20:47:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA07278; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Bead fabrication. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Just a thought on bead fabrication. It may be essential to plate the beads in special controlled temperature conditions to place the metal under the proper stress loads. For example, if the metal is applied in high temperature conditions, the core is pre-expanded, thus preventing cracking of the metal membrane when the bead is returned to high temperature conditions in it's operatioal environmemt. The trick then is to avoid destruction of the surface through dimpling when the bead cools. Also, it may be desirable to plate different layers at different temperatures to maintain a permanent stress level in the layers regardless of temperature. This might enable phase shifting using smaller variations in temperature and H2 loading. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 20:49:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA07409; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:40:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:40:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Non-conservative phase transformations X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Continuing the train of thought of phase transition applied to cell design: So, the control problem is one of sensing the metal membrane condition and cycling loading current and temperature in the correct phases and ranges i1, i2, T1, T2. It appears that, if the phase transtion model is correct, a gas phase cell may be much easier to control due to the lack of bubbles. The idea would be to build multi-layered (nm thick layers) electrodes and H load with a DC current applied to a plasma created with AC. The heat could be extracted from the "back side" of the electrodes using pressurized water or a high boiling point liquid. The idea would be to load under a very low current low pressure condition. The environment would be similar to that in a neon light bulb. True, it takes a high initial voltage pulse to reach breakdown voltage, i.e. in the order of magnitue of 60 - 100 V, but the current to maintain the H arc would be very low. It is very good that the temperature and loading can then be separately controlled by varying the AC and DC components of the H (or combined H and other gas like neon, etc) arc. The "Carnot cycle of loading" could be fully explored under very controlled conditions, unlike those of a bubbling electrolysis cell. It is also of interest that Kamada et al established no lower limit on the stimulating voltage for the incident electrons other than the implied need for them to reach the D2 implantation level of about 50 nm. It would be interresting to "electron shock", at various voltages, deuterium implanted via low voltage DC arc and which therefore is less prone to bubble formation in the electrode at a specific implantation depth. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 20:50:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA07570; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:41:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605012046.NAA00760@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: Data aquisition X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I thank you for your review as below. I have high hopes of buying into either the HP VEE or into Keithly Metrabyte's stuff in a month or two. I am desirous of setting up a mobile test monitoring/report station on a system running NT server. The primary configuration will be to collect, analyze, and report on multiple variables of magnetic motors, but configured as such, it will be suitable for just about anything in the free energy arena. The variables will include: a) temperature of several points b) primary shaft torque - delivered c) counter shaft torque - internal load d) multiple points magnetic fields e) multiple points current/voltage The objective is to have a box totally self-contained, with internet connectivity (both isdn and pot), including video teleconferencing ability for delivery of test results anywhere (the system will also be a fully qualified internet server). I am working with a project which may have sufficient funding in a month or so to setup up such a system. Once setup, this box could be <> to the vortex/free energy community. I would appreciate any additional comments, insights, or other information which readers would like to contribute concerning the software for such a setup. At 07:42 AM 5/1/96 -0700, you wrote: >to Scott Little, Michael Mandeville and other data freaks, > >I searched a lonf time now for some easy-to-use but to-date software to aquire >data by computer; temperatures, voltages, current, counts. 2 years ago I had >some mixed experiences with National Instruments' LabVIEW. This package was >downgraded from workstations and did not work easily enough to be a good >compagnon. (Maybe that changed with V4.0; but the software is rather expensive) >LavWindows is not bad because you have an open C-interface; but you need to be a >good C-programmer. >Last year HP introduced their VEE what is similar to NI's LV. > >Meanwhile I did some VisualBasic programming and liked the easy way off adding >3rd-party tools for different tasks. So I was excited about the approach of >Keithley Metrabyte selecting this way to go and add a powerful group of >utilities esp .the graphic tools which I never would be able or willing to code. >I read some brief test results but did not check the handiness myself. But I >think for the scientist who searches a tool and not a new profession in data >quisition and informatics the Visual Test Extensions look best of the mentioned >ones. You have all the incredible capabilities of VB4.0 even 32-bit >post-processing and SQL/ODBC-data bank links available; and you have excellent >support channels under COmpuserve and in the Internet for this product line. > >Hoping you take your advantage of this brief description. > >------------------------------ >Wolfram Bahmann INE & P.A.C.E. board member > >Feyermuehler Str.12 D-53894 MECHERNICH Germany >fax: Int+49/ 2443-8221 e-mail: 100276.261@compuserve.com >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/wbahmann > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 20:54:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA07668; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: ZPE Tapping in SL to be Annointed in Phys Rev! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Eugene F. Mallove writes: > Hey fellow rocket scientists! Phys. Rev. is going to annoint ZPE energy > tapping! I bet pretty soon they'll be singing the praises of the Hydrosonic > pump -- Great! It didn't actually propose any non-conservation of energy, or any energy gain -- just energy form exchange via the ZPE effect. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 20:50:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA07718; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605020010.KAA20836@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Martin Edmund Sevior To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fission Economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Norman wrote: > > I wonder what the French expect to do with their nuke plants which I think > produce some 75% of their national power consumption. At least the prevailing > wind is from us to them!! > I've been following this thread with some interest for a while. I have great sceptism about any computer model of complex phenomena. I written many to simulate experimental conditions and I know how easy it is to screw up. The assertion that nuclear power consumes more energy than it produces runs up against this nasty fact. How nuclear power provide such a large fraction of a large and successful economy while consuming more energy than it produces? Martin Sevior. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 1 20:57:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA07821; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:42:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:42:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Earlier I wrote: Begin quote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To get eduacated a bit about the QM theory of conduction, I was just reading a used book I recently bought, "Solid State Physics" by H. E. Hall. (I see I could have maybe used the term "relaxation" instead of EMF propagation and communicated better, but that is another story.) He poses a paradox. Suppose you have an electron tethered by a string of length r tethered to a point on the axis of a long superconducting solenoid carrying current i. You raise the temperature so the superconduction stops and the field collapses. The particle is therefore accelerated around a circle of radius r getting angular momentum mvr. Where did the angular momentum come from? I think his answer is amazing! To conserve angular momentum, a charged particle at rest in a magnetic field must already have the angular momentum mvr. He goes through a series of calculations involving the fact that B = curl A and discovers mv = eA. So, to preserve angular momentum, the momentum formula for a charged particle in a magnetic field must be adjusted to have two components, i.e. p = mv + eA When at rest, all the angular momentum is stored in eA. When the field collapse is complete, the angular momentum is all in the kinetic motion, mv. Well, now, this certainly does seem to have a relationship to Marinov's force. More importantly, it seems to be a very strong indicator of the veracity of Bohm's concepts of charge and mass being distributed in the wave function. How can angular momentum be induced upon or stored in a point! What I think is notable is the derived equation is one of pure momentum, not angular momentum. There also seems to be a nice kinetic energy storage medium here. So why is there not major energy absorbtion from low mu materials when placed in an oscillating magnetic field? The charge (both + and -)is there, the momentum must be there. Could it be a cancellation effect? Positive and negative energy? So! Here is a scheme to contemplate. Bring un-ionized low mu matter into field B. No force required, just momentum. Ionize it. Shoot ionized matter out of B. Matter gains longitudinal momentum from eA component, thus v, thus more kinetic energy than required to shoot it out of B. Collect ejected matter and repeat. Flaws? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - End quote. It seems to me the flaw was in Hall's assumption about no angular momentum in the system to begin with. This is just another case of the problem I was referring to earlier, the failure to recognize the fact that charge has an associated mass, that any type of electrical current is conveyed by a flow of mass, so therefore any magnetic field generated by current flow has an associated angular momentum in the charge bearing bodies which generate the field. When the imaginary charge in Hall's gedanken is accelerated, the rate of collapse of the field B is retarded by the growth of the opposing field generated by the motion of the charge. Less of the energy in the field goes into generating heat in the superconductiong coil that was warmed up. Furthermore, much of the angular momentum of the electric current in Hall's toroidal coil would have been converted to angular momentum of the superconducting coil, which is suspended out in an imaginary space. Since some of the energy and angular momentum went into the departing particle, it would not be available to heat the coil or add to its angular momentum. So, does the "canonical form" of momentum, p = mv + eA, have a flaw? There are some very strange things that msut be true if p = mv + eA. Note that the mv component changes simply by the particle being located in a magnetic field. There is no accounting for how it got there. This means a particle travelling through a magnetic field of any orientation should see an observable change in mv. A change in mv is clearly brought about by only one thing, a force. So, p = mv + eA guarantees a longitudinal force, retarding on entering a field B and enhancing upon exit from a field B. This is very strange. A beam shot at a target should not warm the target as much if th target is in a magnetic field. A plasma placed in a magnetic field should immediately cool down, and conversely, if removed from the field B, it should heat up. A resistor in a magnetic field should not get as hot as one not in the field at the same voltage. A reduction in mv means either a reduction in m or a reduction in v or both. In either case, it is a reduction in energy. Being uncharged, does a photon have a canonical momentum? If not, then the loss/gain of charged particle momentum should be apparent. Simply move a light bulb into a magnetic field. If there is a red shift, you know there is a longitudinal force. If the photon experiences the same force, i.e. has canonical momentum p = mv + eA, then maybe there are some other curiosities, and ways to see the delta p of charged particles in a B. One way is to put a glass of electolyte into a field B with a thermometer sticking out. Now if there is a drop in mv for every charged particle, there must be an instantaneous and corresponding drop in temperature. The mercury in the bulb must shrink, the temperature must drop. If this is not visible, and the force still exists, i.e the canonical form is correct, then there must be a corresponding change in dimensions to retain the volume of the thermometer, a kind of fitzgerald contraction at rest. Now we see why mv has shrunk. D has shrunk so V has shrunk, and so has E = mv^2. But energy is still conserved as long is it "comes back" when the charges leave the field B. Now, what about a person riding a vehicle into a magnetic field. He shrinks but can not tell it because to him mv remains the same because the world is shrinking and he with it at the same rate. He can not tell that there is a longitudinal force acting upon him. If that is true, though, neither can we. His thermometer looks unchanged. The light coming out of the "hole" looks the same. The geometry looks the same. There is no force! So, if there is a force, our original assumption, there is no force. Otherwise we can detect it by the simple means described. Now isn't that weired? 8^) Flaws? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 2 01:42:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA25032; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:31:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 01:31:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605020342.WAA24102@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Recombination X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 07:33 5/1/96 -0700, John L wrote: >Scott Little wrote: >> at 20mA ... I collected only about 70% of the expected gas. >> At higher currents ... about 5% low > >There should have been a corresponding excess heat (after correcting >for 1.48*I) in your calorimetry results, no? Yes. However, I have difficulty seeing such low heat power levels. At .02 amps, my typical cell voltage is 3 volts. Thus I'm putting in 60mw total power. With no recombination essentially half of that (30mw worth) escapes as fuel gas. With 30% recombination, about 10mw worth "stays" in the cell. Thus I would have to see the difference between 30mw and 40mw of heat power in the cell in order to detect via calorimetry that recombination at this level was occurring. My present measurement precision is around the 10mw level at best. If I ever get a cell that produces several watts of heat from a similar electrical input (as has been reported for the PPC), there will be NO MISTAKING it with this calorimeter. Also, John, I would like to emphasize that I still do not know what fraction of the missing gas in my "70%" measurement was lost due to dissolution in the water during the collection period. Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 2 01:42:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA25073; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 01:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605020408.XAA26029@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Recombination X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 07:39 5/1/96 -0700, Martin wrote: >When you say you see >exactly the same heat out for electrical power in, does that mean you >correct for the energy required to dissociate water? Yes, Martin. I typically assume that all the gas escapes without recombination and thus the full caloric value of that fuel is lost. Its an interesting calculation to work through and there are a couple of seemingly rather diverse ways to approach the problem but, in the end, you come up with P = (V-1.48)*i for the heat power dissipated in the cell. The other 1.48*i is the electrical power that went into dissociating the water. BTW, Martin, I finally have "the Beast" (dual method calorimeter) up and running pretty well. The NLC side of the results are significantly less precise than the flow side. Flow calorimetry precision is +/- 0.02 watts and NLC calorimetry is maybe +/- 0.1 watts. Amazingly, despite a fully insulated outer box (not in the original plan), great outer box temperature control (about +/- 0.01C at 50C), and the 1/2" styrofoam insulation of the inner box, I can STILL see the building AC cycling in the flow calorimetry data!!! Fortunately, it's a tiny effect but it's definitely visible. On the NLC side, the system is rather sensitive to the background heat sources in the inner chamber (the peristaltic pump and the stirring fans). The fans are wonderfully steady and I have assigned an empirical constant to their contribution (it's about .24 watts). The pump is also steady but it appears that each time I change the tubing, I have to establish a new power value for it. My first one was about .30 watts and now, with a new piece of tubing, it's gone down to about 0.20 watts. Now all I need is a cell that produces excess heat...especially as much as is claimed for the PPC. Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 2 01:43:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA25151; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 01:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605020408.XAA26025@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: RECOMBINATION \ IRRITATION X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 07:34 5/1/96 -0700, Mitchell wrote: > In a DC system, using V*I as the input power >makes the recombination issue moot. It's not moot, Mitchell. Our cells are open. The H2 and O2 gas escapes. Its caloric value is typically around half of the electrical input power. For accurate calorimetry you must "count" it somehow. BTW, I urge all the experimentalists on this group to study the in-line flow meter that Mike Schaffer described in his recent post: >We measure the liquid and gas flow rates in a 30 ml syringe that is in >series in the return line from the cell and just above the reservoir. This is a very clever design that I will try to incorporate in future CF experiments. Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 2 01:43:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA25442; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 01:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I47OWRC5TE99JNED@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: RECOMBINATION?IRRITATION X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 07:26:54 -0700 (PDT) >From: "MHUGO@EPRI" >Go down to Radio Shack. Buy a power supply. >Go out to the grocery store. By some steel wool, buy some nickel >fiber somewhere, put it in a pot. Close it up with some epoxy. Experiment! I don't have to go to the store or Radio Shack. I OWN a lab (not basement setup) equipped with over $150K of equipment. I probably have experimented more than the average. >You will find that internal recombination is HARD to achieve. Not for some people. >Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 20:36:25 -0700 (PDT) >From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com > However, at low current (ie. 20 mA) the recombination can >be ~50%. >I'm just curious, if I was putting .2 amps >into an electrolysis cell, just how many CC/Min. @ STP would you >expect to measure Joe????? Com'on Mark, how do you have current flow without voltage? I don't think you understood the Total concept I posted. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 2 01:43:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA25487; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 01:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318851E7@ELAN.RDYNE.ROCKWELL.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Scudder, Henry J." To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Vtx: Recombination in cells X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 4:18PM 5/1/96 Vortitians: (what is our usual plural anyhow? :>) As most of you are probably aware, the space shuttle uses H2 and O2 as fuels(very environmentally happy too, compared with those damn solid state rockets which are full of chlorine compounds, which get spewed out into the poor ozone layer). My employer, Rocketdyne makes the main engines for the shuttle, and has done a lot of research in various areas over the years. One significant area is controlled ignition, to get the damn things started. Currently, they use some sort of a super sparkplug I believe. When I took their orientation course a couple of years ago, which is taught by various and sundry members of the engineering staff, one of the topics covered is the ignitor, where the H2 and O2 are mixed and started burning. Once started, the flame keeps going, but one of the nice things about the engine, is that it can be used more then once, and can be restarted in flight. One of the schemes for doing this ignition that has been tried, is blue laser light. The O2 molecule dissociates when hit by photons somewhere in the blue light region, around 440nm or so, I think(I'm doing this from memory) and the blue light LED's which are commercially available are close enough to this wavelength to cause this to happen with reasonable efficiency. The free O radicals which are produced, then combine happily with the H2 molecules, producing steam, and flames the rocket engine. It would seem to be feasible to put a blue LED into the innards of a CF electrochemical cell, and gently cause continuous recombination of the electrolitic products as they are produced. If any of you are interested in trying this, let me know, and I'll try and dig up some details here at Rocketdyne. As a separate topic, I know something about control theory, servomechanisms, and feedback control systems, and would like to find out more about how these are useful in CF. I saw a posting today, where Fleischmann was said to be talking about this. Would some of you point me towards some specific papers where these are used. - Hank Scudder PS-Jed, I used "NOTEPAD" to compose this with word wrap turned on, instead of "WRITE". I hope it comes out with line lenghts less then 80 characters. 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567 It didn't work. so I edited it by hand. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 2 01:43:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA25550; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:35:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 01:35:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I47Q2JV6HU99JMP5@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 07:29:02 -0700 (PDT) >From: "MHUGO@EPRI" > Hey boys! Hydrogen becomes a METAL >under high pressure (like in the Sun). I don't understand, why pressure? It's already considered one at normal pressure. Hydrogen is listed as a metal in the Periodic Table. "Although Hydrogen is not a metal, it acts as one in chemical reactions" ...7th grade science. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 2 01:43:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA25639; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 01:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 1 May 1996, John Logajan wrote: > Thanks to Tony Leff for finding this latest web site: > > http://wwwnde.esa.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.htm > > > It is a Claytor, Jackson, Tuggle on-line paper about their tritium > producing CF work at LANL. Complete with multi-color graphs and > diagrams. > > This is the way scientific papers *ought* to be published!! > On-line and available to everyone! Yes, hm; but but but... That's all very well, but would there be referees? Do we want to read every crackpot's favourite fantasy? I'm not saying that Claytor is a crackpot. In fact, I see him and his wonderful tritium result mentioned in lots of places. The latest is in the Hoffman book. Everyone is impressed with Claytor. So, the big question: why are these results not published in journals? Please don't tell me that journals don't accept CNF papers, I have 1020 in the biblio, to say otherwise. Does anyone know why Claytor doesn't publish in journals? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 2 01:45:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA25747; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:37:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 01:37:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I47QOLR6NM9ARMOT@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: CONFUSED MUMBLINGS X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Chris, I agree with you, EM has more inconsistencies than you can shake a stick at, or possibly the whole tree. If I were to go a anomaly huntin' it would be either with magnetism or gravity, the two forces that defy unification. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 02:38:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA24390; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960502071619.109fc078@world.std.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mitchell Swartz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: RECOMBINATION \ IRRITATION X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 01:32 AM 5/2/96 -0700, Scott Little wrote: >At 07:34 5/1/96 -0700, Mitchell wrote: > >> In a DC system, using V*I as the input power >>makes the recombination issue moot. > >It's not moot, Mitchell. Our cells are open. The H2 and O2 gas escapes. >Its caloric value is typically around half of the electrical input power. >For accurate calorimetry you must "count" it somehow. > excuse me, but it is moot as regards a decision on over unity. these are the complaints of the "knee-jerk" TB skeptics. with V*I = Power(IN), then the "loss" to gas is not removed from the input, and the skeptic complaint is moot. the issue is not moot with respect to our understanding these phenomena, but it is with respect to detection of purported "ou" activity and any skeptic's gripe about "recombination" causing the "ou" effect. -------------------------------------- >BTW, I urge all the experimentalists on this group to study the in-line flow >meter that Mike Schaffer described in his recent post: > actually we should be measuring both total gas, hydrogen, and oxygen evolution as well. but the ideal is rarely achieved given the complexity of the variables on the fluid, solid and gas compartments. --------------------------------------- >>We measure the liquid and gas flow rates in a 30 ml syringe that is in >>series in the return line from the cell and just above the reservoir. > is the resistance to flow changed when the syring is in series? is the syringe ALWAYS in series, or when measuring? ---------------------------------------- > >This is a very clever design that I will try to incorporate in future CF >experiments. > >Scott Little >EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA >512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) > Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 02:38:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA24553; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:32:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:32:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960502114731_100060.173_JHB56-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fission Economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robert, >> Didn't you read my previous posting? They are a source of Plutoium for their weapons program. The power production can be viewed as incidental << Can't remember whether I read your postings - but I hadn't appreciated that ALL the Frog nuke plants were producing plutonium. Where is all that weapons stuff going? They must have an arsenal the size of Nooyork, either that or they are selling the stuff to the mid-east or some other loose cannon state. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 02:38:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA24733; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:33:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:33:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960502114733_100060.173_JHB56-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fission Economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Martin, >> How nuclear power provide such a large fraction of a large and successful economy while consuming more energy than it produces? << On the face of it you are perfectly correct. However, I understand that the overall power consumption of the various generation systems, starting from the extraction of the minerals required to build the physical construct and integrating all the power consumed in the running and de-commissioning at the end of the life of each station, makes nuke fission look very inefficient cf, say, gas power or hydro-power for example. I know that this type of modelling can be dangerous and inaccurate, but as a comparison tool, like with like, it might have some credibility. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 02:41:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA24819; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605021350.IAA08277@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: RECOMBINATION?IRRITATION X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 01:34 5/2/96 -0700, Joe wrote: >>I'm just curious, if I was putting .2 amps >>into an electrolysis cell, just how many CC/Min. @ STP would >you >>expect to measure Joe????? > >Com'on Mark, how do you have current flow without voltage? Careful Joe, Mark's question is perfectly legit. The voltage is surely present but it is also immaterial to the gas production. He was just asking if you knew how to calculate that a 0.2 amp current would produce 2.09 cc/min of gas at STP. Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 02:41:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA24928; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605021344.IAA07840@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Vtx: Recombination in cells X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 01:34 5/2/96 -0700, Henry wrote: >Vortitians: >(what is our usual plural anyhow? :>) varies by region...down here it's Vortexans..... > to put a blue LED into the innards of a CF electrochemical cell, and gently > cause continuous recombination of the electrolitic products as they are > produced. If any of you are interested in trying this, let me know, and >I'll try and dig up some details here at Rocketdyne. Please do. Specifically we'd need the wavelength "window" over which the effect works and the typical light radiation power levels required to get most of the O2 dissociated. > As a separate topic, I know something about control theory, > servomechanisms, and feedback control systems, and would like to find > out more about how these are useful in CF. Well, in my calorimeters I use a home brewed PID control (implemented in software) for the constant temperature environment. Unfortunately I have never grasped the formal approach to control theory using transfer functions, Laplace transforms, root-loci plots, etc so I just play with the coeffs until the thing works OK. Someday I just know I'll run into one that will defy such a casual approach. Would you be able to help out in that case? Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 02:43:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA25168; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:36:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:36:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31888d39.28886046@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cold fusion update [copy 2] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:11:16 -0700 (PDT), Bill Page wrote: [snip] >>Al is also composed of 1 isotope (Al27), and is cheaper than Gold to >>work with. It has the added advantage, that the positive ion is 3+. I >>suspect thus that Al2(SO4)3 might make a very interesting electrolyte >>in Patterson type cells. >>If I say why 3+ is an advantage, you won't believe me, so I will keep >>that to myself, until the cell is tested. BTW I suspect that with >>heavy water this reaction may produce primarily neutrons. > >Ah, come on Robin, we all believe or fail to believe in a lot of things... >Why not tell us why 3+ is an advantage. How does it relate to Kamada's The more positive the ion the better. >results? Also you have said "until the cell is tested". Does this mean Sorry, no connection at all that I can see at the moment. >you are involved in such an experiment? Sorry no. I only speculate. > >With heavy water are you suggesting > > D+D -> 3He + n? No, actually I was thinking of: 27Al + D -> 28Si + n (+ 9+ MeV) If there is a reason why such a _decay_ should not happen, then I'm all ears. Please don't tell me the fusion isn't possible, I won't be convinced. (D initially has no kinetic energy). My reasoning goes somewhat like this: Assume that proton(deuteron)-heavy element fusion is possible. Then the most frequently occurring decay path, would be the particle decay which yields the most energy, leaving behind a nucleus of maximum stability. While various forms of SF (no I don't mean science fiction:) may also be possible, I have really only taken into account decay yielding a proton, a neutron, or an alpha particle. > >Cheers, >Bill Page. > > I would also like to take this opportunity, to suggest another rather wild possibility: Nucleons in heavier nuclei mass less than hydrogen nuclei, i.e. individual separate protons. In other words, the mass of sub-atomic particles is not an intrinsic property of the particle. It depends very much on the environment in which such a particle finds itself. Now suppose further that Prof. Sapogin is correct, and charged particles can slowly lose mass (i.e. "evaporate") under certain circumstances in a lattice. Then perhaps when a proton has "evaporated" to a certain point, its low mass combined with the normal mass of an existing nucleus, just matches that of a nucleus with Z of one higher. At this point, a form of resonance occurs, and the proton is absorbed, without energy being released. The mass loss of the heavier nucleus precisely compensates for the partial mass gain of the low mass absorbed proton. This scenario, would mean that energy would be released slowly (thermally?) as the proton "evaporated", so no radiation would be detected (unless the new nucleus were naturally radioactive). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 02:47:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA25316; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960502142110_100433.1541_BHG127-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: More mumblings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Just a couple of minor points. On recombination and resulting reduction in gas evolution in electrolytic cells, there seem to me to be four processes which would effect the gas volume: 1. Evolution of water vapour carried in the H/O bubbles. (increase) 2. Solution of evolved H and O in the water (decrease) 3. Changes in the amount of air previously dissolved in the electolyte. 4. Adsorbtion of H by the cathode. (decrease) Isn't (4) what this whole thing is about.....? On EM, I must admit to considerable surprise that I was not immediately put straight by people here. Perhaps some of you competent people are just too polite to do that - but I really would welcome it. OK, so if EM is such a wasteland of confusion - why in hell's name does nobody seem to care very much? Relativity draws much of its structure from EM theory, and while I have mo real argument with the predictive power of SR (and maybe GR, but me and GR operate on different planes - it's in a stealth bomber, I'm in my Wright Flyer), it remains a fact that a crap theory can make excellent predictions. Take for example the long list of correct and astonishing predictions made by Velikovsky - and if ever there was a nut theory, that's a fine example. So - why are they all off hunting the quark? Whay is EM experimentation confined to the fringe? The cynic might suggest that people might be denied the deep satisfaction of posing in front of several billion dollars' worth of collider, while prattling on about God for the latest TV documentary. I of course would never suggest any such thing. Difficult to look so impressive standing in front of a cluttered work bench, innit? Sniff. Chris (still wondering what happened to the emperor's underwear) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 02:47:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA25544; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dieter wrote: > > This is the way scientific papers *ought* to be published!! > > On-line and available to everyone! > > Yes, hm; but but but... That's all very well, but would there be referees? > Do we want to read every crackpot's favourite fantasy? No indeed. This new world of the internet allows you to read anything anyone wants to publish, but you aren't required to read anything. There can still be referees. They can either build their own web site with files and/or links to refereed sites, or they can authorize approved sites to display some symbol or statement of acceptance. BI (before internet) you couldn't even find the accepted journals unless you lived in a large college town with a adequate library budget -- there was no hope of even finding out about non-accepted theories except randomly via some grapevine. Now the cost of worldwide publishing is trivial and so we see the "outsiders" grab the opportunity first. But the more mainstream can join the party anytime they want -- what with public key authentication, there is even already a way to verify that a site posting is indeed accepted by the referreed institution. It is all there for the taking. This is Gutenberg II. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 02:47:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA25770; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fission Economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 05/01/96 21:06 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Fission Economics Just a quick comment to put things in perspective. Yes, Bob Eachus, the French can, and very well may use Plutonium from their breeders for weapons. But it is highly unlikely that they are using Plut from their LWRs as sources for Plut as that Plutonium has too much 241 (a pre-detonator ) and 240 (a poison) to make it useful for weapons. And it takes a dedicated isotopic separation to acheive this. - Sad but true, the great "peacenik" James Earl Carter was going to shut down the U.S. "converter" reactors (Savanah River, Hanford) and say, "Oh what a good boy am I..." and then turn around and rape the power reactor industry in the U.S. ---taking their spent fuel and reprocessing to recover the Pu, putting the 239/240/241 mix through Oak Ridge and getting his bloody 239 on the "backs of the commercial power industry". There was a high level (closed door) conclave of utility execs in the U.S. somewhere around 1980, I understand, and (bless their hearts) they made it clear they'd shut down their plants rather than turn their spent fuel over to the "gum-mint" to allow the Pu to go to weapons. (An UNTRUE claim the anti-nuke crowd has made for years about commercial nuclear power in the U.S.) - Thus both Savanah River and Hanford were "revitalized" during the '80's and continued producing for the weapons program. By the way, does anyone understand why you need a continuous source of "fresh" Pu to keep your weapons happy? (It's 10:00, do you know where your MIRV's are?) MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 02:50:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA25864; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:41:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:41:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Vtx: Recombination in cells X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: [snip] > O2 molecule dissociates when hit by photons somewhere in the blue light > region, around 440nm or so, I think(I'm doing this from memory) and the [snip] > - Hank Scudder This is very interresting. This means that in an electrolytic cell, due to the fact some re-association must occur, especially at the anode, that there should be a blue glow in the vicinity of the anode, even if it is not directly visible. This brings up an interresting point, should there be a reproducible working configuration to test. It would be good to build a square prism quartz cell and attmempt both absorbtion and emission spectrometry while the cell is in operation. Just some more data to look at. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 02:50:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA25959; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605021533.IAA10391@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fission Economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Norman wrote: >> >> I wonder what the French expect to do with their nuke plants which I think >> produce some 75% of their national power consumption. At least the >>prevailing >> wind is from us to them!! >> > >I've been following this thread with some interest for a while. I have great >sceptism about any computer model of complex phenomena. I written many to >simulate experimental conditions and I know how easy it is to screw up. >The assertion that nuclear power consumes more energy than it produces runs >up against this nasty fact. How nuclear power provide such a large fraction >of a large and successful economy while consuming more energy than it produces? > >Martin Sevior. I'll add my two bits worth... In a fission reactor meltdown, the energy to melt the reactor comes from the DECAY heat of the radioactive isotopes, which is very much less than the lifetime fission energy released. Therefore, the simple energy content of the reactor must be much less than the lifetime energy produced, which a simple calculation quickly confirms. Granted, there are many other energy-consuming processes that go into the construction and operation of a nuclear (or fossile or hydroelectric) power plant... Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 02:51:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA26099; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:44:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:44:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605021631.JAA21767@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Heffner writes: A change in mv is clearly brought about by only one thing, a force. So, p = mv + eA guarantees a longitudinal force, retarding on entering a field B and enhancing upon exit from a field B. ...... Flaws? Yes. The big problems are that p = mv + eA is incomplete and that you are misinterpreting it anyway. First, it is a vector equation. Second, A is NOT ARBITRARY; in order to satisfy the Lorentz force, Maxwell's equations and QED -- all of which are eminently successful at describing experiments in exquisit detail, and upon which many technologies are based -- A must satisfy a consistency equation together with the electric potential, Phi. Essentially this says that one can transfer an arbitrary amount of the electric potential to A if one wishes and then turn the mathematical crank, but one must do it SELF CONSISTENTLY. I suppose you will try to tell me that Ampere's Law and Graneau etc..... It is true that Ampere's original work does not appear in modern textbooks. I don't have a copy of Ampere's work, and I read French too poorly to understand it anyway. Does anyone know of an English translation? In any case, the scope of subsequent experiments is very much greater than Ampere's original work--not to deny its groundbreaking importance. I have read all Graneau's work and find it uncompelling. Here I have some relevant experience from which to judge: I did my PhD research and a few subsequent years of work in liquid metal magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). It is mathematically impossible to deduce the force field driving motion of a fluid or a deformable solid without knowing all the forces applied to the boundary of the container, ie the distribution of pressure all over the boundary surfaces. Graneau did not make these measurements, and his conclusions are hand waving, not mathematical. Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 02:50:19 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA26189; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960502202636.00730db0@mailbox.swip.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Tommy Andersson To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 20.43 1996-05-01 -0700, Horace Heffner wrote: >Earlier I wrote: > snap! >This is very strange. A beam shot at a target should not warm the target >as much if th target is in a magnetic field. A plasma placed in a magnetic >field should immediately cool down, and conversely, if removed from the >field B, it should heat up. A resistor in a magnetic field should not get >as hot as one not in the field at the same voltage. A reduction in mv >means either a reduction in m or a reduction in v or both. In either case, >it is a reduction in energy. The following is a quote from the Fogal patent ( 5,430,413 ). "Switching the circuit to the FIG.2 transistor produced an immediate threefold volume gain, an audibly signifi- cant increase in tone clarity, and the previously HOT preamplifier circuit operated COOL to the touch." And it is believed that the magnetic field has some thing to do with it. > snap! >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > > --------------- Tommy Andersson tommy.andersson@mbox2.swipnet.se --------------- ------- Tommy Andersson tommy.andersson@mbox2.swipnet.se ------- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 02:53:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA26270; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9605022246.AA16127@ arnold.math.ucla.edu.ucsd.edu > Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: barry@math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: RECOMBINATION \ IRRITATION X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote >I urge all the experimentalists on this group to study the >in-line flow meter that Mike Schaffer described in his recent post: yes, but...whats so special about it? You mean using a syringe? The general construction itself is not novel...I assumed everyone would use such. After all, Craven's set-up uses such an inline meter, and Jed described has describe it in detail in his Infinite Energy article and elsewhere. Beyond that, while one can make them from various things (I made one by cutting the cylinder off a 25 mml polypropelene garduated cyclinder, putting neoprene stoppers in the ends and a stopcock on the outgoes), these are a very commet piece of chemistry equipment; I belive they are usually classified as pipets, and they are used to dispense precise amounts of fluid. You can buy nice glass ones with various sorts of stopcocks and graduations for 40 dollars and up. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 02:53:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA26356; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3189521A@ELAN.RDYNE.ROCKWELL.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Scudder, Henry J." To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Vtx: Thermistors X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I just came across ads in the May 1 issue pages 43,49 of Electronics Design from National Semiconductor "Kiss your thermistor good-bye" phone number 1-800-272-9959 x606 for free samples of their new LM45/50 chip and LM75 demo boards. Their web site is http://www.national.com This might be of interest to those of us that are building their own system on limited budgets. - Hank From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 03:07:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA26474; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:48:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:48:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605030326.WAA27121@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: bead splitting report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Well...the latest news is not so good. At last report I had run a new batch of beads using an abbreviated version of my empirically determined loading regimen. Those beads split open rather quickly. So I started yet another batch of new beads and this time, I really stuck to the conservative side of things. Before any electcrolysis, I cycled the temp up to 50C for a couple of hours, down to room temp for a couple of hours, up to 50C for a couple of hours and back down to room temp. Then I put on 20mA and let the beads load for about 24 hours at room temp. Then I raised the temperature to 50C and ran, still at 20mA, for another 24 hours. At that point, I opened things up and examined the beads and found them to be heavily split...perhaps half of the beads in the cell. POSSIBLY IMPORTANT POINT: With both of these latest batches of beads, I followed a new cleaning procedure after assembling the cell. First I pump clean methanol through the cell for 30 minutes or so, letting the used methanol go to waste (i.e. not recirculating). Then I switch to distilled water for another 30 minutes or so, again letting the used water go to waste. Finally, I introduce the electrolyte. Perhaps this improved cleaning procedure makes the beads load better, and perhaps heavily loaded beads of this type always split open. At this point I don't really know what's going on...and I don't have a procedure for preventing the beads from splitting open...and I don't know if preventing the splitting is even desirable! I am open for suggestions. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 11:13:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA06641; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 11:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3189faa9.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Peter Glueck" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: beads splitting, LANL test. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortexers, As I wrote to Scott in a personal letter (before being informed about his troubles with bead splitting), a remarkable article on the subject of Pd coatings of dielectrics by chemical methods is: M. Charbonnier, M. Alami, M. Romand "Plasma treatment process for palladium chemisorption onto polymers before electrolees deposition" J. Electrochem. Soc. 143, 2, Feb 1996, 472-480 A very good paper, IMHO. Other subject : the LANL test of the Yusmars will be performed starting June 10 as planned. Best wishes, Peter -- dr. Peter Glueck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 11:38:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07061; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:06:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 11:06:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605031220.HAA05714@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Mitchell's moot point X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 02:30 AM 5/3/96 -0700, Mitchell wrote: > excuse me, but it is moot as regards a decision on over unity. >these are the complaints of the "knee-jerk" TB skeptics. If you are talking about the 10:1 or 100:1 reported o-u then, yes, the recombination issue is moot. Your next statement leads me to believe that you might feel that recombination is a moot point at any report o-u level and that is not the case. >with V*I = Power(IN), then the "loss" to gas is not removed from the >input, and the skeptic complaint is moot. V*I = Power(IN) is ALWAYS true (assuming DC of course). But the OUTPUT power takes two forms in a CF cell; (1) the heat power liberated in the cell...and (2) the flow of gas with caloric value produced. If you calibrate your system to show 1.00 when the measured heat power equals the theoretical heat power (assuming all the fuel gas escapes the cell), then you will show an apparent o-u...up to a maximum of about 2:1...if recombination occurs inside the cell adding to the heat liberated there by the "wasted" part of the electrical input. Thus for "low gain" CF cells, it is critically important to measure the level of recombination and take that into account in the output power calculations. I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. > > -------------------------------------- > > >BTW, I urge all the experimentalists on this group to study the in-line flow > >meter that Mike Schaffer described in his recent post: > > > > actually we should be measuring both total gas, hydrogen, and oxygen >evolution as well. but the ideal is rarely achieved given the >complexity of the variables on the fluid, solid and gas compartments. > > --------------------------------------- > > >>We measure the liquid and gas flow rates in a 30 ml syringe that is in > >>series in the return line from the cell and just above the reservoir. > > > > is the resistance to flow changed when the syring is in series? >is the syringe ALWAYS in series, or when measuring? > > ---------------------------------------- >> >>This is a very clever design that I will try to incorporate in future CF >>experiments. >> >>Scott Little >>EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA >>512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) >> > > Best wishes. > Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) > > > - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 11:23:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07282; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 11:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605031338.JAA05854@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fission Economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: "MHUGO@EPRI" (MHUGO@EPRINET.EPRI.COM) said: > Just a quick comment to put things in perspective. Yes, Bob > Eachus, the French can, and very well may use Plutonium from their > breeders for weapons. But it is highly unlikely that they are > using Plut from their LWRs as sources for Plut as that Plutonium > has too much 241 (a pre-detonator ) and 240 (a poison) to make it > useful for weapons. And it takes a dedicated isotopic separation > to acheive this. You probably have later figures than I do, but I thought the French were still in the phase of building mostly breeders to build capacity, with vague future plans for building LWRs to burn the excess Plutonium. But what you said probably falls into the true but very confusing category. Agressive reprocessing strategies can use LWRs as a weapons grade Pu239 source, but the French have the Phoenix and SuperPhoenix reactors which are LMFBRs, and designed to breed lots of Pu239. Second, I have heard Pu240 called "nuclear ash," since it is so hard to fisson and decays very slowly, but Pu241 I think decays fairly rapidly to Americium? and doesn't need to be separated out the hard way. > Sad but true, the great "peacenik" James Earl Carter was going to > shut down the U.S. "converter" reactors (Savanah River, Hanford) > and say, "Oh what a good boy am I..." and then turn around and > rape the power reactor industry in the U.S. ---taking their spent > fuel and reprocessing to recover the Pu, putting the 239/240/241 > mix through Oak Ridge and getting his bloody 239 on the "backs of > the commercial power industry". There was a high level (closed > door) conclave of utility execs in the U.S. somewhere around 1980, > I understand, and (bless their hearts) they made it clear they'd > shut down their plants rather than turn their spent fuel over to > the "gum-mint" to allow the Pu to go to weapons. (An UNTRUE claim > the anti-nuke crowd has made for years about commercial nuclear > power in the U.S.) I find part of this hard to believe--running the Plutonium through Oak Ridge. Carter had a degree in Nuclear Engineering, so I think he knew that gaseous diffusion of Plutonium is a no-no, and enriching Pu239 wrt Pu240 with either gaseous diffusion or centrifuges would be very energy intensive in any case. The story I heard was that the plan was to use laser isotope separation. (I guess you could rebuilt the calutrons and use them. Hmmm, with the newest superconductors, that might not be a bad approach.) > Thus both Savanah River and Hanford were "revitalized" during the > '80's and continued producing for the weapons program. By the way, > does anyone understand why you need a continuous source of "fresh" > Pu to keep your weapons happy? That's easy. Especially in the case of fusion weapons, the design of the weapon is more concerned with triggering the fusion than robustness of the fission trigger. So you can't use neutron "reflectors" in the fission device, etc. This requires very high grade Pu239. Decay of the Pu239, and any U238 in the booster, results in neutrons absorbed by the Pu239. So eventually you have to rerefine the Plutonium. (Replacing the losses due to decay is trivial. But there are processing losses as well.) Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 11:25:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07422; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 11:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960503135357_72240.1256_EHB95-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex John Logajan writes: "Now the cost of worldwide publishing is trivial and so we see the 'outsiders' grab the opportunity first. But the more mainstream can join the party anytime they want -- what with public key authentication, there is even already a way to verify that a site posting is indeed accepted by the refereed institution. It is all there for the taking." Yes, that's the problem. It is there for the taking -- for free. There is no convenient way to charge for access, so publishers cannot afford to put information on Internet. The cost of publishing is trivial, but the cost of gathering the information and writing good articles is still as expensive as it ever was. If there was a way to charge people and prevent easy copyright violations, we would put Infinite Energy on the network. It would save a tremendous amount of money in printing costs. But how would we get paid? Let me address Dieter's original comments: "Do we want to read every crackpot's favourite fantasy?" No, but you will find lots of crackpot fantasy in Nature magazine, and the Wall Street Journal too. If you cannot judge yourself the referees cannot help you. The problem is that the referees and editors themselves are often crackpots. For example, Maddox, the former editor of Nature, once declared in an editorial that he would no longer publish articles written by scientists who believe in God. If that isn't a crackpot position I do not know what is. "I'm not saying that Claytor is a crackpot. In fact, I see him and his wonderful tritium result mentioned in lots of places. The latest is in the Hoffman book." Ah, now *there's* a crackpot work! As I pointed out in my review, a large chunk of the book is devoted to the argument that the heavy water used in cold fusion experiments is recycled CANDU fission reactor moderator water. Anyone who bothers to phone Ontario Hydro will learn that this notion is "pure garbage" (in the word's of the director of heavy water production.) For one thing, the stuff is 100,000,000 times too radioactive to be handled without special equipment. And that book was carefully peer reviewed. It is a perfect example of why you cannot rely on referees. "Everyone is impressed with Claytor. So, the big question: why are these results not published in journals? Please don't tell me that journals don't accept CNF papers, I have 1020 in the biblio, to say otherwise. Does anyone know why Claytor doesn't publish in journals? The best way to find out would be to call Claytor and ask him. Dieter should do that, since he is curious to find out about this issue. I do not know why Claytor has not published, but I have talked to many other scientists who have published or attempted to publish papers about CF in the mainstream scientific press. They tell me it is not worth the humiliation, the absurd demands, the hostility and the ever-shifting goalposts. These are senior scientists who have been publishing for decades, so they know how the system is supposed to work. They say decorum and academic respect go out the window when you submit a paper about CF. I have seen the reviewer's comments on rejected papers, and I must say, if that is the standard for academic exchanges I would rather work with fishmongers or drunken sailors. The CF scientists are thick-skinned people, but after seven years they are fed up. Julian Schwinger described it best: "I have experienced it in editors' rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science." Given the low standards of behavior that pervade the academic publishing business, I sometimes think that getting published should be considered the kiss of death. It is often a guarantee that the paper has been eviscerated. Deiter considers it a mark of excellence, and I agree that a certain level of rigor is enforced by peer review. Melvin Miles makes this point frequently. But I find that much of the interesting, compelling, gutsy material does not make it through the process. For example, there were two versions of the ICCF4 proceedings: the regular one published by EPRI, and the peer-reviewed version published by Fusion Technology (Transactions of Fusion Technology, 1993, Vol. 26, No. 4T, Part 2, Dec. 1994, ISSN: 0748-1896.) Many of the most interesting papers in the former, like Cravens', did not make it into the latter. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 11:23:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07601; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 11:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318a03e7.13864333@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 1 May 1996 07:41:16 -0700 (PDT), John Logajan wrote: >Thanks to Tony Leff for finding this latest web site: > > http://wwwnde.esa.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.htm > > I get a network error when trying to access this site. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 11:26:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07717; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 11:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318a0c9d.16096375@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 2 May 1996 01:35:36 -0700 (PDT), JOEFLYNN@delphi.com wrote: > > >>Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 07:29:02 -0700 (PDT) >>From: "MHUGO@EPRI" > >> Hey boys! Hydrogen becomes a METAL >>under high pressure (like in the Sun). > >I don't understand, why pressure? >It's already considered one at normal pressure. >Hydrogen is listed as a metal in the Periodic Table. >"Although Hydrogen is not a metal, it acts as one in chemical >reactions" ...7th grade science. I believe the reference to a metal here, is to electrical conductivity, not chemical activity. > > >Joe Flynn > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 11:34:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA09142; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 11:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605031538.IAA26607@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: RECOMBINATION \ IRRITATION X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >BTW, I urge all the experimentalists on this group to study the in-line flow > >meter that Mike Schaffer described in his recent post: > Although I posted our liquid cum gas flow measurement technique, I must give credit to my colleague, Richard Stephens, who both conceived and implemented this simple, yet elegant technique. > > >>We measure the liquid and gas flow rates in a 30 ml syringe that is in > >>series in the return line from the cell and just above the reservoir. > > > > is the resistance to flow changed when the syring is in series? >is the syringe ALWAYS in series, or when measuring? Flow resistance is not changed. When not measuring, liquid drips from the inlet tube in the bung in the top of the syringe and it exits via the hole in the bottom of the syringe. Gas exits via a small vent hole in the bung. When measuring liquid flow, the syringe exit path is closed off by the valve, the liquid still drips from the inlet tube and gas exits the vent; only difference is that the liquid slowly fills up the the syringe body. When measuring gas flow, the gas vent is closed. Liquid still drips from the inlet tube, but now it exits the bottom of the syringe and then drips into the reservoir. Because the syringe exit orifice is so narrow, gas can not bubble back up through it, and the gas volume above the liquid in the syringe body is trapped; here the gas entrained with the liquid separates. It is actually at a slight negative pressure relative to the external atmosphere, due to the ~10 cm column of water thus suspended. As gas enters, the liquid in the syringe is displaced downward correspondingly, and the growing gas volume can be read off. One of the advantages of the technique is that the whole system reaches equilibrium solution of H2 and O2 after a time, and this equilibrium is never disturbed thereafter. Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 11:36:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA09529; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:17:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 11:17:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605031631.LAA01268@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 02:44 AM 5/3/96 -0700, Mike Schaffer wrote: >I have >read all Graneau's work and find it uncompelling. Here I have some >relevant experience from which to judge: I did my PhD research >Graneau did not make these measurements, and his >conclusions are hand waving, not mathematical. Graneau and others often claim that reaction force in rail guns can only be explained by using Ampere's longitudinal force. I believe that this is another case of hand-waving without analysis. It is a fact that the reaction forces act upon the rails. Big guns exhibit severe recoil forces that require the rails to be very securely mounted. It's not obvious, at first glance, where the reaction forces could be generated because the rails are PARALLEL to the direction of the reaction force. Hence, without analysis, it is easy to sieze this as an example of Ampere's longitudinal forces at work. I work with an engineer that spent several years doing finite element analysis modelling of rail guns for the Center for Electromechanics at the University of Texas. He says there's no anomaly at all...that their FEA models clearly show the reaction forces being generated in the small areas of the rails immediately adjacent to the projectile where the current "turns the corner" to go from one rail, thru the projectile, across to the other rail. The reaction forces are ordinary JxB forces. Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 11:51:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA09926; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 11:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318A3AD1.387D@rt66.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Richard Thomas Murray To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bead splitting report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > > Well...the latest news is not so good. > > At last report I had run a new batch of beads using an abbreviated version > of my empirically determined loading regimen. Those beads split open rather > quickly. > > So I started yet another batch of new beads and this time, I really stuck to > the conservative side of things. Before any electcrolysis, I cycled the > temp up to 50C for a couple of hours, down to room temp for a couple of > hours, up to 50C for a couple of hours and back down to room temp. Then I > put on 20mA and let the beads load for about 24 hours at room temp. Then I > raised the temperature to 50C and ran, still at 20mA, for another 24 hours. > At that point, I opened things up and examined the beads and found them to > be heavily split...perhaps half of the beads in the cell. > > POSSIBLY IMPORTANT POINT: With both of these latest batches of beads, I > followed a new cleaning procedure after assembling the cell. First I pump > clean methanol through the cell for 30 minutes or so, letting the used > methanol go to waste (i.e. not recirculating). Then I switch to distilled > water for another 30 minutes or so, again letting the used water go to > waste. Finally, I introduce the electrolyte. > > Perhaps this improved cleaning procedure makes the beads load better, and > perhaps heavily loaded beads of this type always split open. > > At this point I don't really know what's going on...and I don't have a > procedure for preventing the beads from splitting open...and I don't know if > preventing the splitting is even desirable! > > I am open for suggestions. > > - Scott Little > EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 > 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email)Split beads may be an opportunity. Analyze them for trace unexpected elements, and use a scanning electron microscope to look for hot spot melting. Sort out the surviving beads and test them in a cell- they may be split resistant. Can the metal layers be made thicker or more numerous to increase strength? Recent news about a new process to deposit diamond films of high quality at 100 deg C on just about anything suggests using diamond film as a tough, nonexpanding, high heat conductivity substrate. What about using long hollow thin tubes instead of beads? Coolant could be circulated at high speed flow to prevent hot spot melting. If the coolant were air, then could this lead to a microjet engine. Myriads of such microjets all over the surface of an aircraft would allow new types of design. Paul S. Moller of Moller International for years has been flight testing his volantor aircraft, powered by eight 120 hp Wankle rotary engines in four 20" ducted fan tunnels, able to hover for an hour, rise at 7800 feet per minute to 30,000 feet in 4 minutes, and cruise at 350 mph for 900 miles for 15 mpg with four riders, computer controlled: http://bozemanlegg.com/~mi/index.html 1222 Research Park Drive Davis, CA 95616 Rich Murray, Santa Fe, NM rmforall@rt66.com Rich Murray Santa Fe, NM rmforall@rt66.com From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 11:36:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA10229; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:20:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 11:20:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cold fusion update [copy 2] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >>Ah, come on Robin, we all believe or fail to believe in a lot of things... >>Why not tell us why 3+ is an advantage. How does it relate to Kamada's > >The more positive the ion the better. > >>results? Also you have said "until the cell is tested". Does this mean > >Sorry, no connection at all that I can see at the moment. >>you are involved in such an experiment? > >Sorry no. I only speculate. >> >>With heavy water are you suggesting >> >> D+D -> 3He + n? > >No, actually I was thinking of: > >27Al + D -> 28Si + n (+ 9+ MeV) > [snip] > >Robin van Spaandonk One of the mysteries, and the thing that bothers me most about the 1992 Kamada experiment is that greater than 1.3 MeV He4 and 0.4 MeV p were created bombarding *both* H2 and D2. There was no stated effort to look for n or gamma. If the results are valid, some sense now has to be made of both: 27Al + H + e(200keV) -> p (>0.4 meV) + stuff 27Al + H + e(200keV) -> 4He (>1.3 meV) + stuff and: 27Al + D + e(200keV) -> p (>0.4 meV) + stuff 27Al + D + e(200keV) -> 4He (>1.3 meV) + stuff so this seems to be a very difficult puzzle. It may also be possible to put O into the input mix as there were some small peaks due to surface hydrogen from H2O being driven into the sample during implantation. Here are some ideas for: 27Al + H + e(200keV) -> p (>0.4 meV) + stuff A head on collision between H and P momentarily creates a "linked mass" long enough for the 200 keV neutral charge linked mass to penetrate an adjacent Al shell and create a 27Al + p nucleus, which is unstable and disintegrates. The electron moves on but it's 200 keV energy is largly spent in the initial forming of the linked mass. Once in the coulmb well with the Al and p it has lost much more than 200 keV. It is highly improbably that it can bind with the Al nucleus, as this is a weak reaction, so it absorbs from the ZPE sea the energy required to raise itself up to the 1559 eV K 1s orbital, causing a series of electron displacements. The departure of the e from the nucleus causes the emission of either the p which has now gained up to 800 keV by overcoming the coulmb barrier, or a 4He. For: 27Al + D + e(200keV) -> 4He (>1.3 meV) + stuff there is a lot more difficulty. Looking at the masses of Al, H , Na and 4He we have: 26.981539 (Al) 1.008665 + (H) 4.002602 - (4He) ------------ 23.987602 (Na*) 22.989768 (Na) ------------ 0.997834 excess energy = 929.48 MeV which would have to be shared between a positron emission (weak reaction), the alpha, a neutrino, and maybe a gamma. This looks like a very unlikely scenario. Looking again: 26.981539 (Al) 1.008665 + (H) 1.008665 + (H) 4.002602 - (4He) ------------ 25.152237 (Mg*) 24.30506 (Mg) ------------ 0.84718 excess energy = 789.14 MeV This looks even less likely. Still need that positron emission plus invoking a Bose condensate hypothesis. Going with the Bose condensate idea we could also look at: 1.008665 + (H) 1.008665 + (H) 1.008665 + (H) 1.008665 + (H) ------------ 4.034660 (He4*) 4.002602 - (4He) ------------ 0.032058 excess energy is 29.86 MeV which must go away with 2 positrons, two neutrinos, and maybe a gamma. An even less likely scenario by normal standards. The D reactions are maybe understandable via ordinary fusion routes, but getting alphas from H and Al is weird beyond belief, unless a Bose condensate stimulated by high energy electrons has some kind of special ability to catalyse weak reactions. Then there is the problem of the condensate formation. There is no doubt that: 27Al + H + e(200keV) -> 4He (>1.3 meV) + stuff is the toughest problem. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 22:27:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA09999; Fri, 3 May 1996 22:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 22:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Michael J. Schaffer writes: >Heffner writes: > >A change in mv is clearly brought about by >only one thing, a force. So, p = mv + eA guarantees a longitudinal force, >retarding on entering a field B and enhancing upon exit from a field B. >...... >Flaws? > >Yes. The big problems are that p = mv + eA is incomplete and that you are >misinterpreting it anyway. First, it is a vector equation. Second, A is I am an ignorant free energy advocating lunatic, not an idiot. I posted "Here's a theory thought for you regarding longitudinal force. If p= mv + eA (p, v, A and B vectors and B = curl A) then you should get different results depending on whether the electron (1)" >NOT ARBITRARY; in order to satisfy the Lorentz force, Maxwell's equations >and QED -- all of which are eminently successful at describing experiments >in exquisit detail, and upon which many technologies are based -- A must >satisfy a consistency equation together with the electric potential, Phi. >Essentially this says that one can transfer an arbitrary amount of the >electric potential to A if one wishes and then turn the mathematical crank, >but one must do it SELF CONSISTENTLY. Yes, it is the question of this consistancy that is the very foundation of Marinov's claims, be they right or wrong. The question *is* what is consistant in assumptions about A. In particular, he protests the possibility under present theory to set div A = 0. Present EM theory works wonderfully, no doubt. The question at hand is whether there is a "fudge" going on here that covers up additional underlying meaning, or which under certain circumstances lead to absurdaties. It certainly appears true to me that Hall's gedanken, which succesfully is used to derive p= mv + eA, has a meaningful flaw in it's assumptions that should carry through to the conclusion. > >I suppose you will try to tell me that Ampere's Law and Graneau etc..... [snip] > >Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Regrettably, I am not familiar with the subject works of either Ampere or Graneau. I was hoping someone might provide a little background. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 22:42:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA10186; Fri, 3 May 1996 22:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 22:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Tommy Andersson wrote: [snip] >snap! <--------------------- Zounds! Wow! Where did you get those high energy beam scissors! [snip] > >The following is a quote from the Fogal patent ( 5,430,413 ). > >"Switching the circuit to the FIG.2 transistor produced >an immediate threefold volume gain, an audibly signifi- >cant increase in tone clarity, and the previously HOT >preamplifier circuit operated COOL to the touch." > >And it is believed that the magnetic field has some thing to do with it. >> [snip] >Tommy Andersson Thanks for posting this very interresting information. I'll look up the Fogal patent ( 5,430,413 ). Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 22:28:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA10339; Fri, 3 May 1996 22:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 22:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605031950.MAA00246@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fission Economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 02:33 AM 5/3/96 -0700, you wrote: >Martin, > >>> How nuclear power provide such a large fraction >of a large and successful economy while consuming more energy than it produces? ><< > >On the face of it you are perfectly correct. However, I understand that the >overall power consumption of the various generation systems, starting from the >extraction of the minerals required to build the physical construct and >integrating all the power consumed in the running and de-commissioning at the >end of the life of each station, makes nuke fission look very inefficient cf, >say, gas power or hydro-power for example. > Yes that was/is the basis of the modeling. >I know that this type of modelling can be dangerous and inaccurate, but as a >comparison tool, like with like, it might have some credibility. > > Yes it does. It stopped nuclear fission. It wasn't stopped because of environmentallists jumping up and down, though they would like to think so. Breeder reactor is a different kettle of fish. They weren't ready 20 years ago and now it is too late to try to recapture the situation because of the waste disposal problem. Until that is solved, net US policy is no more commercial plants. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 22:31:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA10486; Fri, 3 May 1996 22:23:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 22:23:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bead splitting report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >I am open for suggestions. > > - Scott Little (1) Why not try doing the plating at 50 C, or even 100 C. There is a problem though. If Bill Page's phase change hypothesis is correct a certain amount of "stretch" may be necessary to turn on the effect. (2) Maybe ceramic beads would work better, especially non-uniform ones. With a non-uniform geometry to the surface you would expect non-uniform stretching of the metal films due to non-uniform expansion, thus at least *some* part of almost every bead should turn on. It would be much better to get a repeatable small but measurable effect than a large non-repeatale effect. (3) If copper plated beads work, why not copper cores. Maybe chopping up a bunch of 1 mm. dia copper wire and plating it would work just as well. (4) Your first layer was Sn/Pd (or was that Sn/Ni). Maybe copper would work much better because (A) the H2 can not penetrate and thus lift the film off the bead (b) maybe a Cu barrier is needed to obtain the required phase change and (c) Maybe Cu just simply sticks better to the glass or sulfated plastic. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 22:35:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA10660; Fri, 3 May 1996 22:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 22:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605032323.SAA02626@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bead splitting report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 11:18 5/3/96 -0700, Murr wrote: >Sort out the surviving beads and test them in a cell- they may >be split resistant. thanks...I'll try that. >Can the metal layers be made thicker or more numerous to increase >strength? yes, just about anything. >Recent news about a new process to deposit diamond films of >high quality at 100 deg C on just about anything suggests using diamond >film as a tough, nonexpanding, high heat conductivity substrate. for the outside? I wonder if it would pass H? Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 3 22:31:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA10847; Fri, 3 May 1996 22:25:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 22:25:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >On Wed, 1 May 1996 07:41:16 -0700 (PDT), John Logajan wrote: > >>Thanks to Tony Leff for finding this latest web site: >> >> http://wwwnde.esa.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.htm >> >> >I get a network error when trying to access this site. >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk Ditto. I assumed it was due to the system being shut down due to the major grass (forest?) fire that threatened LANL. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 05:14:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA15072; Sat, 4 May 1996 05:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 05:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605040609.XAA18028@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Mark Jurich" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: The measurement process in QM X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: My apologies for going off-topic, but it appears that at least Elio Conte, Bill Page, Horace Heffner and others on Vortex, may have an interest in: quant-ph/9605002 2 May 1996 "Quantum mechanics of measurement" N.J. Cerf and C. Adami (Submitted to Physical Review A) I just finished reading it, and thoroughly enjoyed the exercise. .. It's a way of looking at the quantum measurement problem, using quantum information theory ... This is a preprint available on the LANL Physics Pre-print Archive Server: http://xxx.lanl.gov Mark Jurich, who's attempting to keep his neck above the water-line at the moment ... :) P.S. This paper is a spin-off of preprint quant-ph/9512022 20 Dec 1995, "Negative entropy and information in quantum mechanics" N.J. Cerf and C. Adami (Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 05:17:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA15395; Sat, 4 May 1996 05:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 05:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace wrote: > >> http://wwwnde.esa.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.htm > >I get a network error when trying to access this site. > Ditto. I assumed it was due to the system being shut down due to the major > grass (forest?) fire that threatened LANL. Sorry folks. It was working the day I posted the notification, but it quit working shortly thereafter and I haven't been able to connect to it either. I notice that www.lanl.gov is up, but not wwwnde.esa.lanl.gov I don't know where it went. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 05:14:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA15509; Sat, 4 May 1996 05:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 05:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9605040831.AA17133@ arnold.math.ucla.edu.ucsd.edu > Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: barry@math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fission Economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Michael Mandeville wrote: >>I know that this type of modelling can be dangerous and inaccurate, > It stopped nuclear fission. It wasn't stopped because of > environmentallists jumping up and down, though they would like to > think so. I don;t think that type of modelling stopped fission. It was also not directly environmentalists jumping up and down, but their obstructions did play some role. The truth is far more complicated, but I would say what stopped fission is a combination of overzealous ruch to commercialization and installation, lack of standardized and streamlined regulations governing plant qualification, lack of a waste discpoosal system, the global energy markets over the past couple decades (cheap energy since early eighties) and the association of atomic energy with nuclear weapons. The loose safety and waste disposal protocols of the military nuclear industry didn't help. The enviromentalists were effective only to the extent that their efforts were leveraged by all these other factors they had to work with. In any case, the way things are going now, advanced fission reactors are the defacto future energy source of the US, whether they are popular or not. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 05:18:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA15658; Sat, 4 May 1996 05:09:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 05:09:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960504081127_100060.173_JHB85-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bead splitting report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: While we are talking about bead construction, or even the need for beads at all, may I throw in some thoughts? I have always been bothered by the use of beads as an electrode due to the random nature of the electrical connectivity between them. Horace's suggestion of chopped up plated Cu wire suggested to me that it might be worth trying a continuous filament core, preferably conducting, but not necessarily, wound onto some inert former. This could be coated/plated with any series of materials, and a cell could be built out of a number of simple modules, connected in parallel. In other words why do we need discrete bits for the electrode? If its for maximizing area in contact with the electrolyte, then you could use finer filament. I very much doubt whether we are getting more than 50% active utilization of the beads in the present config. (i.e. its a 50/50 bet whether any pair of beads make electrical contact at all) Wad y'all fink? Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 05:14:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA15869; Sat, 4 May 1996 05:11:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 05:11:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318ac624.10440967@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 3 May 1996 02:40:28 -0700 (PDT), John Logajan wrote: [snip] >BI (before internet) you couldn't even find the accepted journals unless >you lived in a large college town with a adequate library budget -- there >was no hope of even finding out about non-accepted theories except randomly >via some grapevine. Are you implying that accepted journals are accessible vie the net? If so, where? I have never managed to find them. (With the exception of a stunted version of "Nature"). [snip Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 05:15:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA15941; Sat, 4 May 1996 05:11:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 05:11:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318ac7a4.10824783@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bead splitting report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 3 May 1996 02:49:22 -0700 (PDT), Scott Little wrote: [snip] >At this point I don't really know what's going on...and I don't have a >procedure for preventing the beads from splitting open...and I don't know if >preventing the splitting is even desirable! > >I am open for suggestions. > Even though this deviates from the CETI prescription, you might like to consider the following: Have a batch of beads made up with the order of the metal layers such that the innermost metal expands the least upon absorbing hydrogen, and progressively more expansion takes place, toward the outer layers. This means using various metals, and no repeating layers. E.g. NOT Ni-Pd-Ni. However, all must be transition metals. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 05:16:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA16056; Sat, 4 May 1996 05:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 05:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318ac4ef.10131959@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Vtx: Recombination in cells X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 3 May 1996 02:42:56 -0700 (PDT), Horace Heffner wrote: >[snip] >> O2 molecule dissociates when hit by photons somewhere in the blue light >> region, around 440nm or so, I think(I'm doing this from memory) and the >[snip] >> - Hank Scudder > > >This is very interresting. This means that in an electrolytic cell, due to >the fact some re-association must occur, especially at the anode, that >there should be a blue glow in the vicinity of the anode, even if it is not >directly visible. [snip] Didn't Jed say at one time that CETI had detected a blue glow? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 08:41:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA19424; Sat, 4 May 1996 08:36:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 08:36:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318b494c.44025188@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fission Economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 3 May 1996 11:07:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert I. Eachus wrote: Doesn't this discussion more properly belong on sci.energy? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 08:43:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA19548; Sat, 4 May 1996 08:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 08:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318b4885.43826030@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: beads splitting, LANL test. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 3 May 1996 11:04:40 -0700 (PDT), Peter Glueck wrote: [snip] >Other subject : the LANL test of the Yusmars will be performed >starting June 10 as planned. [snip] Will Potapov or any of his representatives be available in a consulting role when LANL do their test(s)? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 08:43:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA19662; Sat, 4 May 1996 08:38:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 08:38:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318b4a61.44301461@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 3 May 1996 11:07:56 -0700 (PDT), Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip] >If there was a way to charge people and prevent easy copyright violations, we >would put Infinite Energy on the network. It would save a tremendous amount of >money in printing costs. But how would we get paid? [snip] Let people subscribe, just as they do now. Then you email a password, or public decryption key to those people who have subscribed. If you use a public decryption key, then the original at your Web site needs to be encrypted with your private key. Furthermore, you can allow or deny access, based upon whether or not any given access requestor is paid up to date on their subscription. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 08:48:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA19757; Sat, 4 May 1996 08:38:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 08:38:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318b51d8.46212961@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cold fusion update [copy 2] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 3 May 1996 11:21:01 -0700 (PDT), Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >condensate formation. There is no doubt that: > > 27Al + H + e(200keV) -> 4He (>1.3 meV) + stuff > >is the toughest problem. Try: 27Al + H -> 4He + 24Mg + 1.6 MeV (The electron facilitates, but does not actually take part in the reaction). > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 12:35:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA09330; Sat, 4 May 1996 12:29:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 12:29:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bead splitting report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >While we are talking about bead construction, or even the need for beads >at all, >may I throw in some thoughts? > >I have always been bothered by the use of beads as an electrode due to the >random nature of the electrical connectivity between them. Horace's suggestion >of chopped up plated Cu wire suggested to me that it might be worth trying a >continuous filament core, preferably conducting, but not necessarily, >wound onto >some inert former. This could be coated/plated with any series of materials, >and a cell could be built out of a number of simple modules, connected in >parallel. > >In other words why do we need discrete bits for the electrode? If its for >maximizing area in contact with the electrolyte, then you could use finer >filament. I very much doubt whether we are getting more than 50% active >utilization of the beads in the present config. (i.e. its a 50/50 bet whether >any pair of beads make electrical contact at all) > >Wad y'all fink? Norman I think there are real advantages tro a this approach. You canmeasure the resistance and sense the loading. The disadvantages are much of the current goes through the core and there is a lack of diversity on the surface. If the Kamada number of 1.7 A/cm^2 is important, then current flowing through contact points might achieve it. Also, there is the nice ability to sort out the "duds" if you have beads. I think a plastic or glass core filiment might work. Utimately maybe there will be a showdown between metal film covered nonconductive core and sheet electrodes. The sheet form would provide a much better geometry for sacle up, but would not control phase shifts ala Bill Page. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 12:36:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA09475; Sat, 4 May 1996 12:29:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 12:29:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605041754.RAA02763@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Edwin Strojny To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bead splitting report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:49 AM 5/3/96 +0000, you wrote: >I am open for suggestions. > > - Scott Little > EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 > 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) > If Randel Mills's theory about dihydrino formation over a nickel cathode during electrolysis of water in the presence of potassium or rubidium ions (he mentioned that lithium ions should work but sodium ions should not work and do not work) is correct then a better approach would be to use gas phase catalysis for this conversion. The advantages would be: 1. Catalysts with a high surface area Ni can be made on a high surface area support. 2. A gas flow of hydrogen would be used which can be controlled with respect to flow rate, pressure and temperature. 3. High temperatures should be achievable which could be used to generate steam which in turn could do useful work. 4. The setup is simpler than an electrolysis setup. The major problem is making a good catalyst, but this is also the problem with making beads for the Patterson cell. I have tried and failed to produce excess heat with the Pd/D2O system and with a variation of Piantelli's H2/Ni gas phase system. I am now trying Mills's Ni cathode electrolysis approach using a lithium sulfate-lithium hydroxide solution with a nickel cloth cathode. When this experiment is over (waiting for the weather to warm my cold garage), I plan to try the heterogenous catalyst/gas phase approach. Ed Strojny From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 12:44:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA09580; Sat, 4 May 1996 12:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 12:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605041916.MAA07165@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bead splitting report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: We installed a portion of our ersatz beads, bought via Scott Little, in our Patterson-style cell on 1996mar14. Because our cell is buried beneath three distinct thermal insulation systems and a local environment thermostat, we do not often disassemble the system to look at the state of the beads. (All this illogical complexity is an tiny example of evolution and why life is wierd, rather than logical.) We have opened the system on a few occasions, which have allowed us to view the beads. However, so far we have never removed this original set of beads, which we still use to develop, test and refine our techniques. We last saw the beads on 1996apr24, and they were intact. There were no signs of loose nor lost coatings when viewed through the glass tube. Nor have we experienced any flow clogging that might be a sign of coating loss. I do not know why our ersatz beads have survived so much better than Scott's. We have deliberately kept temperature low (<35 C) and current <100 mA, usually at 50 mA, in the 25 mm ID tube. In contrast, some batches of beads we made following Patterson's recipe did split and/or lose coatings in short order. Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 16:17:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA16567; Sat, 4 May 1996 16:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 16:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605041942.MAA11543@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Heffner replied to my post with: >.........It certainly appears true to me >that Hall's gedanken, which succesfully is used to derive p= mv + eA, has a >meaningful flaw in it's assumptions that should carry through to the >conclusion. This is hardly "Hall's gedanken." p= mv + eA has been around for a century or more (I actually don't know its origins, but it probably burst out of that wonderful flowering of 19th century mathematics that developed the tools to manipulate the wonderful physical facts that were being discovered contemporaneously.)......And as I said, p= mv + eA is incomplete; this form of the equation describes only a limited set of physical situations. Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 19:21:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA18831; Sat, 4 May 1996 19:12:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 19:12:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cold fusion update [copy 2] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >From Robin van Spaandonk: >On Fri, 3 May 1996 11:21:01 -0700 (PDT), Horace Heffner wrote: >[snip] >>condensate formation. There is no doubt that: >> >> 27Al + H + e(200keV) -> 4He (>1.3 meV) + stuff >> >>is the toughest problem. > >Try: > >27Al + H -> 4He + 24Mg + 1.6 MeV (The electron facilitates, but does >not actually take part in the reaction). > [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk Excellent! I looked right over 24Mg even though it is the most common variety. How could I do that? That's a rhetorical question! :^) Earlier I wrote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Looking again: 26.981539 (Al) 1.008665 + (H) 1.008665 + (H) 4.002602 - (4He) ------------ 25.152237 (Mg*) 24.30506 (Mg) ------------ 0.84718 excess energy = 789.14 MeV This looks even less likely. Still need that positron emission plus invoking a Bose condensate hypothesis. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - End quote. So that should have looked more like: 26.981539 (Al) 1.008665 + (H) 4.002602 - (4He) ------------ 23.987602 (24Mg*) 23.985042 (24Mg) ------------ 0.002560 excess energy = 2.38464 MeV (i.e. 931.5 MeV/AMU) For some reason I don't get the same energy. Did you allocate it out to the products according to mass? If no one has any other reasonable suggestions, and if Kamada is correct about his particle counts, then there is good reason to look for 24Mg in the targets. It would be interresting to simply do pulsed HV electrolysis at 1.7 A/cm^2 or more with Al electrodes and and Al salt and look for an isotopical shift. However, according to Kamada, there is only one event per 10^14 electrons. That's only 31,000 events per amp second. Just not enough Mg formed. Should get lots of alpha counts though if it works. The same experiment using D2O would be much more interresting because it would be reasonable do calorimetry on it. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 19:41:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA18996; Sat, 4 May 1996 19:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 19:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605050011.TAA27755@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bead splitting report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 12:29 PM 5/4/96 -0700, Ed S wrote: >When this experiment is >over (waiting for the weather to warm my cold garage), I plan to try the >heterogenous catalyst/gas phase approach. 1. Where the hell are you, Ed? My garage is 90+ F these days! 2. Would you please give a brief description of this heterogenous catalyst/gas phase approach? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 19:42:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA19185; Sat, 4 May 1996 19:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 19:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605050017.TAA28047@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bead splitting report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 12:30 PM 5/4/96 -0700, Mike Schaffer wrote: >We installed a portion of our ersatz beads, bought via Scott Little.... >We have deliberately kept temperature low (<35 C).... I think this is a very significant point, Mike. Mine have never split without the combined effect of electrolysis current AND 50C temps. I have gotten the distinct impression from the bits and pieces of data we have heard that the Patterson "effect" has a very strong temperature coefficient and that temperatures in the 50C+ range are required to observe significant excess heat. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 19:25:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA19402; Sat, 4 May 1996 19:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 19:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fission Economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 05/03/96 12:08 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Fission Economics Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.... Carter NEVER had a degree in Nuclear Engineering. He had a degree in NAVAL Science from Anapolis. It was the ONLY degree they gave at the time. I KNOW because I worked with a fellow graduate from the year 1953, Frank Thurtell. Carter was one of the first graduates from Rickover's Navy Nuclear Officer's school. Which, I as a fresh Chemical Engineering/Metallurgy graduate in 1976 was clearly told by an honest Navy recruiter is NOT equivalent to a Nuclear Engineering degree, nor a MS in Nuclear engineering, but more of a "technical MBA" (with out any formal certification coming from it.) - Again, with regard to the enrichment tests at Oak Ridge in 1981, they were PUBLIC record, that can be verified. You do have the reason for refreshment of the Pu quite correct. - (Sorry about the EMOTION regard James Earl Carter. But that bit about "being a Nuclear Engineer" is just plain a LIE. I have always wondered if Carter himself said that, or if his "publicists" came up with that. In any case, if James Earl Carter were TOTALLY honest, he would correct that MISCONCEPTION.) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 19:37:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA19654; Sat, 4 May 1996 19:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 19:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Vtx: Thermistors X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 05/03/96 02:53 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Vtx: Thermistors On 8:00 CDT, Friday the 3rd of May, the 800 number for National goes into never never land. Anyone else having trouble? From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 19:27:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA19911; Sat, 4 May 1996 19:18:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 19:18:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Vtx: Recombination in cells X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 05/03/96 02:41 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Vtx: Recombination in cells Scott: All the people I know who have ever "tuned" PID controllers, use the same method you use, no matter what their formal background....So make no apologies. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 4 19:43:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA20082; Sat, 4 May 1996 19:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 19:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fission Economics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 05/03/96 12:08 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Fission Economics Oh, one last point. The two SuperPheonix reactors in France are not nearly sufficient to supply all the future fissile material for the other 78 French LWR's. The French are still going to do a lot of enrichment work in the future. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 5 00:09:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA05391; Sat, 4 May 1996 23:45:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 23:45:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I4BWMQBHS2971KG5@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Recombination \ irritation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 02:34:36 -0700 (PDT) >From: Scott Little >Careful Joe, Mark's question is perfectly legit. The voltage is surely >present but it is also immaterial to the gas production. He was just asking >if you knew how to calculate that a 0.2 amp current would produce 2.09 >cc/min of gas at STP. Yeah, I know Scott. Mark was launching an IQ attack on me. However I'm quite familiar with Faraday's laws of electrolysis. In a perfect cell, inert electrodes, and the absence of impurities in the electrolyte which can react with the ions, voltage is immaterial. Once a cell is placed in operation with a given current ( using a constant current source) the voltage should never fluctuate to maintain the given current so long as the H2O is replenished as in a Hydrogen liberation cell, as suggested by Faraday's laws. Voltage is Material, however in an imperfect cell or cell with unknown properties. It becomes a tool for analyzing whats' happening within the cell. For example a reduction in voltage to maintain a given current might suggest an oxidation- reduction reaction. There is much to be gained by knowing the expected voltage for a given current for a cell designed to liberate a specific element, with a given electrode surface area and spacing. Using a constant current source and tracking voltage - combined with the knowledge to make predictions based on voltage fluctuations in a cell with known elements and compounds is material. An ignored constant when experimenting becomes a variable. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 5 03:25:36 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA06646; Sun, 5 May 1996 03:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 03:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318c7da4.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Peter Glueck" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: LANL test, Potapov. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robin has asked: "Will Potapov or any of his representatives be available in a consulting role when LANL do their test?" The test will be performed by Potapov in collaboration with the LANL specialists and is aimed to prove in a perfectly conclusive manner the overunity performances of the Yusmar thermogenerator. Best regards, Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 5 04:27:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA18382; Sun, 5 May 1996 04:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 04:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318c2517.13617555@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cold fusion update [copy 2] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 4 May 1996 19:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >>Try: >> >>27Al + H -> 4He + 24Mg + 1.6 MeV (The electron facilitates, but does >>not actually take part in the reaction). >> >[snip] >>Robin van Spaandonk > >Excellent! I looked right over 24Mg even though it is the most common >variety. How could I do that? That's a rhetorical question! :^) > >Earlier I wrote: [snip] >So that should have looked more like: > >26.981539 (Al) > 1.008665 + (H) I have a mass of 1.0078252 * amu for the protium atom. (I believe you have used the mass of a neutron). > 4.002602 - (4He) >------------ >23.987602 (24Mg*) >23.985042 (24Mg) >------------ > 0.002560 excess energy = 2.38464 MeV (i.e. 931.5 MeV/AMU) Which yields a difference of 1.602 MeV using your numbers above. > >For some reason I don't get the same energy. Did you allocate it out to >the products according to mass? When allocated out to the masses this yields an energy of ~1.37 MeV for the alpha particle. (Nice match I think). > >If no one has any other reasonable suggestions, and if Kamada is correct >about his particle counts, then there is good reason to look for 24Mg in >the targets. > >It would be interresting to simply do pulsed HV electrolysis at 1.7 A/cm^2 >or more with Al electrodes and and Al salt and look for an isotopical >shift. However, according to Kamada, there is only one event per 10^14 >electrons. That's only 31,000 events per amp second. Just not enough Mg How does this agree with the suggestion that the energy liberated is 10^5 times the energy that could be (is?) delivered by the electron beam? 10^14 * 200keV, is still a lot more than would be liberated by fusion reactions yielding only 1.6 MeV / reaction. >formed. Should get lots of alpha counts though if it works. > >The same experiment using D2O would be much more interresting because it >would be reasonable do calorimetry on it. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 5 15:30:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA06750; Sun, 5 May 1996 15:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 15:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bead splitting report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >At 12:30 PM 5/4/96 -0700, Mike Schaffer wrote: > >>We installed a portion of our ersatz beads, bought via Scott Little.... > > > >>We have deliberately kept temperature low (<35 C).... > >I think this is a very significant point, Mike. Mine have never split >without the combined effect of electrolysis current AND 50C temps. > >I have gotten the distinct impression from the bits and pieces of data we >have heard that the Patterson "effect" has a very strong temperature >coefficient and that temperatures in the 50C+ range are required to observe >significant excess heat. > > - Scott Little If Bill Page's quantum phase shift hypothesis is correct, then the "turn on" temperature would be a function of expansion of the bead structure. Maybe your beads expand faster than Patterson's? Maybe the expansion would be a function of both the coefficient of expansion and the compressability of the bead cores. There is also the problem of the H2 getting under the metal film - but that should primarily relate to pealing, not turn on. Maybe a good protocol would be to do the initial load at 30 - 31 C, then run and increase temperature very gradually over a period of days to find the turn on temperature for the particular style of beads being used? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 02:34:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA20878; Mon, 6 May 1996 02:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 02:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605052331.XAA16377@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Edwin Strojny To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bead splitting report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 02:13 AM 5/5/96 +0000, you wrote: >At 12:29 PM 5/4/96 -0700, Ed S wrote: > >>When this experiment is >>over (waiting for the weather to warm my cold garage), I plan to try the >>heterogenous catalyst/gas phase approach. > >1. Where the hell are you, Ed? My garage is 90+ F these days! > >2. Would you please give a brief description of this heterogenous >catalyst/gas phase approach? > > - Scott Little > EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 > 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) > I am located near Cross Village, Michigan which is about 27 miles southwest of Mackinaw City which is at the Straits of Mackinaw (tip of the mit). We have had an unsually cold Spring this year; there are still patches of snow in the woods and the local ski resort reopened their slopes for this weekend. My 1 molar solution of lithium sulfate (that is 3 moles of ions per liter) froze about the middle of March. Our Alaskan weeping cedar turned brown this last winter. I plan on getting commercial nickel heterogenous catalyst since I don't have the facilities to do my own preparations. There was a company called Harshaw Chemical that made a variety of catalysts; however, I can't find them listed anywhere. Failing to find a commercial source I will try to get equipment together to prepare the catalysts. I will use a small diameter (1/4 to 1/2 inch) pipe which will be the container for the catalyst bed. The hydrogen will be fed to the bottom of the bed and escape out the top through tubing (preferably 1/8-inch stainless steel). The reactor (pipe containing the catalyst) will be immersed in a liquid bath and heated to different temperatures. The amount of energy required to maintain the given temperature will be compared with that of a blank run containing inert material in the pipe. The power input will be monitored by a computer and the energy value will be calculated and updated as the experiment progresses. For a hydrogen source I will use electrolysis of water. I will either use a divided cell or a single cell with a sacrificial anode (aluminum). Flow rate will be monitored at the exit, probably by a buret. For the liquid bath, water will be used between 50 and 70 deg C; from 70 to about 150 deg C vegetable oil or mineral oil will be used. Above 200 deg C a molten salt bath will be considered (Dupont Hi-Tec). Material of construction for a water bath will be an insulated 1-gallon jug, for higher temperatures, an insulated (by me) stainless steel pot. That is it in a nutshell. Ed Strojny From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 02:30:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA20911; Mon, 6 May 1996 02:25:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 02:25:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: magnetron steam engine? (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ...............................freenrg-L.................................... William Beaty bilb@eskimo.com EE/Programmer/exhibit-designer/science-nerd Moderator: FREENRG-L VORTEX-L TAOSHUM-L WEBHEAD-L http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/flist.html Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com voice:206-781-3320 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 23:53:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Tim Chandler Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: magnetron steam engine? At 03:36 AM 5/3/96 -0700, (someone...) wrote: >>On Bill beaty's home pages there is a (moderately humorous) document >>describing how to turn a normal engine into a steam engine by replacing >>the spark plug with a magnetron in order to vaporize steam... >>said document claims overunity performance for such a device. >>Has anyone built one? How well does it perform? does it generate >>enough energy to keep 'sparking' ? >> >>In thinking about it, all the energy is derived from the (semi explosive) >>pressure change due to the phase change of the water. But is it enough? >> >>I have visions of a magnetron-based steam chamber venting into a Tesla-style >>turbine engine.... >> > >Yes, I agree, the microwave transducer motor looks good, but who knows >if it really produces overunity ?? > >WHo has build this prototype ? Hi Stefan et al, A few years ago me and few guys at college tried something like the engine conversion described in the fore-mentioned article. The only major difference between our engine and the one in the article is ours used a series of specially designed rectangular/circular waveguides to get the MW energy into the firing port above the cyclinder. We figured the vibrations from the engine would not take long to crack and destroy the antenna output casing (which is glass type) on the magnetron. I personally do not see how the magnetron would just simply connect into the spark plug socket, all of the magnetrons I have seen do not have any treads on them that remotely match those of the spark plug port, of course the magnetrons we used were vintage 60's so maybe they have changed some. We did have to make quite extensive modifications on the ignition coil of the Briggs & Stratton engine we used, inorder to keep it running continuously. I do not recall exactly what the modifications were other than we did have to modify an autoracing type ignition coil (high power type for high performance autos) and the electronic ignition module on the the existing engine ignition coil (it is called a magnetron as well, go figure). These modifications took use about 2 weeks to get right before the engine would fire/run continuously. Performance wise, it was better than the combustion configuration, but not more efficient, it ran out of fuel (water) alot faster due to the need for a higher volume of fuel in the chamber (with the gas fuel there is gas and air (oxygen) injected into the combustion chamber by the carburetor). We eventually detected that the improper amount of water fuel (and to much air) was being supplied by the carburetor we tried to alter the carburetor but it simply was the wrong piece of equipment for this job. After discovering that the carburetor was not up to task at hand we modified a little pump and saw to it that it did inject the proper amount and little to no air. As for being overunity, ours surely was not, but I suppose it could be done. The first problem to overcome in a full sized combustion engine, say a 4 cylinder model, would be sealing the engine up better. The water vapors readily escaped from the standard seals on our little Briggs & Stratton engine. The engine would need to as air tight as possible as the water vapors would be able to escape alot easier than the "combustion" so to speak that the engine was orginally designed to handle. I suppose one could use some type of high temperture polymer, say TFE seals or something to that effect. The polymer seals should have a high expansion rate as to increase the sealing ability as the temperture of the engine increases, and it will increase quite rapidly. This brings up the next problem, keeping the engine/engine components for melting-down or warping. The magnetron is generally not subjected to such high tempertures in it normal intended use (in a microwave that is...). This problem of heat could be easily overcome by employing a liquid-nitrogen cryo-type cooling system. With a little work it could be used to cool every component that needed to be cooled in the engine, including the magnetrons. Another important factor to concider would be what to do with the exhaust vapors. One could possible incorporate some type of pressurized condensing system, that would enable the capture of most of the exhaust water vapors. Then the captured vapors could be condensed back into it's liquid state by either high pressure or cooling from the cryo-cooling system. If one wanted to get really creative, they could make a special electronic fuel injection system specifically designed for the engine, it would take some time to get the exact amount of water and least amount of air in the proper place at the proper time. This should improve performance considerablely since when our engine was running the carburetor gave us the most headaches before we scraped it. Another performance boost would be designing some type of electronic ignition system specifically for use in triggering the magnetron, as that too is a prime source for efficiency problems. One might go the other way with this problem. If you run the magnetron continuously as in a microwave oven(cooling it continuously as well) and then somehow design a shutter in the waveguide which would open and shut during the proper times in the firing cycle, the performance might be increased. Although closing off the waveguide would cause the EM waves (microwaves) to be deflected back into the antenna port on the magnetron, which would most likely damage the magnetron directly, not to mention increasing the ambient temperture of the magnetron significantly. So maybe the electronic iginition type module would be the best way to go, it would definitely beat out the old distributor/point(s) type system. Just a few ideas. I will look around and see if I can find any of my notes on the the B&S steam-type engine we worked on. I will post them, that is if I can find them...:) Food for Thought, Tim o------------------------------------oo---------------------------------o | Timothy A. Chandler || M.S.Physics/B.S.Chemistry | o------------------------------------oo---------------------------------o | NASA-Langley Research Center || George Mason University | | Department of Energy || Department of Physics | | FRT/Alpha - NASALaRC/DOE JRD/OPM || Department of Chemistry | | CHOCT FR Designation #82749156/MG09|| OPC-EFC | o------------------------------------oo---------------------------------o | Private Email Address: tchand@slip.net | o-----------------------------------------------------------------------o From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 02:30:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA20945; Mon, 6 May 1996 02:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 02:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960506003709_75110.3417_CHK41-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dean Miller <75110.3417@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Spam attack X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi Bill, This is the only listserver I subscribe to (at the moment), but >> This garbage is the result of a net-wide hacker attack on email lists. << I thought that messages to the list would only be accepted from list members. If that's true, how could this message get through? Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 02:30:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA20967; Mon, 6 May 1996 02:26:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 02:26:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960505205639_287800826@emout07.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: translatePlease X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dr. Michal Goede asked me to send him a copy of my "Book on a Disk". He owns a books store in Germany and is seeking titles on antigravity. Goede GmbH / Bibliothek Am Heerbach 5 63857 Waldaschaff Germany I sent him a disk and his secretary Karin Guenter-Schnatz sent it back. She wrote: "Diese Diskette besitzen wir bereits, deshalb schicke ich sie Ihnen wieder zuruch." I translate this to say: This disk sets wide upon us, therfore I have have sent it back to you. That can't be correct. Can anyone offer the correct translation. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 02:33:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA20994; Mon, 6 May 1996 02:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 02:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605060119.LAA29831@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Martin Edmund Sevior To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Recombination X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > > BTW, Martin, I finally have "the Beast" (dual method calorimeter) up and > running pretty well. The NLC side of the results are significantly less > precise than the flow side. Flow calorimetry precision is +/- 0.02 watts > and NLC calorimetry is maybe +/- 0.1 watts. Amazingly, despite a fully > insulated outer box (not in the original plan), great outer box temperature > control (about +/- 0.01C at 50C), and the 1/2" styrofoam insulation of the > inner box, I can STILL see the building AC cycling in the flow calorimetry > data!!! Fortunately, it's a tiny effect but it's definitely visible. > > On the NLC side, the system is rather sensitive to the background heat > sources in the inner chamber (the peristaltic pump and the stirring fans). > The fans are wonderfully steady and I have assigned an empirical constant to > their contribution (it's about .24 watts). The pump is also steady but it > appears that each time I change the tubing, I have to establish a new power > value for it. My first one was about .30 watts and now, with a new piece of > tubing, it's gone down to about 0.20 watts. > > Now all I need is a cell that produces excess heat...especially as much as > is claimed for the PPC. > That's great Scott! You've got superb precision and excellent dynamic range in both NLC and flow calorimetry at elevated temperatures in a contained environment. A ten watt cell would show up as a 100 sigma result in the static calorimetry and 1000 sigma in the flow calorimetry both obtained simulanously. I can't think of any way a spurious result would fool your system. This device is far superior to any calorimetry I've heard the CETI group employ. If the CETI people ever release their devices or if you are included in their circle of "working groups" you'll be able to give definitive calorimetry results. Maybe you should write up a description of the device against the day this happens or should the eratz beads come good. Maybe even a few snazy pictures and screen dumps could be sent to John Logajan or Bill Beaty? Cheers, Martin From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 02:32:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA21117; Mon, 6 May 1996 02:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 02:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318DA05F.6E3E@rt66.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Richard Thomas Murray To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: San Jose del Cabo, Baja California, Mexico, May 9-20: cold fusion manifestation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Jackie Rae and Daren , Gail and Dan, Yusuf and Catherine, Sondra and I will be on the beach 11 days-- just occurred to me I might be able to connect with AOL there. If I can, I'll write immediately. The three 6-hr day work in El Dorado vanished last week-- I'm grateful to have the time free, and am clearing out my little travel trailer there, so I can sell it. I'll base myself in the second trailer in Pecos, with the intention of making it comfortable, clean, and orderly: there's a lot of peaceful work ahead. I've just spent three days there, cleaning, arranging, fixing, while making copies of five Gangagi videos. She'll be here June 8 for nine satsangs. It's 11:25 PM here at Hope House. My client arrived sun-red at 8 PM after a day out. I gave him a foot massage with lotion: his feet have normalized remarkably in the last three months. Tech support at Route 66 finally came up with a subtle tweak to my Windows 3.1 that causes my new IBM Thinkpad to function very well on the Net. I spent two hours Friday night reading a news group on the famous "Taos Hum", which actually is a world-wide effect. I believe I've sensed it twice during daytime meditation last year: something like a subtle gentle quiver. A few months ago, Sondra couldn't sleep, hearing something like a diesel truck idling a block away, and actually went out to look. Nothing there at midnight, which is a classic story of the genre. Have any of you sensed anything? More exciting is the remarkable explosion of "cold fusion" experiments, actually about a dozen different processes. I remember in July, 1985, while visiting Gail, I spent a week at URI Library, reading about a small-scale approach to "aneutronic fusion" by Bogdan Maglich. I wonder now if that caused me to wander "sideways" across probable timelines of history into the one I'm in now, in which the proliferation of simple, small scale, safe, normal temperature reactions is outrageous, dumbfounding, a multifaceted foolishness that only the worst, most banal, and tactless of science-fiction writers would have dared pen before 1989. One researcher at Texas A&M, Wolff had run some cold fusion cells with mediocre results a few years ago, and become a skeptic, only to find by an accidental analysis that the palladium used had accumulated trace but unmistakable amounts of unexpected elements: he kept it a secret, until the story was leaked by a colleage a year ago. Now Bockris at the same school has replicated the discovery, proving the existence of alchemy at normal temperatures. So, since January, I've been monitoring, as a "lurker" the forums where these explorations are candidly shared. This is a type of spiritual healing practice. I am aware that the infinity is here, all of it, vast, playful, witty, subtle, spontaneous, creative, inexhaustible, willing to release itself without restraint into any "interactive games" within itself that dare allow the rules to evolve, or the whole board be overthrown. Any developments that favor the accelerated evolution of all parties within itself are highly energized. Somehow, the trick is, in a sober sort of way, to absolutely throw all caution to the wind. The more we simply delight, without fear or resistance, in remarkable and constantly unexpected developments, the more we have on a daily personal and global basis. For instance, I'm willing, even expecting, to have a homemade "cold fusion" heater in my mobile home this winter. OK, infinity? As one, Rich Murray Santa Fe, NM From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 04:10:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA04104; Mon, 6 May 1996 04:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 04:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: David Jonsson To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: ZPE Tapping in SL to be Annointed in Phys Rev! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >A NEW THEORY OF SONOLUMINESCENCE. Sound energy, >in the form of a beam of ultrasonic waves, can be partly converted >into light energy by aiming the sound at an air bubble in a sample >of water. The sound causes the bubble to collapse and to emit >sharp (less than 12 picosecond) light pulses. The light's spectrum >implies that the source of the radiation is similar to a black-body >object at a temperature of tens of thousands of kelvins. Other sources (Paul H. Roberts and Cheng-Chin Wu of the University of California at Los Angeles) say the spectre compares closely to bremsstrahlung. A uniformly distributed spectre up to some cutoff frequency. So, how can one measure blackbody- and another measure bremsstrahlung-spectre? David -- David Jonsson Phone +46-18-24 51 52 Postgiro 499 40 54-7 Kantorsgatan 30:390 Cellular Phone +46-707-21 25 19 (temporarily defunct) S-754 24 Uppsala E-mail: david@bahnhof.se Sweden Web http://bahnhof.se/~david/ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 04:11:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA04178; Mon, 6 May 1996 04:07:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 04:07:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318ddb74.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Peter Glueck" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Frank, correct translation. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To Frank: The correct translation of the German text is: "We already have this diskette, therefore we are sending yours (this) back" Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 05:29:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA13946; Mon, 6 May 1996 05:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 05:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605061210.HAA00469@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: ZPE Tapping in SL to be Annointed in Phys Rev! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 04:06 AM 5/6/96 -0700, David Jonsson wrote: >Other sources (Paul H. Roberts and Cheng-Chin Wu of the University of >California at Los Angeles) say the spectre compares closely to >bremsstrahlung. A uniformly distributed spectre up to some cutoff >frequency. All the brem spectra I've ever seen (from bremstrahllung x-ray sources) actually resembled blackbody radiation except that they have a sharp cutoff at the upper end. There is definitely a peak energy (wavelength) around 1/2 to 1/3 of the upper cutoff value. > - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 06:19:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA19686; Mon, 6 May 1996 06:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 06:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 3 May 1996, Jed Rothwell wrote: [...] > Let me address Dieter's original comments: > > "Do we want to read every crackpot's favourite fantasy?" > > No, but you will find lots of crackpot fantasy in Nature magazine, and the > Wall Street Journal too. If you cannot judge yourself the referees cannot help > you. The problem is that the referees and editors themselves are often > crackpots. For example, Maddox, the former editor of Nature, once declared in > an editorial that he would no longer publish articles written by scientists > who believe in God. If that isn't a crackpot position I do not know what is. 1. It is not always easy to detect crackpottery before you have read a substantial chunk. Someone mentioned Velikovsky's book, a good example. The first tens of pages read like a calm, scholarly work. Only after some time do you say to yourself Hey! this is bullshit! Sort of like that general calmly explaining stuff and then adding in the same calm reasonable voice ".. and the purity of our bodily fluids". A referee would have stopped us wasting our time reading those first so many pages. Just read one of those advertisements in Nature. There was one just recently. 2. I flatly refuse to believe what you write about Maddox, unless you provide evidence. > "I'm not saying that Claytor is a crackpot. In fact, I see him and his > wonderful tritium result mentioned in lots of places. The latest is in > the Hoffman book." > > Ah, now *there's* a crackpot work! As I pointed out in my review, a large > chunk of the book is devoted to the argument that the heavy water used in cold > fusion experiments is recycled CANDU fission reactor moderator water. Anyone > who bothers to phone Ontario Hydro will learn that this notion is "pure > garbage" (in the word's of the director of heavy water production.) For one > thing, the stuff is 100,000,000 times too radioactive to be handled without > special equipment. And that book was carefully peer reviewed. It is a perfect > example of why you cannot rely on referees. Again, no. Hoffman has a young rashly skeptical scientist arguing with a reasonable, more open-minded metallurgist, who consistently takes the open view. Hoffman is no crackpot and if you think so, you have a problem. > The best way to find out would be to call Claytor and ask him. Dieter should > do that, since he is curious to find out about this issue. I do not know why > Claytor has not published, but I have talked to many other scientists who have Maybe y'all use the phone all the time, but not everyone operates that way. > published or attempted to publish papers about CF in the mainstream scientific > press. They tell me it is not worth the humiliation, the absurd demands, the > hostility and the ever-shifting goalposts. These are senior scientists who > have been publishing for decades, so they know how the system is supposed to > work. They say decorum and academic respect go out the window when you submit > a paper about CF. I have seen the reviewer's comments on rejected papers, and > I must say, if that is the standard for academic exchanges I would rather work > with fishmongers or drunken sailors. The CF scientists are thick-skinned > people, but after seven years they are fed up. Julian Schwinger described it > best: "I have experienced it in editors' rejection of submitted papers, based on > venomous criticism of anonymous > referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death This is true not only for CNF, but for ALL scientific work. I have myself had venomous referees' reports, and everyone I know has. You learn to live with it, how to rebut it. In fact, it can be quite fun to write such a rebuttal. I have myself reviewed a few CNF papers and I know that these received very fair treatment (offhand, I recall one being passed [that was J. Electroanal. Chem, the top electrochem. journal], one failing for very good reasons). I know that certain journals refuse to consider CNF papers; but why bash your head against their walls? Seems a bit fanatic to me, when there are other, more appropriate journals, equally respectable, who will take these papers. Please let me know about that evidence about Maddox; I'm willing to be surprised. You have to admit though, that he made Nature that top class journal that CNF people all wish they could get into, no? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 06:20:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA19799; Mon, 6 May 1996 06:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 06:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: translatePlease X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 6 May 1996 FZNIDARSIC@aol.com wrote: > Dr. Michal Goede asked me to send him a copy of my "Book on a Disk". He > owns a books store in Germany and is seeking titles on antigravity. > > Goede GmbH / Bibliothek > Am Heerbach 5 > 63857 Waldaschaff > Germany > > I sent him a disk and his secretary Karin Guenter-Schnatz sent it back. > > She wrote: > > "Diese Diskette besitzen wir bereits, deshalb schicke ich sie Ihnen wieder > zuruch." > > I translate this to say: This disk sets wide upon us, therfore I have have > sent it back to you. > > That can't be correct. Can anyone offer the correct translation. You're right, this can't be - and is not - correct. It says "We already have this diskette, and therefore send it back to you". Very civil of them. Doing translations from a dictionary has its pitfalls. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 15:29:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA02565; Mon, 6 May 1996 15:21:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 15:21:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605061405.KAA11884@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bead splitting report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: It is beginning to sound like the advantage of the plastic beads is the plastic is more easily stretched as the plating expands. I suspect that the "working" beads look more like wrinkled peas than spheres in operation. If so then starting with plastic beads with wrinkled surfaces would offer two additional benefits--more surface area, and less likelihood of splitting. Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 15:38:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA03331; Mon, 6 May 1996 15:25:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 15:25:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Recombination X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Scott Little wrote: > >> >> BTW, Martin, I finally have "the Beast" (dual method calorimeter) up and >> running pretty well. The NLC side of the results are significantly less >> precise than the flow side. Flow calorimetry precision is +/- 0.02 watts >> and NLC calorimetry is maybe +/- 0.1 watts. Amazingly, despite a fully >> insulated outer box (not in the original plan), great outer box temperature >> control (about +/- 0.01C at 50C), and the 1/2" styrofoam insulation of the >> inner box, I can STILL see the building AC cycling in the flow calorimetry >> data!!! Fortunately, it's a tiny effect but it's definitely visible. Could you explain what "building AC cycling" means? It sounds like 60 Hz hum, but obviously that's too fast to affect a thermal reading. Do you mean you see the voltage fluctuations in the building power, i.e. the pump slows down when the voltage drops? Or maybe you are picking up induced 60 Hz. noise from the thermocouple wires? It appears I missed something. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 15:35:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA03611; Mon, 6 May 1996 15:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 15:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: ZPE Tapping in SL to be Annointed in Phys Rev! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >>A NEW THEORY OF SONOLUMINESCENCE. Sound energy, >>in the form of a beam of ultrasonic waves, can be partly converted >>into light energy by aiming the sound at an air bubble in a sample >>of water. The sound causes the bubble to collapse and to emit >>sharp (less than 12 picosecond) light pulses. The light's spectrum >>implies that the source of the radiation is similar to a black-body >>object at a temperature of tens of thousands of kelvins. > >Other sources (Paul H. Roberts and Cheng-Chin Wu of the University of >California at Los Angeles) say the spectre compares closely to >bremsstrahlung. A uniformly distributed spectre up to some cutoff >frequency. So, how can one measure blackbody- and another measure >bremsstrahlung-spectre? > >David > These are not necessarily mutually exclusive statements. Both spectrum types are continuous. I suspect your difficulty lies with the energy levels. Since 1 ev = 11,600 Deg. K, you need a lot more than 10,000 K just to get out of the visible spectrum. In fact, I believe the temperatures reported in Scientific American were in the millions of degrees K. So maybe the difficulty lies in the lack of specificity of "tens". However, it seems unreasonable to call a bright flashing object at over a million degrees "black", so it seems a bit nonsensical, but the author used the term "similar to". Low energy bremsstrahlen are similar to black body radiation in that they do not fall into spectral lines, but are continuous in wavelength distribution. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 15:35:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA03875; Mon, 6 May 1996 15:27:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 15:27:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 05/06/96 06:19 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page Deiter: As a "victim" of the nuclear power industry (I say that because I have spent almost 20 years working for power companies, and have NO future to look forward to in that realm) I do have the following observation to make about "Nature". You NAME the radical, Anti-nuclear power "quack" and they get their vitrol published in "Nature" without a bat of an eyelash. - For this reason I have considered "Nature" a tawdry, snitty, BIASED, and WORTHLESS rag for years. - If you want to see TRUE , OBJECTIVE, work I suggest journals like the ASME Power Journal, the IEEE Spectrum, etc. And I would quite agree with you Deiter, a detailed paper in (for example) an ASME Journal on the Patterson Power Cell would hold considerable wieght. - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 15:39:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA04133; Mon, 6 May 1996 15:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 15:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 05/06/96 06:19 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page Darn, "weight" is spelled e before i as in the sound of way---I know that and can only say that upon reviewing my outgoing note the blame would have to be on the "dancing fingers" not the brain....! From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 15:38:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA04582; Mon, 6 May 1996 15:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 15:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605061554.KAA14365@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bead splitting report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 12:29 PM 5/4/96 -0700, Ed S wrote: >I plan on getting commercial nickel heterogenous catalyst since I don't have >the facilities to do my own preparations. There was a company called >Harshaw Chemical.... I knew Harshaw for their scintillation xtals. I think that Bicron (216-564-2251) took over some of that business but my Thomas register also say that Harshaw "changed their name" to Solon Technologies...800-472-5656 in Cleveland Ohio. >I will use a small diameter (1/4 to 1/2 inch) pipe which....That is it in a nutshell. So, the gist of the experiment is simply to expose the catalyst to H gas at different temps and look for heat generation? Scott Little EarthTech Int'l, Inc. Suite 300 4030 Braker Lane West Austin TX 78759 USA 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 15:45:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA04925; Mon, 6 May 1996 15:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 15:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960506185735_72240.1256_EHB146-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I wrote that Maddox once declared in an editorial that he would no longer publish articles written by scientists who believe in God. Dieter Britz replies: "2. I flatly refuse to believe what you write about Maddox, unless you provide evidence." I confess I exaggerated. At least, I hope I did. In April 1994 Maddox attacked religion, writing ". . . it may not be long before the practice of religion must be regarded as anti-science. This prompted several letters to the editor from religious scientists asking "how long?" because (as one wrote), "some of us will need to know when to submit our manuscripts elsewhere." Dieter also writes: "Hoffman has a young rashly skeptical scientist arguing with a reasonable, more open-minded metallurgist, who consistently takes the open view. Hoffman is no crackpot and if you think so, you have a problem." I disagree. I think Hoffman is a crackpot and the book is a travesty. See my review in Infinite Energy Vol. 1, No. 3, and the Storms review in 21st Century. I suggested that Dieter should call Claytor and ask him why he does not publish. "Maybe y'all use the phone all the time, but not everyone operates that way." Then *write to him*, for crying out loud. Fax him. E-mail him, or send a damn carrier pigeon. The address is: Thomas Claytor Los Alamos National Laboratory P.O. Box 1663 MS C914 Los Alamos, NM 87545 Schwinger described the "venomous criticism of anonymous referees." Dieter responds: "This is true not only for CNF, but for ALL scientific work. I have myself had venomous referees' reports, and everyone I know has. You learn to live with it, how to rebut it . . ." Schwinger did not think so. He had a long and distinguished career in science, and he never experienced anything like that until the end. He meant what he said in that speech: "this will be the death of science." As I said, many other senior scientists like Miles have told me they are shocked at the response to CF. I am sure they would not agree with Dieter that this is normal, expected modus operandi of science. Perhaps there is a generation gap here. Perhaps Schwinger and Miles established their reputations in a gentler, more rational era, when such attacks were uncommon. I myself am not a scientist so I cannot judge. I have never submitted a paper for peer review. My experience has been in business, not academic science. By the standards of modern commerce the peer review system is a gross violation of anti-trust, and the behavior of academic scientists with regard to cold fusion would be actionable. That is to say, they would be sued for libel and false advertising (falsely denigrating the competition). Business is supposedly more hard-boiled than academics, but that has not been my experience. If Dieter is correct, and this standard of behavior has become the norm in academic science, then I would say the institution requires massive, grass roots reform. It is in serious trouble. All institutions suffer from some degree of corruption, evil, and stupidity. People are people. They are political animals, they compete, they disagree and they often resort to unfair tactics and irrationality. But in most institutions (at least in business) there are built-in mechanisms to keep politics under control, and to prevent egomania from usurping the purpose of the institution. For example, a business is supposed to make money by serving its customers. It often happens that businesspeople forget this fact, and spend their time in turf wars and internal power struggles instead. This results in disgruntled customers, lost sales, and bankruptcy. The discipline of the market ruthlessly punishes dysfunctional behavior. There does not seem to be a similar mechanism to enforce discipline in academic science. What Schwinger describes is politics run amok. It would be fatal to any institution: any business, university, church, kindergarten or social club. "You have to admit though, that he [Maddox] made Nature that top class journal that CNF people all wish they could get into, no?" It cannot be a top class journal. Against overwhelming evidence it rejected cold fusion, and it hysterically attacked it year after year. Any journal, scientist or institution that attacks cold fusion is in deep trouble. That is like attacking the germ theory, the incandescent light, or the airplane. Of course, as anyone who has read history knows most scientific institutions *did* attack those innovations, along with most other new ideas. A few obscure journals welcomed them. In retrospect, posterity judges those few as the top class journals, and the rest as academic hacks and lazy gutless conformists. When cold fusion becomes a practical technology people will consider Nature and Maddox a laughingstock. They will make fun of him, and quote him, just as today we make fun Bishop Wilburforce for attacking Darwin; Scientific American for attacking the Wrights; and the New York Times for attacking Goddard. The journal may survive, but Maddox will go down as one of the biggest fools in history, and people will say the journal languished and nearly died thanks to him. I do not read Nature. I have no idea what other bad things or good things Maddox accomplished during his tenure. I know that he will be remembered for only one thing: he was catastrophically wrong about cold fusion, and he championed the attacks against it. Wilburforce was an accomplished fellow with a distinguished career. Even Darwin like him personally. But his life and his accomplishments have been forgotten; all are eclipsed by his one debate with Huxley, when he made a monumental fool of himself. I do not know whether CNF people want to be published in Nature or not. They are scientists, which makes they are a rum lot (as the Brits would say). I can't tell what they want. As far as I can see they don't want money or commercial success, because they do everything they can to sabotage these things. I myself would rather be published in the National Enquirer tabloid newspaper or Hustler magazine. I cannot imagine a more disreputable forum than Nature circa 1996. It would be like being published in the Jan. 1906 issue of Scientific American next to their infamous article "The Wright Aeroplane and its Fabled Performances." Forever after, anyone who opened a copy would see my work juxtaposed with this nonsensical attack against one of the most important inventions in history. Who would want to be associated with that? - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 16:04:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA05172; Mon, 6 May 1996 15:33:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 15:33:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cold fusion update [copy 2] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >On Sat, 4 May 1996 19:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Horace Heffner wrote: >[snip] >>>Try: >>> >>>27Al + H -> 4He + 24Mg + 1.6 MeV (The electron facilitates, but does >>>not actually take part in the reaction). >>> >>[snip] >>>Robin van Spaandonk >> >>Excellent! I looked right over 24Mg even though it is the most common >>variety. How could I do that? That's a rhetorical question! :^) >> >>Earlier I wrote: >[snip] >>So that should have looked more like: >> >>26.981539 (Al) >> 1.008665 + (H) > >I have a mass of 1.0078252 * amu for the protium atom. >(I believe you have used the mass of a neutron). Sorry about the poor accuracy of my posts this week. My daughter was in a piano competition this weekend, so I barely have had time to read email much less post. However, that's still not a very good excuse - I'll probably continue bumbling around at a fairly constant or increasing rate. That's just what lifelong bumblers do. Getting my five year old glasses presciption updated may not be a bad idea either. > >> 4.002602 - (4He) >>------------ >>23.987602 (24Mg*) >>23.985042 (24Mg) >>------------ >> 0.002560 excess energy = 2.38464 MeV (i.e. 931.5 MeV/AMU) > >Which yields a difference of 1.602 MeV using your numbers above. >> >>For some reason I don't get the same energy. Did you allocate it out to >>the products according to mass? > >When allocated out to the masses this yields an energy of ~1.37 MeV >for the alpha particle. (Nice match I think). Yes. Very nice Robin. I think you are definitely on to something here. > >> >>If no one has any other reasonable suggestions, and if Kamada is correct >>about his particle counts, then there is good reason to look for 24Mg in >>the targets. >> >>It would be interresting to simply do pulsed HV electrolysis at 1.7 A/cm^2 >>or more with Al electrodes and and Al salt and look for an isotopical >>shift. However, according to Kamada, there is only one event per 10^14 >>electrons. That's only 31,000 events per amp second. Just not enough Mg > >How does this agree with the suggestion that the energy liberated is >10^5 times the energy that could be (is?) delivered by the electron >beam? This is a worrysome coincidence. However, let me accurately summarize some of the information so we have a basis to proceed. I will post the following in s.p.f also to clear up any misunderstanding I may have created by discussing both experiments simultaneously or by using approximate numbers. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1992 Article: Kamada states the H-H fusion reaction was observed based on beta disintegration of proton upon high energy electron capture, which does not need tunneling 1 event per 2x10^14 electrons 200 KeV and 400 keV beam energies were used. implantation fluence > 1x10^17 H+ or D+/cm^2 using Cockcroft Walton type acceleration (voltage not mentioned) >1.3 MeV alphas (80%) and >0.4 MeV protons (20%) emitted from *both* H2 and >D2 implanted targets Beam density must be greater than 3x10^16 electrons/cm/s to get high energy particles emitted. From this I calculate the minimum flux to be 4.8 mA/cm^2. Beam used was 300 to 400 nA with beam size 4x10-5 cm^2. Flux actually used was 4-6x10^16 electrons/cm^2/s. Area through which beam was passed was 2x10^-3 cm^2. Time beam on target was 40 minutes. Tunnel like structures (between the bubble structures) *must be formed* to get the high energy particle emissions. They occupy roughly 60 percent of the sub-surface layer with about 50 nm depth. Molar volume of hydrogen = 10 cm^3/mol. Density of hydrogen molecues exposed to beam = 6x10^22/cm^2. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1996 Article: experiment repeated 30 times Positive results with D, negative results with H. 175 keV electron beam energy was used to avoid radiation damage to the Al 25 keV implantation at fluence of less than 5x10^17 H+/cm^2 was used. This is 12.5 keV per H atom implanted. The maximum retained hydrogen fluence (determined by ERD) after implantation was 1x10^17 atoms/cm^2, and density 2x10^17 H/cm^3. The density in the D2 collections was estimated at 1x10^22 D2/cm^3. Loading fluence 5x10^17 D+/cm^2 was chosen to *avoid forming bubble structures* and to form as many tunnel structures as possible. At a lower fluence only bubble structures are formed. When tunnel structures form between the bubbles, the bubbles empty out into the tunnel structures. At higher fluences, the bubble structures start to form again. Hydrogen bubble pressure estimated at 7 GPa. Average implantation depth about 60 nm., max depth about 90 nm. Estimated heat out to beam energy absorbed (per spot) was 6x10^5. Estimated heat out to beam energy absorbed (total surface) was 1x10^5. Degree of focusing was 50 nA on 1x10^-6 m diameter. Flux used was 4x10^19 electrons/cm^2/s. I calculate 6.41 A/cm^2. Flux must be over 1x10^19 electrons/cm^2/s to get the effect. I caculate the minimum flux to be 1.6 A/cm^2. Melting was observed in small transformed regions of about 1x10^-9 cm^2. Using a depth of 90 nm this gives 6.1x10-12 cal. per melted region, or 159 MeV per transformed region. The melting occurred in less than 10 seconds and the pools solidified in about one minute into the polycrystalline form. The thickness of the aluminum target was 8x10^-5 cm. The electron stopping power |dE/dt| of Al used is 0.07eV/Angstrom. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >10^14 * 200keV, is still a lot more than would be liberated by fusion >reactions yielding only 1.6 MeV / reaction. Kamada goes through some very lengthy and complicated calculations involving energy absobtion rates in AL of the various conventional D-D fusion products to show conventional fusion is a valid possible explanation. The calculations for the fusion products don't raise any special doubt. However, for each of the products he calculates a rho_m, the diameter of a cylinder about which heat is directly transferred. This is the radius of a cylinder about which the particle energy is immediatly transferred due to stopping power. Beyond that radius, heat is transferred via conduction in time tau = ((rho_m^2)/4)*D, whith D=0.78 cm^2/s, the mean thermal diffusion constant for Al at room temperature. From this he calculates a reaction time (to produce the melted pool) equal to tau*N, where N is the total number of particles. This number is about 10^-10 s, depending on the particle. Somehow this looks all fine and good applied to the reaction products to come up with the total energy E of the reaction required to melt the pool of Al. Now, here is where it begins to be suspicious. The formula used to calculate delta E, the energy imparted by electrons to the pool is: delta E = |dE/dt|*t*m*phi_e*(tau*N) where: |dE/dt| = 0.07eV/Angstrom = 7x10^6 eV/cm (the stopping power of Al) t = 10-5 cm (thickness of target) m = 10^-9 cm^2 (area of pool) phi_e = 1x10^19 electrons/cm^2/s (electron flux) tau*N = 10^10 s (reaction time) Plugging in the numbers I get .15x10^3 eV for delta E. For E he uses 320 MeV because it is assumed an equivalent Al pool is created on the far side of the H tunnel system. >From this he gets g = E/(delta E) = 6x10^5 as the ratio of energy gain. Now it seems to me the really strange thing is applying the tau*N reaction time to the electron beam. The same factor was used in the reaction, but it makes sense there. It dosn't make sense applied to a beam that continues operation. Looking at it another way, each electron loses 7x10^6 eV/cm * 1x10^-5 cm = 560 eV going through the target. The number of electrons through the pool area each second is (10^19 electrons/cm^3/s)*(10^-9 cm^2) = 10^10 electrons/s. Therefore, the energy flux should be (10^10 electrons/s)*(560 eV/electron) = 5.6x10^12 eV/s. Now, unless I erred, that is a phenominal energy flux. I don't understand why the target didn't vaporize, and why the H2 target didn't melt at all. What am I missing? >>formed. Should get lots of alpha counts though if it works. >> >>The same experiment using D2O would be much more interresting because it >>would be reasonable do calorimetry on it. [snip] > >Robin van Spaandonk Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 15:56:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA05505; Mon, 6 May 1996 15:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 15:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cold fusion update [copy 2] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Minor corrections to what I wrote earlier: Now, here is where it begins to be suspicious. The formula used to calculate delta E, the energy imparted by electrons to the pool is: delta E = |dE/dt|*t*m*phi_e*(tau*N) where: |dE/dt| = 0.07eV/Angstrom = 7x10^6 eV/cm (the stopping power of Al) t = 8x10-5 cm (thickness of target) m = 10^-9 cm^2 (area of pool) phi_e = 1x10^19 electrons/cm^2/s (electron flux) tau*N = 10^-10 s (reaction time) Plugging in the numbers I get 560 eV for delta E per the above. For E he uses 320 MeV because it is assumed an equivalent Al pool is created on the far side of the H tunnel system. >From this he gets g = E/(delta E) = 6x10^5 as the ratio of energy gain. Now it seems to me the really strange thing is applying the tau*N reaction time to the electron beam. The same factor was used in the reaction, but it makes sense there. It dosn't make sense applied to a beam that continues operation. Looking at it another way, each electron loses 7x10^6 eV/cm * 1x10^-5 cm = 560 eV going through the target. The number of electrons through the pool area each second is (10^19 electrons/cm^3/s)*(10^-9 cm^2) = 10^10 electrons/s. Therefore, the energy flux should be (10^10 electrons/s)*(560 eV/electron) = 5.6x10^12 eV/s. Now, unless I erred, that is a phenominal energy flux. I don't understand why the target didn't vaporize, and why the H2 target didn't melt at all. What am I missing? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 6 16:00:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA05989; Mon, 6 May 1996 15:37:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 15:37:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318e611a.540571@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: CF metal candidates X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A superficial examination of metals purported to function (reasonably) well in CF cells yields the interesting observation, that many of them have a high percentage (natural abundance) of even numbered isotopes (i.e. are bosons). This is true of Pd, Ni, Ti, and also of Fe, Cr, and Zn. So that I am led to suspect that these latter three may also perform reasonably well. However Co, Mn, Cu, V all have odd numbered isotopes, and one doesn't hear anything about them (please correct me if I'm wrong in this). So do Au and Al, so perhaps these 2 don't work so well. Does this mean that Bose-condensates can form, from different bosons (e.g. D + Pd)? Is this possibly a factor in CF? If the above is indeed a factor, then I suspect that it is only a facilitating factor, rather than a mandatory one. Reason: Mills type experiments where fusion appears to take place with K or Rb (both odd), and Patterson type experiments with H (also odd). The output power of the Powergen cell, cannot be explained if only the D in natural water is fusing (even if the Li6 reaction with D is assumed). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From billb@eskimo.com Mon May 6 19:42:33 1996 Received: from liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU (liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU [128.250.50.83]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA21185 for ; Mon, 6 May 1996 19:42:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from msevior@localhost) by liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU (8.6.10/8.6.10) id MAA24489 for vortex-l@eskimo.com; Tue, 7 May 1996 12:27:31 +1000 Received: (from msevior@localhost) by liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU (8.6.10/8.6.10) id LAA02058; Tue, 7 May 1996 11:50:21 +1000 From: Martin Edmund Sevior Message-Id: <199605070150.LAA02058@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 11:50:21 +1000 (EST) Cc: msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU (Martin Edmund Sevior) In-Reply-To: <960506185735_72240.1256_EHB146-1@CompuServe.COM> from "Jed Rothwell" at May 6, 96 03:32:47 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: msevior@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU Status: RO X-Status: There's lots of interesting debate about the merits of electronic publication. You may be interested to know Deiter that there are now a number of fields of Physics research where it is standard practice to submit a pre-print to an electronic database (http://xxx.lanl.gov/) at the same time as submitting it to a Journal. I find this database extremely useful in my research and spend a lot more time reading and scanning articles contained there than the print Journals. The peer review system has it's uses still though. After I find an interesting article in the database I follow it through and watch if it got published. The idea is to see if someone has made a careful evaluation of the equations and calculations and also because you cannot cite a preprint in your own submissions to refereed Journals. Dieter wrote: > > "This is true not only for CNF, but for ALL scientific work. I have > myself had venomous referees' reports, and everyone I know has. You > learn to live with it, how to rebut it . . ." I have published over 40 articles in refereed Journals and I have NEVER had any of them subjected to vitriolic ridicule. You Chemists must be more vicious than Physicists. Since you make a hobby of investigating this sort of thing Jed I'd be interested in hearing about your interpretation of the events surrounding the discovery that a large number of stomach ulcers are caused by a strain of slow acting bacteria. This condition can be treated with a simple course of anti-biotics and completely cured in a few weeks. This discovery was initially made over 12 years ago but is only now accepted by the Medical community. In the meantime Glaxco became the world's largest and most profitable drug company on the back of a product that supresses the production of stomach acids. This treatment contained the symptoms of the disease as long as the drug was used. As soon as its use was discontinued the symptoms returned. What a perfect way to make money! One has to wonder why the simpler, cheaper and far more effective treatment was kept in the dark for so long. Martin Sevior From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 7 03:29:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA04179; Tue, 7 May 1996 03:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 03:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605070150.LAA02058@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Martin Edmund Sevior To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: There's lots of interesting debate about the merits of electronic publication. You may be interested to know Deiter that there are now a number of fields of Physics research where it is standard practice to submit a pre-print to an electronic database (http://xxx.lanl.gov/) at the same time as submitting it to a Journal. I find this database extremely useful in my research and spend a lot more time reading and scanning articles contained there than the print Journals. The peer review system has it's uses still though. After I find an interesting article in the database I follow it through and watch if it got published. The idea is to see if someone has made a careful evaluation of the equations and calculations and also because you cannot cite a preprint in your own submissions to refereed Journals. Dieter wrote: > > "This is true not only for CNF, but for ALL scientific work. I have > myself had venomous referees' reports, and everyone I know has. You > learn to live with it, how to rebut it . . ." I have published over 40 articles in refereed Journals and I have NEVER had any of them subjected to vitriolic ridicule. You Chemists must be more vicious than Physicists. Since you make a hobby of investigating this sort of thing Jed I'd be interested in hearing about your interpretation of the events surrounding the discovery that a large number of stomach ulcers are caused by a strain of slow acting bacteria. This condition can be treated with a simple course of anti-biotics and completely cured in a few weeks. This discovery was initially made over 12 years ago but is only now accepted by the Medical community. In the meantime Glaxco became the world's largest and most profitable drug company on the back of a product that supresses the production of stomach acids. This treatment contained the symptoms of the disease as long as the drug was used. As soon as its use was discontinued the symptoms returned. What a perfect way to make money! One has to wonder why the simpler, cheaper and far more effective treatment was kept in the dark for so long. Martin Sevior From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 7 03:34:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA04467; Tue, 7 May 1996 03:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 03:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605070238.CAA16496@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Edwin Strojny To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bead splitting report X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 10:31 PM 5/6/96 +0000, you wrote: > >I knew Harshaw for their scintillation xtals. I think that Bicron >(216-564-2251) took over some of that business but my Thomas register also >say that Harshaw "changed their name" to Solon Technologies...800-472-5656 >in Cleveland Ohio. Thank you for this information, I will check with them tomorrow. > >So, the gist of the experiment is simply to expose the catalyst to H gas at >different temps and look for heat generation? That is correct. If the dihydrino theory is correct, there are a lot of questions on the properties of dihydrinos, but, being retired and with limited facilities, I will not be able to investigate further. >Scott Little >EarthTech Int'l, Inc. >Suite 300 >4030 Braker Lane West >Austin TX 78759 USA >512-346-3848 (voice) >512-346-3017 (FAX) >little@eden.com (email) > Ed Strojny From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 7 03:46:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA04839; Tue, 7 May 1996 03:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 03:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318EC604.517@rt66.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Richard Thomas Murray To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: http://wwwnde.esa.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.HTM X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------5A7124E567F1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://wwwnde.esa.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.HTM --------------5A7124E567F1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="tritweb.HTM"

Plasma Discharges on Palladium

Visits to this page:



Below is a menu of sections from our lastest publication you may choose a starting point from the menu or start at the begining of the paper by scrolling down.



  • Abstract

  • Introduction

  • Materials

  • Apparatus

    		•

  • Procedure

  • Results

  • Discussion

    		•

  • Conclusion

  • Acknowledgements

  • References

    		•

    Back to NDT&E Home Page.

    TRITIUM PRODUCTION FROM A LOW VOLTAGE DEUTERIUM DISCHARGE ON PALLADIUM AND OTHER METALS

    T. N. Claytor, D. D. Jackson and D. G. Tuggle

    Los Alamos National Laboratory
    Los Alamos, NM 87545

    ABSTRACT

    Over the past year we have been able to demonstrate that a plasma loading method produces an exciting and unexpected amount of tritium from small palladium wires. In contrast to electrochemical hydrogen or deuterium loading of palladium, this method yields a reproducible tritium generation rate when various electrical and physical conditions are met. Small diameter wires (100 - 250 microns) have been used with gas pressures above 200 torr at voltages and currents of about 2000 V at 3-5 A. By carefully controlling the sputtering rate of the wire, runs have been extended to hundreds of hours allowing a significant amount (> 10’s nCi) of tritium to accumulate. We will show tritium generation rates for deuterium-palladium foreground runs that are up to 25 times larger than hydrogen-palladium control experiments using materials from the same batch. We will illustrate the difference between batches of annealed palladium and as received palladium from several batches as well as the effect of other metals (Pt, Ni, Nb, Zr, V, W, Hf) to demonstrate that the tritium generation rate can vary greatly from batch to batch.

    Back to Menu


    1. INTRODUCTION

    We will report on our tritium generation results from a palladium wire-plate configuration subjected to periodic pulsed deuterium or hydrogen plasma. This configuration is reproducible within a batch and produces a measurable amount of tritium in a few days. As in other work in this area, it has been found that the output is very batch dependent and sensitive to material impurities that prevent hydriding. As in our previous work1,3, all tritium data was obtained from several batches of 100 or 250 micron wire and 250 micron thick plate from J&M or Goodfellow metals. In these experiments most of the tritium data was obtained with on-line tritium gas monitors. Several times, the gas was oxidized and tested with a scintillation counter.

    Some have criticized the detection of tritium because the signals seem to be (a) insignificant, (b) tritium is ubiquitous, and (c) the palladium metal is subject to possible tritium contamination. The magnitude of the signals discussed in this paper are multi-sigma and are sometimes over a hundred times the tritium background in the supply gas. Furthermore, the rate of tritium evolution in the sealed system may be the most sensitive and rapid indicator of anomalous nuclear behavior in deuterided metals. As such, it is well suited for parametric investigations. We will briefly discuss the possible avenues for contamination and show that each is negligible, or not a factor, in the experiments described.

    Back to Menu


    2. MATERIALS

    For this work we used Cryogenic Rare Gases deuterium 99.995% that has 90 pCi/l of tritium, and research grade hydrogen with no detectable tritium (< 25 pCi/l). The major impurity in the deuterium is H2 (0.005%) (He <1ppm). A total of 74.2 g of palladium wire/powder/foil was used in plasma experiments described in this paper. Of that amount, 8.6 g was used in various hydrogen or deuterium control experiments. The palladium has been checked for tritium contamination by two independent methods (heating in hydrogen/deuterium and H2 plasma).

    Much of the palladium has been subjected to rigorous metallographic and impurity analysis. The impurity levels for the wires (Johnson Matthey Puratronic, Goodfellow) varied from the specification sheets and were in the 60-150 ppm range (mostly Cu, Fe, W and P) rather than the quoted values of 5-10 ppm. Most wires were used as received, but several wires were annealed in air (at 850°C for 2 hours) or stress relieved (600°C for 4 minutes) in air. Some of the wires (mostly J&M), when wrapped on a white macor ceramic spool and heated (to 600°C) left brown diffuse deposits (50 cm or more in length) or black diffuse spots (1-3 mm in length). The two batches that showed the most tritium did not yield the black spots but did leave light, small amounts of the brown deposits.

    Three batches of palladium were used for the plate, the first batch of 220 micron thick foil was annealed at 850°C for 2 hours at 10-6 torr before use. A second batch had a different impurity analysis from the first, but was annealed in a similar manner; the third batch was used as received and had a different impurity level from the first two batches (although, all three plate batches had total impurities in the 350-500 ppm range, mostly Pt, Au, Cu and Fe). Wire from five batches (lots W13918, W06528, Z0114, NM 35680, Z0293, GF5140/6) was obtained from Johnson Matthey and Goodfellow Metals and one length of wire was supplied by Ben Bush. Only the Goodfellow batch and J&M (W13918) showed large (8 to 102 nCi) amounts of tritium although the other batches of J&M and Ben Bush wire produced small amounts (~1.5 to 6 nCi total per run).

    Tritium contamination in the palladium wire and plate was tested by two independent methods: sputtering of the wire in a hydrogen plasma atmosphere and heating of the wire or plate to either 260 or 800°C in deuterium or hydrogen. No evidence of tritium (to within experimental error ~ 0.3 nCi) contamination was found in the heating experiments with hydrogen. The Goodfellow wire was tested for contamination (with null results ~ 0.3 nCi) by heating to 280°C sections (0.1 g) of wire taken between wire samples shown to produce tritium in the experiments. In our previous work3 we were able to set a limit of 0.005 nCi/g obtained with 3He detection of aged palladium samples from a different lot. Also, in an extensive independent4 investigation of palladium wire, several hundred wire samples were tested and no tritium contamination was detected. The purity of the wire used in these experiments also weighs against, ubiquitous, intrinsic spot contamination, although the appearance of the black and brown deposits indicates that spot and distributed impurities can be present.

    Back to Menu


    3. APPARATUS

    Shown in Figure 1 is one of two stainless steel gas analysis loops containing a 1.8 liter ion gauge and a 310.9 cc calibration volume. The atmospheric, ion gauge and sample pressure (0.2%), Femtotech and room temperatures (0.1°C) are recorded on a computer log at 60 s intervals. The pressure drop during hydriding of the wire and plate is used as an approximate indicator of the stoichiometry of the PdDx. Both loops have a heater to maintain the Femtotech (-0.03 nCi/l°C) at a constant temperature, an integral cold trap, and there are valves that allow the pressurization of the cell independent of the loop. A two micron filter is installed at the inlet of the ion gauge and at the outlet of the cell to eliminate spurious responses due to particulates. To eliminate the possibility of oil contamination, a molecular drag and diaphragm pump is used to evacuate the system.

    me

    Figure 1 Tritium analysis system used in this study showing the oxidation apparatus.

    The Femtotech ion gauge rejects pulse type radioactive events that effectively discriminate against radon and cosmic ray ionization. The initial background drift rate in the Femtotech was 0.002 nCi/h to 0.006 nCi/h, but after exposure to the cells described in the paper, the drift rate increased, and could reach as high as 0.01 nCi/h. In order to return to the baseline rate, it was necessary to clean the loop tubing and Femtotechs halfway through the study.

    A hydrogen oxidation system was built as a backup test for tritium using a scintillation counter (Packard 1600). Calibration D2 gas with 25 nCi/l of tritium was used to test the two Femtotechs and the oxidation system. The two ionization systems agree to within 5% of each other while the scintillation results are within the experimental error (0.3nCi) of the Femtotechs.

    The typical arrangement of the cell allows a wire to sit perpendicular to and a few millimeters above a circular plate. In operation, the plasma is adjusted so that it envelopes the whole wire and contacts the plate at a small spot. Typically, the plasma is light blue (D2+) with areas of pink (D3+ or D+). At high currents (> 5 A), a bright pink electron channel forms that extends parallel to the wire from the base of the wire to the plate. Initially, the Pd wire is 25 to 30 mm in length and about one mm from the plate. The plate diameter is 3.0 cm or 1.8 cm.

    Back to Menu

    4. PROCEDURE

    The procedure for a plasma run was to first fill the 3.1 liter loop with deuterium gas at 600 torr and obtain a measure of the initial background tritium concentration. With the loop drift rate measured, the deuterium was circulated through the cell to slowly hydride the sample. The pressure in the cell and the loop was then lowered to the operating pressure by pumping the excess deuterium out.

    The wire was pulsed negatively, at 20 ms at 50 Hz, with currents between 2 and 5 A, voltages that varied from 1500 to 2500 V, and cell pressure of 300 torr. These conditions reduced the heating in the cell and maintained a cell to ambient temperature difference of less than 25°C to avoid gross dehydriding of the wire and plate. It appeared important to avoid a plasma condition that resulted in either a bright pink electron channel or arcing at the tip of the wire. After a few hours of plasma operation the voltage-current stabilized, presumably due to the formation of small cones (10-20 microns high) all over the surface of the wire. After 20 hours, palladium was visibly sputtered onto the plate. The sputter rate at 300 torr, 3.5 A, was about ~2 Angstroms/s. The cell pressure was monitored, and if it did not drop after 24 hours (indicating hydriding), then a small amount of CO2 (0.75% by vol) was added, which would initiate hydriding.

    At the end of a run the pressure was increased to 600 torr, the gas was circulated, and the system allowed to equilibrate for about 8 hours. If the reading was steady and CO2 was added, then the gas was circulated through the liquid nitrogen cold trap to collect any water and determine if any tritiated water was present. The system was then pumped out, the cell closed off, and fresh deuterium added to the system after a couple of flushes with either fresh deuterium or air. The difference between the fresh deuterium and the deuterium reading after exposure to the plasma was used as the measure of the tritium content. In cases where more than 10 nCi were found, the palladium wire and plate were heated separately to over 250°C and the result admitted to the evacuated loop.

    Back to Menu


    5. RESULTS

    A total of 65 plasma wire experiments were performed, 12 of these were other than palladium wire and plate. Twenty experiments were run with multiple wires, usually 3 wires bundled together, and eight experiments used different thickness foils 25 to 125 microns thick. The balance of the tests were done with one 250 micron diameter wire and 250 micron thick plate. Three hydrogen plasma experiments were done with palladium plate and wire and two were done with platinum wire and plate. A summary of several background and foreground experiments is shown in Figure 2. The best experiment, produced 102 nCi.

    me

    Figure 2 Comparison of background and foreground results with a Pd wire-plate type plasma cell. A Pt wire-plate plasma and a flowing D2 background is shown for comparison.

    Plasma runs 3 and 4 deserve some detailed explanation since these produced the most tritium. First, (see Figure 3) cell 3 was preheated in order to drive off any contaminants. The plasma was then started and the tritium generation rate was 0.15 nCi/h. Near the end of the run, the cell was twice flushed with deuterium, which caused the total tritium (as detected by the Femtotech) to jump up. At the conclusion of the experiment the plate and wire (from plasma 3) were heated, insitu, and released another 5.4 nCi. In order to resolve whether the tritium was originating in the plate or wire, they were separately heated after plasma 4. The wire released about 12.4 nCi of tritium while the plate had no measurable (< 0.3 nCi) release.

    me
    Figure 3 The cell temperature, ambient temperature, tritium concentration and pressure plotted to illustrate the operation of cell 3. When the sample temperature and the ambient temperature are close, the cell is off and the tritium concentration remains constant. When the cell drops below ambient temperature, the cold trap is activated; no significant decrease in tritium level was noticed.


    A number of Pt and Pd controls were run with D2 or H2. Most of these are shown in Figure 2 in comparison with the foreground cells. In general, drift rates with the plasma on were in the 0.004 to 0.01 nCi/h range. Not enough hydrogen and platinum blank experiments have been run to definitely conclude that tritium production is confined to the palladium-deuterium system. We believe, however, that because the hydrogen and non-hydriding metal experiments are low or null, that the rather large results with palladium are unique. We also ran several hydride forming metals other than palladium. In the case of Hf and Zr it was difficult to maintain the plasma, so for most of the run the background drift rate is similar to the cell with D2 circulating (<0.003nCi/h). Tungsten, vanadium, niobium, and nickel-deuterium were on for about 100 hours, but their rates were still very close to background (0.007 to 0.009 nCi/h). Romodanov3 et. al. reported that Nb was more active than W, Zr, Ta or Mo in their gas discharge experiments. We also found small amounts of tritium in niobium (1.1 nCi), and observed a small rate with nickel-hydrogen (0.012 nCi/h). Both of these samples deserve further investigation.

    The wire-plate plasma experiments have been very consistent but also very dependent on the exact batch of palladium that was used. We found that the batch, material and material condition are critical parameters. Our first batch of GF5140/6, for example, had an average rate of 0.4 nCi/h, with several rates greater than 0.1 nCi/h. Our second best results came from an arrangement with the second batch of the same wire in which three wires were bundled together. Their rates varied from 0.02 to 0.07 nCi/h.

    At the conclusion of two of the experiments, about a third of the deuterium was oxidized and the heavy water and a control were submitted for scintillation counting. The results were 3400 to 213 dpm/ml and were in agreement (within experimental error) with the tritium activity calculated from the drop in reading of the Femtotech. Background activity from the D2 gas prepared by this method is about 39 dpm/ml.

    Back to Menu

    6. DISCUSSION

    The basic premise that the detected ionizing material is tritium is indisputable because, (a) quantitative measurements agree with the scintillation counter, (b) the gas may be transported on a clean palladium bed between different ionization systems and produces an increased reading commensurate with the decrease in tritium concentratio noted in the initial system, (c) as the pressure is decreased the tritium signal is seen to decrease (for dry gas) in a manner consistent with the calibration for a known level of tritium in deuterium and finally, (d) the signal shows no diminution over a two week time period, consistent with the half life of tritium.

    Three types of contamination of the wire are possible; the first is just surface contamination due to atmospheric or liquid exposure to tritium, the second type might be a distributed impurity, and the third would be a spot contamination. To avoid surface contamination, we thoroughly clean and polish the palladium surface prior to each run. If it were still present, a surface contaminant would be immediately evident when the wire was introduced to the analysis loop and deuterided, but we have not seen evidence for this type of contamination. We attribute the residue and smoke seen from some of the wires to entrained lubricant due to drawing the wire. This lubricant tends to be drawn out and smeared throughout the length of the wire, which implies tritium contaminated oil should be detected in long sections of the wire. However, wires that showed obvious high levels of oil contamination did not show tritium, and we did not observe a large tritium signal when the wire was heated and the oil suddenly evolved. Similarly, the dark spots are present after simply heating the wire to 600°C but there is no evidence for tritium release at temperatures as high as 850°C.

    An indicator that the tritium originated in the cells is that the output was sensitive to the metallurgical condition of the palladium. Palladium wire annealed in air showed a lower output than as received wire. Likewise palladium wire stress relieved but not annealed showed a similar (about a factor of 3) reduction in output. This could be interpreted as a release of tritium if it was contamination, however, then the tritium would have been easily detected in the heating controls. In sample #4, that showed significant tritium output, post heating (250°C) of the palladium wire released 12.4nCi of tritium. This amount of tritium would have been easily detected in the heating control of the same spool of wire (10 cm) taken from the next section of material. Furthermore, the tritium in the gas evolved from the wire during the post heating at 250°C was far (5340 nCi/l) above the equilibrium tritium concentration (31.4 nCi/l) in the gas after the run. The fact that such high concentrations can be left in the palladium suggests that the process is near but not at the surface. The pulse length is sufficient for the diffusion of 200 Angstroms (10 ms pulse length) into the palladium. Then the tritium may be released when the surface layer of the palladium is sputtered by the energetic plasma. This would indicate that the tritium was in a 15 to 30 micron layer on the 250 micron in diameter wire. The fact that a significant amount of tritium shows up as (after the addition of CO2) TDO is also indicative of a near surface reaction. Dendrites and aspirates (up to 20 microns high) on the surface of the palladium have been suggested2 as possible tritium formation sites.

    When palladium is hydrided it is stressed and, to some extent, work hardened. The wires after hydriding have always shown an increase in grain growth (to 50-100 microns) from the very fine (1-2 microns) microstructure initially observed with these materials. The observed reduction in stress relieved wires indicates that the dislocation density must play a very important role in the tritium production. However, since all as received wires were hard drawn but not all batches of wire showed production, there are other factors that are important, such as the purity and the hydriding.

    The purity of the material varies from batch to batch, and within a batch sections of the wire are cleaner than other sections. Thus it could be that the lack of oil, iron or hydrogen impurities is critical or that there has to be an another atomic species present. We believe that the lack of oil or other impurities is important to help the material hydride efficiently. The key mechanism, however, may be associated with another impurity species that need be present only at the sub ppm level at the dislocations.

    The importance of hydriding the palladium can be clearly observed in a plot (Figure 4) of tritium output versus time for a sample from batch Z0293 that weakly hydrided. The tritium evolution rate was at the background drift rate (0.004 nCi/l). When (0.75% by vol) CO2 was added to the system the tritium rate increased to a rate some 7.7 times the background drift rate. Coincident with the tritium increase, the deuterium pressure dropped indicating the palladium plate was hydriding. This decrease in pressure is more than can be accounted for if the CO2 is totally converted to D2O. We confirmed this with a platinum control cell in which the pressure only decreased by 2 torr. In another experiment where the pressure immediately dropped, indicating that the palladium had initially hydrided, the tritium generation rate was ~0.02 nCi/h and an addition of CO2 did not change the rate of tritium production.

    The CO2 may also make it feasible to run at lower pressures where a high loading is more difficult to achieve. An analysis of the ratio of tritiated water to tritium in the gas reveals that most (70%) of the tritium remains in the gas. Additions of CO2 to Pt runs neither change the rate of drift (tritium) or exhibit large pressure decreases as shown in Figure 4. The CO2 and CO that is produced within the cell are known to be surface poisons that normally would not allow the palladium to hydride. However, in the presence of a reactive energetic plasma the surface is cleaned of these materials and deuterium is allowed to disassociate on the surface and diffuse in. When the plasma ceases, the surface poison reabsorbs inhibiting deuterium from recombining on the surface.



    me
    Figure4 Tritium output from a cell that appeared to be a non-producer untill 2 torr CO2 was added to the deuterium. This caused the plate (and perhaps the wire) to hydride and a coincident rise in the tritium generation rate by nearly a factor of 7 was observed until the wire bent away from the plate.



    Back to Menu

    7. CONCLUSIONS

    We have found that the tritium output depends on the temperature, pressure and current applied to the cells. Yet, the tritium yield is most sensitive to the purity and metallurgical condition of palladium used in the experiments. Various tests for tritium contamination confirm that there is no initial tritium contamination in the powder, foil, wire or other materials used in this study. CO2 additions had a remarkable effect on the production of tritium by these cells and the effect seems to be related to and enhancement of the hydriding of the palladium.

    It appears that very pure palladium is more effective than impure palladium in producing tritium. Based on our impurity analysis of the material we cannot identify a difference in concentration of a single impurity that is important to either include or exclude from the palladium. This is partially a morphological or metallurgical issue involving dislocations since we have seen a reduced output from annealed or stress relieved palladium when compared to as received palladium from the same batch. However, palladium that has been hydrided and dehydrided must always be annealed to reactivate it. The fact that most of the tritium is evolved promptly to the gas, yet significant amounts are found in the palladium suggest that the process is near but probably not at the surface.

    Back to Menu


    8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

    Many people were involved in a direct way with the experiments described here. Some of these were Ken Griechen, Roy Strandberg and Kane Fisher who were instrumental in the design and construction of the first few cells. Joe Thompson counted our tritiated water samples. Mike Hiskey and William Hutchinson were helpful in the analysis of contaminants in the vacuum system and on the samples.

    Back to Menu


    9. REFERENCES


    1. Tuggle, D. G., Claytor, T. N., and Taylor, S. F.; Tritium Evolution from Various Morphologies of Deuterided Palladium., Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion., December 6-9 1993, Maui, Hawaii., Ed. T. O. Passel, EPRI TR-1041 88-V1 Project 3170, July 1994, Volume 1, p7-2.

    2. Bockris, J. O'M., Chien, C-C., Hodko, D., Minevski, Z., Tritium and Helium Production in Palladium Electrodes and the Fugacity of Deuterium Therein, Frontiers Science Series No. 4, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion., Octo ber 21-25 Nagoya Japan., Ed. H. Ikegami, Universal Academy Press Tokyo Japan., 1993, p231.

    3. Claytor, T. N., Tuggle, D. G., Taylor, S. F.; Evolution of Tritium from Deuterided Palladium Subject to High Electrical Currents, Frontiers Science Series No. 4, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion., October 21-25 Nagoya Ja pan., Ed. H. Ikegami, Universal Academy Press Tokyo Japan., 1993, p217.

    4. Cedzynska, K., Barrowes, S. C., Bergeson, H. E., Knight, L. C., and Will, F. W., Tritium Analysis in Palladium With an Open System Analytical Procedure, Fusion Technology, Vol. 20, No 1, 1991, p108, and private communication.

    5. Romodanov, V., Savin, V., Skuratnik, Ya. Timofeev, Yu., Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter, Frontiers Science Series No. 4, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion., October 21-25 Nagoya Japan., Ed. H. Ikegami, Universal Academ y Press Tokyo Japan., 1993, p307.

    The following people can provide you with more information:

    Thomas Claytor

    Mark Schwab

    Back to Back to Menu

    Back to NDT&E Home Page.

    --------------5A7124E567F1-- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 7 03:35:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA05093; Tue, 7 May 1996 03:28:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 03:28:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <318EC861.3C12@rt66.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Richard Thomas Murray To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Thomas Claytor paper now showing: http://wwwnde.esa.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.HTM X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I was the 25th visitor, at 9:15 PM MST on Monday, May 6, to Thomas Claytor's page, which reports in detail successful tritium production from Pd wires exposed to high voltage deuterium plasma discharge for hundreds of hours. This is very convincing work. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 7 03:33:47 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA05228; Tue, 7 May 1996 03:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 03:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605070509.AAA15612@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Recombination X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 03:25 PM 5/6/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >Could you explain what "building AC cycling" means? Horace, considering your locale it is not surprising that you misinterpreted my "AC". Here in central Texas the first and foremost usage of the abbreviation "AC" is for AIR CONDITIONING...not AC current. It being May, we are already into HEAVY usage of our AC systems and, when they cycle on/off under thermostat control, I can see the effects of the resulting cyclic ambient air temperature in my calorimetric data. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 7 03:36:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA05464; Tue, 7 May 1996 03:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 03:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Mon, 6 May 1996, MHUGO@EPRI wrote: > *** Reply to note of 05/06/96 06:19 > From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. > Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page > Deiter: As a "victim" of the nuclear power industry (I say that because I > have spent almost 20 years working for power companies, and have NO future > to look forward to in that realm) I do have the following observation to > make about "Nature". You NAME the radical, Anti-nuclear power "quack" and > they get their vitrol published in "Nature" without a bat of an eyelash. > - > For this reason I have considered "Nature" a tawdry, snitty, BIASED, and > WORTHLESS rag for years. That's funny: as an anti-nuclear power "quack", as you put it, I am distressed by both New Scientist and Nature's let's-be-sensible pro-nuclear stance. Looks as if they might have the right balance. As with Amnesty International, which is accused variously of being a communist tool and/or right-wing imperialist lackey. > - > If you want to see TRUE , OBJECTIVE, work I suggest journals like the ASME > Power Journal, the IEEE Spectrum, etc. And I would quite agree with you > Deiter, a detailed paper in (for example) an ASME Journal on the Patterson > Power Cell would hold considerable wieght. No argument with these, good journals. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 7 09:33:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA12687; Tue, 7 May 1996 09:23:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 09:23:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Todd Heywood To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > Since you make a hobby of investigating this sort of thing Jed I'd be > interested in hearing about your interpretation of the events surrounding= the > discovery that a large number of stomach ulcers are caused by a strain of > slow acting bacteria. This condition can be treated with a simple course = of > anti-biotics and completely cured in a few weeks. This discovery was init= ially > made over 12 years ago but is only now accepted by the Medical community.= In > the meantime Glaxco became the world's largest and most profitable drug > company on the back of a product that supresses the production of stomach > acids. This treatment contained the symptoms of the disease as long as th= e > drug was used. As soon as its use was discontinued the symptoms returned.= What > a perfect way to make money! One has to wonder why the simpler, cheaper > and far more effective treatment was kept in the dark for so long. >=20 > Martin Sevior In response to both this and Jed's message regarding Nature/Maddox: I've been surprised that not many people in the US seem to be aware of the "memory of water" fiasco that Nature/Maddox were embroiled in about the same time as the cold fusion thing was going on. Here is a short review of a book on this, which seems to only be available in Europe (a friend sent it to me after I got "never heard of it" from a number of US publishers). There=20 was also a TV show I saw when I was living in the UK a couple of years ago, called "Heretics", profiling Benveniste, Ruper Sheldrake, Linus Pauling, Eric Laithwaite (for gyroscope work), etc. Maddox was interviewed a few times on this, and I remember thinking, "what arrogance". [My comments in brackets] Book review by Brian Josephson published originally in the Times Higher Education Supplement, issue of Dec. 15th. 1995. (c) Times Supplements 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= - THE MEMORY OF WATER BY MICHEL SCHIFF Thorsons/HarperCollins, 166 pp, =A314.99 ISBN 0 7225 3262 8 Published 23 October 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Deserving the appellation "devastating critique" is Michel Schiff's "The Memory of Water: Homeopathy and the Battle of Ideas in the New Science". Technical in places but in general explained in such a way as to be accessible to the general reader, it details the struggles that new ideas in science have had and are still having to get a hearing, faced as they are with the variety of means, normally used in an unexceptionable manner, that editors, referees and review panels, and so on have at their disposal to prevent work that they consider unsatisfactory from being published or funded. The general directions of the author's critique may be indicated by a selection of his headings: "it is impossible _a priori_, hence it never happened", "debunking as a substitute for scientific arguments", "censorship as part of the normal scientific process", "mock attempts to duplicate an experiment", and "A scientific exploration gets paralysed by the burden of proof". As a historical example, Schiff cites the case of the Hungarian obstetrician Ignazius Semmelweis, who 20 years before the discovery of bacteria by Pasteur showed that deaths from puerperal fever could be reduced if the doctors were to wash their hands with antiseptic before attending their patients and was ridiculed for his proposals, and as a current parallel the suppression of evidence gained by Schiff's colleague Jacques Benveniste that particular kinds of saline solution might have adverse effects on patients in whom it was injected. Much of the discussion relates to Benveniste's work on homeopathy and the "memory of water", which expressions, the author observes in his introduction, are "capable of turning a peaceful and intelligent person into a violently irrational one". Benveniste's _in vitro_ experiments on homeopathically prepared samples met with a hostile response from _Nature_ and its referees when he submitted the work for publication there, but since they could not point to any errors in it the Editor eventually agreed to publication under the curious condition that _after_ publication Benveniste would allow a team of investigators to carry out investigations at his laboratory. Schiff lists a number of errors that he claims are present in the published investigators' report, as also in published reports of failure to confirm the Benveniste results by other scientists. Publication of a _successful_ replication by Benveniste was refused on the basis of a referee's report which, according to Schiff, contained elementary mistakes such as confusing error and variance (i.e. error squared). [Note that the "team of investigators" consisted of Maddox (a journalist), James Randi (a magician), and a "fraud expert" whose name escapes me at the moment, but who was a referee who adamantly opposed publication of the paper. Hardly an objective group.] From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 7 09:35:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA12843; Tue, 7 May 1996 09:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 09:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 05/07/96 03:29 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page Martin S. Yes, the ulcer/bacteria connection is a prima facia example of "challanging the paradigm". It was an Australian Doctor (MD) who proposed the mechanism and did the research 12 years ago. He eventually had to do the "ultimate" in testing on the medical realm, I.e. infecting himself and curring himself. Just for general grins and laughs, after all those millions of $$$$ spent on the various "symptom" treaters, turns out the bacteria can be mitigated (if caught early) by ingestion of certain Bismuth compounds. I wonder how you do that (Pepto-BIS-mol).... - But the whole episode is a HUMBLING example of "rigid" thinking, among the EDUCATED and "elite" in a alledged scientific discipline. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 7 16:57:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA03188; Tue, 7 May 1996 16:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 16:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: CF metal candidates X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >A superficial examination of metals purported to function (reasonably) >well in CF cells yields the interesting observation, that many of them >have a high percentage (natural abundance) of even numbered isotopes >(i.e. are bosons). >This is true of Pd, Ni, Ti, and also of Fe, Cr, and Zn. So that I am >led to suspect that these latter three may also perform reasonably >well. However Co, Mn, Cu, V all have odd numbered isotopes, and one >doesn't hear anything about them (please correct me if I'm wrong in >this). So do Au and Al, so perhaps these 2 don't work so well. >Does this mean that Bose-condensates can form, from different bosons >(e.g. D + Pd)? Is this possibly a factor in CF? >If the above is indeed a factor, then I suspect that it is only a >facilitating factor, rather than a mandatory one. >Reason: Mills type experiments where fusion appears to take place with >K or Rb (both odd), and Patterson type experiments with H (also odd). >The output power of the Powergen cell, cannot be explained if only the >D in natural water is fusing (even if the Li6 reaction with D is >assumed). >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* I don't understand how bosons got tied to Bose condensates. Bose condensates clearly can incorporate electrons, which are fermions (spin 1/2). Is there some backgound info available about the relationship of bosons to Bose condensates? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 7 23:41:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA21259; Tue, 7 May 1996 23:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 23:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: CF metal candidates X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 05/07/96 16:56 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: CF metal candidates Horace: You need to chase after the CF theory of Chubb and Chubb. Good theory actually. Essentially they say that the mechanism of CF is to form a "Bose Condensate" of 4 D atoms at the same time... If I get to it I'll Xerox some of their papers and send them to you. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 00:47:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA04368; Wed, 8 May 1996 00:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 00:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31905e62.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Peter Glueck" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Claytor paper X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: For Dieter: The article of T. Claytor and colleagues shown on the Web page was actually published in a journal; it is New Energy Journal vol 1, no. 1 pp 111-118. This journal is edited by the Fusion Information Center, Utah, editor Hal Fox. The respectability of the journal is attested -inter alia- by the fact that it was it is peer reviewed and was found suitable for abstracting and indexing in Chemical Abstracts. The article per se is perfectly convincing and there are no real reasons to be refused by Nature, Science or any other scientific journal. Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 02:38:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA14677; Wed, 8 May 1996 02:23:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 02:23:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 7 May 1996, MHUGO@EPRI wrote: > *** Reply to note of 05/07/96 03:29 > From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. > Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page > Martin S. Yes, the ulcer/bacteria connection is a prima facia example > of "challanging the paradigm". It was an Australian Doctor (MD) who proposed > the mechanism and did the research 12 years ago. He eventually had to do > the "ultimate" in testing on the medical realm, I.e. infecting himself > and curring himself. Just for general grins and laughs, after all those > millions of $$$$ spent on the various "symptom" treaters, turns out > the bacteria can be mitigated (if caught early) by ingestion of certain > Bismuth compounds. I wonder how you do that (Pepto-BIS-mol).... > - > But the whole episode is a HUMBLING example of "rigid" thinking, among > the EDUCATED and "elite" in a alledged scientific discipline. MDH This is an interesting thread and not totally off-topic. My friend and mentor, HH Bauer, has published a fair amount on what he calls scientists' resistance to new ideas. This is almost inevitable. Bauer invented the idea of the filter, a funnel-shaped thing knowledge goes into. At the wide top is frontier science, findings and theories, as yet controversial. As you go down, a lot drops out, having been examined and rejected; right at the bottom is received wisdom, the stuff you find in text books, about which there is not much doubt. Occasionally there is an upheaval and received wisdom gets a kick in the rear; but this does not happen lightly. Sure, Nature's treatment of Benveniste is shameful. It is, however, too large a jump to use such examples as proof that scientists know nothing, or have absolutely closed minds. Generally, they know a lot and will - often after a struggle - accept new ideas and evidence. The struggle is hardest in those areas where they are quite certain. For example, that liquids have no long range structure and thus no memory; or the laws of thermodynamics. Benveniste was indeed treated badly; I thought so at the time. I thought that his paper should have been rejected outright, instead of what was done, which cost him his job eventually. The same is happening to Duisberg, who has a maverick - and probably wrong - theory about AIDS. Radical theories or proposals require hard work. One of my favourite authors, SJ Gould, makes a point of pointing out that Wegener (who first proposed continental drift) was rejected partly because at the time he did not have enough real evidence. There must have been a lot of geologists willing to entertain the idea, but as scientists they needed evidence. It came later, and "plate tectonics" is now orthodoxy. If we get hard evidence of "cold fusion", this too will become orthodoxy. Enthusiasts like to say that we have that hard evidence, but scientists so far disagree. There are always enthusiasts. They were there supporting Velikovsky (who was also treated shamefully), they supported "Deryagin water" or polywater, they support homeopathy (I would love to read Mark Twain's writing on this, if he were still alive!), astrology, you name it. They are always sure that there is enough hard evidence. When an editor receives a manuscript that makes a preposterous claim, even though the evidence seems OK, he/she has to make a hard choice. This could be breakthrough time; most likely, it's just another crank. If the MS is rejected and later found to be a breakthrough, the editor has egg on his/her face. I believe this happened with HTSC. The choice is, however, the editor's, and I believe that mostly they act correctly - yes, including the much reviled Maddox, and Koshland (both now retired from their positions). I have evidence that Nature now might take a slightly softer line. I can't go into details. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 03:05:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA17045; Wed, 8 May 1996 02:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 02:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor paper X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 8 May 1996, Peter Glueck wrote: > For Dieter: > The article of T. Claytor and colleagues shown on the Web page was > actually published in a journal; it is New Energy Journal vol 1, > no. 1 pp 111-118. > This journal is edited by the Fusion Information Center, Utah, editor > Hal Fox. The respectability of the journal is attested -inter alia- > by the fact that it was it is peer reviewed and was found suitable > for abstracting and indexing in Chemical Abstracts. > The article per se is perfectly convincing and there are no real > reasons to be refused by Nature, Science or any other scientific > journal. I'm sorry, Peter, but we will, as so often, have to agree to disagree. I must play the part of the closed-mind scientist refusing to see The Light, I'm afraid. Hal Fox is not, as far as I know, a scientist, and that journal is an outlet for enthusiasts. I find it hard to believe in his refereeing. Has anything been rejected? Yes, CA now abstracts from such "journals". I have objected to this, after seeing a number of abstracts from "Cold Fusion", which is not a scientific journal either in my opinion. Well, CA disagrees with me. I take this as contamination of the professional chemical literature with enthusiasts' output, a pity. Feel free to revile me for my attitude here. What I say does not of course apply to individual articles; Claytor's may well be OK. I have no way to find out because I could not possibly persuade our library to subscribe to such blatts as New Energy, or Infinite ditto, etc, and I certainly can't afford personal subs. Claytor should publish in, e.g. Fusion Technology or Physics Letters A. Maybe I will write to him after all and tell him that. OK, Rothwell? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 04:46:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA25719; Wed, 8 May 1996 04:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 04:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: CF metal candidates X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >*** Reply to note of 05/07/96 16:56 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Re: CF metal candidates >Horace: You need to chase after the CF theory of Chubb and Chubb. Good >theory actually. Essentially they say that the mechanism of CF is to form >a "Bose Condensate" of 4 D atoms at the same time... If I get to it >I'll Xerox some of their papers and send them to you. Thanks a million. The Chubb and Chubb theory was way before my time as a lurker in s.p.f, but I've seen a number a references to it, but never found it. It's remained just another of many "lose ends" for me. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 05:23:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA29016; Wed, 8 May 1996 05:03:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 05:03:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor paper X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >For Dieter: >The article of T. Claytor and colleagues shown on the Web page was >actually published in a journal; it is New Energy Journal vol 1, >no. 1 pp 111-118. [snip] >dr. Peter Gluck > Oops! I just posted it in it's entirety in s.p.f. Oh well, there was no copyright on it from where I got it at: . Thank you Richard Thomas Murray for posting the html here. This is a really interresting article. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 05:24:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA29096; Wed, 8 May 1996 05:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 05:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31909aa8.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Peter Glueck" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Claytor paper. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dieter, I agree to disagree but it is now the case to limit the discussion to the Claytor et al paper which appears to be correct beyond any doubt. Please write him and read the paper in extenso. And let us know if you find some possible error. Best regards, Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 06:05:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA06276; Wed, 8 May 1996 05:54:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 05:54:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960508123923_72240.1256_EHB109-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Hal Fox is a chemist X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Dieter Britz writes: "Hal Fox is not, as far as I know, a scientist, and that journal is an outlet for enthusiasts." . . . and later: "What I say does not of course apply to individual articles; Claytor's may well be OK. I have no way to find out because I could not possibly persuade our library to subscribe to such blatts as New Energy, or Infinite ditto, etc, and I certainly can't afford personal subs." Hal Fox is indeed a scientist, with a PhD in chemistry I believe. Dieter's statements are contradictory and hypocritical. First he claims the journal is an outlet for enthusiasts, then a moment later he says he *has not seen the journal*. You cannot judge something you have not seen. Cold fusion is controversial. Mainstream journals do not print scientific information about it. Occasionally, Nature or New Scientist will print an outrageous attack on it, or some absurdly biased statement. If you want to find out about the field, you have no choice: you must subscribe to one or more of the journals published by Mallove and Fox. There are no other sources of timely information. Dieter should not complain about the cost because the publishers lose money, even though they work on a shoestring. (They are subsidized by several people including Akira Kawasaki and me.) The publishers put more into these journals than the readers do. These journals are, in effect, a public service. I think Dieter probably could afford the $50 per year foreign subscription rate for Infinite Energy. If he chooses not to read it -- fine. But in that case he has no business having an opinion about it, and he should not comment on it or call it a "blatt" (whatever that is). - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 07:11:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA17206; Wed, 8 May 1996 06:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 06:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960508131916_72240.1256_EHB53-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Evidence for continental drift X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex This subject has drifted along with the continents, but I must comment on this statement from Dieter Britz: "Radical theories or proposals require hard work. One of my favourite authors, SJ Gould, makes a point of pointing out that Wegener (who first proposed continental drift) was rejected partly because at the time he did not have enough real evidence. There must have been a lot of geologists willing to entertain the idea, but as scientists they needed evidence. It came later, and 'plate tectonics' is now orthodoxy." Good grief! Look at a map! The continents fit together. The evidence for continental drift has been staring us in the face since the mid-1500s, when reasonably complete world maps were published. Evolution, fossils, and geology added mountains more evidence for continental drift. (Literally mountains.) Plate tectonics merely provided the theoretical underpinning to a fact that is so obvious, countless schoolchildren with scissors discovered it over the centuries. Of course, Wegener did much more than cut out and fit shapes together. The scientists who rejected continental drift had no intellectual or scientific justification for doing so any more that Jefferson was justified in rejecting out of hand reports of meteorites. They rejected it because they could not think of a mechanism; because the idea seemed strange; and because there is an ancient Western tradition of placing the immobile earth in the center of the universe, which still affects our thinking subconsciously. The fact that you cannot think of a mechanism is NEVER justification for rejecting an observation or theory. You would have to reject all of biology if it was, from snail breeding behavior to human intelligence. Radical theories should not require one joule more hard work than conventional theories. All that any theory ever requires is convincing proof. All theories: new, old, conventional or otherwise, should be held to the same rigorous standards of proof. Too often scientists hang on to old theories long after they are disproved. People have a lax, double standard for accepted theories. The rule seems to be: "if it is already in the textbook, don't bother testing it." That is why many textbooks are filled with sloppy mistakes. I am a big fan of S. J. Gould too, but he missed the boat on this one. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 07:13:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA17263; Wed, 8 May 1996 06:55:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 06:55:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Todd Heywood To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > Sure, Nature's treatment of Benveniste is shameful. It is, however, too large > a jump to use such examples as proof that scientists know nothing, or have > absolutely closed minds. Generally, they know a lot and will - often after a > struggle - accept new ideas and evidence. The struggle is hardest in those > areas where they are quite certain. For example, that liquids have no long > range structure and thus no memory; or the laws of thermodynamics. Benveniste > was indeed treated badly; I thought so at the time. I thought that his paper > should have been rejected outright, instead of what was done, which cost him > his job eventually. The same is happening to Duisberg, who has a maverick - > and probably wrong - theory about AIDS. Could you explain why you think the paper should have been rejected outright? The implication is that you think there are certain subjects (perhaps in combination with certain journals?) where papers should be rejected without consideration of their merits, technically. I don't think that's what you meant. Benveniste was highly respected before this episode, and if you look at his memory of water work in entirety, it looks very professional (large numbers of double blind experiments, e.g.). Todd Heywood From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 08:25:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA02755; Wed, 8 May 1996 08:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 08:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Hal Fox is a chemist X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 05/08/96 06:05 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Hal Fox is a chemist Hal's Phd is in Aeronautical Engineering. He worked for one of the primary "defense" contractors until he retired in the mid-80's. - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 08:25:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA02855; Wed, 8 May 1996 08:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 08:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hal Fox is a chemist X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 8 May 1996, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Hal Fox is indeed a scientist, with a PhD in chemistry I believe. Dieter's > statements are contradictory and hypocritical. First he claims the journal is > an outlet for enthusiasts, then a moment later he says he *has not seen the > journal*. You cannot judge something you have not seen. OK: Touche! But I'm not hypocritical, thank you. > Cold fusion is controversial. Mainstream journals do not print scientific Ah, but they do. Not all of them. [...] > of timely information. Dieter should not complain about the cost because the > publishers lose money, even though they work on a shoestring. (They are I wasn't complaining, actually, just saying that I can't do it. Lots of things I'd like to spend money on, but things are tight here. I propose we drop this; I don't think we can even agree to disagree and it would be only a boring mudsling for the others. Cease-fire, please? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 08:39:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA03001; Wed, 8 May 1996 08:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 08:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 8 May 1996, Todd Heywood wrote: (On the subject of Nature's treatment of Benveniste) [...] > Could you explain why you think the paper should have been rejected > outright? The implication is that you think there are certain subjects > (perhaps in combination with certain journals?) where papers should > be rejected without consideration of their merits, technically. I don't > think that's what you meant. > > Benveniste was highly respected before this episode, and if you look > at his memory of water work in entirety, it looks very professional > (large numbers of double blind experiments, e.g.). There are two kinds of answer to this. The mealymouthed one is that Nature clearly decided that this was nonsense, but instead of rejecting it - the correct course in such a case - they printed it, along with an editorial disclaimer and then went and investigated, and subsequently ruined, the man. The other answer is hard to defend but I give it anyway. Some things you just won't entertain - what that is varies from person to person. E.g. many journals refuse to entertain perpetual motion machines. So if they get a MS describing one, even if it all looks impeccable, the attitude will be, we just haven't been able to find the error. Ditto for memory in water or, if you like, the theory behind homeopathy. Water is a liquid without long-range or persistent short-range structure, so there had to be an error. I too, as an editor, would have rejected it, despite the interesting evidence. Sorry folks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 21:18:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA00872; Wed, 8 May 1996 21:11:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 21:11:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960508180639_72240.1256_EHB35-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Heliobacter / IFNE tapes / Benveniste X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Someone asked me if I have any info on the heliobacter causing gastric ulcers. I do not have much. There was an excellent article about this years ago in the New Yorker magazine, but alas I did not keep it. Gene Mallove sent me audio tapes of some of the presentations at the recent IFNE conference. I am transcribing them for the magazine. I will post summaries here later on. Probably not this week because I am busy with various Exceedingly Annoying Personal Matters, to wit: a computer that gave up the ghost, spring cleaning, house painting, and to top it off the IRS contacted me last week and said I owe them $5,000 more than I think I do. It looks like they have my returns mixed up with someone else's. Thank goodness it isn't Bill Gates. It makes you wonder what other mistakes they make. One thing I would like to note about these tapes is that Cravens said he does not think that a replication of the Patterson beads on a ceramic or glass substrate will not work. Regarding Benveniste, I believe there is a communications gap here between Dieter and many of the rest of us. Dieter writes (reversing the order): "The other answer is hard to defend but I give it anyway. Some things you just won't entertain - what that is varies from person to person. E.g. many journals refuse to entertain perpetual motion machines. So if they get a MS describing one, even if it all looks impeccable, the attitude will be, we just haven't been able to find the error. This is not hard to defend. If I was the publisher of Nature, I would never touch some scientific subjects even if the research appeared impeccable, because they are too charged with politics and emotion to be dealt with objectively. For example, I would never print a paper that showed clear evidence for a genetic basis for racial inferiority in IQ, sports, or war. I would not publish anything about ghosts. If someone came up with archeological evidence that a major religion was based on a fraud -- like for example, proof that Jesus Christ was not crucified, he escaped and lived to a ripe old age in secret -- I would not touch it. There are plenty of other places for things like that to be published. On the other hand, I would never reject a subject like perpetual motion machines just because it is wildly improbable. Nothing could be as improbable as the speculations about multiple universes and string theory, yet these speculations are all the rage in advanced physics. They do no harm as far as I can tell. No good, either, I guess. At least you can test a perpetual motion machine, whereas I doubt anyone will ever devise a test for string theory hypotheses. We all have our personal reasons for rejecting things, and there is never any harm in an editor rejecting or ignoring a paper. Dieter's first reason is the one I object to, and I think most of the readers of this forum would agree with me. He writes: The mealymouthed one is that Nature clearly decided that this was nonsense, but instead of rejecting it - the correct course in such a case - they printed it, along with an editorial disclaimer and then went and investigated, and subsequently ruined, the man. As I said, it is perfectly okay for Maddox to reject the article out of hand just because he thought it was nonsense. Rejecting things is his job, and he can do his job any way he likes. He can throw darts or flip coins to decide. It does not matter, because Benveniste could have found any number of other places to publish. The problem is, as Dieter says, "they went out and investigated, and subsequently ruined, the man." First, that is incorrect. They did not investigate anything. They carried out a farcical non-investigation with unqualified people, they fabricated garbage science that supposedly disproved the results, and they published it. Second, Maddox was the editor of a respected scientific journal, not a tabloid journalist or a daytime TV talk show host. Scientific journals have no business going around ruining people's scientific reputations. Perhaps such actions would be justified in the case of a scientist like David Baltimore, who got involved in deliberate fraud and a cover-up, or in the case of a research director who embezzles funds or rapes lab assistants, but nobody -- not even Maddox -- ever claimed that Benveniste was doing something unethical or illegal. The worst that anyone can say about him is that he may be incorrect or misguided. (I myself do not see any evidence that he is incorrect, but I do not know enough about chemistry to judge.) If Maddox is allowed to go around ruining the reputations of scientists who happen to be incorrect, that, by golly, *will be* the death of science. It is barbaric. It is a violation of scientific ethics and academic freedom to attack people just because they make mistakes. The matter must be left to Benveniste and whoever is funding him. It is NO BUSINESS of Maddox, or anyone else. He can express his editorial opinion of the research as much as he wants, but he must not lift a finger to interfere with Benveniste's academic freedom by holding kangaroo court "investigations." That is way over the line. He should never ridicule a reputable scientist like Benveniste. That is disgraceful behavior! It is grotesque! When did the rules of decorum and scientific ethics change? We expect ordinary people and newspaper editors to poke fun at science. Naturally, the New York Times editors ridiculed Goddard. Of course ordinary folks called Volta "the frog's dancing master." You would not expect the average newspaper editor to understand Newtonian physics or scientific decorum. I wouldn't anyway, and I know a lot of newspaper and TV people. But scientists are supposed to be above that sort of thing. They are supposed to observe a certain standard of professional behavior, just as doctors, computer programmers or automobile mechanics do in their respective spheres. A scientist who pokes fun at Benveniste is like a doctor who laughs at an amputee trying to walk. ("Look at you, stumbling around like an idiot. Give up! I can run rings around you!" -- a good Monty Python sketch), or an auto mechanic who says, "I don't care if your brakes failed an hour after I serviced them. Tough luck!" In a similar vein, no cold fusion scientist I know would object if New Scientist would confine itself to criticizing the work, or ignoring it. What we object to is when they publish such large distortions they are tantamount to lies, and when they refuse to apologize or explain their actions. That is way over the line into unethical behavior. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 21:18:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01112; Wed, 8 May 1996 21:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 21:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 05/08/96 08:38 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page Deiter---here's a good one for you... What is Zeta potential for a fluid, and what influences it, and what does it influence???? - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 21:19:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01017; Wed, 8 May 1996 21:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 21:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960508181729_72240.1256_EHB141-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: I meant not work X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I wrote a double negative. I meant to say: Cravens said he thinks a ceramic or glass substrate will NOT work. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 21:19:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01230; Wed, 8 May 1996 21:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 21:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3190F27B@ELAN.RDYNE.ROCKWELL.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Scudder, Henry J." To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Vtx: Space Shuttle and recombination X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I posted this a week ago, but it didn't appear on my input, so I'm sending it again. 4:18PM 5/1/96 The space shuttle uses H2 and O2 as fuels (very environmentally happy too, compared with those damn solid state rockets full of chlorine compounds, which get spewed out into the poor ozone layer). My employer, Rocketdyne, makes the main engines for the shuttle, and has done a lot of engineering in various areas of engine design over the years. One significant area is controlled ignition, to get the engines started. When I took their orientation course a couple of years ago, taught by various and sundry members of the engineering staff, one of the topics covered is the ignitor, where the H2 and O2 are mixed and started burning. Once started, the flame keeps going, but one of the nice things about the engine is that it can be used more then once, and can be restarted in flight. Currently, they use some sort of a super sparkplug I believe. One of the schemes for doing this ignition that has been tried is blue laser light. The O2 molecule dissociates when hit by photons with energies somewhere in the blue light region, about 440nm or so, I think (I'm doing this from memory) and the blue light LED's which are commercially available are close enough to this wavelength to cause this to happen with reasonable efficiency. The free O radicals which are produced combine happily with the H2 molecules, producing a flame starting the rocket engine. It would seem to be feasible to put blue LED's into the innards of a CF electrochemical cell, and gently cause continuous recombination of the electrolitic products as they are produced. If any of you are interested in trying this, let me know, and I'll try and dig up some details here at Rocketdyne. As a separate topic, I saw a posting today, where Fleischmann was said to be talking about servomechanisms and feedback control. Would someone please point me towards some specific papers where these are used in CF. - Hank Scudder From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 21:23:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01517; Wed, 8 May 1996 21:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 21:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960508223604_100433.1541_BHG72-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: A trot around the Vortex X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I've been very much off-line, replumbing the house - which now finally again has advanced features like a bath *and* floorboards in the bathroom. Sheer sybaritic luxury. Can I add one rather nice Maddox story? I forget the name, but a 1994(?) Nobelist in some bioscience (medicine?) tells the tale that he studied cosmology as an undergraduate. One night he got impossibly stoned, and wrote a gobbledegook paper - which for laughs he submitted to Nature. He was so appalled by its being published that he switched to molecular biology or something. I was comforted to read J J Thomson's scathing denunciation of cosmology - I thought it was just me. I was glad that I did eventually get some gentle flaming about the Graneaus. Thanks, I'll take a look at the comments. On continental drift, I made a bit of a study of the subject after reading the hilarious article in April 1966 [sic] Analog. (I presume that nobody here would regard Analog science articles as a joke - especially after those men in large boots turned up at that mag in early 1945 to make urgent enquiries about the atom bomb article.) Anyway, it was by a geologist (Robert Deitz), a then recent 'convert' to CD. It gave some lovely quotes from various outraged geologists at this dreadful heresy. But Jed implies that it was the discovery of a mechanism for CD which settled the matter. It was in fact settled by solid evidence that continents moved - specifically from plant fossils at latitudes where they could not have lived. Plate tectonics is just a prettier term - just as something else will probably replace the term CF. It is not a mechanism - the mechanism is still something of a puzzle, I think. And Dieter suggests that this was fairly reasoned and logical debate. In fact (oh dear, here we go again) Maddox once referred to the dispute in just such terms. It was no such thing. I saw the names of people fired from at least one US university for preaching this wickedness. It was a pretty ugly fight. I do hate the way the history of science gets rewritten. On the other hand, I do think that Dieter's comments on such matters as the Benveniste affair were very heartening to read. It wasn't Maddox's fault that he gained so much power and influence, or that power is always a corrupting influence on the best of men. The real fault lies, I feel, with the (inevitable, I suppose) reliance the average jobbing scientist puts in the *opinions* of a select few respected persons. I find it a useful rule (especially with politicians, but it may be true of some scientists) that when you see the irises of their eyes start to spin, it would be best to get rid of them. Thatcher comes to mind as a prime example. Mitchell asks if I've personally done any Pd/D work. No surprises here - no, I haven't. My science background is reasonable, but my experimental work has mostly been with electrical systems - I moved into computing after university. So, am I permitted to criticise the behaviour of CF scientists? Yes, I think I am. A political journalist can criticise a head of state without having had that job. The guy in his singlet on a couch, with his remote control and six-pack can (and does) comment on the performance of the football players. Similarly, I feel that I've studied this field for enough years to have developed informed opinions on the main players - and if others dislike this, they don't have to read what I write. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 21:26:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01659; Wed, 8 May 1996 21:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 21:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: magnetron steam engine? (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 03:42:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Tim Chandler Reply-To: freenrg-l@eskimo.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: magnetron steam engine? At 04:13 AM 5/6/96 -0700, Stefan Hartmann wrote: >How long did the batteries last, that powered the magnetron ? > >Did you use the car batteries for powering it ? >So was the car battery also charged again via the car generator ? Hi Stefan, As I mentioned prior, our experiemnt was alittle different. It was basically the same theory at work, but we used different means to arrive at the end result. Rather than using a battery, we took the time to modify the existing ignition coil setup on the engine, in order that it would properly trigger/fire the magnetron. For our first few runs we did however use an external power supply to power the filiment heater on the magnetron (approx. 3VAC), but eventually that too was supplied by the ignition system. So we really had no battery, to go dead, the power was generated and used... I personally did not handle the major modifications to the ignition system, and I do not recall exactly what they were. I have however skoke with the guy who did redesign it, he said he would draw up a schematic and send it to me when he finishes up with his finals (which are all this week). Once I get the schematic I will post it to the list. Thanks, Tim o------------------------------------oo---------------------------------o | Timothy A. Chandler || M.S.Physics/B.S.Chemistry | o------------------------------------oo---------------------------------o | NASA-Langley Research Center || George Mason University | | Department of Energy || Department of Physics | | FRT/Alpha - NASALaRC/DOE JRD/OPM || Department of Chemistry | | CHOCT FR Designation #82749156/MG09|| OPC-EFC | o------------------------------------oo---------------------------------o | Private Email Address: tchand@slip.net | o-----------------------------------------------------------------------o From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 8 21:27:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01801; Wed, 8 May 1996 21:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 21:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: symptoms of pathological skepticism X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I thought those who haven't seen this one before might enjoy it. ************************************************************************ SYMPTOMS OF PATHOLOGICAL SKEPTICISM (c)1996 William J. Beaty ************************************************************************ http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wclose.html 1. Belief that theories determine phenomena, rather than the reverse. "The phenomenon you claim to observe is impossible, crazy stuff. We know of no mechanism which could explain your results, so obviously they are caused by errors or self-delusion. We need not publish your paper, and any attempts at replicating your results would be a waste of time." 2. Constant altering of requirements for proof. Moving the goalposts. "I'll believe it when 'X' happens" (but when it does, this immediately becomes "I'll believe it when 'Y' happens.") 3. Ignoring the lessons of history. "Scientists of old ridiculed the germ theory, space flight, meteors, etc. Isn't it good that the researchers of today are much more wise, and such things can no longer happen?" 4. *Denial* of the lessons of history. Belief that good ideas are never supressed, then altering history to fit this belief. "Throughout history, scientists *never* ridiculed flying machines, spacecraft, continental drift, reports of ball lightning, meteors, sonoluminsecence, etc." 5. Excusing the ridicule and suppression of new ideas as a desirable natural selection force. "It is right that new discoveries be made to overcome large barriers. That way only the good ideas will become accepted." 6. Excusing closemindedness with claims of a "slippery slope." "If we take one bizarre claim seriously, we'll have to accept them all, and we'll waste all of our time checking out crackpot claims." 7. Blindness to phenomena which do not fit the current belief system, coupled with denial that beliefs affect perceptions. "Geologists have never seen any good evidence for this so-called 'continental drift.' Therefor it is safe to say that continents don't slide around the earth's surface." 8. Belief that all scientific progress is made by small, safe, obvious steps, and that no new discoveries come from anomalies observed. "All those observations are obviously mistakes, because if they were real, we would have to rewrite large portions of we know about physics." 9. Belief that the unknown is in the far distance, not staring us in the face. "This cannot be true because it's not possible that thousands of researchers have overlooked it for all these years. If it were true we would already know about it." 10. Hiding evidence of personal past ridicule of ideas which are later proved valid. " 'X' is obviously ridiculous, and it's supporters are crack- pots who are giving us a bad name and should be silenced." Without warning this becomes "since 'X' is obviously true, it follows that..." 11. Belief that fundamental concepts in science do not change, coupled with a "herd following" behavior where the individual changes his/her opinions when colleagues all do, all the while remaining blind to the fact that opinions ever changed. "The study of Ball Lightning has always been a legitimate pursuit, and if anyone ever ridiculed reports of BL, it must have happened in the distant past." 12. Belief in the perfection of modern science, with consequent blindness to, and denial of, its faults. A tendency to view the failings of modern science as being benefits, and a lack of any desire to fix the problems. "It was right that Wegner was treated as a crackpot and ignored. His evidence for continental drift was not convincing, and he did not propose a mechanism to explain the phenomena." 13. Blind to the existence of any of the above symptoms in self or peers. Sees all of the above as isolated instances which do not comprise an accumulation of evidence, and don't indicate a trend. ....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 9 06:00:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA16918; Thu, 9 May 1996 05:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 05:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605090435.VAA19621@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Evidence for continental drift X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:55 AM 5/8/96 -0700, you wrote: >To: Vortex > >This subject has drifted along with the continents, but I must comment on this >statement from Dieter Britz: > > "Radical theories or proposals require hard work. One of my favourite > authors, SJ Gould, makes a point of pointing out that Wegener (who first > proposed continental drift) was rejected partly because at the time he > did not have enough real evidence. There must have been a lot of > geologists willing to entertain the idea, but as scientists they needed > evidence. It came later, and 'plate tectonics' is now orthodoxy." > >Good grief! big snip >Radical theories should not require one joule more hard work than conventional >theories. All that any theory ever requires is convincing proof. All theories: >new, old, conventional or otherwise, should be held to the same rigorous >standards of proof. Too often scientists hang on to old theories long after >they are disproved. People have a lax, double standard for accepted theories. >The rule seems to be: "if it is already in the textbook, don't bother testing >it." That is why many textbooks are filled with sloppy mistakes. > >I am a big fan of S. J. Gould too, but he missed the boat on this one. > >- Jed > Thank you for setting the record straight on this score once again. Considering my achive of the past 15 months, it is not going to be much longer before a book could be published out of Dieter's and Jed's discussions on this and closely related points. This may be tongue in cheek, but it is not a sarcastic reflection. Between the two there are such clear pro and con statements, written generally quite well. Their correspondance could make up the assigned reading of an entire course on the nature of the scientific quest in attempting to find truth. BTW, Dieter, I am developing a paradigm which I am calling "gravity tectonics". It takes plate tectonics to the next level of synthesis, one which is patently obvious, in the sense that Jed mentions it, but which is totally beyond the grasp of the specialists in academia because they won't go beyond the textbooks to confront the existing contradictions inherent in plate tectonics, one of the biggest of which is THE TOTAL LACK OF A MECHANISM, which HAS NEVER BEEN RESOLVED BECAUSE THERE IS NO PARADIGM FOR IT. At the core of earth sciences today is a bunch of fairy tales stated as hypotheses in complex jargon which totally masquerade the fact that we don't have the slightest idea of why and how the surface of the earth moves. My work on this will be considered crank by the mainstreamers, for a while, and the irony is, I AM THE SCEPTIC and the mainstreamers are the cranks. Physicists and chemists will love my paradigm because it can be proven or disproven, unlike many of the fairy tales in earth sciences today. Which is why I am mentioning it to you. It will be several months, however, before I am going to be willing to present the initial outline. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 9 06:05:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA17555; Thu, 9 May 1996 06:00:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 06:00:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9605090613.AA19888@ arnold.math.ucla.edu.ucsd.edu > Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: barry@math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: symptoms of pathological skepticism X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Bill Beatty gave the following ``symptoms of pathological skepticism'' (abbreviated here): 1. Belief that theories determine phenomena, rather than the reverse. 2. Constant altering of requirements for proof. 3. Ignoring the lessons of history. 4. Belief that good ideas are never supressed 5. Excusing the ridicule and suppression of new ideas as desirable 6. Excusing closemindedness with claims of a "slippery slope." 7. Blindness to phenomena which do not fit the current belief system 8. Belief that all scientific progress is made by small, safe,steps, 9. Belief that the unknown is in the far distance 10. Hiding evidence of past ridicule of ideas which are later proven 11. Belief that fundamental concepts in science do not change 12. Belief in the perfection of modern science 13. Blind to the existence of the above symptoms in self/peers. The main problem with this list of ``pathologies'' is that the vast majority of the time they (well, most of them) are practically *correct*. So its a bit unfair call them ``pathologies''. The only reason people would tend to fall into such beliefs is precisely because they do generally reflect the way things are. Its more like they are practical truths, but one shouldn't forget exceptions can and do occur. For example, I basically never worry about being hit by a meteorite. If you asked, I would go so far as to say I won't be hit by a meteorite. Is that a pathological belief? After all, there are (very rare) people who have been hit by meteorites, and it seems as though meteorites (comets) may have even caused massive extinctions in the past. So sure, it would be erroneous to say that meters *never* pose *any* risk to *anyone*. But does that mean now that my first inclination should be to worry about being hit by one? So one needs to consider which is the better approximation to truth---i.e., for day to day living, what should be ones first approach to things. I'd say that would be the affirmation of the above statements---that will land you *closer* to reality than the strong denial of these principles. One simply should not elevate them to strong absolutes. They are simply what is usually the case. Obviously, if one is focused on precisely those rare cases where the above principles get one into trouble, then they seem extremely bad. But I would suggest that if one strongly denies these principles, one can end up in equally bad shape---for example, spending ones time and effort re-investigating Joe Newmans motor, out of the belief that viable free energy devices abound and have simply been ignored and suppresed by the scientific establishment. Speaking for myself, as a working scientist, I would *love* new phenomena. If I could have my way, all the old stuff would be overturned and there would be many radically new phenomena to investigate. I'd much prefer that CF ``work'' and we could chuck hot fusion. Hot fusion is hard. I think for many working scientists, the issues 1--13 above are not the governing factors. I think a better guess is not that we are pathologically closeminded, but rather we are pathologically busy and simply we ignore many things. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 9 06:05:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA17828; Thu, 9 May 1996 06:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 06:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Heliobacter / IFNE tapes / Benveniste X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 8 May 1996, Jed Rothwell wrote: [...] > Regarding Benveniste, I believe there is a communications gap here between > Dieter and many of the rest of us. Dieter writes (reversing the order): [...] > The mealymouthed one is that Nature clearly decided that this was > nonsense, but instead of rejecting it - the correct course in such a > case - they printed it, along with an editorial disclaimer and then went > and investigated, and subsequently ruined, the man. > > As I said, it is perfectly okay for Maddox to reject the article out of hand > just because he thought it was nonsense. Rejecting things is his job, and he > can do his job any way he likes. He can throw darts or flip coins to decide. So far, so good... > It does not matter, because Benveniste could have found any number of other > places to publish. The problem is, as Dieter says, "they went out and > investigated, and subsequently ruined, the man." First, that is incorrect. [...] Rothwell then goes on to say that Maddox did a bad thing there. I don't see where we disagree in this, because this is what I was saying. I am saying that Maddox should have simply rejected the paper, and he should not have done what he did do with it. I think that means we agree - no matter whether you define the action as an investigation or whatever. My god, we may have found a point of commonality here. As I say, however, Maddox is past history now, let's see what the new bloke does. As a PS, I checked Maddox's editorial of March 17, 1994 (p.185) where he goes on about antiscience. He does indeed go over the line when he writes that "... it may not be long before the practice of religion must be regarded as anti-science". This has to be taken in context; Maddox did not take a noticable antireligious stance, but he was here talking generally about such stuff as creation "science" and astrology. Sure, he was (and presumably is) hard headed. He got a heap of letters for this sentence. What I noted - and this connects with what I think Mark Hugo wrote - in the piece was that he also wrote "Similar problems arise with nuclear power and genetics; the pressure groups draw attention to many problems that need to be resolved, but then frighten the rest of the world into believing ... catastrophe..." If I read this correctly, he is here having a go at people like me, who don't like nuclear power and genetic engineering; the reverse of what Mark thought he stood for. If it was Mark who wrote that. I'd better stop wasting time and go and write that letter to Claytor {:] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 9 06:07:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA18058; Thu, 9 May 1996 06:03:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 06:03:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Claytor LANL CF+tritium web page X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 8 May 1996, MHUGO@EPRI wrote: > Deiter---here's a good one for you... What is Zeta potential for a > fluid, and what influences it, and what does it influence???? I checked good old Glasstone & Lewis "Elements of Physical Chemistry" which gives the equation for zeta. You need charged particles (e.g. ions) in the fluid, and a charged double layer at a surface. An applied potential will then cause acceleration of the fluid. So what influences it is the concentration of charged particles and the potential; also the fluid's viscosity and dielectric constant. Why do you ask? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 9 06:11:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA18315; Thu, 9 May 1996 06:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 06:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: [Jed Rothwell: Mizuno paper] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This is interesting. Where has it been submitted, so I can keep an eye out for the paper, instead of waiting for Chem. or Phys. Abstr. to tell me? Unambiguous evidence for isotopic distribution changes has not so far been shown, although some (like Rolison) have come close. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 9 06:13:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA18651; Thu, 9 May 1996 06:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 06:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: A trot around the Vortex X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 8 May 1996, Chris Tinsley wrote: > And Dieter suggests that this was fairly reasoned and logical debate. In > fact (oh dear, here we go again) Maddox once referred to the dispute in > just such terms. It was no such thing. I saw the names of people fired > from at least one US university for preaching this wickedness. It was a > pretty ugly fight. > > I do hate the way the history of science gets rewritten. {Note: I have taken the liberty to reformat Tinsley's text because his lines were a bit too long. Could you use shorter lines, please?} I suggested no such thing. I was only describing states. The state in Wegener's time, when he was not believed; and the state we're in now, where it's orthodoxy. No such great upheaval comes easily; scales do not fall from eyes wholesale and spontaneously. The Koran writes that when unbelievers (or wrong believers) hear about Allah, tears will enter their eyes because of the obvious truth in the message (I am paraphrasing from memory) - but things do not work that way, neither in religion nor in science. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 9 06:16:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA19480; Thu, 9 May 1996 06:12:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 06:12:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960509083809.5997ab02@world.std.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mitchell Swartz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Hal Fox is a chemist - not X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 05:54 AM 5/8/96 -0700, Jed wrote: >Dieter Britz writes: > > "Hal Fox is not, as far as I know, a scientist, and that journal is an > outlet for enthusiasts." > >. . . and later: > > "What I say does not of course apply to individual articles; Claytor's > may well be OK. I have no way to find out because I could not possibly > persuade our library to subscribe to such blatts as New Energy, or > Infinite ditto, etc, and I certainly can't afford personal subs." > >Hal Fox is indeed a scientist, with a PhD in chemistry I believe. Dieter's >statements are contradictory and hypocritical. First he claims the journal is >an outlet for enthusiasts, then a moment later he says he *has not seen the >journal*. You cannot judge something you have not seen. > This is not true. Hal does not have a PhD in chemistry. He is a computer scientist with background in fluid dynamics, energy systems, missle systems, and system design; and earned a BS in physics and math, and an MBA. Although his resume is extensive, and Hal is a nationally recognized expert on developments in the field of cold fusion, it is not as Jed says. >If you want to >find out about the field, you have no choice: you must subscribe to one or >more of the journals published by Mallove and Fox. There are no other sources >of timely information. This is not accurate either, of course, but Jed knew that. Readers who want accuracy and an intensive scientific focus read the COLD FUSION TIMES (URL http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html), which was not in Jed's list. ;-)X Best wishes to all the cf colleagues, researchers, hackers and lurkers. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 9 06:17:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA19126; Thu, 9 May 1996 06:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 06:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960509073252_100060.173_JHB94-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [Jed Rothwell: Mizuno paper] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: That Mizuno paper must be a classic. It is the best reported and experimentally sound series of research investigations that I have read in many a year. Congratulations to Mark and Jed. One of the more significant statements to my semi-lay mind was to indicate that the mutations might have been triggered by one or some of the impurities in the electrodes. It would be informative, if expensive, to repeat the series with electrodes of very impure materials, and to compare the results. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 9 16:58:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA06905; Thu, 9 May 1996 16:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 16:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605091258.IAA25870@dgs> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wspage@ncs.dnd.ca (Bill Page) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cold fusion update [copy 2] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: [concerning Kamada's heat estimates] >Minor corrections to what I wrote earlier: > >Now, here is where it begins to be suspicious. The formula used to >calculate delta E, the energy imparted by electrons to the pool is: > >delta E = |dE/dt|*t*m*phi_e*(tau*N) where: > > >|dE/dt| = 0.07eV/Angstrom = 7x10^6 eV/cm (the stopping power of Al) >t = 8x10-5 cm (thickness of target) >m = 10^-9 cm^2 (area of pool) >phi_e = 1x10^19 electrons/cm^2/s (electron flux) >tau*N = 10^-10 s (reaction time) > >Plugging in the numbers I get 560 eV for delta E per the above. For E he >uses 320 MeV because it is assumed an equivalent Al pool is created on the >far side of the H tunnel system. > >>From this he gets g = E/(delta E) = 6x10^5 as the ratio of energy gain. > >Now it seems to me the really strange thing is applying the tau*N reaction >time to the electron beam. The same factor was used in the reaction, but >it makes sense there. It dosn't make sense applied to a beam that continues >operation. Well, if you are going to compare total energies, you do need to use some time period with respect to the power deposited by the electron beam. It would probably seem even more unusual to calculate the gain as a ratio of power input and output, because then we would have to imagine the putative nuclear reaction continuing at some constant rate. On the other hand, it is not clear that using the same tau*N is all that reasonable - surely we should consider the energy deposited by the electron beam over some considerably longer period. How much of this energy is stored in the metal and how much is dissipated seems like a complicated issue - really some kind of calorimetry is called for, but Kamada does not really attempt this. > >Looking at it another way, each electron loses 7x10^6 eV/cm * 1x10^-5 cm = >560 eV going through the target. The number of electrons through the pool >area each second is (10^19 electrons/cm^3/s)*(10^-9 cm^2) = 10^10 >electrons/s. Therefore, the energy flux should be (10^10 electrons/s)*(560 >eV/electron) = 5.6x10^12 eV/s. Now, unless I erred, that is a phenominal >energy flux. I don't understand why the target didn't vaporize, and why >the H2 target didn't melt at all. What am I missing? > It seems to me, Horace, that you are multiplying by the number of particles twice. Although Kamada has somewhat confusingly written tau*N = 10^10 sec, the units are really particle*sec, in other words, this factor already includes the number of particles. delta E is the total energy. Cheers, Bill Page. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 02:02:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA01616; Thu, 9 May 1996 17:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 17:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960509182210_75110.3417_CHK42-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dean Miller <75110.3417@CompuServe.COM> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Evidence for continental drift X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi Michael, You said: >> At the core of earth sciences today is a bunch of fairy tales stated as hypotheses in complex jargon which totally masquerade the fact that we don't have the slightest idea of why and how the surface of the earth moves. << Still off subject, but the evidence is fairly clear showing most of the crust movement to be a jump, with the drift being a relatively minor part. That's why the complex jargon -- to mask this unacceptable evidence of fast geologic changes. Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 02:44:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA01078; Thu, 9 May 1996 17:29:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 17:29:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960509181749_72240.1256_EHB121-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Hal Fox's degree and cathodes X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Okay, I talked to Hal Fox. His PhD is in computer science, not chemistry and not Aeronautical Engineering. His undergraduate majors were math and physics and he did a lot of postgraduate work in electrical engineering. A few years ago he reminisced about this as we strolled through the grounds of Texas A&M, where he studied during World War II. I don't know why I ended up thinking he did chemistry. Be that as it may, here is some more important news for the people who are waiting for samples of his cathode material. He says the cathodes are undergoing one last test now in their rebuilt calorimeter. They had an old pump, borrowed from ENECO, which apparently introduced contamination, probably machine oil. That is fatal to an Ni reaction. He wants to see one more uninterrupted run before producing a large batch of the cathode material. The stuff is expensive, so you don't want to whip up a large batch until you are sure it works. They should have results over the next few days. If it works they will make a batch and send out the material. He apologizes for the delay. In this tape I am transcribing, Cravens says he does not recommend the multiple anode-cathode anode-cathode sandwich configuration. It does produce a lot of heat, but the oxygen from the downstream anodes gets into the upstream cathodes and screws up the works. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 03:21:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA01889; Thu, 9 May 1996 17:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 17:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9605092333.AA20356@ arnold.math.ucla.edu.ucsd.edu > Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: barry@math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Evidence for continental drift X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A Michael Mandeville wrote: >[my theory] confront[s] the existing contradictions inherent in >plate tectonics, one of the biggest of which is THE TOTAL LACK OF A >MECHANISM, which HAS NEVER BEEN RESOLVED BECAUSE THERE IS NO >PARADIGM FOR IT. Uh, not sure what you mean here. As you must be aware, since you've evidently cracked the textbooks, the mechansim is basically Bernard convection, i.e. thermally induced bouyancy causing the formation of convection cells. Whether this in fact really occurs must be subtly inferred from other data, but still, as a mechanism it is as clear as crystal. Go boil a pan of water if you want to see it in action. >At the core of earth sciences today is a bunch of fairy tales stated >as hypotheses in complex jargon which totally masquerade the fact complex jargon like ``gravity tectonics'' :-)? >Physicists and chemists will love my paradigm Well, I'm a physicist (50% of the time), so try me. >It will be several months, however, before I >am going to be willing to present the initial outline. Let me guess: you must work alone and in secrecy, so that no one steals your ideas. Obviously, I can't comment one way or another on your theory, since you haven;t yet espoused it. However, the over all world view you espouse [earth scientists as deluded fools wallowing in jargon] makes it pretty likely that your theory is either basically equivalent to the exisitng theory, or exceedingly far fetched. But, if you are not willing to spell out your new gravity tectonics now, perhaps you conversely simply tell us what is wrong with the existing plate tectonics mechanism of thermally induced bouyant convection. email may be more appropriate than Vortex, unless there is ecessive interest there. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 03:49:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA07950; Thu, 9 May 1996 16:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 16:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Evidence for continental drift X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 9 May 1996, Michael Mandeville wrote: [...] > BTW, Dieter, I am developing a paradigm which I am calling "gravity > tectonics". It takes plate tectonics to the next level of synthesis, one > which is patently obvious, in the sense that Jed mentions it, but which is > totally beyond the grasp of the specialists in academia because they won't > go beyond the textbooks to confront the existing contradictions inherent in > plate tectonics, one of the biggest of which is THE TOTAL LACK OF A > MECHANISM, which HAS NEVER BEEN RESOLVED BECAUSE THERE IS NO PARADIGM FOR > IT. At the core of earth sciences today is a bunch of fairy tales stated as Just as when block-headed scientists sometimes say that something or other just cannot be, so I often see amateurs take a brief superficial look at some specialty, and make statements like the above. Sometimes it turns out that the specialists at the front line do in fact have lots of ideas on what superfi- cially appears to stump them totally. Thus, I have a feeling that geophysicists are thinking hard about convection patterns and theories probably abound. The problem is that these specialists only tell each other, not the amateurs. I use that word in a nonderogatory way, by the way. It may of course be that you closely study this field, but I doubt it from your very categoric statement. Creation "scientists" make such statements about evolution theorists (like S.J. Gould), who - they reckon - have no explanation for this or that, when they indeed have. They are simply not ready to put them into text books - at the bottom end of Bauer's filter. But if you have a theory, tell them about it, you may be lucky and find someone willing to listen. We white coated welfare queens do not all have closed minds. After all, why am I here at all? One possible response to this, which I almost expect from one or two people, I will forestall with a Jewish Joke this possible response reminds me of: The sergeant in the Czar's glorious army shouts at Smuel: "Private Shmuel, tell us why we should lay down our lives for the Czar!" Shmuel answers :You're right, sergeant, why should we lay down our lives for the Czar?". Ahh, there's a JJ for every occasion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 03:54:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA08222; Thu, 9 May 1996 16:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 16:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3192103c.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Peter Glueck" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Definition of the scientist. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortexers, It was much discussion about Hal Fox being or not a scientist. He is a scientist in my opinion, and is one formally too- has a PhD. However it can be useful for us to use a better definition of what we are speaking about. I consider the following ideas as relevant for this discussion. I have noted them from the following ] paper: E A Shneour :"Of semantics and the scientists population: are there too many of us?" The Scientist 12 (September 18, 1995) ... What is A 'Scientist'? No dictionary consulted gives a completely satisfactory definition of the word. But combining several of them, we arrive at a small but telling cue: "A scientist is one LEARNED in science. A scientific investigator." In most articles on the creation of new scientists and their fate, no distinction is made between their TRAINING and EDUCATION. The words are often used interchangeably. Yet the difference between them is crucial if the present crisis in science is to be understood. The simplest definition of TRAINING is programming a human being to perform certain skilled tasks within a relatively narrowly circumscribed area of knowledge. The proper term for a technologically trained person is a TECHNICIAN, The sad fact is that too manyof our PhD holders are highly skilled technicians rather than scientists. They can hold their own in a seminar covering their narrow focus with the best of them. but get rapidly into deep water beyond that. By contrast, a scientist is a scholar in the scientific domain. He or she has been EDUCATED to have a keen understanding of the history of science, how past scientific discoveries were made, the limitations and pitfalls of designing and managing a scientific experiment, the interpretation of the results, and, most important, the context in which this intellectual exercise has been or is to be performed. A scientist has exacting knowledge of the intimate details of his field, but he or she also has a solid grasp of a broad sweep of knowledge outside that field to draw conclusions encompassing the unity of science. A scientist inductively knows that that the division of scientific knowledge into physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics and other disciplines is a largely administrative artifice created for managing university departments, rather than being inherent classifications of scientific knowledge. The recognition of this definition of scientist vs. technician makes it immediately evident that there are precious national assets, who publish their principal experiments in perhaps no more than 20 prestigious, peer- reviewed scientific journals worldwide. Yet there are thousands of scientific journals extant, many of which publish creditable and sometimes important findings, but on the whole onlyy add more opportunity for those at the periphery of the scientific endeavor inorder to avoid perishing. This is not to demean the importance of the technicians. Without them, a great deal of first-rate science could not be done. ... Cited for more accuracy and less discussion. Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 04:08:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA07627; Thu, 9 May 1996 16:50:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 16:50:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Generator of Unanimity of Belief X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Here's a snip from a paper in the SSE journal by T. Gold, at http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wclose.html >From the J. of Sci. Exploration, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp 103-112, 1989
    (c)1989 Society for Scientific Exploration

    New Ideas in Science

    Thomas Gold Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853 It is important to recognize how strong this interaction really is. Suppose that you have a subject in which there is no clear-cut decision to be made between a variety of opinions and therefore no clear-cut decision to be made in which direction you should put money or which direction you should favor for publications, and so on. No doubt opinions would need a multidimensional space to be presented, but I will at the moment just represent them in a one-dimensional situation. Suppose you have some curve between the extreme of this opinion and the extreme of that opinion. You have some indefinite, statistically quite insignificant distribution of opinions. Now in that situation, suppose that the refereeing procedure has to decide where to put money in research, which papers to publish, and so on. What would happen? Well, people would say, "We can't really tell, but surely we shouldn't take anybody who is out here. Slightly more people believe in this position than in any other, so we will select our speakers at the next conference from this position on the opinion curve, and we will judge to whom to give research funds," because the referees themselves will of course be included in great numbers in some such curve. "We will select some region there to supply the funds." And so, a year later what will have happened? You will have combed out some of the people who were out there, and you will have put more people into this region. Each round of decision making has the consequence of essentially taking the initial curve and multiplying it by itself. Now we understand the mathematical consequence of taking a shallow curve and multiplying it by itself a large number of times. What happens? In the mathematical limit it becomes a delta function at the value of the initial peak. What does that mean? If you go for long enough, you will have created the appearance of unanimity. It will look as if you have solved the problem because all agree, and of course you have got absolutely nothing. If no new fact has come to light and the subject has gone on for long enough, - this is what happens. And it does happen! I am presenting it in its clearest form, and it is by no means a joke. If many years go by in a field in which no significant new facts come to light, the field sharpens up the opinions and gives the appearance that the problem is solved. I know this very well in one field, which is that of petroleum derivation, where the case has been argued since the 1880's. At the present time most people would say the problem is completely solved, though there is absolutely nothing in the factual situation that would indicate a solution. It is also very clear there that the holding-in that has taken place has been an absolute disaster to research. It is now virtually impossible to do any research outside the widely accepted position. If a young man with no scientific standing were to attempt this, however brilliant he might be, the wouldn't have a hope. I believe that our present way of conducting science is deeply afflicted by this tendency. The peer review system, which we regard as the only fair way we know of to distribute money (I don't think it is, but it is generally thought to be) is an absolute disaster. It is a completely unstable method. It is completely prone to this tendency; there is no getting out of it. The more reviews you require for a proposal - now the NSF requires seven reviewers for a proposal - the more you require, the more certain it is that you will follow the statistical tendency dictated by this principle. If you had noise in the situation, it would be much better. There used to be in the United States many different agencies, and there was perhaps an odd-ball over here who gave out some money for one agency, and a funny fellow over there for another. This was a noisy situation, and it was not driving quite as hard towards unanimity. But now we have it all streamlined and know exactly to whom we have to go for a particular subject and, of course, it is an absolute disaster. There is one more point I should make. When in a subject a general attitude or a viewpoint has become established, then it is very easy to obtain funds to do work in that subject on the bases of what I call "shoehorn science." I think you will understand what I mean by that. If you make your proposal which says: "I will demonstrate how this fact and that fact, that apparently are difficult to see in the accepted framework, can be figured into that framework," they are all delighted to give you money. And by the time that has gone on for a long time, so much work of the shoehorn kind has been diligently done to force the facts into the pattern that is preordained, that it then looks to many people as if it all was firmly established. What happens is that they build a superstructure on what may be no foundation - if I may invent a "Confucius say" sort of proverb, "Never judge the strength of foundation by size of building." ....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 22:35:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA07954; Fri, 10 May 1996 22:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 22:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Interesting place I found in a remote corner of the net X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 05/09/96 19:08 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Interesting place I found in a remote corner of the net I take it this message is a SPAM...Can we get this person OUT of our lives? - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 22:38:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA08390; Fri, 10 May 1996 22:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 22:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Hal Fox's degree and cathodes X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >In this tape I am transcribing, Cravens says he does not recommend the >multiple anode-cathode anode-cathode sandwich configuration. It does produce a >lot of heat, but the oxygen from the downstream anodes gets into the upstream >cathodes and screws up the works. > >- Jed Not if it is an orthogonal cell. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 22:40:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA09312; Fri, 10 May 1996 22:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 22:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605101731.KAA11070@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Evidence for continental drift X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 05:32 PM 5/9/96 -0700, you wrote: >Hi Michael, > >You said: >>> At the core of earth sciences today is a bunch of fairy tales stated as >hypotheses in complex jargon which totally masquerade the fact that we don't >have the slightest idea of why and how the surface of the earth moves. << > >Still off subject, but the evidence is fairly clear showing most of the crust >movement to be a jump, with the drift being a relatively minor part. That's why >the complex jargon -- to mask this unacceptable evidence of fast geologic >changes. > > Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) > > definitively understood - i concur ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 22:41:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA09084; Fri, 10 May 1996 22:35:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 22:35:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605101731.KAA11077@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Evidence for continental drift X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 05:34 PM 5/9/96 -0700, you wrote: > > >Michael Mandeville wrote: > >>[my theory] confront[s] the existing contradictions inherent in >>plate tectonics, one of the biggest of which is THE TOTAL LACK OF A >>MECHANISM, which HAS NEVER BEEN RESOLVED BECAUSE THERE IS NO >>PARADIGM FOR IT. > > >Uh, not sure what you mean here. As you must be aware, since you've >evidently cracked the textbooks, the mechansim is basically >Bernard convection, i.e. thermally induced bouyancy causing the >formation of convection cells. Whether this in fact really occurs > >must be subtly inferred from other data, but still, as a mechanism it >is as clear as crystal. Go boil a pan of water if you want to see it >in action. > >>At the core of earth sciences today is a bunch of fairy tales stated >>as hypotheses in complex jargon which totally masquerade the fact > bernard convection this is not a paradigm. this is a weak speculative idea which is a nice try for trying to explain the of crustal movement. you should model the heat dispersion dynamics of the earth. heat moves and disperses far more rapidly than the medium can move. the medium is locked in place and moves almost not at all. there is almost no, virtually NO motive force for convection currents in the face of the pressures under the crust. the whole convection idea is contradictory on the face of it. > >complex jargon like ``gravity tectonics'' :-)? > >>Physicists and chemists will love my paradigm > > >Well, I'm a physicist (50% of the time), so try me. > i will >>It will be several months, however, before I >>am going to be willing to present the initial outline. > >Let me guess: you must work alone and in secrecy, so > >that no one steals your ideas. > no, it is just that i need time to translate notebooks into a clear and straightforward outline which presents the entire elegance of the paradigm so the interlocking thought can be adequately appreciated. Steal this: Idea One: do you know how the heat is generated? okay, this is a highly trick question. let me give you the only viable guess left - em chatter, directly proportional to the pressure gradient, up to a certain point, with some alternation due to the differential matter layering induced by gravity. model that sucker and you've got a nobel prize in about 50 years. my quess it that the earth is fairly well uniformly heated from about bottom of the crust on down, oh, say 100 miles for easy reference. you can't use linear equations based simply on pressure. the essense is compaction of the em shells, which then chatter in the forced geometries, seeking an expanded equipoise, this chatter is the heat, and you can only compact the shells so far, nuclear electrodynamics must provide the formulas to show the balance against the pressure gradient. At the point where the shells cannot compact further, inducing no further change in the em chatter, you've got no further temperature gradient. This is the method for showing whether or not convection currents could conceivably exist. This idea alone will advance the earth sciences. this i intuit will cast considerable doubt on convection currents. simple ratios, obvious to see. the first 100 miles of matter are going to induce magnitudes of order of change in the numbers of the dynamics active on the matter at 100 miles depth. the second 100 miles will double those numbers and probably won't behaviourly change the system at all. get the point? Now if you happen to like convection currents, you should model this anyway, because it will show if they are possible or not. Win or lose, you gain. Science is great. I can and will spin out the entire basis of the dynamics of the earth system in this fasion. I see the models and magnitude ratio comparisons in my head, like real time. But I hate numbers. I am not going to do the numbers. It will take a lot of sophisticated understanding of electrdynamics to run the numbers on the little heat idea one I've just given you and I don't have enough time left in life to learn that trade. >Obviously, I can't comment one way or another on your >theory, since you haven;t yet espoused it. However, the >over all world view you espouse [earth scientists as >deluded fools wallowing in jargon] please don't make such statements on my behalf. that sounds pretty insulting. > makes it pretty likely >that your theory is either basically equivalent to the >exisitng theory, or exceedingly far fetched. nope, i just put 2 and 2 together from any speciality i desire where the specialists are ignoring the obvious. the result is paradigm shift of the same magnitude of plate tectonics. I can explain plate tectonics. Nobody else can. But if I dribble it out in the fashion of these emails, you'll fight each though every inch of the way, and i don't have the time or heart for that. So I have to lay out the entire thing at once. > >But, if you are not willing to spell out your new >gravity tectonics now, perhaps you conversely simply >tell us what is wrong with the existing plate tectonics >mechanism of thermally induced bouyant convection. > >email may be more appropriate than Vortex, unless > >there is ecessive interest there. > > > > I apologize for the poor grammer above. Like I said, I would prefer to outline all of this in better form, better english, better terms, and so I won't go further than this at this point. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 22:43:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA09194; Fri, 10 May 1996 22:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 22:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605101731.KAA11054@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Generator of Unanimity of Belief X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 04:50 PM 5/9/96 -0700, you wrote: > >Here's a snip from a paper in the SSE journal by T. Gold, at >http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wclose.html > >>From the J. of Sci. Exploration, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp 103-112, 1989
    >(c)1989 Society for Scientific Exploration > > >

    New Ideas in Science

    >Thomas Gold >Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853 > > > > >....................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 > > An absolutely brilliant discourse. It says many things I have observed but have not been able to communicate so succinctly. Thanks, Bill, for sharing it. Especially distrubing is the ad hoc assumption by wannabe perfectionists that rationality in result can be equated to rational methods of perfectly organized process. This is the prime imperative of bureaucratitis. It supplies the perfect cover for people who are "faking it", ie, are incompetent to decide the subject matter yet are determined to possess the power of it, deluding themselves into believing that they are doing something important thereby. All error can be blamed on methods, not the idiots who are involved. Scientists are especially prone to buy into this sucker bait. They believe in reason. They believe in truth, they have to believe in truth, no matter how provisional. They want to believe that it can be rationally obtained by social cooperation. The siren call to the isle of disaster in politics is the presumptious idea that the agency at the top of a pyramid can provide the perfected quidance in accordance with ever-correcting policy coordination, and that of course this can be done most rationally, ie with the least input of bucks, if there is no sloppy duplication, hence, all coordinators should have exclusive domains. It works in one's garage, but only because the women generally won't be caught dead there. It can only be approximated in the rest of the house but only when the children are gone, and absolutely it doesnt work with anything else. Not even war. The Russians, poor bastards, gave it a 70 year work-out. All you get from such processes are arbitrary choices which have been skewed to a narrow range. You can fake that game for awhile, but time will show you up. Better to have arbitrary choices in a broad range. Political scientists have a jargon for this, it is called polycentricism, which holds basically that there is no method perfectable enough to select the right king nor the right policy nor the right administration for the right people, therefore, fuck it. Let a thousand flowers bloom. That is the bottom line of 2500 years of political analysis. One of FDR's "organization brain trust" professors gave me some interesting insights during my graduate school days. He claimed one of Roosevelt's power mystiques was the deliberate sowing of confusion though over-lapping delegations of responsibility. He deliberately made it impossible for the upper portion of the pyramid to claim narrow exclusivity. If bureau A won't do it, bureau B could. It kept his people humble and it forced his people to think. Science in America is going to go through drastic change. American Academic science is so provincial it is a laughing stock. When science is no longer seen as an entitiy, which of course it is not but nonetheless is seen, talked, and understood as some vaguely organized entity, lodged somehow in the sinecured halls of universities, when the pall of that mystique lifts sufficienty, it will be possible to think of science in terms closer to its historical roots and it will be possible to broaden many of the practices of cooperative funding, and give it a more deliberately controversial, entrepreneurial bent, that is to say, to assist in going beyond what anyone thinks currently is possible. Everybody I know who has an inquiring mind tells me the same bottom line: "if I had a lot of money, I would fund people doing some of the 'crazy' stuff". That says it all!!! I'm not kidding, that says it all!!! It is the collective witness of (a)there is more about this all than we understand yet, and (b) the failure of group cooperation to provide the creative space to explore it. The reason this is being communicated here at this time, whether you know it or not or intend it or not, is that you people here are contributing to the lifting of that academic mystique. OU, transmutation, my, my, the cat is out of the bag...and the cat is a very wild joker. When the Emporer of Physics is seen for just how naked he really is, it is all over. This stuff is not kid stuff, a lot of power is going to change hands, the dynamics of these power shifts will be awsomely huge, precipitating entirely new.... Do you have any idea of how many books are going to be written about the farce of nationalized industrial physics which brought us the nightmare of the nuclear humbug and was completely unable to pursue the cold transmutation/fusion phenomenon, which was demonstrated cleanly,classicly, and publicly in the 1950's through the work of Kervran, and actually was demonstrated, less publicly, in the 1930's through the work of Walter Russell, and then professorially conspired to deny the existence of interesting anomolies brought out by Pons & Fleischman? Think of how many books are going to be written about how naughty it was for academics to make jokes about alchemists. Do you "get" the drift here of my thought, the opening of the way here for a radical broadening of the concept of science to wrest it back out of the hands of the national academic cliques which so adroitly play the mystique of being the authorities? The same sort of thing is underway in other academic sciences and disciplines. Biology, medicine, anthropology, archeology, geology...there is a major paradigm shift staring them all in the face in this generation, but that belongs on another listserv or two. In my opinion, it should come to this: if a man asks you if you are a scientist, you tell him but of course you do science. When he asks what your degree is, tell him to get a life. In my opinion, an academic asking you for your school pedigree is on about the same level of political discrimination as the labeling involved in racism, ageism, and sexism. The degree is used to determine if you should take them seriously or not. The only method of determining the value of what someone is telling you is to talk to them. From the dialogue you can form an honest opinion. You can choose to verify it or not. The labels you would put on the worth of an opinion or a claim from social positioning data is likely to introduce error in judgment. This is the sceptics' ultimate scepticism. It is the only sound foundation for exploring anything. True science comes this way. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 22:44:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA09568; Fri, 10 May 1996 22:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 22:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Generator of Unanimity of Belief X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 05/10/96 04:08 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Generator of Unanimity of Belief On this realm: The tradgedy of the "down turn" of corporate research and particularily "Bell Labs". Once apon a time, in a land far, far, away, there lived a VERY enlightened corporate entity called "Bell Telephone". This enlightened entity had a research lab. Although the entity wished to have its researchers working on projects that would benefit ITS interests, it had the wisdom to do its research project selection partially by deterministic means and also as much by "random" means. I.e., finding what was considered the "BEST" technical research talent, giving them labs and equipment, and saying, "Find out what you can..." Some times the researchers discovered something which had NO application to the "core" business of Bell Telephone. Consider a "signal" controlling device discovered by Bardeen and Schockly in 1948. This device, while an interesting curiousity, had no functionality in the "Bell Telephone" paradigm of the time. Thus the wise and respected leaders of the Bell Labs, did what good citizens do, they GAVE AWAY this marvelous device. And as any peer reviewer would have noted at the time, IT HAS HAD LITTLE EFFECT on humanity or science... - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 22:44:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA09406; Fri, 10 May 1996 22:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 22:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605101731.KAA11088@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Evidence for continental drift X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >Just as when block-headed scientists sometimes say that something or other >just cannot be, so I often see amateurs take a brief superficial look at some >specialty, and make statements like the above. Sometimes it turns out that the >specialists at the front line do in fact have lots of ideas on what superfi- >cially appears to stump them totally. Thus, I have a feeling that geophysicists >are thinking hard about convection patterns and theories probably abound. The >problem is that these specialists only tell each other, not the amateurs. I consider myself to be a master philosopher and a professional practicioner of the synthesis of scientific concepts to state a more complete comprehension of the world. I do not practice a specific technical science, although I have had a lot of real world hand-on experiences with electrons. I can see through the ideational underpinnings of many sciences and my embassessment as an analyst is that I see the inadequacies of many concepts and practices which are generating false knowledge, or a badly incomplete worldview but there is very little practical use to such knowledge except possibly to learn to use this medium of the internet to share ideas. Unfortunately, in a specialized world of acute competition, there is no market for generalists. I believe, as Aristotle outlined, that the findings of the sciences need to be brought into formal generalization by the philosophic mind, but the discipline of Philosophy has been lost for some time in semantic headtrips and metaphysical mindbenders, with almost no acquaintance with what is going on in the world, let alone science, all partly because there is 0 market for the product. Consequently, the various specialists ignore philosophy as the final step in the transliteration of their product into generalized human knowledge. Dieter, the contradictions between what various disciplines and sub-disciplines hold as their paradigms,is downright crazy. Ask a geologist about ice ages and he will give you a very long song and dance which sounds and looks pretty good (they have a lot of practice). Ask a geophycist about ice ages and he will give you a lot of hemming and hawing, because, he knows from the physics, they can't figure it out. It doesn't look like there should be such crazy phenomenon, maybe they can contrive some orbital models,but they are not too convincing . You might say the geologist has the evidence, so too bad for the geophysics department. This is a little like the cold fusion debate. The experimenters, an awful lot of them inclined to chemistry or electronics as a trade, have the evidence. But a lot of the physicists are not too convinced, well maybe they are admitting something going on, but not fusion at this point, eh? In both of these examples, both sides are partially right and both sides may be wrong. There is amazing evidence. The evidence does not fit existing theories of how things work. In the case of the ice age, the geophysicst needs to look for new models which will explain the evidence, and some proposed theories have taken a very radical turn of understanding which turns an ice age into something entirely different, namely, sudden crustal slippage, which shifts the earth's crust under the polar lattitudes, further, tending to oscillate about 30 degrees, giving the illusion of "an ice age", but in actuality, just a displaced polar region. An elegent theory, which explains many geological phenonemon while avoiding the most inelegant impossiblity of deducing radical climactic changes from a planetary heat budget which changes hardly at all from year to year, from 10,000 years to 10,000 years. But geologists seemed to have learned very little about the continental drift debate and don't want to step up to the plate on this one. This is a very big explanation and specialists are too small to handle it. Geophysicists need to provide the model for this but they are too divorced from the practical evidence. Specialism defeats us here. In the case of cold fusion, the stand off is pretty much the same, even if the content is completely different. A lot of evidence is there but fusion may be a mirage for most of it. Maybe not fusion for the most part, maybe we are talking transmutation, maybe most of what has ever happened is a change in atomic structures, giving off heat byproducts and some stray tritiums and neutrons. This certainly seems to be one of the more solid trends in the evidence. Radical, requires a new model for the atom, or maybe this is even subtler, maybe a new model of molecules. The key may be in crystalline lattices or domains, like super conductivity. Maybe the situation is even more subtle, with transmutations under certain conditions hosting parasitical fusions of protons in the woodwork so to speak into alphas. But I have the feeling of the situation that the mathematically minded theoreticians are too divorced from the evidence, so to speak, to get the insights needed to drive the new model. Specialism defeats us here. The main difference of note in these too examples are the stakes. No bucks in the geology issue. The alighnment of international social power is at stake in the physics issue. >I use >that word in a nonderogatory way, by the way. It may of course be that you >closely study this field, but I doubt it from your very categoric statement. I wouldnt dare make such a categoric statement without having looked real hard at the field. I am not a believer in the sense that I need to believe. I do not get along well with belief-needers. I am as hard nosed a sceptic as you will ever meet. The irony is, Dieter, I I am more sceptical of human thought and presumption than you are. But since you are a worthy debater, I would hate to spend time defending this proposition. If pressed, I will cheerfully deny having said such a thing. Thank you for your research efforts and paper compilations. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 22:45:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA08873; Fri, 10 May 1996 22:34:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 22:34:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605101731.KAA11103@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Interesting place I found in a remote corner of the net X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I am getting sick and tired of this stuff. How can we turn this junk off? At 06:56 PM 5/9/96 -0700, you wrote: > >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >Subj: Interesting place I found in a remote corner of the net >Date: 96-05-09 17:54:05 EDT >From: Conroy675 > >-----> NOTE: Please first read my note which appears below the "Request for >more info Form." Then, to get more info, just fill out the "Request for More >Info" form completely and *FAX* or *SMAIL* it back to the company. You will >get a quick reply via email within 1 business day of receipt of the info >request form below. > >IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR THOSE FAXING IN THEIR REPLY: Please make sure you >return *only* the below form and *no part* of this message other than the >actual form below. If you do not know how to cut and paste the below form >onto a fresh clean blank page for faxing, then you may re-type the below >form, as long as you copy it line for line *exactly.* This is necessary in >order for them to be able to process the tremendous number of replies that >they get daily. > >Your fax goes directly onto their 4.2 gigabyte computer hard drive, not >paper, and all incoming fax calls are set-up to be *auto-terminated* and/or >*auto-deleted* from the incoming queue of faxes to be read, if your fax: > >1. has a cover page; >2. is more than one page >3. is sent more than one time >4. does not begin with the "cut here/begin" line from the below form >5. does not end with the "cut here/end" line from the below form. >6. has any handwritten info. on it (info must must be filled out *only* > with your computer keyboard or typewriter keyboard). This last > provision re: no handwriting on the form applies to requests sent in > via smail also. > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >NOTE: Their fax line is open 24 hrs. per day / 7 days per week. However, > if you have trouble getting through due to the high volume of overseas faxes >coming in during the early morning and late night hours, please note that the >best time to get through to their fax is Monday-Friday, 9 am - 5 pm EST (New >York Time). If you have trouble getting through to their fax, or do not have >a fax machine at work or at home, just drop the below form to them via smail >(airmail or first class mail). >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > >*------------cut here/begin-------------------------------------------* >REQUEST FOR MORE INFO: please return *only* this section (with no cover >page) via 1-page fax to: > 718-967-1550 in the USA > >or via smail (first class mail or airmail) to: > Magazine Club Inquiry Center > Att. FREE Catalogue-by-email Dept. > PO Box 990 > Staten Island NY 10312-0990 > >Sorry, but incomplete forms *will not* be acknowledged. If you do not >have an email address, or access to one, they will not be able to help you >until you do have one. If you saw this message, then you should have one. > :) > >---> SORRY, BUT NO HANDWRITTEN FORMS WILL BE ACKNOWLEDGED. > MUST BE TYPED-OUT ON YOUR COMPUTER OR TYPEWRITER. <--- > >Name: >Internet email address: >Smail home address: >City-State-Zip: >Country: >Work Tel. #: >Work Fax #: >Home Tel. #: >Home Fax #: > >How did you hear about us (name of person who referred you or the area of >the internet that you saw us mentioned in): Referral by: Jennie Conroy >050996-l-wtl > >Name of USA mags you currently get on the newsstand or in the store: > >Name of USA mags you currently get on a subscription basis, through the mail: > >Name of USA mags you would like price quotes on when we call you: > >Catalogue format desired (list "1," "2," "3" or "4"): > >*------------cut here/end--------------------------------------------* > > >Catalogue Format Options: >1. 19-Part email- can be read by EVERYONE (~525 K Total). >2. For more advanced computer users: attached text file ~525K - you > must know how to download an attached text file and then be able to > open it with your word processor. If in doubt, don't ask for this > version. This isn't for internet *newbies.* Better to order option 1 > and spend a few minutes pasting them into one whole text document > with your word processor, than to waste hours trying to figure how > to deal with this option. >3. For more advanced Macintosh computer users: compressed attached > text file, created with a Stuffit(tm) self-extracting archive (.sea), > ~133K. Can be decompressed by any Macintosh computer user; no > special expansion software or knowledge of Stuffit (tm) needed. You > just double-click on the file icon and it automatically expands > (unstuffs). This is for more advanced mac computer users only, as > you still have to know how to deal with an attached file. It will cut > your download time by 75%. Expands out to the same ~525K file in > option #2. See option #2 for more info on what you will need to be > able to do. >4. For expert computer users: compressed attached text file, created with > Stuffit(tm), ~114K. Can be decompressed by any computer user who > has expansion software to decompress (expand) Stuffit(tm) (.sit) files. > This is for more advanced computer users only and will cut your > download time by 78%. Expands out to the same ~525K file in option > #2. See option #2 for more info on what you will need to be able to do. > > > >Hi fellow 'netters, > >My name is Jennie Conroy and I recently started using a magazine subscription >club in the USA that has a FREE 1 yr. magazine subscription deal with your >first paid order- and I have been very pleased with them. They have over >1,500 different USA titles that they can ship to any country on a >subscription basis. As for computer magazines from the USA, they more of a >selection than I ever knew even existed. They have magazines for most every >area of interest in their list of 1,500 titles. > >Within the USA, for their USA members, they are cheaper than all their >competitors and even the publishers themselves. This is their price >guarantee. > >Overseas, on the average, they are generally around one-fourth to one-half of >what the newsstands overseas charge locally for USA magazines. On some >titles they are as little as one-tenth of what the newsstands charge. They >feel that mgazines should not be a luxury overseas. In the USA, people buy >magazines and then toss them after reading them for just a few minutes or >hours. They are so cheap in the USA! Well, this company would like to make >it the same way for their overseas members. They are also cheaper than all >their competitors in the USA and overseas, including the publishers >themselves! This is their price guarantee. Around one-half their business >comes from overseas, so they are very patient with new members who only speak >limited English as a 2nd language. > >Their prices are so cheap because they deal direct with each publisher and >cut-out all the middlemen. > >They will send you their DELUXE EMAIL CATALOGUE (around 525K-big and juicey) >!)...if you completely fill out the form above. It has lists of all the >freebies, lists of all the titles they sell, titles broken down by categories >and detailed descriptions on nearly 1,200 of the titles that they sell. > >Please do not email me as I am just a happy customer and a *busy* student. I >don't have time to even complete my thesis in time, let alone run my >part-time software business! Please fill out the above form and carefully >follow the intructions above to get it to them via fax or smail. > >They guarantee to beat all their competitors' prices. Sometimes they are less >than half of the next best deal I have been able to find and other times, >just a little cheaper - but I have never found a lower rate yet. They >assured me that if I ever do, they will beat it. > >They have been very helpful and helped me with all my address changes as I >haved moved from one country to another. > >They have a deal where you can get a free 1 yr. sub to a new magazine from a >special list of over 270 popular titles published in the USA. They will >give you this free 1 yr. sub when you place your first paid order with them >to a renewal or new subscription to any of the over 1,500 different popular >USA titles they sell. > >They can arrange delivery to virtually any country and I think they have >clients in around 45 or 46 countries now. Outside the USA there is a charge >for FPH (foreign postage and handling) (on both paid and freebie subs) that >varies from magazine to magazine. I have found their staff to be very >friendly and courteous. They even helped me with an address change when I >moved from one country to another. > >The owner thinks of his service as a "club" and his clients as "members" >(even though there is no extra fee to become a member - your first purchase >automatically makes you a member) and he is real picky about who he accepts >as a new member. When he sets you up as a new member, he himself calls you >personally on the phone to explain how he works his deal, or sometimes he has >one of his assistants call. He is kind of quirky sometimes - he insists on >setting up new members by phone so he can say hi to everyone (I sure wouldn't >want to have his phone bills!), but you can place future orders (after your >first order) via E-mail. > >He has some really friendly young ladies working for him, who seem to know >just as much as he does about this magazine stuff. If you live overseas, he >will even call you there, as long as you are interested, but I think he still >makes all his overseas calls on the weekends, I guess cause the long distance >rates are cheaper then. > >He only likes to take new members from referrals from satisfied existing >members and he does virtually no advertising. When I got set-up, they had a >2-3 week waiting list for new members to be called back so that they could >join up. (Once you are an existing member, they help you immediately when you >call. ) I think they are able to get back to prospective new members the >same day or within a few days now, as they have increased their staff. I am >not sure about this.........but if you email the above form to them, that is >the way to get started! > >They will send you their DELUXE EMAIL CATALOGUE (around 525K-big and juicey) >!)...if you completely fill out the form above. It has lists of all the >freebies, lists of all the titles they sell, titles broken down by categories >and detailed descriptions on nearly 1,200 of the titles that they sell. > >They then send you email that outlines how his club works and the list of >free choices that you can choose from, as well as the entire list of what he >sells; and then they will give you a quick (3-5 minute) friendly, >no-pressure no-obligation call to explain everything to you personally and >answer all your questions. > >Once you get in, you'll love them. I do. > > >Sincerely, > >Jenny Conroy > > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 10 22:45:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA09724; Fri, 10 May 1996 22:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 22:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960510211821.4427ebf8@world.std.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mitchell Swartz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: cold fusion is a virtual reality X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: COLD FUSION is now a VIRUAL REALITY TOO!! =================================== If you want to take a virtual walk on the wild side, see the Cold Fusion Times Galleria now open, and located on the World Wide Web. The COLD FUSION TIMES now has a Virtual Reality page which can be accessed through its URL at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html For those who want to see the latest in virtual reality, or could never get enough time (or any time at all) on the 3D headsets at electronics shows, here is a chance to view VR, and in 3D reread or just catch up on missed issues ofTHE most informative, up-to-date, solidly researched publication on the solid state fusion front. Top page editions of the Cold Fusion Times are posted on the walls of this virtual reality picturescape. As you hop through the colored corridors of this computer technology, watch the progress of CF in 3D, watch the Patterson Device, and other notables in the history of the field reported first in the Cold Fusion Times. Although this Virtual Cold Fusion World is not high resolution, it is a 3-Dimensional virtual world. No one in this field ought miss the exciting development of virtual reality in web pages. ==> Requirement: VRML 1.0 browser such as Netscape 3.0 or other recent WWWbrowser (available by link at the COLD FUSION TIMES home page under software section, as are loads of free telecommunication and networking software) If you have not the software, but want to see what it is like, there is a posts on sci.physics.fusion which is a uu-encoded GIF figure of the CF VR-world. Would be interested in comments of travelers through this new VRML world. I have greatly enjoyed the VR worlds of chemistry and biochemistry. This may change how we view material science, and much more. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 11 03:24:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA01296; Sat, 11 May 1996 03:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 03:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960511073000_100060.173_JHB40-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Interesting place I found in a remote corner of the net X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mark et al, I've been getting this rubbish too, and have reported it to the internet postmaster@aol.com. I've tried to send the whole thing back to the sender, but the address seems to be phoney as I have always got my message back as undeliverable. Each version has had a different sender's name. This only started after I had registered Free Agent newsnet browser a couple of weeks ago, but the stuff is coming through our vortex list - how's that? Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 11 03:25:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA01210; Sat, 11 May 1996 03:21:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 03:21:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31941d57.25357444@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: CF metal candidates X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 7 May 1996 23:28:17 -0700 (PDT), MHUGO@EPRI wrote: >*** Reply to note of 05/07/96 16:56 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Re: CF metal candidates >Horace: You need to chase after the CF theory of Chubb and Chubb. Good >theory actually. Essentially they say that the mechanism of CF is to form >a "Bose Condensate" of 4 D atoms at the same time... If I get to it >I'll Xerox some of their papers and send them to you. > > What I actually had in mind was a condensate of positive ions. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 11 11:11:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA16005; Sat, 11 May 1996 11:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 11:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960511132742.2a97f30a@world.std.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mitchell Swartz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: conduction/polarization & Bockris X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: That is a good book. Activity coefficients are excuses for ignoring the stereoconstellation of the materials, and the dopants and additives within. You might also try "Corrosion and Corrosion Control" by H. Uhlig. Wiley Press as an alternative with much practical data. Sorry for the delay, just catching up (if that is possible;-)X Mitchell Swartz ================================== At 03:31 AM 4/10/96 -0700, you wrote: >This was posted yesterday, and the day before, but it bounced. > >This is try number 3. > > > >Bill Page wrote: > >> >>Yes. I am quite sure that the book "Modern Electrochemistry" J. O'M. >>Bockris and A,K.N. Reddy, volumes 1 and 2, Plenum Press, 1973, is >>still available at most large university book stores and libraries >>[I bought my paperback $27.50/volume edition at the MIT Co-op bookstore >>in 1993.]. Almost all the chapters of volume 1 are relevant to your >>questions. See especially Chapter 4 "Ion Transport in Solutions" and >>Chapter 5 "Protons in Solution". >> From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 11 20:26:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA16044; Sat, 11 May 1996 20:21:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 20:21:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31952f0e.9738092@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: [Jed Rothwell: Mizuno paper] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 8 May 1996 21:14:38 -0700 (PDT), MHUGO@EPRI wrote: >*** Resending note of 05/08/96 13:04 >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: [Jed Rothwell: Mizuno paper] > >From: MTD >To: CLDFUSIO--SMTP CldFusion > MHUGO --EPRINET HUGO, MARK > >Subject: [Jed Rothwell: Mizuno paper] >Date: Wed, 8 May 96 16:00:16 EDT >From: Michael Staker (MTD) >To: MHUGO@epri.epri.com, CldFusion@aol.com >Subject: [Jed Rothwell: Mizuno paper] >Message-ID: <9605081600.aa09718@PHOENIX.ARL.MIL> > >Mark, This is very interesting, esp the magic number suggestion! . . . .Mike > >----- Forwarded message # 1: > >Received: from admii.arl.mil by PHOENIX.ARL.MIL id aa07851; 8 May 96 11:23 EDT >Received: from dub-img-7.compuserve.com by ADMII.ARL.MIL id aa14005; > 8 May 96 11:16 EDT >Received: by dub-img-7.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) > id LAA07596; Wed, 8 May 1996 11:16:17 -0400 >Date: 08 May 96 11:11:54 EDT >From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> >To: Mike Staker >Subject: Mizuno paper >Message-ID: <960508151154_72240.1256_EHB57-4@CompuServe.COM> > >To: Mike Staker >INTERNET:MStaker@arl.mil > >Re: Your phone message > >No, it was a Pd cathode, from three years ago. Here is my version of the >paper. I translated this from Japanese-English to English, and added several >details from phone conversations with Mizuno. This text version has no >figures or equations. > >- Jed > > > Cold Fusion Research Advocates > 2050 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 113-A > Chamblee, Georgia 30341 > Phone: 770-451-9890 Fax: 770-458-2404 CompuServe 72240,1256 > > > April 9, 1996 > >This version edited by Jed Rothwell, Copyright Cold Fusion Technology 1996 > > >Anomalous Isotopic Distribution in Palladium Cathode >after Electrolysis > >T. Mizuno Dept. of Nuclear Eng., Fac. of Eng., Hokkaido Univ., Kita-ku, >Sapporo, >060 JAPAN >T.Ohmori Catalysis Research Center, Hokkaido Univ., Kita-ku, Sapporo, 060 JAPAN >B >M. Enyo Hakodate National College of Technology, Tokura-cho, Hakodate, 042 >JAPAN > > >Cathodic Electrolysis / Element analysis / Isotopic distribution > [snip] >peak was observed. Except for a few cases, in generally the isotope abundances >are higher for odd mass numbers and lower for even ones, as compared with the >natural ratios. In Figure 4, for mass numbers between 100 and 140, Cd and Xe If even numbered nuclei fuse, then fission randomly, the result will be a shift in favour of odd numbered nuclei, because once formed, an odd numbered nucleus is no longer favoured to take part in fusion. This is analogous to a chemical reaction where a balance between source and product chemicals is disturbed, by continually removing the product from the reaction. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 11 20:28:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA15912; Sat, 11 May 1996 20:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 20:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >At 02:44 AM 5/3/96 -0700, Mike Schaffer wrote: > >>I have >>read all Graneau's work and find it uncompelling. Here I have some >>relevant experience from which to judge: I did my PhD research >>Graneau did not make these measurements, and his >>conclusions are hand waving, not mathematical. > >Graneau and others often claim that reaction force in rail guns can only be >explained by using Ampere's longitudinal force. I believe that this is >another case of hand-waving without analysis. > >It is a fact that the reaction forces act upon the rails. Big guns exhibit >severe recoil forces that require the rails to be very securely mounted. > >It's not obvious, at first glance, where the reaction forces could be >generated because the rails are PARALLEL to the direction of the reaction >force. Hence, without analysis, it is easy to sieze this as an example of >Ampere's longitudinal forces at work. > >I work with an engineer that spent several years doing finite element >analysis modelling of rail guns for the Center for Electromechanics at the >University of Texas. He says there's no anomaly at all...that their FEA >models clearly show the reaction forces being generated in the small areas >of the rails immediately adjacent to the projectile where the current "turns >the corner" to go from one rail, thru the projectile, across to the other >rail. The reaction forces are ordinary JxB forces. > >Scott Little Scott, It has been a while since this was posted, and I was going to let it go by because I don't know anything about rail guns. I shouldn't have let that stop me, I don't know anything about much of anything else, so why be prejudicial. The above statements have been nagging at me - probably because I don't understand the geometry of the rail gun being discussed. What I imagine is two conductive rails running parallel with a projectile between them that is a conductor between the rails. A magnetic field runs normal to the rails, so when the current runs through the projectile it is accelerated in the direction the rails point. If this is a correct picture, then the majority of the equal but opposite reactive force should be on the magnets, not the rails. The rails would have a large lateral force, but not longitudinal. In fact, I can see how you can eliminate the longitudinal force on the rails entirely, assuming a Lorenzian (if that is a word) force only. I am clueless about Ampere's longitudinal force, so that is another matter. Could you discuss briefly the gun geometry you are talking about? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 11 22:40:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA06036; Sat, 11 May 1996 22:36:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 22:36:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <319556fa.19957328@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: New concept in fusion X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I recommend a visit to: http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/index.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 11 22:41:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA06201; Sat, 11 May 1996 22:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 22:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > because I don't understand the geometry of the rail gun being discussed. > > What I imagine is two conductive rails running parallel with a projectile > between them that is a conductor between the rails. That's essentially correct, but there needn't be a solid conductor between the rails. I believe it is common practice to utilize an ionized plasma, often generated by vaporizing a metalic wire, etc. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 11 23:50:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA14717; Sat, 11 May 1996 23:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 23:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Horace Heffner wrote: >> because I don't understand the geometry of the rail gun being discussed. >> >> What I imagine is two conductive rails running parallel with a projectile >> between them that is a conductor between the rails. > >That's essentially correct, but there needn't be a solid conductor between >the rails. I believe it is common practice to utilize an ionized plasma, >often generated by vaporizing a metalic wire, etc. > > >-- > - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - Thanks. I realize a plasma may provide the "brushes" of the linear motor, but the main question I am asking is - is there simply a one way current, from rail to rail, through the projectile (which I assume is solid and conducts the emotive current, or maybe you are saying the projectile is sometimes a plasma?), or is there some kind of coil arrangement, or timed magnets, etc. I just can't imagine how the reactive force (recoil) would end up on the rails and not on the magnets. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 12 00:21:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA18822; Sun, 12 May 1996 00:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 00:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605120705.CAA19257@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 08:20 PM 5/11/96 -0700, Horace wrote: >What I imagine is two conductive rails running parallel with a projectile >between them that is a conductor between the rails. A magnetic field runs >normal to the rails, so when the current runs through the projectile it is >accelerated in the direction the rails point. Correct but the magnetic field is not from permanent magnets but rather from the current flowing in the rails. Use the right hand rule and you'll see that (looking from above at a horizontally pointed gun) if the current goes out the right rail, turns left to go across thru the projectile and then comes back thru the left rail that a magnetic field will be created that points UP in the space between the rails. This field fringes out thru the projectile's location so and the current thru the projectile crossed into the upward field produces a "Lorentz" force outward (out the "barrel"). To be sure there are large Lorentz forces that act to spread the rail apart (all loops of conductor try to become circular when a current is passed thru them). But what creates the force on the rails that is necessarily pointed back towards the "breech" of the gun...i.e. the recoil force? I must admit to a somewhat hasty original posting on this subject. I conferred with the engineer again and he reassured me that there was no mystery..but at the same time we were unable to see clearly where the reaction force is generated. In the region that I first indicated...where the rail current turns the corner to go thru the projectile, the current and magnetic field is about the same as it is for the projectile so, at least at first glance, it looks like that would only create a force in the outward direction. If you had the breech of the gun connected straight across with a compact, powerful current source located right there, then certainly the breech would be where the reaction force would be created. However, I have heard that you can connect long flexible cables to the breech ends of the rails and lead them way off to a remote current source and the gun will still fire and the rails will still buck backwards. I will take the matter up with him again. Meanwhile, any ideas from you or perhaps Mike Schaffer on how the reaction force could be generated in the rails? > >If this is a correct picture, then the majority of the equal but opposite >reactive force should be on the magnets, not the rails. The rails would >have a large lateral force, but not longitudinal. In fact, I can see how >you can eliminate the longitudinal force on the rails entirely, assuming a >Lorenzian (if that is a word) force only. I am clueless about Ampere's >longitudinal force, so that is another matter. > >Could you discuss briefly the gun geometry you are talking about? > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 12 00:23:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA18918; Sun, 12 May 1996 00:19:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 00:19:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Confused mumblings, Marinov's force, conserv. of p X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > Thanks. I realize a plasma may provide the "brushes" of the linear motor, > but the main question I am asking is - is there simply a one way current, > from rail to rail, through the projectile (which I assume is solid and > conducts the emotive current, or maybe you are saying the projectile is > sometimes a plasma?), or is there some kind of coil arrangement, or timed > magnets, etc. I just can't imagine how the reactive force (recoil) would > end up on the rails and not on the magnets. Magnets? The simplist rail gun is just two conductive rails/bars end-fed with electricity with an arc struck between them. (BTW polarity of the current flow is unimportant.) +-------+ rail | |-------------------------------------- | Power | * ----> | |-------------------------------------- +-------+ rail ^ arc You can put a non-conductive projectile in front of the plasma/arc. Since the plasma can't easily pass through the projectile, it pushes on it and the arc and projectile are accelerated out the end of the rail gun. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 12 00:37:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA20655; Sun, 12 May 1996 00:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 00:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605120721.CAA05093@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: New concept in fusion X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 10:36 PM 5/11/96 -0700, Robin wrote: >I recommend a visit to: > >http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/index.html It's Charles Cagle! Does anybody (Jed?) know what he's up to now? BillB, is he on Vortex? The web page shows a very curious looking device. I wrote to him asking for more info and to see if he wanted any help... - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 12 01:07:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA23891; Sun, 12 May 1996 01:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 01:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9605120854.AA21881@ arnold.math.ucla.edu.ucsd.edu > Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: barry@math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >..but at the same time we were unable to see clearly where the >reaction force is generated.... > - Scott Little You should bear in mind that it can often be difficult to see the action-reaction relationship in magnetic force problems. Canonical example: I hold a current loop in a magnetic field. Obvious J x B force on the loop. But: how does it generate a reaction force on the (unspecified) source of the magnetic field, which may be quite distant? The whole point is, that since the ampere's force law (force between two current elements goes like j1xj2/r^2) obeys the action-reaction rule (i.e. force on each eleemtn is equal and opposite to the other), so do arbitrary magnetic forces based on this law. Thus, since you seem to be using this law as the basis of your force calculations (i.e. you computed a j x B force, and you also imply all B's are generate by J's, so everything boils down to j1xj2 force effects a'la ampere), the forces all necessarily balance, even if it may be hard to see how this is so, This is the major problem I always have with magnetic-based free energy or reactionless force schemes: at some point you have to violate coulombs law and ampere's law for such to be the case. If that is so, the usual J x B business should be thrown out as well. One has an inconsistent system if one uses J x B to compute forces and curl B = J to compute fields, but wants to somehow violate conservation. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 12 21:28:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA00807; Sun, 12 May 1996 21:22:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 21:22:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605130236.TAA04277@nz1.netzone.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Joe Champion To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Texas A&M 1992 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: During the first quarter of 1994, twenty three elite Distinguished Professors from Texas A&M University signed a petition to oust Dr. John O'M Bockris from the faculty. Within the petition they stated: "The 'Alchemy' caper is everywhere, a sure trigger for sniggering at our University, and so it should be. For a trained scientist to claim, or support anyone else's claim, to have transmuted elements is difficult for us to believe, and is no more acceptable than to claim to have invented a gravity shield, revive the dead, or to be mining green cheese on the moon. We believe it is sheer nonsense, and in our opinion, could not have been done innocently by one with a lifetime of experience in one of the physical sciences...." It goes without saying that I was the one who requested Dr. Bockris's involvement into my research. Hence, I felt deep remorse from placing my good friend under such scrutiny. In 1992 I requested that Dr. Bockris review my research in Low Energy Nuclear Transmutation. After funding was acquired, a protocol was established to determine if any merits to my claims existed. On April 21, 1992 Dr. Guang Lin, a physicist assigned to Dr. Bockris's Department, prepared the third radiation decay curve on a sample taken from a low energy event designed to produce Au and Pt. The radiation decay curve was equal to that of a radioactive isotope of platinum. The isotope 78Pt197 is an observed product from one of my nuclear reactions. In its course of decay it converts to 79Au197, or stable gold. The quantitative level of gold (~100 ppm) was sufficient to be observed by ICP analysis. This information was made public by Dr. Bockris in several written communications and self published in 1992, 1993 and 1994. Four years later we find Dr. Minzuno et al. from the Hokkaido University in Japan reporting finding Pt197 from a low energy nuclear reaction. Yes, the same radioactive isotope validated by Texas A&M in 1992 from my original research. __________________ For those who desire to produce a little Au and Pt for themselves, I have outlined an electrochemical and thermal process. These procedures can be found on the Net at: http://www.netzone.com/~discpub/ht_pt.html (the electrochem procedure) http://www.netzone.com/~discpub/pb_au.html (the thermal process) No, I am not a scientist, nor do I qualify as a technician, just call me a recorder of observations. However, since I had observed the radiation previous to visiting Texas A&M I felt it would be nice for someone other than myself to validate it. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 13 07:30:58 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA23218; Mon, 13 May 1996 07:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 07:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Texas A&M 1992 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 05/12/96 21:26 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Texas A&M 1992 Hello Joe! Isn't it amazing the VITROL that the "gang of 23" used on Bockris? I have seen similar vitrol from the Anti-nuclear power people. I'm very skittish about critics and people with UNFOUNDED scathing critisms. (I say that because I find watching the carefully assembled Rush L. program that 90% of his "scathing" is done on a "well founded" basis. In point of fact, all he has to do is show video tapes of the people he is criticizing, and they DO THEMSELVES IN!! Ha Ha!) - Well this weekend was somewhat of a Cold Fusion BUST. Between the delayed by cold weather lawn work, and selling my old computer (which involved 4 hours of disk clean up and instruction to the young lady from my church to whom I sold it, no, don't get excited she was there with her boyfriend. ---who is to be commended for his patience! We ordered pizza while we went through this...) - I DID NOT get to putting the McMillan in the line. That might have to wait until later this week, this coming weekend. - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 13 09:24:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA15796; Mon, 13 May 1996 09:15:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 09:15:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Texas A&M 1992 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 05/13/96 07:30 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Texas A&M 1992 Whoops! Because a personal note from Joe followed this on the Email, I obviously got confused. Please ignore previous telegram.....come anyway....MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 14 01:54:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA07248; Tue, 14 May 1996 01:48:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 01:48:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605131714.KAA22151@nz1.netzone.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Joe Champion To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Texas A&M 1992 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: After placing my previous posting regarding the production of new radioactive isotopes, I was informed by Dr. Lin that the results from one of my Texas A&M experiments was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.5-6, 1995. Tittled -- "Observation of Beta Radiation Decay in Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" Complete experimental procedures are included in this paper. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 14 01:55:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA07388; Tue, 14 May 1996 01:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 01:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960513163345_100276.261_JHF30-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Wolfram Bahmann <100276.261@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Technosophic Institute of SLC X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Does anybody know more about a certain Technosophic (not certain about the correct word) Institute, situated in Salt Lake City. It is probably headed by a physicist named A. Zielinski, who gave a talk during the Denver ISNE '96 meeting. Paper is on page 453 of the printed proceddings. Today he called me on occasion of his spent in Germany for some smalltalk concerning the state of the art in my country. He reports to have a patented method of extracting aether energy via a solid state electronic device. It seems somewhat strange to me that he did not inform the Denver community about this invention and the principle of proof but presented some more general thoughts about a unified theory of physics. Any comments appreciated. Wolfram Bahmann Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc. - EURO. SECR. Feyermuehler Str.12 D-53894 MECHERNICH Germany fax: Int+49/ 2443-8221 e-mail: 100276.261@compuserve.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/wbahmann From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 14 01:55:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA07473; Tue, 14 May 1996 01:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 01:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605131752.KAA04768@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Rail Guns and Force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The basic concept of the rail gun is as Scott Little clarified: the gun consists of two long parallel electrical conductors (rails) with a short sliding armature (projectile) between them. A very large electric current is imposed from the breech end (via heavy buss work and some external pulsed power generator). The current flows along one rail, crosses through the projectile, and returns along the other rail. Usually no external magnetic field is applied, because 1) the very large rail and armature current already generates a very large magnetic field, and 2) this arrangement is simpler. Again, Scott correctly outlined the electromagnetic force: .... Use the right hand rule and you'll see that (looking from above at a horizontally pointed gun) if the current goes out the right rail, turns left to go across thru the projectile and then comes back thru the left rail that a magnetic field will be created that points UP in the space between the rails. This field fringes out thru the projectile's location so and the current thru the projectile crossed into the upward field produces a "Lorentz" force outward (out the "barrel") .... The detailed force calcualation gets messy, because the magnetic field is not uniform. However, one can do a simple paper and pencil calculation based on the changing inductance as the armature slides along the rail and calculate the TOTAL force acting on the armature. (This is a mathematical rigorous technique. As usual, scientists and engineers always look for short and simple ways to do things, just like anybody else.) Equal and opposite reaction is built into the equations of electromagnetism, so the rest of the rail gun must recoil from the equal and opposite force. However, the simple inductance technique does not show WHERE in the gun that reaction force is exerted. Graneau proposed that the force on charged particles in CONDENSED matter might take a different form than the Lorentz force, which is very well established on ISOLATED charged particles. Graneau apparently came to this hypothesis after observing how conductors carrying large currents broke, and he tried to imagine the forces that caused the breakage. ( He claimed that there had to be a force component PARALLEL to the current in the rails, whereas the Biot-Savaart force is always perpendicular to the local current.) This is tricky, because one must account for ALL the forces on a conductor element. Each element is acted upon mechanically (stress) by its neighboring elements, and the elements are all joined into a whole system. Also, under such large forces in a dynamically breaking system, the inertia of the element must be included in the balance. As I said earlier, Graneau didn't really do a complete force accounting in his papers. I talked with one of the scientists who worked on the General Atomics rail gun in the 1980s. He was slightly aware of Graneau's hypothesis. He was not aware of any unusual or unexpected distribution of recoil force in his gun. However, since there was no gun failure pointing to such an effect, no one checked specifically for it. The largest force by far, and the one that limits gun capabilities, is the force pushing the two rails apart. The rails are potted into a large fiber-composite cylindrical barrel for strength. However, Graneau's hypothesis might still tenable as a hypothesis, as far as I am knowledgable, because all physical experiments necessarily comprise at least two closed circuits, and measurements are usually made on macroscopic parts of that circuit or on whole circuits. The usual vector equation for the force between TWO ELEMENTS of current (Biot-Savaart form, which is consistent with the Lorentz force) can be modified by the addition of the gradient of a scalar potential, and the TOTAL force on a closed circuit will still be the SAME, although the LOCAL force on any given element will be DIFFERENT. This mathematical fact is usually left out of introductory textbooks (teaching electromagnetics is hard enough as it is--I taught it a few years myself) but it is taught in many advanced texts (the ability to transform a vector equation is always useful knowledge, because it may allow one to simplify certain problems). As I said in an earlier post, I have not been able to find a description of Ampere's original experiments anywhere accessable to me in a reasonable search time (a few hours). I do not know if the local force in condensed matter has ever been carefully measured or not. However, I do know that I and others design highly stressed electromagnets, for which it is necessary to calculate the force accurately everywhere, because there is not much margin between a successful high-field magnet and one that breaks. The calculations are usually done using the Biot-Savaart form. Just based on this experience, I doubt that there is any large undiscovered modification to Biot-Savaart in copper. In principle, the local force could be measured, but the experiment would have to carefully measure the local distribution of mechanical force (stress), too, and then look for any residual unaccounted force. Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 14 01:56:16 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA07692; Tue, 14 May 1996 01:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 01:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960513193409_490340175@emout14.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Fwd: Letters to the Editor X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I wrote to Scientific American and asked them why they are not covering the most important discovery of the Century, cold fusion. --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Re: Letters to the Editor Date: 96-05-13 09:16:48 EDT From: SCAletters To: FZNIDARSIC Dear Reader: Thank you for contacting SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Online. Your letter has been received and will be forwarded to our editors. Sincerely, Scientific American From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 14 01:57:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA07580; Tue, 14 May 1996 01:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 01:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605132157.OAA03857@mom.hooked.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: RGeorge@hooked.net To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: C&E News Cold Fusion and Urine Cults X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I rarely comment on Vortex but recently Arpil 29, 96 C&E News, the magazine of the American Chemical Society, pubished an article by Ron Dagani on cold fusion. Dagani stooped to the lowest of the trick of the journalistic trade "guilt by association" but hey cold fusion is everybody's whipping boy so why not compare cold fusion with people who advocate drinking and using ones urine as aftershave. I guess Dagani seems to believe they are rightly similarly supported fields of science. I wrote to C&E News they following letter but they seem to have taken my remark at Dagani being peevish quite literally and declined to publish it. What the hell I'll publish it here myself. Maybe Vortex can collectively improve on it. To: Madeleine Jacobs Subject: Re: "letter to editor of C&EN" Send reply to: rgeorge@hooked.net Date sent: Thu, 9 May 1996 12:33:26 I found Ron Dagani's carefully crafted report "Cold fusion lives - sort of" April 29 page 69 at first amusing but after having a few beers I am more aptly describe as "pissed off." One rarely has the opportunity to witness such a blatant case of "yellow journalism" on the sheets of C&EN. Dagani's peevish attack using the tried and true method of guilt by association reveals not only the bias of his "most scientists" audience but that of Dagani and C&EN as well toward "cold fusion." Perhaps the demanded "unequivocal proof" test has already been passed. If Dagani and C&EN are interested in relief from the pressure it might behoove them to simply "get off the pot" and open their eyes to the hundreds of reports by respected laboratories on cold fusion effects at 5 international annual conferences in the field. But that would require some serious effort and not be nearly as useful as relieving the "mainstream of science" by coloring the field of cold fusion research from the same sickening shade of yellow used to paint the "delusional" thinking of cultists extolling the use urine as a beverage. Russ George E-Quest Sciences Russ George From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 14 01:57:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA07776; Tue, 14 May 1996 01:53:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 01:53:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605140325.WAA25549@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Texas A&M 1992 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:22 PM 5/12/96 -0700, Joe C wrote: >For those who desire to produce a little Au and Pt for themselves, I have >outlined an electrochemical and thermal process.... Joe, in view of this disclosure would you mind if I told the Vortex gang what happened when I tried to make Pt from Hg? - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-1628 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 15 02:46:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA27455; Wed, 15 May 1996 02:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 02:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605131714.KAA22151@nz1.netzone.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Joe Champion To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Texas A&M 1992 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: After placing my previous posting regarding the production of new radioactive isotopes, I was informed by Dr. Lin that the results from one of my Texas A&M experiments was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.5-6, 1995. Tittled -- "Observation of Beta Radiation Decay in Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" Complete experimental procedures are included in this paper. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 15 02:55:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA28638; Wed, 15 May 1996 02:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 02:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605132157.OAA03857@mom.hooked.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: RGeorge@hooked.net To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: C&E News Cold Fusion and Urine Cults X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I rarely comment on Vortex but recently Arpil 29, 96 C&E News, the magazine of the American Chemical Society, pubished an article by Ron Dagani on cold fusion. Dagani stooped to the lowest of the trick of the journalistic trade "guilt by association" but hey cold fusion is everybody's whipping boy so why not compare cold fusion with people who advocate drinking and using ones urine as aftershave. I guess Dagani seems to believe they are rightly similarly supported fields of science. I wrote to C&E News they following letter but they seem to have taken my remark at Dagani being peevish quite literally and declined to publish it. What the hell I'll publish it here myself. Maybe Vortex can collectively improve on it. To: Madeleine Jacobs Subject: Re: "letter to editor of C&EN" Send reply to: rgeorge@hooked.net Date sent: Thu, 9 May 1996 12:33:26 I found Ron Dagani's carefully crafted report "Cold fusion lives - sort of" April 29 page 69 at first amusing but after having a few beers I am more aptly describe as "pissed off." One rarely has the opportunity to witness such a blatant case of "yellow journalism" on the sheets of C&EN. Dagani's peevish attack using the tried and true method of guilt by association reveals not only the bias of his "most scientists" audience but that of Dagani and C&EN as well toward "cold fusion." Perhaps the demanded "unequivocal proof" test has already been passed. If Dagani and C&EN are interested in relief from the pressure it might behoove them to simply "get off the pot" and open their eyes to the hundreds of reports by respected laboratories on cold fusion effects at 5 international annual conferences in the field. But that would require some serious effort and not be nearly as useful as relieving the "mainstream of science" by coloring the field of cold fusion research from the same sickening shade of yellow used to paint the "delusional" thinking of cultists extolling the use urine as a beverage. Russ George E-Quest Sciences Russ George From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 15 06:39:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA15000; Wed, 15 May 1996 06:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 06:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: David Hildyard To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: C&E News Cold Fusion and Urine Cults X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 14 May 1996 RGeorge@hooked.net wrote: > to paint the "delusional" thinking of cultists extolling the use urine > as a beverage. Clever words... BUT, did you know that urine is a very ecceptable form of therapy in alternative (I prefer the word advanced) medicine, particularly in the field of cancer? Drinking your own urine can be a advantageous to your health.... Cult or no Cult:). Cheers, PS: I am new to this group. Where can I obtain more information about the water vortex technology touted as part of this discussion list? Thanks. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 15 06:39:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA15073; Wed, 15 May 1996 06:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 06:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960514215456_535381559@emout17.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Puthoff@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Recombination X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Schaffer wrote on recomb with ersatz beads. But to cut to the chase, are you getting excess heat with ersatz beads? Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 15 06:40:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA14916; Wed, 15 May 1996 06:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 06:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960514220002_535385820@emout13.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Puthoff@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: ZPE Tapping in SL to be Annointed... NOT for energy X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Logajan writes that Eberlein's paper does not indicate excess energy from the ZPE, just that ZPE is a mechanism for energy transfer from one system to another. That is my take on it as well, and my discussion with Eberlein confirmed this. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 15 06:41:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA15176; Wed, 15 May 1996 06:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 06:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: CF compared to ESP X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Here is an excellent article comparing cold fusion work to the ESP work of J. B. Rhine: http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/cold.txt Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 15 07:29:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA25193; Wed, 15 May 1996 07:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 07:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960513163345_100276.261_JHF30-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Wolfram Bahmann <100276.261@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Technosophic Institute of SLC X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Does anybody know more about a certain Technosophic (not certain about the correct word) Institute, situated in Salt Lake City. It is probably headed by a physicist named A. Zielinski, who gave a talk during the Denver ISNE '96 meeting. Paper is on page 453 of the printed proceddings. Today he called me on occasion of his spent in Germany for some smalltalk concerning the state of the art in my country. He reports to have a patented method of extracting aether energy via a solid state electronic device. It seems somewhat strange to me that he did not inform the Denver community about this invention and the principle of proof but presented some more general thoughts about a unified theory of physics. Any comments appreciated. Wolfram Bahmann Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc. - EURO. SECR. Feyermuehler Str.12 D-53894 MECHERNICH Germany fax: Int+49/ 2443-8221 e-mail: 100276.261@compuserve.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/wbahmann From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 15 07:35:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA25492; Wed, 15 May 1996 07:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 07:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605131752.KAA04768@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Rail Guns and Force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The basic concept of the rail gun is as Scott Little clarified: the gun consists of two long parallel electrical conductors (rails) with a short sliding armature (projectile) between them. A very large electric current is imposed from the breech end (via heavy buss work and some external pulsed power generator). The current flows along one rail, crosses through the projectile, and returns along the other rail. Usually no external magnetic field is applied, because 1) the very large rail and armature current already generates a very large magnetic field, and 2) this arrangement is simpler. Again, Scott correctly outlined the electromagnetic force: .... Use the right hand rule and you'll see that (looking from above at a horizontally pointed gun) if the current goes out the right rail, turns left to go across thru the projectile and then comes back thru the left rail that a magnetic field will be created that points UP in the space between the rails. This field fringes out thru the projectile's location so and the current thru the projectile crossed into the upward field produces a "Lorentz" force outward (out the "barrel") .... The detailed force calcualation gets messy, because the magnetic field is not uniform. However, one can do a simple paper and pencil calculation based on the changing inductance as the armature slides along the rail and calculate the TOTAL force acting on the armature. (This is a mathematical rigorous technique. As usual, scientists and engineers always look for short and simple ways to do things, just like anybody else.) Equal and opposite reaction is built into the equations of electromagnetism, so the rest of the rail gun must recoil from the equal and opposite force. However, the simple inductance technique does not show WHERE in the gun that reaction force is exerted. Graneau proposed that the force on charged particles in CONDENSED matter might take a different form than the Lorentz force, which is very well established on ISOLATED charged particles. Graneau apparently came to this hypothesis after observing how conductors carrying large currents broke, and he tried to imagine the forces that caused the breakage. ( He claimed that there had to be a force component PARALLEL to the current in the rails, whereas the Biot-Savaart force is always perpendicular to the local current.) This is tricky, because one must account for ALL the forces on a conductor element. Each element is acted upon mechanically (stress) by its neighboring elements, and the elements are all joined into a whole system. Also, under such large forces in a dynamically breaking system, the inertia of the element must be included in the balance. As I said earlier, Graneau didn't really do a complete force accounting in his papers. I talked with one of the scientists who worked on the General Atomics rail gun in the 1980s. He was slightly aware of Graneau's hypothesis. He was not aware of any unusual or unexpected distribution of recoil force in his gun. However, since there was no gun failure pointing to such an effect, no one checked specifically for it. The largest force by far, and the one that limits gun capabilities, is the force pushing the two rails apart. The rails are potted into a large fiber-composite cylindrical barrel for strength. However, Graneau's hypothesis might still tenable as a hypothesis, as far as I am knowledgable, because all physical experiments necessarily comprise at least two closed circuits, and measurements are usually made on macroscopic parts of that circuit or on whole circuits. The usual vector equation for the force between TWO ELEMENTS of current (Biot-Savaart form, which is consistent with the Lorentz force) can be modified by the addition of the gradient of a scalar potential, and the TOTAL force on a closed circuit will still be the SAME, although the LOCAL force on any given element will be DIFFERENT. This mathematical fact is usually left out of introductory textbooks (teaching electromagnetics is hard enough as it is--I taught it a few years myself) but it is taught in many advanced texts (the ability to transform a vector equation is always useful knowledge, because it may allow one to simplify certain problems). As I said in an earlier post, I have not been able to find a description of Ampere's original experiments anywhere accessable to me in a reasonable search time (a few hours). I do not know if the local force in condensed matter has ever been carefully measured or not. However, I do know that I and others design highly stressed electromagnets, for which it is necessary to calculate the force accurately everywhere, because there is not much margin between a successful high-field magnet and one that breaks. The calculations are usually done using the Biot-Savaart form. Just based on this experience, I doubt that there is any large undiscovered modification to Biot-Savaart in copper. In principle, the local force could be measured, but the experiment would have to carefully measure the local distribution of mechanical force (stress), too, and then look for any residual unaccounted force. Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 15 12:48:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA27887; Wed, 15 May 1996 12:37:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 12:37:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960515164040_72240.1256_EHB154-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: CF compared to ESP X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Larry Wharton writes: "Here is an excellent article comparing cold fusion work to the ESP work of J. B. Rhine: http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/cold.txt" I disagree. I think it is a terrible article. It does not make a *single reference* to the experimental literature, and it does not mention the fact that CF has been widely replicated at astronomically high signal to noise ratios. How can anyone write a serious essay about a scientific subject while ignoring all of the published data? This is nothing but a rehash of long discredited theoretical objections to experimentally established facts. The author, like so many other academics, wants to reverse the scientific method. He would make the textbook the final arbiter of reality. He wants to overrule the thermocouples, neutron detectors, and mass spectrographs, because his theories cannot explain what they prove. CF bears no resemblance to Rhine's work, or to Blondlot's N-Rays. These phenomena were not replicated, and they were said to be subtle and difficult to detect. CF is just the opposite in every respect: it has been widely replicated and, when the effect turns on strongly, it is impossible to miss. Nobody could mistake a test tube of room temperature water for a test tube of boiling water. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 15 12:48:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA28015; Wed, 15 May 1996 12:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 12:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Marinov paper on www X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Marinov's Nature paper (an advertizement) has been posted on: http://www.padrak.com/ine/MARINOV1.html Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 16 03:40:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA17824; Thu, 16 May 1996 03:36:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 03:36:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960515190928_536000196@emout07.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Fax from FernUniversitat. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Subj: Re: Technosophic Institute of SLC Date: 96-05-15 16:37:04 EDT From: FZNIDARSIC Auf Deutch Zu: Wolfram Bahmann & Josef Gruber, Ich habe seine FAX bekommen. Es ist schade aber Ich habe keine freuious energie maschine. Ich suche auch fur solche maschine. Ich will eines dieser zum Markt bringen. Ich habe auch finanziel stuetzen aber Ich habe keine Geschaefte plan. Am Juni 1 durc Juni 10 will ich zu Los Alamos gehen. Ich will dann der Maschine dem Potapov sehen. Vlad, der Sohn dem Potapov, ist jest in Russia um Urlaub. Ich schreibt zu Ihn and ruft Ihn auf dem telefon. Er hast nicht jesst an mir zuruck ruft. Ich will mit Sie in kontact bleiben. Frank Z ............................................................................. ............................................ In English Wolfram & Josef I have received you fax. It regret to say that I do not have a free energy machine. I to am searching for such a machine. I want to bring the technology to the market. I have some financial backing but I still have not identified an avaliable technology with marketable potential. On June 1 through the 10 I would like to go to Los Alamos. I want to see Potapov's machine. Vlad, the son of Potapov, is now on vacation in Russia. I wrote to him and called him on the phone. He has not yet returned my calls. I would like to remain in touch with you. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 16 18:51:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA16557; Thu, 16 May 1996 18:46:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 18:46:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605161213.AA22059@felix.dircon.co.uk> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: dominic@dircon.co.uk (Dominic Murphy) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Please read this... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Harold Aspden fax is +44-(0)1703-769830, don't know eMail.> >Does anyone happen to know the email addresses for the following: > >1. Don Kelly, Space Energy Association >2. Dr Harold Aspden, Sabberton Reasearch & Publications, UK > >Thank you. > >DPH. > > dominic murphy +44 (0)181 747 0499 Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > >If you had the breech of the gun connected straight across with a compact, >powerful current source located right there, then certainly the breech would >be where the reaction force would be created. However, I have heard that >you can connect long flexible cables to the breech ends of the rails and >lead them way off to a remote current source and the gun will still fire and >the rails will still buck backwards. > >I will take the matter up with him again. Meanwhile, any ideas from you or >perhaps Mike Schaffer on how the reaction force could be generated in the >rails? > [snip] > > - Scott Little [snip] I think the force in the rail must be generated wherever the rail power supply is not in alignment with the rail. This would probably be mostly in the rail at the breach where the supply is connected to the rail. Here the current would take a strong angle, even to almost 90 degrees, to get to any supply not in line with the rail, i.e. any connected supply not just a continuation of the rail. Also, reactive forces could be generated in the supporting assembly, especially if made of steel. Just as a force would be exerted on a permanent magnet, such a force would be exerted by the armature on a temporarily or permanently magnetized piece of steel in the vicinity of the rails. I think the forces on the rail near the armature must be in the direction of the armature motion. This is due to the angled vector sum in the rails where the current turns the corner toward (from) the armature, and also due to induced eddy currents in the rail in the vicinity of the armature, induced by the moving magnetic field of the armature, creating drag from the rail on the armature, and vice versa. Therefore, there is a combined force in the rails, from the breech to the armature, tending to pull the rails apart longitudinally, even without any longitudinal force. The balance of the recoil must be distributed in the power supply circuit. A finite element analysis should clearly show all this, though. An interresting question is whether using a gradually arching power supply bus connected in-line to the breech ends of the rails (or just an arched downward continuation of the rail), combined with alow mu, low conductivity, rail support structure, would lower the center of gravity of the recoil and channel some of it downward. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 16 18:53:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA16603; Thu, 16 May 1996 18:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 18:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605161337.GAA08224@ns2.indirect.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Reed Huish To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Please read this... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 16 May 1996, David Hildyard wrote: > >Does anyone happen to know the email addresses for the following: > >1. Don Kelly, Space Energy Association PO Box 1136 Clearwater, FL 34617-1136 (813) 586-5110 >2. Dr Harold Aspden, Sabberton Reasearch & Publications, UK Acres High, Hadrian Way Chilworth, Southampton S016 7HZ England > >Thank you. > >DPH. > > > > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 16 18:53:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA16676; Thu, 16 May 1996 18:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 18:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <319BCD8F@ELAN.RDYNE.ROCKWELL.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Scudder, Henry J." To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Vtx: Recombination, continued X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Rocketdyne feels that some of the work done on laser fusion is proprietory, at least with respect to competitors in the aerospace industry, such as Aerojet and Pratt Whitney. The ideas I laid out in my previous message need some correction. The basic idea is correct, that laser light will cause dissociation of O2 molecules, which will then combine with H2 making water and changing the chemical energy created by the electrolysis into thermal energy absorbed by the surrounding fluid. The frequency of the laser needed to do this is in the near ultraviolet, with an optimum wavelength at 225.6nm and needs about a half mjoule of energy. A wavelength near this is obtained by hitting a crystal with non-linear properties with a blue laser light near twice this wavelength. The crystal acts as a frequency doubler and is available commercially from an outfit here in LA. Solid state lasers are available which have enough energy in a pulse to allow the crystal to frequency double and get enough energy to dissociate the O2. Because of the safety issue in allowing gentle ignition of the gases of electrolysis, Rocketdyne is very liable to release the necessary information to anyone who is a serious experimenter, and is willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Contact Jeff Hunt at Rocketdyne, e-mail address for more information. There is also a NASA Lewis laser fusion page at which is interesting to browse, but doesn't really have much immediately relevant information for Vortexans. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 16 23:41:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA10370; Thu, 16 May 1996 23:36:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 23:36:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I4SEVNLJA08ZFMV8@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Recombination X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >The basic idea is correct, that laser light will >cause dissociation of O2 molecules, which will then combine >with H2 making water "Combine", is this combustion or another form of recombination? Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 16 23:41:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA10203; Thu, 16 May 1996 23:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 23:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I4SENF872Q8ZFMV8@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: MAGAZINES X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > they are cheaper than all their competitors and "even the publishers" >Their prices are so cheap because they deal direct with each publisher and >cut-out all the middlemen. Sounds like a sort of excess energy of Rag distributors. Maybe "excess magazine?" Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 17 21:16:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA05573; Fri, 17 May 1996 21:13:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 21:13:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Schaffer@gav.gat.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote... >I think the forces on the rail near the armature must be in the direction >of the armature motion. This is due to the angled vector sum in the rails >where the current turns the corner toward (from) the armature, and also due >to induced eddy currents in the rail in the vicinity of the armature, >induced by the moving magnetic field of the armature, creating drag from >the rail on the armature, and vice versa. Therefore, there is a combined >force in the rails, from the breech to the armature, tending to pull the >rails apart longitudinally, even without any longitudinal force. The >balance of the recoil must be distributed in the power supply circuit. Yes, this is correct. Michael J. Schaffer michael.schaffer@gat.com Tel: 619-455-2841 Fax: 619-455-4156 General Atomics, PO Box 85606, San Diego CA 92186-9784, USA From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 17 21:17:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA05136; Fri, 17 May 1996 21:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 21:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > >If you had the breech of the gun connected straight across with a compact, >powerful current source located right there, then certainly the breech would >be where the reaction force would be created. However, I have heard that >you can connect long flexible cables to the breech ends of the rails and >lead them way off to a remote current source and the gun will still fire and >the rails will still buck backwards. > >I will take the matter up with him again. Meanwhile, any ideas from you or >perhaps Mike Schaffer on how the reaction force could be generated in the >rails? > [snip] > > - Scott Little [snip] I think the force in the rail must be generated wherever the rail power supply is not in alignment with the rail. This would probably be mostly in the rail at the breach where the supply is connected to the rail. Here the current would take a strong angle, even to almost 90 degrees, to get to any supply not in line with the rail, i.e. any connected supply not just a continuation of the rail. Also, reactive forces could be generated in the supporting assembly, especially if made of steel. Just as a force would be exerted on a permanent magnet, such a force would be exerted by the armature on a temporarily or permanently magnetized piece of steel in the vicinity of the rails. I think the forces on the rail near the armature must be in the direction of the armature motion. This is due to the angled vector sum in the rails where the current turns the corner toward (from) the armature, and also due to induced eddy currents in the rail in the vicinity of the armature, induced by the moving magnetic field of the armature, creating drag from the rail on the armature, and vice versa. Therefore, there is a combined force in the rails, from the breech to the armature, tending to pull the rails apart longitudinally, even without any longitudinal force. The balance of the recoil must be distributed in the power supply circuit. A finite element analysis should clearly show all this, though. An interresting question is whether using a gradually arching power supply bus connected in-line to the breech ends of the rails (or just an arched downward continuation of the rail), combined with a low mu, low conductivity, rail support structure, would lower the center of gravity of the recoil and channel some of it downward. An additional thought about the percieved recoil: in cases where the lateral motion of the current at the breech is not enough to offset the forward pull on the rails at the armature, i.e. the net force on the rails is in a forward direction, it might appear that there is recoil due to flexing of the rail mount or pedestal. It would distort in a forward direction very quickly while the gun was being fired, but recoil backwards at a natural relaxation speed, thus the "recoil" would be more visible, and not occur at the very brief and distracting moment the gun is being fired. In other words, the "recoil" may be an illusion caused by an unanticipated net forward force on the rails during armature acceleration. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 17 21:17:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA05698; Fri, 17 May 1996 21:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 21:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <319CA338@ELAN.RDYNE.ROCKWELL.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Scudder, Henry J." To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Recombination X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Joe, Recombination, combine, combustion, etc. they all make water. the laser pulses, at about 10 to 30 Hz are not continually present, there must be some short time lag between electrolitic production, and recomination of the H2 and O2. Hank ---------- From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Recombination Date: Thursday, May 16, 1996 11:37PM >The basic idea is correct, that laser light will >cause dissociation of O2 molecules, which will then combine >with H2 making water "Combine", is this combustion or another form of recombination? Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 17 21:17:26 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA05426; Fri, 17 May 1996 21:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 21:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Graneau book X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Peter Graneau has a new book in which many Vorticians may be interested. Che= ck: http://www.singnet.com.sg/~wspclib/Books/physics/2770.html the abstract is: Newtonian Electrodynamics by Peter Graneau(Northeastern Univ. Boston) & Neal Graneau(Oxford) The book deals with the resurgence of nineteenth century electromagnetism in physics and electrical engineering. It describes a series of important experiments, and new technologies based on these experiments, which cannot be explained by and analyzed with the modern relativistic electrodynamics of the twentieth century. The Newtonian electrodynamics of Coulomb, Ampere, Neumann, and Kirchhoff, which was current from 1750 to 1900, is fully reviewed and greatly extended to deal with contemporary research on exploding wires, railguns and other electromagnetic accelerators, jet propulsion in liquid metals, arc plasma explosions, capillary fusion, and lightning phenomena. Much of the book is based on the atomic definition of the Amperian current element. Finite element techniques for solving many electrodynamic problems are described. Contents: Evolution of the Nineteenth Century Newtonian Electrodynamics; Experimental Demonstration of Longitudinal Amp=8Fre Forces; Theoretical Developments; The Nature of Current Elements; The Railgun: Testbed of the Newtonian Electrodynamics; Electrodynamics of Arc Explosions; Electrodynamics in the Quest for New Energy. Readership: Graduates and researchers in physics and electrical engineering. Number of pages: 304ppPublished: Feb 1996 Hardcover:ISBN 981-02-2284-X US$58/=A341 Softcover:ISBN 981-02-2681-0 US$36/=A325. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486=20 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 17 21:19:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA05811; Fri, 17 May 1996 21:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 21:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: on longitudinal force (from Volodya) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Dear Horace, > >I kept a cilence because I was out of Moscow for more than two weeks. >Having returned, I had many deals with the radio exhibition so had no >time to reply in details to your messages. >Yes, I received all them, thanks! > >This Sunday I go to St.Pete (St.Petersburg) so I think it would be better >if I show your messages to my electrodynamics friends. >Earlier I said that my concept of the longitudinal force differs from your >one but their concept could be closer to your. >I hope to email you from St.Pete when I discuss it with my friends. > >With warm regard, >Volodya Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 17 21:29:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA05754; Fri, 17 May 1996 21:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 21:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9605171707.AA89706@echo.i-link.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (21st Century Logic) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > >If you had the breech of the gun connected straight across with a compact, >powerful current source located right there, then certainly the breech would >be where the reaction force would be created. However, I have heard that >you can connect long flexible cables to the breech ends of the rails and >lead them way off to a remote current source and the gun will still fire and >the rails will still buck backwards. > >I will take the matter up with him again. Meanwhile, any ideas from you or >perhaps Mike Schaffer on how the reaction force could be generated in the >rails? ***{My assumption up to this point has been that the type of rail gun under discussion here is one that employs an arc explosion to drive the projectile. For example, electron current flows out along the right-hand rail, up into the right side of the projectile, and thence to a small air gap in the circuit at the back of the projectile. The current then arcs across that air gap and proceeds down into the left rail and back to the voltage source. Because the air gap is situated at the back of the projectile, and because the arc produces rapid heating of the air in the gap, the air expands explosively at the back of the projectile, pushing it forward. As the air is driven away from the gap, the circuit is momentarily broken, but then more air rushes back in, and after a very brief fraction of a second, another arc occurs across the gap, producing another explosion, and giving the projectile yet another impulse in the forward direction. The process is repeated as the projectile accelerates down the rails, and ceases when it flys away from the end of the track, breaking the circuit. Under this scenario, the projectile is driven forward by a series of electrically induced explosions, and the rail apparatus itself is driven backwards by the jet of superheated air that recoils away from the back side of the projectile. (The projectile, in effect, is jet propelled.) Note that in this scenario it makes no difference whether the voltage source is placed at the front of the rails or at the back, because the force that drives the projectile comes from the explosive expansion of gases, not from an electromagnetic interaction. For those who doubt that arc explosions can exert driving force on physical objects, I would suggest an experiment: lay one lead from a 12-volt battery on a low friction surface (e.g., a sheet of glass) and then slowly slide the other lead toward it until an arc occurs. When it does, you will note that the free lead flys away, breaking the circuit. From such a result, it becomes clear that a very rapid series of such explosions could easily drive a projectile down a rail. Such an outcome would have nothing to do with electromagnetics or with the Biot-Savart law, and would not imply the existence of the so-called "Ampere longitudinal force." --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 18 12:44:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA01184; Sat, 18 May 1996 12:39:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 12:39:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960518010807_116085881@emout15.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: some business and cold fusion home pages X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Here are some home pages that my interest you. They run slow on AOL. Iin NETSCAPE they are up in a flash. BUSINESS Investors Edge...Indexes..T-bill rates...interest rates http://www.irnet.com/scripts/ethos.exe?WWW+p_IEIndices ............................................................................. ................ Lombard...Quoteserer with historical in intraday graphs http://www.lombard.com/PACentr ............................................................................. .. GALT ..Mutual fund profiles http://networth.galt.com/www/home/networth.html ........................................................................... Graph of the NASDAK http://www.secapl.com/secapl/quoteserver/nasdaq.html ............................................................................. .............. APL Quote server http://www.secapl.com/cqi-bin/qs ............................................................................. ........ Graph of the S & P 500 http://www.secapl.com/secapl/quoteserver/sp500.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------- Cold fusion science Muller Dynamo http://www.aa.net/~mwm/mmag2.html ............................................................................. ...... CF Germany http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage/wbahmann ............................................................................. ......... Infinite Energy Home page http://www.mit.edu/people/rei/CFdir/CFhome.html ............................................................................. ......... Weird Science..my disk.. http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/sale.html .......................................................................... Theories papers http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Phil-Gibbs/theories.html ............................................................................. ..................... Cold Fusion at LanL http://wwwnde.esa.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.html .......................................................................... Joe Champoin and transmutations http://www.netzone.com/~discpub ............................................................................. . CETI http://www.onramp.net/~ceti ..................................................................... Elektromagnum Sweden some of my papers http://nucleus.ibg.uu.se/~david/elektromagnum/web/index.html ............................................................................. ................ NASA tech reports http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/NTRS ............................................................................. ..... mica http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html ................................................................... I hope I have not overlooked any of the URL's that you like many of these URL's reference others. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 18 12:48:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA01533; Sat, 18 May 1996 12:41:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 12:41:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > voltage source. Because the air gap is situated at the back of the > projectile, and because the arc produces rapid heating of the air in the > gap, the air expands explosively at the back of the projectile, pushing it > forward. As the air is driven away from the gap, the circuit is momentarily > broken, but then more air rushes back in, and after a very brief fraction > of a second, another arc occurs across the gap, producing another > explosion, and giving the projectile yet another impulse in the forward > direction. The exit velocities of experimental rail guns rule out shockwave propulsion. I seem to recall velocities being reached which were substantial fractions of earth escape velocity. At those velocities they leave a vacuum wake behind them. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 19 00:19:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA01293; Sun, 19 May 1996 00:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 00:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9605182155.AA40982@echo.i-link.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (21st Century Logic) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >> voltage source. Because the air gap is situated at the back of the >> projectile, and because the arc produces rapid heating of the air in the >> gap, the air expands explosively at the back of the projectile, pushing it >> forward. As the air is driven away from the gap, the circuit is momentarily >> broken, but then more air rushes back in, and after a very brief fraction >> of a second, another arc occurs across the gap, producing another >> explosion, and giving the projectile yet another impulse in the forward >> direction. > >The exit velocities of experimental rail guns rule out shockwave propulsion. > >I seem to recall velocities being reached which were substantial fractions >of earth escape velocity. At those velocities they leave a vacuum wake >behind them. > > >-- > - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - > - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - > - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - ***{John, it is entirely conceivable to me that exit velocities could be too high for my explanation to apply. However, the expression "I seem to recall," in your note, leaves the question rather open. Some references would be nice. In the meantime, since unsupported remembrances are acceptable here, my recollection is that there were a number of *theoretical speculations*, a few years ago, that it might be possible to use rail guns to launch space probes. Those speculations, however, were clearly based on the assumption that the propulsion mechanism was *not* the one proposed by me, above, and I do not recall any claims of *actual experiments* that achieved such velocities. Since there has been plenty of time in the ensuing 20 years or so to develop such a launch technology, and it hasn't happened, that suggests to me rather strongly that such velocities were never experimentally verified. (NASA, after all, has been desperate for a number of years now to find a more cost effective launching technique.) With regard to the underlying issue, I believe that the Biot-Savart law is correct as stated and that the longitudinal Ampere force does not exist. In my opinion, Ampere did not derive his longitudinal force from observations, but from pique at the fact that the Biot-Savart law seemed to violate Newton's 3rd law of motion. (It really doesn't.) To correct this supposed deficiency, he postulated his longitudinal force, which he defined as perpendicular to the Biot-Savart force and such that the resultant of the two forces on one current element would be equal and opposite to the resultant of the complementary pair of forces on the other. While he did conduct a number of experiments in an attempt to prove the existence of his longitudinal force, I believe that they were inconclusive at best, and I know of no modern experiments that were any better. For example, Chris Tinsley recently described to me an experiment by Dr Peter Graneau in which a metallic electrode was floated in mercury and apparently connected to a voltage source with a flexible insulated cable. The other electrode was apparently fixed at some point in the solution, and when current was turned on, the floating electrode was driven away from the fixed electrode. From this, Graneau seems to have concluded that the Ampere longitudinal force existed. All I would conclude, however, would be that the flow of electrons heated the mercury in the gap. Result: there would be a rising column of cool mercury beneath the center of the gap and an outward spreading flow of heated mercury in the gap itself, which would tend to drive the floating electrode away from the fixed one. Such an explanation arises out of conventional thermodynamics, and in no way supports the existence of the Ampere longitudinal force. Chris also mentioned an experiment by Graneau's son which he personally witnessed at Oxford, in which a high current arc had the effect of centralizing a conductor segment in a larger gap between two other conductors. To Graneau, this result apparently is yet another demonstration of the existence of the Ampere longitudinal force. To me, however, it merely provides another example of the fact that an arc explosion exerts a driving force on a physical object. It seems obvious (a) that the Biot-Savart force will hold the loose segment inline with the other two conductors; and (b) that the arc explosions will exert greater force on the side of the intermediate segment where the gap is smaller. Result: an equilibrium position is reached by the loose segment only when the gaps at either end are equal and it has been centralized. Bottom line: I see nothing in such results which confirms the existence of the Ampere longitudinal force, despite the fact that they occur in association with a current flow. My present inclination is to take the Biot-Savart law pretty much at face value. --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 19 00:19:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA01403; Sun, 19 May 1996 00:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 00:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960518185836_304088332@emout07.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: RMCarrell@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Jones suggests a test in which leads to a car battery are placed on a low-friction surface and then shorted, noting that the free lead will jump away from the arc, and concludes that the repelling force is in the arc and electrodynamics is not involved. Sorry, but a car battery will deliver hundreds of amperes under the circumstances and the magnetic field in the wires will generate an expansive force to produce just the effect observed. Mike Carrell From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 19 00:19:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA01432; Sun, 19 May 1996 00:13:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 00:13:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960519011851.50bf7c5e@world.std.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mitchell Swartz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Did you file a patent application in this field? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: May 18, 1996 Dear colleague(s): Seven years have passed since widespread discussions of nuclear reactions in the solid state. This is a short survey to investigate what happened to the patent applications which were filed in the United States in the field of cold fusion [or by whatever term is used to represent solid state enthalpic reactions secondary to isotopic loading]. If you filed a patent in this field, would you please consider answering the following short questionnaire so that some actual data can be collected. You may send your response by e-mail to me at mica@world.std.com with the subject "Patent Survey" on the e-mail so as to flag your effort. If you did not file, but know someone who did, would you please e-mail a copy of this to them. ==== Patent Survey ===== 1. Did you file alone, or with other inventors? 2. When did you file? When did the patent issue? or when was it abandoned? 3. Did you get courteous, reasonable, service from the Patent Office? (any comments here would be helped by identification of Group Art) 4. In addition to any comments you might have, do you have any other thoughts or impressions of the efficiency, promptness, candor, responsiveness, integrity, competence, technical level demonstrated by the Office? 5. Are you an attorney, a patent attorney, patent agent or employee of the Office? === end of Patent Survey ====== That's it. Thank you for listening. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 19 02:32:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA23916; Sun, 19 May 1996 02:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 02:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Jones writes: > my recollection is that there were a number of *theoretical speculations*, a > few years ago, that it might be possible to use rail guns to launch space > probes. I think those were coil guns rather than rail guns. Experimental versions of both coil guns and rail guns have been built and tested. Rail guns are more appropriate for small projectiles. Coil guns are more appropriate for larger payloads. > I do not recall any claims of *actual experiments* that achieved such > velocities. Probably not in coil guns, as they are large and expensive to construct. Therefore only small demonstration units have been tested. Rail guns, being relatively easier to construct, have indeed been built and tested, and have achieved (last I heard several years ago) near escape velocity. > Since there has been plenty of time in the ensuing 20 years or > so to develop such a launch technology, and it hasn't happened, that > suggests to me rather strongly that such velocities were never > experimentally verified. (NASA, after all, has been desperate for a number > of years now to find a more cost effective launching technique.) Based upon first principles of time/acceleration/velocity/distance, a coil gun providing 1G of acceleration would have to be 4000 miles long to allow the projectile to reach escape velocity. Therefore 2000 miles at 2G, 400 miles at 10G, 40 miles at 100G, 1 mile at 4000G, etc. A coil gun suitable for launching humans would be limited in G's to, what, 5G's? and so would have to be about 800 miles long. I don't think this is economically viable even if NASA is desperate. :-) -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 19 05:30:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA07383; Sun, 19 May 1996 05:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 05:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960519121728_100433.1541_BHG47-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Economist article on ZPF X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This article appeared in The Economist, May 10 1996, P110. I noted Dr Puthoff's comments on the work of Dr Eberlein, in that no energy conservation violation was predicted. I wonder if he could clarify this: is he saying that energy is conserved in the system as a whole, but that there is a net production of energy in 'the real world'; or that the apparent release of energy in sonoluminscent systems derives entirely from 'real world' energy put into the bubbles by the mechanical energy of the sound? May I also express he my gratitude to Mr Akira Kawasaki, who funded my purchase of (among other hardware) the OCR scanner which made such light work of copying this article. -------------------------------- SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Sonoluminescence Real virtuality It has long been thought that "empty" space is actually jam-packed full of particles. But, awkwardly, these particles are both transient and imperceptible. Physicists, nevertheless, have often hoped for a sort of astral communication with them. Indeed, they believe that such particles do sometimes become tangible in outer space. Unfortunately, it is rather hard to study them there. Now there is a new idea: that they can become real in the laboratory, too, and have been staring puzzled physicists in the face for six decades. The laboratory mystery, first noticed in 1934, is sonoluminescence - the phenomenon of sound producing light. This happens when a sound wave travels through a liquid. As the wave passes, each point in the liquid alternates between high and low pressure. Where the pressure is low, tiny bubbles tend to form and expand, only to be crushed as the high pressure comes along. With the right set-up, an experimenter can make a bubble expand and contract repeatedly in the same spot. The louder the sound, the bigger, within limits, the bubble gets and the more violently it collapses. With a loud enough sound (about as intense as a smoke alarm, though too high-pitched for human hearing) there is a pale blue flash of light at each collapse. Why this happens is much debated. It clearly has something to do with the force of the collapse. The rapid compression heats the gas in a bubble intensely: calculations of the temperature range from 10,000-1M[deg]C. A popular theory is that the heat rips the gas molecules apart, and they re-emit the energy as light when they recombine. (This is not too different from lightning: there, electric forces rip apart atoms, which then recombine) But, in a paper about to be published in Physical Review Letters, Claudia Eberlein, of the University of Cambridge, suggests that the light's source is not the gas molecules, but the empty space between them. Even a total vacuum contains stuff. This is a prediction of quantum theory's uncertainty principle, formulated by Werner Heisenberg in 1927. The principle says that things are inherently fuzzy. A particle - from a planet to a proton - cannot be pinned down with precision. Try to measure its position and momentum at the same time and both will be slightly blurred. A corollary is that emptiness is also inherently fuzzy. Nominally, empty space has zero energy, but the uncertainty principle recasts this as zero-give-or-take-a-bit. So the energy fluctuates. When it goes above zero it is realised--according to the theory--as "virtual" (as opposed to real) particles--often photons, the particles of light. These appear, exist briefly, then vanish again. Without the uncertainty principle, this popping out of nowhere would violate the law of conservation of energy. Heisenberg identified a loophole. But, as in any legal system, loopholes are exploited. Virtual particles can get asylum in the real world. One way is to give them a kick of energy just after they appear, so that they can make the transition from virtual to real existence. Another is to use the effect predicted by Stephen Hawking (who also works at Cambridge) to operate near black holes. A black hole's gravity is so strong that when a pair of virtual particles [picture of a small boy blowing soap bubbles, caption: "Safer than a black hole"] (a particle and its corresponding antiparticle) appears near it, one of them may be dragged inside. If the other stays outside, the loss of its partner causes it to become real. So physicists expect a gentle spray of particles--the Hawking radiation--to issue from any black hole. Natural black holes are far away, and no one has yet devised a way to make one in a laboratory. But a way of giving the energy kick is known. It is called the Unruh effect. The recipe is to accelerate a surface--a perfect mirror, if one is handy--through a vacuum. Its acceleration would give the virtual particles the necessary energy boost. Unfortunately it would have to speed up at an earth-shattering (and, perforce, mirror-shattering) rate to get any noticeable result. But three years ago Dr Eberlein and Gabriel Barton, then her supervisor at the University of Sussex, calculated that surfaces other than perfect mirrors could produce something like an Unruh effect. Dr Eberlein now proposes that the bubble's surface, collapsing inwards at a stupendous rate, does just that. And her calculations show that any sudden change (not just an increase) in its velocity could give virtual photons an energy kick. So if the bubble's collapse slows down abruptly enough, it could produce photons. The bubble starts by shrinking rapidly, exceeding the speed of sound. This triggers a shock wave like a sonic boom, jolting the bubble's surface violently. Dr Eberlein believes this jolt, which suddenly slows the bubble's surface down, creates photons; and inside the tiny bubble they would resonate somewhat like sound in a bell, creating a visible flash. If she is right, the heating of the gas inside the bubble has nothing to do with the flash. That suggests several ways to check her proposal against the heating theory. One test is the duration of the flash. It has been measured at around ten trillionths of a second. Dr Eberlein thinks that this is too short for heat-zapped molecules to rejoin and emit light. Others suggest that the flash does last longer, but is too faint to see towards the end. But the crucial test would be to examine the photons themselves. Dr Eberlein's theory says they are created in pairs, going in opposite directions and correlated in a certain way. Observing the correlation would confirm her hypothesis. This may not be feasible. There is, however, a more hopeful (if less decisive) experiment. In Dr Eberlein's model the collapsing bubble produces only visible light. In the heating theory, it emits a much broader swathe of radiation--including ultraviolet (UV) light and even x-rays. Water absorbs UV, but lets some x-rays through. There should be detectable traces of both of these happening if the heating theory is correct. Eliminating the heating model would disappoint scientists who are looking for nuclear fusion inside the little blue bubbles. Their hope comes from the spectrum ofthe flash. If, indeed, it contains x-rays, the bubbles could be at around 1M[deg]C. This indicates enormous pressures. With tinkering these could, perhaps, be driven high enough to fuse together heavier-than-normal hydrogen atoms (deuterium and tritium) dissolved inside bubbles, and generate masses of energy. Currently, fusion requires multi-million-dollar hardware that uses more energy than it creates. If the blue light comes from fluctuations in empty space, as Dr Eberlein thinks, a bubble's temperature may not be nearly so high, and cheap power may once more be a mere glimmer on the horizon. But, for scientists, there will be the compensation of knowing that the faint glow on the laboratory bench, mundane though it looks, is one of the weirdest things in physics. [end] From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 19 05:31:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA07353; Sun, 19 May 1996 05:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 05:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960519121709_100433.1541_BHG47-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Ampere Force Law X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Jones comments: "With regard to the underlying issue, I believe that the Biot-Savart law is correct as stated and that the longitudinal Ampere force does not exist. In my opinion, Ampere did not derive his longitudinal force from observations, but from pique at the fact that the Biot-Savart law seemed to violate Newton's 3rd law of motion. (It really doesn't.)" This may be correct. However, the Graneaus tell the story very differently in their book, saying that Ampere based his law purely on experimental evidence. At this stage, I do not know the correct story, but I do not regard "I believe" as evidence. Nor, in fact, has the history of the origin of the Ampere force law much to do with its validity or otherwise. "For example, Chris Tinsley recently described to me an experiment by Dr Peter Graneau in which a metallic electrode was floated in mercury and apparently connected to a voltage source with a flexible insulated cable....." I did no such thing. I have never heard of such an experiment. The significant experiments (to me) are: (1) the wire explosion experiments detailed in two papers by Graneau sr. in Phys Letts A; (2) the various experiments conducted using molten metals (principally mercury) in which a computer model by Graneau jr. based on summing the predicted (by Ampere) forces in imaginary tiny cubes of the material produced precisely the effects observed; and (3) the conductor - in - gap experiment Mitchell describes. (Actually, I saw only the apparatus, rather than witnessed an actual demonstration). I will also state that I have not in fact studied the rail-gun question properly. Frankly, I do not know the truth of all this. I do assert that Mitchell's objections (specifically the comment on arcs forcing the conductor ro move to the centre of the gap) appear to me to be pure arm-waving. As usual, I just do not know the answer - I just find that frequently the psychology revealed in these discussions tells me more than the physics which is (or sometimes is not) addressed. Chris From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 19 09:38:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA00972; Sun, 19 May 1996 09:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 09:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: John Logajan writes: > >Based upon first principles of time/acceleration/velocity/distance, >a coil gun providing 1G of acceleration would have to be 4000 miles long >to allow the projectile to reach escape velocity. Therefore 2000 miles at >2G, 400 miles at 10G, 40 miles at 100G, 1 mile at 4000G, etc. > >A coil gun suitable for launching humans would be limited in G's to, what, >5G's? and so would have to be about 800 miles long. > >I don't think this is economically viable even if NASA is desperate. :-) > >-- > - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - To be useful, the coil or rail gun would not have to achieve escape velocity (about 24,600 mi/hr or 11,000 m/s), only a useful orbital velocity, say 19,000 mi/hr or 8,500 m/s, or 28,000 ft/s, in round numbers. It would not have to launch humans to be useful. Using a = 1g = 32.17 ft/s^2: t = v/32.174 = 28,000/32.174 = 870 s. d = 16.087 (870)^2 = 1.218x10^7 ft = 2300 mi. However at 10g we get: t = 870/10 = 87 s. d = 16.087 (10) (87)^2 = 230 mi. Using v=(a)t and 300 ft as a desired barrel length: t = v/a d =.5at^2= .5(a)(v/a)^2 = .5 v^2/a a =.5 v^2 / d a =.5 (28,000 f/s)^2 / 300 f a = 1.31x10^6 f/s^2 = about 41,000 g. t = v/a = 28,000/41,000 = .68 sec. Now for a little wild imagination. A big problem would be air resistance. It seems like a useful gun with a length under 1000 ft might be built on the top or side of a mountain to launch construction materials or maybe even fuel into orbit. A 300 ft or smaller gun could fit into a large aircraft. It might be possible to use a microwave powered unmanned lifter to put the gun at altitude before firing. To be useful the cargo vessels would require some kind of guidance and propulsion to find their way to a common point for assemblage. You would need "brilliant trucks" to deliver the cargo. However, one advantage is there is no hurry for getting the material assembled if there is enough lead time. Maybe some kind of ionic rocket using solar power would work for positioning the brilliant trucks. Pretty tough putting all that into cheap packages that can withstand 10,000 to 40,000 g's. There is also the matter of orbital insertion, which would probably take a solid propellant. Big dumb boosters sound better and better. What do you think? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 19 15:09:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA01555; Sun, 19 May 1996 15:02:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 15:02:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960519162201_297601456@emout07.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Puthoff@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Economist article on ZPF X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Chris Tinsley referred to an earlier comment of mine on Eberlein's paper, and asks for clarification, viz: "I noted Dr Puthoff's comments on the work of Dr Eberlein, in that no energy conservation violation was predicted. I wonder if he could clarify this: is he saying that energy is conserved in the system as a whole, but that there is a net production of energy in 'the real world'; or that the apparent release of energy in sonoluminscent systems derives entirely from 'real world' energy put into the bubbles by the mechanical energy of the sound?" My understanding is that Schwinger's approach goes for the first interpretation, while Eberlein's goes for the second. I waver as far as sonoluminescence is concerned, but tend to lean toward the Schwinger interpretation. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 19 16:20:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA16591; Sun, 19 May 1996 16:15:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 16:15:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9605192214.AA121289@echo.i-link.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (21st Century Logic) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Mitchell Jones suggests a test in which leads to a car battery are placed on >a low-friction surface and then shorted, noting that the free lead will jump >away from the arc, and concludes that the repelling force is in the arc and >electrodynamics is not involved. Sorry, but a car battery will deliver >hundreds of amperes under the circumstances and the magnetic field in the >wires will generate an expansive force to produce just the effect observed. > >Mike Carrell ***{Not according to the Biot-Savart law. If it is correct, the magnetic force between two inline current elements (i.e., one after the other in the same line of flow) is zero. This is due to the fact that the Biot-Savart law contains as a factor the cross-product of one of the current element lengths and the unit vector pointing to the center of the other. When the two elements are inline, the unit vector is parallel to the length vector, and the resulting cross product is zero. Thus if you want to explain why the free lead jumps away when an arc occurs, you cannot do it using conventional electrodynamics. --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 19 16:42:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA20250; Sun, 19 May 1996 16:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 16:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9605192333.AA117667@echo.i-link.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (21st Century Logic) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Mitchell Jones writes: >> my recollection is that there were a number of *theoretical speculations*, a >> few years ago, that it might be possible to use rail guns to launch space >> probes. > >I think those were coil guns rather than rail guns. Experimental versions >of both coil guns and rail guns have been built and tested. Rail guns >are more appropriate for small projectiles. Coil guns are more appropriate >for larger payloads. ***{This seems to be a terminological difference. To me, a device that launches a projectile off of a set of rails is a rail gun. In any event, your usage is fine. By "coil gun," I assume you refer to a device in which a wire coil lies beneath each track, with an oppositely wound coil across the projectile, to produce north-to-north magnetic repulsion on one side of the projectile and south-to-south repulsion on the other side. When you use the term "rail gun," on the other hand, I take it that you are referring exclusively to devices in which the projectile is driven by (or, in your view, mounted in front of) an arc explosion. Correct? --Mitchell Jones}*** > > >> I do not recall any claims of *actual experiments* that achieved such >> velocities. > >Probably not in coil guns, as they are large and expensive to construct. >Therefore only small demonstration units have been tested. > >Rail guns, being relatively easier to construct, have indeed been built >and tested, and have achieved (last I heard several years ago) near escape >velocity. ***{I don't want to be picky here, John, but your vague recollections are insufficient to settle this issue. I read a lot of science related publications, and I haven't seen anything that rules out the type of thrust mechanism that I proposed in my post. When I was about 12 years old, I used arc explosions to shoot ball bearings out of a toy cannon that I owned, and, believe me, they came out with a lot of zip. I can easily imagine that if such a projectile were tracked down the muzzle of a long gun barrel by a series of such explosions its exit velocity would be very, very high, and nothing you have said thus far has altered that opinion by even a whit. I did, of course, grant immediately that, in theory, there must be some upper limit to such a velocity in the atmosphere, but nothing you have said thus far has quantified what that upper limit might be, and you have given no references to any experiment where that limit was exceeded. Thus all we have, at the moment, is a clearly defined theory from me explaining these rail gun results without recourse to unorthodox electromagnetics, and an unsupported statement from you that you disagree with my theory. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >> Since there has been plenty of time in the ensuing 20 years or >> so to develop such a launch technology, and it hasn't happened, that >> suggests to me rather strongly that such velocities were never >> experimentally verified. (NASA, after all, has been desperate for a number >> of years now to find a more cost effective launching technique.) > >Based upon first principles of time/acceleration/velocity/distance, >a coil gun providing 1G of acceleration would have to be 4000 miles long >to allow the projectile to reach escape velocity. Therefore 2000 miles at >2G, 400 miles at 10G, 40 miles at 100G, 1 mile at 4000G, etc. > >A coil gun suitable for launching humans would be limited in G's to, what, >5G's? and so would have to be about 800 miles long. > >I don't think this is economically viable even if NASA is desperate. :-) > ***{Again, this is a terminological difference. When I referred to launching "space probes," I had in mind vehicles of the unmanned variety. Such devices could be constructed to withstand several hundred G's and ground tested (e.g., in centrifuges) to ensure that they would perform properly. There would be lots of uses for such an installation, if the concept were workable, which is why I assume that it isn't. --Mitchell Jones}*** >-- > - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - > - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - > - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - ***{As a matter of curiosity, why do you think the devices which you call "rail guns" make use of electric arcs at all, and why do you think they conveniently place the arcs at the backs of the projectiles, if the arc explosion is not, in fact, the force that drives such a projectile down the track? --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 19 18:44:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA07210; Sun, 19 May 1996 18:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 18:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <319FC7D5.CD2@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: 21st Century Logic wrote: > > >Mitchell Jones suggests a test in which leads to a car battery are placed on > >a low-friction surface and then shorted, noting that the free lead will jump > >away from the arc, and concludes that the repelling force is in the arc and > >electrodynamics is not involved. Sorry, but a car battery will deliver > >hundreds of amperes under the circumstances and the magnetic field in the > >wires will generate an expansive force to produce just the effect observed. > > > >Mike Carrell > > ***{Not according to the Biot-Savart law. If it is correct, the magnetic > force between two inline current elements (i.e., one after the other in the > same line of flow) is zero. This is due to the fact that the Biot-Savart > law contains as a factor the cross-product of one of the current element > lengths and the unit vector pointing to the center of the other. When the > two elements are inline, the unit vector is parallel to the length vector, > and the resulting cross product is zero. Thus if you want to explain why > the free lead jumps away when an arc occurs, you cannot do it using > conventional electrodynamics. --Mitchell Jones}*** The Biot-Savart law involves a line integral around the complete circuit path, including through the battery if the circuit is so powered. A straight current is never for ever! All circuits form a closed loop unless you have an unlimited budget for #6 jumper cable! All elements of a closed circuit experience an outward force (away from the loop), including the battery. It's just too heavy to slide easily. Every open current loop forms a magnetic dipole with the highest field intensity on the inside of the loop. The loop conductor (wire, battery, air arc, etc.) is placed in tension and will pull apart anywhere the circuit can't resist tension (like an arc). This is why the armature of a rail gun is accelerated. The rail gun setup with a sliding armature just prolongs the acceleration of the projectile. If you cut any portion of the circuit loose, that portion would also fly away from the circuit - it would just not reach the high velocities of the special armature. Even the driving capacitors of the rail gun are pushed away from the circuit interior - but they're heavy and probably bolted down. One thing to remember, at the current levels seen in rail guns - say 10^6 amp - the magnetic pressure near the conductors can measure in the thousands of atmospheres. This pressure is felt by all the conductors, not just the armature. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 19 20:20:20 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA22845; Sun, 19 May 1996 20:12:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 20:12:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960519224626_117003401@emout18.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Ted Ground / force gravity X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Subj: Matter Waves, Gravity, etc. Date: 96-05-16 01:03:23 EDT From: ground@axiom.net (Ted Ground) To: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com (Frank Znidarsic) CC: sargent@axiom.net My zero point model is based on the symmetrical relationship between force and gravity. In my book on a disk I developed a model of matter. This model shows that the outward radiation pressure of the energy "stuck in matter" produces a force. This force is of the correct magnitude to induce the gravitational field of matter. A copy of my paper on the subject can be found on the David Jonsson's ELEKTROMAGNUM web site. It been there for about one year. I came up with this idea from theory. This idea is central to my work. I was quite alone in this way of thinking. The Canadian Journal of Physics rejected my paper on the subject. Hal Fox had no comment. The only one who had anything good at all to say about it was Puthoff. Now one of my readers, Ted Ground, tells me that Jennison has shown that energy trapped in a box has inertial and gravitational mass. This is exactly what I have predicted. Someone else has found the core of my model to be true. This is the third time that something that I predicted from my theory has been demonstrated by experiment. This makes me feel good. ............................................................................. ...................... Frank, I want to thank you again for the Antigravity Disk. I have been very busy, so little time to digest it all and get back to you. I am still unsure about the concept of a "potential well". What is that exactly, and why does the internal photon in a box reflect off of it? What properties does it have that the photon would reflect perfectly? Any thoughts on that? Thought I would share a few of the many articles I have on file. I would ask you to take the time to read all of the elements in these next few references, think about them for a while, and get back to me. Is there a connection here that you can see?? - (if I only had time to sit down and synthesize it - perhaps this is a step toward that). >From Extraordinary Science, Vol 3 issue #1(Jan/Feb/Mar 1991):"....it is postulated that the Moebius field or a similar 3-dimensional standing wave field with two orthogonal degrees of freedom, may play a fundamental role in the actual dynamic structure of elementary particles at the sub-atomic level. The recent research on electrons in England headed by physicist R.C. Jennison appears to offer firm support for elements of such a model." The article refers to Jennison, R.C. "What is an Electron?" Wireless World, June 1979. p. 43. " The conclusion reached by this team, confirmed by experimentation, is that contrary to the currently accepted Copenhagen interpretation, quantum aspects of nature may not be fundamental, but can arise out of a completely classical model for elementary particles. This model entails a purely geometrical structure formed exclusively by the standing wave characteristics of time-varying electric fields. In particular, the electron can be considered as a finite cavity of radiation formed out of two orthogonal electromagnetic standing waves in phase-locked quadrature. Jennison became drawn to this model after having experimentally demonstrated the previously unestablished fact that a trapped electromagnetic standing wave has rest mass and inertia." ..................................... Well, its' late, please keep in touch. I think you are onto something, especially with the toroidal capacitors, etc. Hope some of this information is helpful, or of interest. Much of it you may be already aware of, but I wanted to send it along just in case. Sincerely, Ted Ground ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >From ground@axiom.net Thu May 16 01:03:13 1996 Return-Path: ground@axiom.net Received: from atlas.axiom.net (Axiom-gw.ALTER.NET [137.39.232.26]) by emin32.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA02766 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 01:03:10 -0400 Received: from node173.axiom.net (node173.axiom.net [205.230.128.173]) by atlas.axiom.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA14083; Wed, 15 May 1996 23:56:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 23:56:54 -0500 Message-Id: <199605160456.XAA14083@atlas.axiom.net> X-Sender: ground@axiom.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Frank Znidarsic From: Ted Ground Subject: Matter Waves, Gravity, etc. Cc: From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 19 20:20:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA22785; Sun, 19 May 1996 20:12:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 20:12:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9605191853.AA121089@echo.i-link.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (21st Century Logic) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Ampere Force Law X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Mitchell Jones comments: > >"With regard to the underlying issue, I believe that the Biot-Savart law is >correct as stated and that the longitudinal Ampere force does not exist. In my >opinion, Ampere did not derive his longitudinal force from observations, but >from pique at the fact that the Biot-Savart law seemed to violate Newton's 3rd >law of motion. (It really doesn't.)" > >This may be correct. However, the Graneaus tell the story very differently in >their book, saying that Ampere based his law purely on experimental evidence. >At this stage, I do not know the correct story, but I do not regard "I believe" >as evidence. ***{An odd comment, given that I neither said nor implied that I consider it to *be* evidence. The fact is that I said "I believe" because I wanted to soften the statement a bit, since it is not an issue that I consider to be totally settled. --Mitchell Jones}*** Nor, in fact, has the history of the origin of the Ampere force >law much to do with its validity or otherwise. ***{Yet another odd comment, given that you went out of your way in an earlier post to claim that Ampere based his law purely on experimental evidence. You said: "Why all the fuss about the Ampere force? After all, if the Ampere Law equation is derived from observations (which it is, it's wholly empirical) and is in conflict with a field-theory based law (Lorenz), which suddenly cuts off at theta = 0 when the Ampere one does not - why, then we are believing Lorenz for no very good reason?" So which is it? Does the history of the origin of the Ampere force law have anything to do with its validity, or not? To me, the answer is obvious: all of the relevant experiments--by Ampere, the Graneaus, Thomas Phipps, and others--occurred in the past and thus are part of "the history." Since the experimental evidence is clearly relevant, and is part of the history, it follows that the history, to that extent, is relevant. Enough said. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >"For example, Chris Tinsley recently described to me an experiment by Dr >Peter Graneau in which a metallic electrode was floated in mercury and >apparently connected to a voltage source with a flexible insulated cable....." > >I did no such thing. I have never heard of such an experiment. ***{Your statement was a bit cryptic and so I restated it in my own words, but I find it rather amazing that you would fail to recognize my statement, above, as an honest attempt to convey the content of what you said and that you would, in essence, label it as a fabrication. Here is the original statement which you sent to me via e-mail: "Dr Peter Graneau has conducted experiments which he claims provide a demonstration of departure from classical electrodynamics at high currents levels. A force is found to exist in a direction longitudinal to current flow. Graneau ran a variety of types of experiments with a metal rod conductor immersed in a conductive fluid (mercury, or saline solution). With high amperage passing through the solution the metal rod is found to move in a longitudinal direction. There is no known explanation in conventional EM theory." How does your statement differ from my interpretation of it? Well, you referred to "a metal rod conductor immersed in a conductive fluid (mercury, or saline solution)," whereas I referred to "a metallic electrode floated in mercury." Not much difference there, as far as I can see. By elimination, therefore, I conclude that you object to the end of my sentence--to wit: "and apparently connected to a voltage source with a flexible insulated cable..." But why on earth would you object to that? First, I tried to make it clear that the clause in question was my inference by using the word "apparently." Second, how *else* could the Graneaus have connected the "metal rod conductor" to a voltage source while still leaving it free to move? You did, after all, say that "With high amperage passing through the solution the metal rod is found to move in a longitudinal direction." How could the electrode move if the current flowed to it across a rigid connector? Frankly, Chris, I find your blanket denial of what I said to be quite mind boggling. All you can reasonably claim here is that I didn't say it exactly the way you would have said it, not that I made it up out of whole cloth. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >The significant experiments (to me) are: (1) the wire explosion experiments >detailed in two papers by Graneau sr. in Phys Letts A; ***{In my view, these wires fractured due to internal stresses. The stresses, in turn, are explained by the Biot-Savart law, which requires that parallel current elements attract one another. This means that we can resolve the massive currents passing through the wires in these experiments into thousands of parallel current elements, and can conclude that those electron flows will tend to converge together into a single stream of electrons moving down the center of the wire. While this end result will never be fully achieved, any movement of electrons in this direction will leave behind positively charged ions near the periphery of the wire, and the resulting Coulomb attraction between those positive ions and the centralizing electron flow will compress the wire toward its center with crushing force. The wire will lengthen and narrow, and will quickly fracture due to the deformation induced stresses. As soon as this occurs, current will begin arcing across the resulting gaps, and the wire will explode. This interpretation is inadvertently confirmed by Graneau himself, who states [see *Galilean Electrodynamics*, May-June 1994, pg. 45] that "... as our photographs prove, the wire curled up in the glass tube as it expanded and then broke in the deformed state." The fact that the wire "curled up in the glass tube" flatly proves that it lengthened, which in turn supports my interpretation that it was being subjected to crushing compressive forces due to the operation of the Biot-Savart law. (Incidentally, this Biot-Savart induced compressive force also explains the Thomas Phipps experiment published in the Sept-Oct 1995 issue of *Galilean Electrodynamics*.) --Mitchell Jones}*** (2) the various >experiments conducted using molten metals (principally mercury) in which a >computer model by Graneau jr. based on summing the predicted (by Ampere) forces >in imaginary tiny cubes of the material produced precisely the effects >observed; ***{None of those who deny the existence of the Ampere longitudinal force, to my knowledge, deny that *if* it existed, it would be capable of explaining some of these results. The point at issue here, however, is whether all of these results can be explained by more conventional concepts. If they can be, then there is no reason to postulate the existence of the longitudinal force. --Mitchell Jones}*** >and (3) the conductor - in - gap experiment Mitchell describes. (Actually, I >saw only the apparatus, rather than witnessed an actual demonstration). I will >also state that I have not in fact studied the rail-gun question properly. > >Frankly, I do not know the truth of all this. I do assert that Mitchell's >objections (specifically the comment on arcs forcing the conductor ro move to >the centre of the gap) appear to me to be pure arm-waving. ***{When current arcs across a gap to a loose conductor fragment, and then across a gap at the other end of the fragment to complete the circuit, it seems clear that the resulting air explosions will exert more force on the side of the free fragment where the gap is smaller. This is due to the geometry of the situation, and is most assuredly not "arm waving." The smaller the gap, the more force from the blast wave that will be directed against the conductor fragment, and the smaller the part that will be directed against open air. Result: the force pushing the free segment away from the small gap will be greater than the force pushing it away from the larger gap, and equilibrium will be reached when the free segment is centralized. It's simple mechanics. What's not to understand? --Mitchell Jones}*** As usual, I just do >not know the answer - I just find that frequently the psychology revealed in >these discussions tells me more than the physics which is (or sometimes is not) >addressed. > >Chris ***{What, exactly, is "the psychology revealed in these discussions?" More importantly, what is its relevance? The issues here, it seems to me, are solely concerned with experimental evidence and with the interpretation of experimental evidence. I simply see no factual basis for the oft-repeated claims of a so called "Ampere longitudinal force." All of the experiments that have been adduced in support of that force, in my view, can be explained by more conventional means. Psychology has nothing whatsoever so do with it. --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 19 21:58:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA10191; Sun, 19 May 1996 21:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 21:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Jones writes: > By "coil gun," I assume you refer to a device in which > a wire coil lies beneath each track, with an oppositely wound coil across > the projectile, to produce north-to-north magnetic repulsion on one side of > the projectile and south-to-south repulsion on the other side. When you use > the term "rail gun," on the other hand, I take it that you are referring > exclusively to devices in which the projectile is driven by (or, in your > view, mounted in front of) an arc explosion. Correct? A coil gun is simply a linear electric motor. There are many ways to construct them. I have a three foot long one sitting in my basement closet which, unfortunately, was a particularly poor implementation. :-) In that particular version, I used coaxial outer coils in series-opposing orientation with the inner moving coaxial coil. The exit velocity was about one foot per second. Pretty lame. :-) Chalk that one up as a grand failure. > ... your vague recollections are insufficient to settle this issue. Just trying to get you pointed on the right track. A word to the wise, as it were. > As a matter of curiosity, why do you think the devices which you call > "rail guns" make use of electric arcs at all, and why do you think they > conveniently place the arcs at the backs of the projectiles, if the arc > explosion is not, in fact, the force that drives such a projectile down the > track? I would imagine that arcs are preferred because at super high velocities it is hard to keep good "brush" contact, so arcs are going to develop in any event. Might as well make use of the inevitable. In thermal- electric breakdown, arcs are rather good conductors -- they are light weight per mho and they can't melt! -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 19 23:14:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA22775; Sun, 19 May 1996 23:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 23:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Ampere Force Law X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell says Chris wrote: >"Dr Peter Graneau has conducted experiments which he claims provide a >demonstration of departure from classical electrodynamics at high currents >levels. A force is found to exist in a direction longitudinal to current flow. >Graneau ran a variety of types of experiments with a metal rod conductor >immersed in a conductive fluid (mercury, or saline solution). With high >amperage >passing through the solution the metal rod is found to move in a longitudinal >direction. There is no known explanation in conventional EM theory." > Mitchell wrote: >How does your statement differ from my interpretation of it? Well, you >referred to "a metal rod conductor immersed in a conductive fluid (mercury, >or saline solution)," whereas I referred to "a metallic electrode floated >in mercury." Not much difference there, as far as I can see. By >elimination, therefore, I conclude that you object to the end of my >sentence--to wit: "and apparently connected to a voltage source with a >flexible insulated cable..." > What I understand from Chris' statement above is essentially: ------------------------------------- | | | Metal Rod Moves -> | --------(+) =============== (-)-------- | | | | ------------------------------------- The current flows through and entry electrode, through the bath, through the metal rod, then through the bath, to an exiting electrode. It also obviously also goes directly through the bath from electrode to electrode as well. Guess: The metal rod moves towards the closest electrode. Another guess: the battery or power supply is kept under or over the tank. If this is the experiment, then there is clearly a conventional explanation in my opinion. Is this the experiment? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 19 23:25:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA24106; Sun, 19 May 1996 23:18:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 23:18:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9605200609.AA125626@echo.i-link.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (21st Century Logic) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >21st Century Logic wrote: >> >> >Mitchell Jones suggests a test in which leads to a car battery are placed on >> >a low-friction surface and then shorted, noting that the free lead will jump >> >away from the arc, and concludes that the repelling force is in the arc and >> >electrodynamics is not involved. Sorry, but a car battery will deliver >> >hundreds of amperes under the circumstances and the magnetic field in the >> >wires will generate an expansive force to produce just the effect observed. >> > >> >Mike Carrell >> >> ***{Not according to the Biot-Savart law. If it is correct, the magnetic >> force between two inline current elements (i.e., one after the other in the >> same line of flow) is zero. This is due to the fact that the Biot-Savart >> law contains as a factor the cross-product of one of the current element >> lengths and the unit vector pointing to the center of the other. When the >> two elements are inline, the unit vector is parallel to the length vector, >> and the resulting cross product is zero. Thus if you want to explain why >> the free lead jumps away when an arc occurs, you cannot do it using >> conventional electrodynamics. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >The Biot-Savart law involves a line integral around the complete circuit >path, including through the battery if the circuit is so powered. >A straight current is never for ever! All circuits form a closed loop >unless you have an unlimited budget for #6 jumper cable! All elements >of a closed circuit experience an outward force (away from the loop), >including the battery. It's just too heavy to slide easily. ***{Yes, of course. All current elements in the circuit, in theory, contribute to the resultant force on the free lead. However, the contribution of a particular current element is inversely proportional to the square of its distance from the current element being affected--in this case, from the free lead--and with a current of roughly a hundred amps, it is easy to arrange the cables so that the important contributions must come from elements near the arc gap, and those elements can be arranged inline so that their cross products are zero and they exert no influence at all. Nevertheless, in spite of such an arrangement, the free end of the jumper will fly away from the contact point as soon as contact is made! Bottom line: you can't explain the tendency of a free jumper cable to leap away from an arc gap by means of the Biot-Savart law. The only reasonable force that can account for this outcome is that exerted by the explosive expansion of gases in the gap. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >Every open current loop forms a magnetic dipole with the highest field >intensity on the inside of the loop. The loop conductor (wire, battery, >air arc, etc.) is placed in tension and will pull apart anywhere the >circuit can't resist tension (like an arc). This is why the armature >of a rail gun is accelerated. The rail gun setup with a sliding >armature just prolongs the acceleration of the projectile. If you >cut any portion of the circuit loose, that portion would also fly away >from the circuit - it would just not reach the high velocities of the >special armature. Even the driving capacitors of the rail gun are >pushed away from the circuit interior - but they're heavy and probably >bolted down. > >One thing to remember, at the current levels seen in rail guns - say >10^6 amp - the magnetic pressure near the conductors can measure in the >thousands of atmospheres. This pressure is felt by all the conductors, >not just the armature. ***{Wow, that is an awesome current, if true, and it certainly justifies your explanation of rail guns, in spades! I frankly had no idea that we were talking about such currents. I knew before I plunged into this discussion that I needed more information about the details, and I even tried to feel out a few people via e-mail, but that didn't lead anywhere, so I finally decided to just plunge in and see what I could turn up. And here it is, a key fact that radically alters my view of the situation! For that, Frank, you have my sincere thanks. As an aside, I would note that your explanation for the thrust of a rail gun is fully in keeping with conventional concepts, and in no way implies the existence of the Ampere longitudinal force. With these current levels the Biot-Savart force could easily drive a rail gun projectile, regardless of whether the arc gaps were positioned to provide a jet assist to the acceleration. So what in the world are the Graneaus talking about? What shred of a basis can there be for their claims that the so called Ampere longitudinal force is required to explain rail guns, given that the currents being used are this large? --Mitchell Jones}*** > >Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 19 23:26:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA24291; Sun, 19 May 1996 23:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 23:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605200530.PAA11235@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Martin Edmund Sevior To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The primary driving force for rail guns is the ordinary Biot-Savart force (right hand rule). In fact I've given a problem very similar on a 2nd year exam here. It's a bit difficult to explain because of the nature of our 2-d computer screens. The magnetic field produced by a long straight wire is circular around the wire. Here's an "ascii art" picture of the magnetic field from a long straight wire with a current coming out of the page. <== Direction of circular magnetic field ___ / \ / \ | . | Current from a long wire comming towards you | | \ / \___/ ===> Then the field of two long wires curent into and out of the page is: <== ==> ___ ____ / \ / \ / \ / \ | . | | X | | | | | \ / /|\ \ / \___/ | \____/ ===> Field <=== direction is up. The field direction between the conductors is up. Now if we were to run a another conductor between one wire and the other and have current flow from the left wire to the right the force on the conductor via the right hand rule (fingers in the direction of the magnetic field, thumb in the direction of current flow, palm is the direction of the force,) the force direction is outwards from your screen. Now look down on a schematic of a rail gun, trace the current directions and you get. Current flow <--<---<---<---- ================================================| | | Force on <-- | | --> Force on moving arm | | stationary arm | | ================================================= >--->--->--->---> Current flow Try applying the right hand rule you will see it all works. The force on the moving arm is balanced by an equal and opposite force on the stationary arm that provides the current return path and is held fixed. 19th Century electromagnetism explains it all very nicely. It makes a nice problem for my second year students too. Cheers, Martin Sevior PS. I understand that real-life rail guns also get a big boost from the expanding plasma caused by vapourized components behind the projectile. As I understood it rail guns were use once devices! From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 20 00:08:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA29723; Mon, 20 May 1996 00:00:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 00:00:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: on longitudinal force X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Volodya, You wrote: >Dear Horace, > >I kept a cilence because I was out of Moscow for more than two weeks. >Having returned, I had many deals with the radio exhibition so had no >time to reply in details to your messages. >Yes, I received all them, thanks! > >This Sunday I go to St.Pete (St.Petersburg) so I think it would be better >if I show your messages to my electrodynamics friends. >Earlier I said that my concept of the longitudinal force differs from your >one but their concept could be closer to your. >I hope to email you from St.Pete when I discuss it with my friends. > >With warm regard, >Volodya I stopped sending you copies of the vortex emails when the discussion wandered off in the direction of rail guns and other less serious less theoretical topics. Occasionally in discussions the lonigitudinal force discussion arises, but nothing of major substance seems to have arisen. There seems to a lot of emotional and defensive content attached to the subjects of late, which spoils the synergism. In regard to what I have personally written, I have only been poking fun at some of the things that appear nonsensical to me. I have not formed any firm conclusions about Marinof's force, though I have spent some time thinking about longitudinal force in general. You would find some of my thinking funny or nonsensical, because I do believe in ghosts, at least where particles are concerned! I think a good EM theory should perhaps conform with the following ideas: (1) All matter exists in a wave form. There is no such thing as a dimensionless point particle, only wave packets of larger or smaller sizes. A particle is a waveform. (2) The qualities of matter, e.g. mass, inertia and charge, are distributed in the wavefunction according to PSI^2. (3) Wavefunctions interact with each other according to their relative velocity. The de Broglie wavelength, l=h/p, descibes real testable phenomena with a real characteristic wavelength, based on momentum. Momentum is a function of mass and velocity. However, velocity and mass are functions of relative motion only. There is no absolute velocity. Therefore, the interaction of particles must be based on the relative velocity of the particles. (4) Measurement is the interaction of particles. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears, a sound is still made. Schrodinger's cat is not simulatanously living and dead, just because the box is not opened. Tunnel diodes and photomultipliers work whether you watch them or not. Wavefunction collapse is a real phenomenon. The photon from a distant star that interferes with itself across a wide area finally ejects a single electron from the metal surface of the photomultiplyer tube. The electron that tunnels across a potential barrier acutally changes its center of mass and charge when it does so. But prior do doing so, some of its mass and charge was already there. It is the opportunity, probability, and net change in energy that permits or denies the finality of the act of wavefunction collapse. (5) Particles are capable of action at a distance because particles at exactly the same relative velocity have wavelength l=h/0. The probability of distant action is small due to the PSI^2 volume products being small at large distances. The probability of action at a distance improves as the distance is reduced. However, action at a distance can provide an explanation for ZPE, while conserving energy and entropy. Thermal interaction and nonlinear motion guarantee extensive interaction at a distance for most particles by guaranteeing a velocity match somewhere in the cycles of much cyclical and random motion characteristic of most matter. This is especially true in the case of orbital electrons. These assumptions provide some explanation for various things, like why an electron stays in orbit around a nucleus without radiating. Its center of charge is already at the center of charge of the nucleus. There is no need to radiate, the electron center of charge is not in motion, in "orbit", relative to the nucleus. To me the canonical form for momentum is nonsense. The magnetic field must have angular momentum, and therefore mass. If the charged particle is eliminated from Hall's Gedanken, and the superconducting coil suspended in space is heated up (with photons), the electrons "going thermal" will impart their angular momentun to the coil when the field collapses. This implies the field must have contained the corresponding angular momentum to begin with. I think the electrostatic, magnetic, and gravitational fields, might actually be made up of the extended quantum waveforms of particle constituants, which is why the fields have mass and angular momentum. If so, it should be possible to unify QM and QED with general relativity. I know the above are just amatuerish ideas, and that I have a long way to go to reconcile my various thoughts on this. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 20 05:20:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA25314; Mon, 20 May 1996 05:13:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 05:13:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31a04a79.12153309@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Ampere Force Law X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Sun, 19 May 1996 23:07:30 -0700 (PDT), Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] >What I understand from Chris' statement above is essentially: > > > > ------------------------------------- > | | > | Metal Rod Moves -> | > --------(+) =============== (-)-------- > | | > | | > ------------------------------------- > > >The current flows through and entry electrode, through the bath, through >the metal rod, then through the bath, to an exiting electrode. It also >obviously also goes directly through the bath from electrode to electrode >as well. > >Guess: The metal rod moves towards the closest electrode. > >Another guess: the battery or power supply is kept under or over the tank. > > >If this is the experiment, then there is clearly a conventional explanation >in my opinion. Is this the experiment? > > > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > As far as I can remember, from reading Graneau's paper, this is almost correct. The metal rod is blunt at one end, and pointed at the other. It always moves toward the blunt end. I.e. the pointed end is always the tail, irrespective of current direction, in fact it works just as well with AC as with DC. > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 20 08:44:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA00873; Mon, 20 May 1996 08:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 08:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31A090EE.12E@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: coaxial rail gun with arc pressure X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell Jones concluded that arc pressure could explain rail gun operation and many of us (me too) pointed out that Biot-Savart effects explained all. Not so fast! Frank Znidarsic and I (Stenger) fired what amounted to a coaxial rail gun in my garage a few years back, and in this rig, arc pressure was very important! _________._______________________________________ | || \_outer || ____|_____ || conducting ||<---disk __________ || cylinder || armature in | ||_______________ ____|| sliding contact |_________.| | arc | | all around cyl. ^ |________________| gap |____ | 60 kilojoule | || \_ solid || armature flies out capacitor bank | || center || ---------------> || conductor || when arc fires. ||__________________________||_________ (I hope this sketch transmits OK) When Frank Z. and I fired the arc, the armature was blasted to the right into a "catcher" made from a pile of newspapers. We were trying to generate ball lightning, but we did not. In this rig, the arc explosion was a major factor - along with the EM pressure! In this "garage" rig we measured a peak current of 200,000 amp, which, I believe, is wimpy compared with currents in the large rail gun rigs. So, Mitchell, your arc pressure can be an important force - it all depends on the specific details of the experiment. As for the longitudinal force controversy, I don't know much about its history. I do know that the magnetic "pinch" effect (or sausage instability) can cause complex longitudinal forces in the region where the conductor is being pinched. Fluid conductors can pinch at modest currents (10^2 amp order?) and solid metal conductors pinch at kilo and meg amp levels, depending on conductor width and shape. These longitudinal effects are best observed by squeezing a hand full of mashed potatoes. When a high-current plasma necks down very rapidly, the local inductance of the neck increases rapidly also. If the currents are in the 10^5 amp range, transient longitudinal voltages in the necking region can reach the hundreds-of-kilovolts range! I wish electromagnetics were an easier subject! Then I might be able to master it. Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 20 09:31:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA10132; Mon, 20 May 1996 09:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 09:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605201553.LAA18878@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > I seem to recall velocities being reached which were substantial fractions > of earth escape velocity. At those velocities they leave a vacuum wake > behind them. I believe that 5 miles/second--escape velocity--has been reached, but the projectiles are slowed by the atmosphere and don't enter orbit. And modern railguns use a tank's main gun to start the projectile moving and reduce the stress on the rails! So by the time the rail gun takes over, the projectile is moving about as fast as (external) exploding gasses can push it. (The idea of firing a projectile at 1700+ meters/sec at something to PREVENT damage to the target still boggles my mind.) Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 20 10:26:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA21620; Mon, 20 May 1996 10:19:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 10:19:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9605201629.AA101696@echo.i-link.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (21st Century Logic) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >The primary driving force for rail guns is the ordinary Biot-Savart force >(right hand rule). In fact I've given a problem very similar on a 2nd year >exam here. > >It's a bit difficult to explain because of the nature of our 2-d computer >screens. > >The magnetic field produced by a long straight wire is circular around the >wire. Here's an "ascii art" picture of the magnetic field from a long >straight wire with a current coming out of the page. > > > <== Direction of circular magnetic field > ___ > / \ > / \ > | . | Current from a long wire comming towards you > | | > \ / > \___/ > ===> > >Then the field of two long wires curent into and out of the page is: > > > <== ==> > ___ ____ > / \ / \ > / \ / \ > | . | | X | > | | | | > \ / /|\ \ / > \___/ | \____/ > ===> Field <=== > direction > is up. > >The field direction between the conductors is up. Now if we were to run a >another conductor between one wire and the other and have current flow from >the left wire to the right the force on the conductor via the right hand >rule (fingers in the direction of the magnetic field, thumb in the direction >of current flow, palm is the direction of the force,) the force direction >is outwards from your screen. > >Now look down on a schematic of a rail gun, trace the current directions >and you get. > > > Current flow > <--<---<---<---- > ================================================| > | | > Force on <-- | | --> Force on > moving arm | | stationary arm > | | > ================================================= > >--->--->--->---> > Current flow > >Try applying the right hand rule you will see it all works. The force >on the moving arm is balanced by an equal and opposite force on the stationary >arm that provides the current return path and is held fixed. > >19th Century electromagnetism explains it all very nicely. It makes a nice >problem for my second year students too. > >Cheers, > >Martin Sevior > >PS. I understand that real-life rail guns also get a big boost from the >expanding plasma caused by vapourized components behind the projectile. >As I understood it rail guns were use once devices! ***{As always, Martin, I appreciate your comments. As it happens, however, I have no problem with the vector notation associated with the Biot-Savart law. The difficulty that I faced here had to do with my ingrained habit of ignoring the magnetic effects of single loop "coils." This is, of course, a safe enough procedure in ordinary circumstances (and even in most extraordinary circumstances). However, when one begins to deal with currents of the order of a million amps--I shudder at the thought!--the situation changes radically. Thus it was only after Frank Stenger tossed out such a number that I bothered to determine the direction of the Biot-Savart force involved, and saw that it would, in fact, hurl the projectile down the rails if the current were large enough. Frankly, this discussion has been a revelation to me and, hopefully, useful to others as well! --Mitchell Jones}*** From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 20 14:37:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA09414; Mon, 20 May 1996 14:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 14:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9605202008.AA126663@echo.i-link.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (21st Century Logic) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: coaxial rail gun with arc pressure X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Mitchell Jones concluded that arc pressure could explain rail gun >operation and many of us (me too) pointed out that Biot-Savart effects >explained all. Not so fast! > >Frank Znidarsic and I (Stenger) fired what amounted to a coaxial rail >gun in my garage a few years back, and in this rig, arc pressure was >very important! > > _________._______________________________________ > | || \_outer || > ____|_____ || conducting ||<---disk > __________ || cylinder || armature in > | ||_______________ ____|| sliding contact > |_________.| | arc | | all around cyl. > ^ |________________| gap |____ | > 60 kilojoule | || \_ solid || armature flies out > capacitor bank | || center || ---------------> > || conductor || when arc fires. > ||__________________________||_________ > > (I hope this sketch transmits OK) > >When Frank Z. and I fired the arc, the armature was blasted to the right >into a "catcher" made from a pile of newspapers. We were trying to >generate ball lightning, but we did not. In this rig, the arc explosion >was a major factor - along with the EM pressure! > >In this "garage" rig we measured a peak current of 200,000 amp, which, >I believe, is wimpy compared with currents in the large rail gun rigs. > >So, Mitchell, your arc pressure can be an important force - it all >depends on the specific details of the experiment. ***{Agreed, and I didn't intend to leave the impression that I thought otherwise. My purpose in the last comment that I made to you was to acknowledge the contribution that you had made to my understanding. Your comment about million amp currents really got my attention, to put it mildly! Perhaps the reason is that I had the dubious privilege, about 15 years ago, of watching the end of one of my fingers explode when I inadvertently inserted it between a pair of jumper cables. It healed up nicely and, today, it is hard to tell that anything was ever amiss, but the lingering psychological effect remains: I don't like large currents, because I have seen what they can do, and when they come up in a discussion, they receive my full and immediate attention! By the way, it would be interesting to determine whether the arcjet effect, when maximized, would be larger or smaller than the magnetic effect, in driving a rail gun projectile. The way to test any specific setup would be to place the projectile on the rails backwards and hit it with a jolt of current. If the arcjet were more powerful than the Biot-Savart force, the projectile would hurtle off the back end of the rails! Since I don't like to play with large currents, this is not an experiment that I'll be doing, but I would be very interested in the outcome if you or anyone else were to decide to do it. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >As for the longitudinal force controversy, I don't know much about its >history. I do know that the magnetic "pinch" effect (or sausage >instability) can cause complex longitudinal forces in the region where >the conductor is being pinched. Fluid conductors can pinch at modest >currents (10^2 amp order?) and solid metal conductors pinch at kilo and >meg amp levels, depending on conductor width and shape. These >longitudinal effects are best observed by squeezing a hand full of >mashed potatoes. When a high-current plasma necks down very rapidly, >the local inductance of the neck increases rapidly also. If the >currents are in the 10^5 amp range, transient longitudinal voltages in >the necking region can reach the hundreds-of-kilovolts range! > >I wish electromagnetics were an easier subject! Then I might be able to >master it. > >Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 20 16:29:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA01207; Mon, 20 May 1996 16:19:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 16:19:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: coaxial rail gun with arc pressure X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Mitchell In the interest of not having the tip of my finger explode, would you please explain in more detail just what you did to make this happen. I helped someone out yesterday with a dead battery, and did not realize I was in any danger, even when she connected the cable backwards,and really caused a large current flow. Luckily, the internal resistance of her dead battery was large enough that the battery cables didn't melt. In fact it didn't even stall my engine, although it sure slowed it down. Hank ---------- From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: coaxial rail gun with arc pressure Date: Monday, May 20, 1996 2:30PM >Mitchell Jones concluded that arc pressure could explain rail gun >operation and many of us (me too) pointed out that Biot-Savart effects >explained all. Not so fast! > >Frank Znidarsic and I (Stenger) fired what amounted to a coaxial rail >gun in my garage a few years back, and in this rig, arc pressure was >very important! > > _________._______________________________________ > | || \_outer || > ____|_____ || conducting ||<---disk > __________ || cylinder || armature in > | ||_______________ ____|| sliding contact > |_________.| | arc | | all around cyl. > ^ |________________| gap |____ | > 60 kilojoule | || \_ solid || armature flies out > capacitor bank | || center || ---------------> > || conductor || when arc fires. > ||__________________________||_________ > > (I hope this sketch transmits OK) > >When Frank Z. and I fired the arc, the armature was blasted to the right >into a "catcher" made from a pile of newspapers. We were trying to >generate ball lightning, but we did not. In this rig, the arc explosion >was a major factor - along with the EM pressure! > >In this "garage" rig we measured a peak current of 200,000 amp, which, >I believe, is wimpy compared with currents in the large rail gun rigs. > >So, Mitchell, your arc pressure can be an important force - it all >depends on the specific details of the experiment. ***{Agreed, and I didn't intend to leave the impression that I thought otherwise. My purpose in the last comment that I made to you was to acknowledge the contribution that you had made to my understanding. Your comment about million amp currents really got my attention, to put it mildly! Perhaps the reason is that I had the dubious privilege, about 15 years ago, of watching the end of one of my fingers explode when I inadvertently inserted it between a pair of jumper cables. It healed up nicely and, today, it is hard to tell that anything was ever amiss, but the lingering psychological effect remains: I don't like large currents, because I have seen what they can do, and when they come up in a discussion, they receive my full and immediate attention! By the way, it would be interesting to determine whether the arcjet effect, when maximized, would be larger or smaller than the magnetic effect, in driving a rail gun projectile. The way to test any specific setup would be to place the projectile on the rails backwards and hit it with a jolt of current. If the arcjet were more powerful than the Biot-Savart force, the projectile would hurtle off the back end of the rails! Since I don't like to play with large currents, this is not an experiment that I'll be doing, but I would be very interested in the outcome if you or anyone else were to decide to do it. --Mitchell Jones}*** > >As for the longitudinal force controversy, I don't know much about its >history. I do know that the magnetic "pinch" effect (or sausage >instability) can cause complex longitudinal forces in the region where >the conductor is being pinched. Fluid conductors can pinch at modest >currents (10^2 amp order?) and solid metal conductors pinch at kilo and >meg amp levels, depending on conductor width and shape. These >longitudinal effects are best observed by squeezing a hand full of >mashed potatoes. When a high-current plasma necks down very rapidly, >the local inductance of the neck increases rapidly also. If the >currents are in the 10^5 amp range, transient longitudinal voltages in >the necking region can reach the hundreds-of-kilovolts range! > >I wish electromagnetics were an easier subject! Then I might be able to >master it. > >Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 30 06:34:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA25847; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 06:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 06:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604300505.AAA13380@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Recombination X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:28 PM 4/29/96 -0700, John L wrote: >Scott Little, > >It just dawned on me that you haven't seen recombination in your CETI >replication, correct? Thank you for asking, John. I've been so busy lately that I haven't written anything formal on my work and some of the little things, expecially those I don't understand perfectly, have not made it into my brief summaries. Indeed I HAVE seen some evidence for recombination, especially at low currents. However, I'm not sure how accurate my gas flow measurements are at those low flow rates. I use a water displacement method in which the emitted gas is allowed to bubble up into an inverted completely full graduated cylinder. At my lowest current, which is 20mA, it takes about 1 hour to fill a 10ml cylinder. Surely some of the gas dissolves in the water during that time...but, anyway, I collected only about 70% of the expected gas. At higher currents the collected amount of gas came closer to the expected amount but it was still LOWER (about 5% low). In all of my earlier attempts at CF experiments, I've always gotten about 5-7% MORE gas than expected...and I thought the excess was water vapor. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-3848 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue Apr 30 06:52:04 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA28364; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 06:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 06:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I44YATS1769C0M1L@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: RECOMBINATION \ IRRITATION X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:28:54 -0700 (PDT) >From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) >Subject: Recombination >Scott Little, >It just dawned on me that you haven't seen recombination in your CETI >replication, correct? >Unlike the Mills' potassium carbonate / nickle system in which several of >us saw apparent significant recombination. I still think recombination should be investigated as I stated in several earlier post's, much to the irritation of Mark Hugo. Irritation is a by-product of all of the sciences, perhaps some Preperation H will soothe Marks. Forced recombination in a Patterson Cell is easy to achieve. And even becomes easier with pulsed input, as with the Mills arrangement. Recombination can be ignored, removed as a variable, or it can be investigated. Only an experiment will give the correct answer, as to it's significance. If the same logic, (Can't be the reason for...because....1000 reasons why not) were used by CF pioneers like P & F, Mills and Patterson, CF wouldn't have been attempted in the first place! Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 21 04:21:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA28699; Tue, 21 May 1996 04:17:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 04:17:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960521104906_100433.1541_BHG93-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: 1927 Quote X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To:Vortex All this below seems to me to make perfect sense. Chris *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." - Isaac Newton "Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature." - Michael Faraday (people have a nasty habit of omitting the second clause of that sentence) In "The Fundamentals of Electro-Magnetism, Cullwick, Cambridge University Press, the author says: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "The mysteries of lines of force and of electro-magnetic induction form a fruitful source of unlimited philosophical speculation, to which pleasant pursuit I was introduced [......] My gradual rescue from this plight was completed upon reading ["The Logic of Modern Physics", P57, P W Bridgman, Macmillan 1927] [...] "Teachers of electrical engineering are sometimes forced to dip into these new theories, as for instance when discussing the motion of electrons in a high-voltage cathode-ray oscillograph, or the fundamental laws of photo-electric cells, but apparently no serious attempt has yet been made to present the elementary theory in a way which is consistent with the viewpoint of modern physics. This book has been written with the aim of making some contribution, however imperfect, to the solution of this problem. In such an attempt, the physical viewpoint which appears to be most effective, and free from unnecessary artificialities, is that of "action at a distance, retarded in time." That is, we look upon the mutual actions of electric charges as the basis of the phenomena, and forsake the attempt to "explain" the mechanism of these effects by means of the properties of an electro-magnetic field whose physical existence cannot be proved. Electric and magnetic fields are retained, not as physical realities, but as extremely useful mathematical vector concepts, and to these we add, in exactly the same category, the vector potential. "Now this scepticism as to the physical reality of electric and magnetic fields may appear so startling, and so contrary to the reader's accepted views, that he will now throw the book down with a snort of impatience at my disrespect for authority, If this is so, then I must bring Bridgman to my aid, and quote what he says on the subject: "Now nearly every physicist takes the next step, and ascribes physical reality to the electric field, in that he thinks that at every point of the field there is some real, physical phenomenon taking place which is connected in a way not yet precisely deter- mined with the number and direction which tag the point. At first this view most naturally involved as a corollary the existence of a medium, but lately it has become the fashion to say that the medium does not exist, and that only the field is real. The reality of the field is self-consciously inculcated in our elementary teaching, often with considerable difficulty for the student. This view is usually credited to Faraday, and is considered the most fundamental concept of all modern electrical theory. Yet in spite of this, I believe that a critical examination will show that the ascription of physical reality to the electric field is entirely without justification. I cannot find a single physical phenomenon or a single physical operation by which evidence of the existence of the field may be obtained independent of the operations which entered the definition. The only physical evidence we ever have of the existence of a field is by going there with an electric charge and observing the action on the charge (when the charges are inside atoms we may have optical phenomena), which is precisely the operation of the definition. It is then either meaningless to say that a field has physical reality, or we are guilty of adopting a definition of reality which is the crassest tautology." [end] From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 21 04:22:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA28775; Tue, 21 May 1996 04:18:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 04:18:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960521105013_100433.1541_BHG93-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Graneaus on rail-guns. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To:Vortex As I have said, I'm not really following the railgun discussion here. However, the comments (which I haven't studied either in this matter) of the Graneaus on railguns may be of interest to some here. Chris --------------------------------------------------------- We were particularly pleased when we found a test which could sort out the electrodynamic force laws and, at the same time, solve a tech- nological problem. This test, the third to be described, concerned the recoil force of the railgun. As already explained at the end of Chapter 4, the railgun is an electrodynamic accelerator intended to outdo gunpowder. As part of the strategic defense initiative (SDI), the Pentagon is funding the development of several types of electrodynamic accelerators. The railgun is the most simple of them. In early reports it was claimed that a railgun had accelerated gram-sized particles to 11 km/s. Apparently it has proved impossible to repeat this feat, but in secret Pentagon-funded research railguns have almost certainly outgunned artillery guns. Unfortunately, the energy efficiency of railguns has remained disappointingly low. We claim the reason for this is rail buckling under the impact of longitudinal Ampere recoil forces. For the convenience of readers, a brief description of the railgun is now repeated. The gun consists of a pair of straight and parallel conductors, normally made of copper, which are the current rails. One end of the pair of rails is connected to a source of electric current. This end is known as the gun breech. The other end is the muzzle through which the projectile leaves the gun. To begin with a short piece of copper bridges the rails near the breech. This bridge is called the armature and it must be in sliding contact with the rails. The armature can be the projectile, or it can be made to push a projectile in front of it. When a heavy current begins to flow down one rail, across the bridge, and back in the other rail, the armature is subjected to a strong electrodynamic force which accelerates it down the rails to the muzzle. In the largest railguns built so far, the acceleration force was equal to many tons of weight. This force is transverse to the current, and both Ampere's and Lorentz's law agree on its magnitude. All guns are subject to recoil forces. They are required by Newton's third law. The railgun recoil has been shrouded by mystery. Where in the railgun circuit do we find the recoil force? Which atoms of the current conductors are attacked by it? Textbook theory and the Ampere electrodynamics disagree on the answers to these questions. Let us first consider the claims made by relativistic electromagnetism and the Lorentz force law. Einstein's local action principle requires that the Lorentz force on the armature arises from the impact of energy-momentum. In other words, energy flies between the rails, strikes the armature, and imparts its momentum to the armature. There are two equal and opposite forces involved in this process. The energy impact causes the forward force on the armature. To comply with Newtonian mechanics, an equal and opposite force must decelerate the incoming energy. That second force is the recoil force which should be acting on the mass of the free energy just before it is absorbed by the metal. Since this energy is not connected to any other part of the railgun, it cannot exert a force on the railgun. Hence the railgun itself does not feel the recoil force. If it were true, it would make the design of railguns easy. Ampere's law gives a completely different explanation of the recoil action. It claims that, by simultaneous far-actions, the forward force in the armature is balanced by two longitudinal rearward directed forces in the rail portions close behind the armature. These two forces push the rails back to the breech. This is the Ampere recoil action. The analysis has the following practical outcome. If Ampere's law is correct, the rails will be pushed backward from the armature. This push will deflect the rails laterally and buckle them. Buckling of the rails interferes with the forward motion of the armature and, therefore, impairs the efficiency of the railgun. On the other hand, if Lorentz's law is correct, the rails will not experience a longitudinal recoil force. They will not buckle nor hinder the motion of the armature. The recoil mechanism would have no effect on the efficiency of the railgun. Some of the railgun literature indicates that the rails do buckle. The evidence is not decisive because the rails spring back to their original shape after the armature has left the gun. The efficiency of railguns never lived up to its original promise. This led to the suspicion that rail buckling does take place. Recently constructed railguns have been made very stiff to suppress buckling. After studying the railgun recoil problem in detail, we de- signed an experiment which can decide whether rail buckling does take place, or not. For this purpose we set up a gun with wide rail separation for easy observation of lateral rail deflections. The rails are pushed apart by transverse electrodynamic forces on which both laws agree. The lateral forces on the rails were taken up by strong sideboards. The rails were relatively stiff-copper strips, except for the last 30 cm behind the stationary armature. Both acceleration and recoil forces exist regard less of whether the armature is stationary or traveling. The short rail pieces up to and beyond the armature consisted of very thin metal strips which, when pushed back, would easily buckle. Furthermore, since the current pulse brought them up to red heat, they would plastically deform and retain their buckled shape for subsequent inspection and photography. A heavy armature was chosen which, on the passage of a strong current pulse, would simply jump forward. The experiment clearly confirmed rail buckling. The first results were published in a journal of the British Institute of Physics. Aluminum strip rails were pushed back and deflected inward, away from the sideboards. They held their deflected shapes. Stainless steel strip rails buckled concertina fashion and also retained their distorted shape. Once more experiment confirmed the validity of Ampere's law and disproved the Lorentz law. [end] (From "Newton vs. Einstein") /ex From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 21 04:22:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA28885; Tue, 21 May 1996 04:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 04:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960521105101_100433.1541_BHG93-3@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Ampere, Mitchell and moi. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To:Vortex Mitchell Jones and I seem to have got at cross-purposes. Partly my fault, certainly. Here and in other postings I'll try to get this discussion back onto a better footing. Though I will admit that I'm not at all sure that any discussion of all this is going to change anything - in which case I apologise for what is going to be some pretty heavy bandwidth-clogging. First, my apology over the experiment I mentioned to Mitchell by email. By the time it came back I didn't recognise it, and went off half-cocked. Put that down to senility or terminal stupidity. Bad weekend, too much heavy labouring on house-improvements and car-fixing. Next, there is *some* significance in how the discoverer/propounder of a 'law' derives his findings - and yet on the other hand experimental proof is the only final arbiter. And I am not saying that the Graneaus are correct - just that I think they have made a case which needs answering, and which (in my opinion) has not been answered fully anywhere. On the matter of how Ampere formed his law, please refer to the relevant message. That gives the Graneaus' account of how he did that - and I am not saying they are right, because (to quote one historian) "there is no such thing as a historical fact". One might even suggest that the title of Ampere's own account ("derived solely from experiment") indicates that he may have been "protesting too much". My original posting (which Mitchell quotes) was intended simply to tweak the curiosity - and perhaps the tails - of others here. I hoped to entertain and raise some comment. It wasn't entirely serious in intent. Next, the matter of wire explosion. Mitchell states that the pinch effect is the cause. However, I would ask if he has studied the photomicrographs in the Phys Letts A papers? The pinch effect is so obvious an explanation of the wire snapping that it gets some discussion. There is in fact no sign of any necking of the wires. The expansion of the wires is explained by Mitchell as being due to the pinch effect, while the Graneaus explain it in terms of simple thermal expansion under the kA currents flowing. This would appear reasonable, since the diameter of the wire after cooling returns to its original size. I suppose it might do that with the pinch effect, too - but the pinch effect would 'neck' the wires at the point of fracture, and no such necking is observed. Note also the breaking up of the spring-compressed chain of copper rod segments. I agree that if all the various experiments which purport to support the Ampere force law are explainable by both sets of laws, then we don't need Ampere. (Actually, we would then be free to choose whichever we preferred and look for more experiments to settle the issue.) The question remains, has this been done? I think that the question remains open. I think that Mitchell's assertion of pinching to explain the wire-snapping has been made without proper study of the literature, and that his assertion that arc-explosions account for the conductor centring itself in the gap does not allow for the fact that the gaps are several centimetres wide and are in free air - not confined in any way. I don't see that necessarily a narrow, heavy and quite lengthy conductor segment would be propelled as Mitchell suggests. Yes, Mitchell's explanation *is* arm-waving. So is my disagreement with his explanation. Neither of us are putting any numbers into our opinions, so that's all they are - arm-waving. By both of us. The psychology revealed in these discussions? Oh, it's obvious enough. My own psychology is pretty clear to most people who have frequented this list for long enough, and I'm quite happy to admit that I have an agenda, and plenty of emotional bias. For example, I don't like the Graneau explanation of inertia; I prefer the ZPF explanation. Why? Oh, because the Graneau one could never be exploited, while the ZPF one might lead to all manner of exciting applications one day. On the other hand, I do at least take considerable trouble to study up on the work of people who propose 'interesting' ideas. I read their books, I read their papers carefully - and if there is not too much mathematics in them I reckon to follow them well. And I read what their critics have to say too. Further, I try to apply the same standards of criticism to the 'conventional' view as I do to the less conventional stuff. Just because I have an agenda, just because I admit to being as biased and irrational as the next man (maybe more so), doesn't mean that I do not take my own bias into account; or that I don't study the evidence very carefully before making up my mind. Or - in the case of the Graneau material - not quite making it up except to say that I believe they have made a case. Just because a person would like to hope that there are new and exciting possibilities left in science does not mean that he doesn't apply just as much (maybe more) scepticism to the evidence - or that he does not study that evidence with great care. And, Mitchell, I think you have been making assertions about these experiments without making a proper study of the evidence presented by them. Chris /ex From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 21 04:23:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA28957; Tue, 21 May 1996 04:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 04:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960521105250_100433.1541_BHG55-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Graneau account of Ampere X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To:Vortex Oersted's announcement of his discovery [of the orientation assumed by a compass-needle in close proximity to a current-carrying conductor] triggered a frenzy of activity in Paris, which Napoleon had made the science capi- tal of the world. It caused the French Academy to stage a demonstration of the Copenhagen experiment in front of its members. In the audience was Andre-Marie Ampere (1775-1836), a brilliant and most versatile scientist of France. He was a frequent contributor to the discussions at the Acad- emy. That evening he skipped the discussion and went home to start a series of experiments involving the forces between current-carrying wires. He deviated from Oersted's experiment by concentrating on interactions between like objects of mat- ter. In Ampere's case they were copper wires. It was on Septem- ber 11, 1820, when Oersted's deflection of a magnetic compass needle by an electric current through a wire had been demon- strated in Paris. Precisely one week later Ampere read a paper before the Academy and reported that parallel wires carrying electric currents attract or repel each other, depending on whether the two currents flow in the same or opposite direc- tions. This was as great a leap forward in the development of electromagnetism as the one taken by Oersted. Ampere fol- lowed up with weekly presentations of the progress he was making in his experimental investigation. Within a few months he had laid the foundation of a new science which he called "electrodynamics." Ampere set out to cast electromagnetism in a Newtonian mold, for he believed the inverse square law of force introduced by Newton "opened a new highway into the sciences which had natural phenomena as their object of study." However difficult it may appear today, the question of what constituted the elementary particle of electrodynamics posed no problem to Ampere. He plunged for the "current element." This was a small piece of wire containing moving electricity. The force was exerted on the metal and not on the electricity in it. This force ceased to exist when the current stopped flowing. Ampere clearly recognized that the force on the current ele- ments would not only have to depend on the strengths of the two currents, but also on their directions. This directional prop- erty was a departure from the mass particles and electric charges of former far-action laws. It led to considerable mathe- matical complications which were absent in gravitation and electrostatics. By deduction from four critical experiments with wire circuits [A2]*, Ampere arrived at a formula for the force between two current elements. It was either a force of at- traction or of repulsion, depending on the orientation of the two elements. Furthermore, the force was proportional to the product of the two current strengths, and it decreased with the inverse square of the distance between the elements. The empirical relationship discovered by Ampere was a mutual simultaneous far-action law complying with Newton's physics and particularly with his third law of motion. The only new aspect was the variation of the strength of the interaction force, as one or both elements were turned about their centers. Ampere's force law for two current elements became the most controversial of the four Newtonian force laws which dealt, respectively, with pairs of gravitating particles, magnetic poles, electric charges, and current elements. Looking back from today's perspective, it is a remarkable fact that the Am- pere forces were not functions of the velocity of the electric charge carriers in the wire. This was to be changed in subse- quent theories. Ampere's was the last of the ponderomotive force laws of nature based on simultaneous distant action. The interaction force was a single force, but it could be mentally resolved in two equal and opposite forces acting on the two material current elements. * My translation of ref. A2 is: "Mathematical Theory of Electrodynamic Phenomena, Derived Solely from Experiment." In fact, as I recall but my trusty Harrap does not mention, "theorie" does not quite translate as "theory". (From "Newton vs. Einstein") [end] /ex From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 21 04:24:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA29029; Tue, 21 May 1996 04:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 04:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960521105322_100433.1541_BHG55-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Exploding wires etc. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To:Vortex As part of my commentary on "Ampere force", here's some more detail on the experimental stuff. [talking about liquid metals moving when carrying large currents] It was this difficulty arising from infinitely small current elements which convinced us that the elements had to be of finite size. Then we wondered why we ever thought it to be otherwise? The atom is the smallest possible current element, and it is not infinitely small. Both authors together devised computer-assisted finite current element analysis. For this purpose we mentally divided the metallic conductor into little cubes. Each cube stood for a current element. Neal instructed the computer to work out the interaction force between every current element pair that mattered. To compute the force which we could measure, or otherwise observe, all the appropriate element pair forces had to be added together. This incredibly laborious task could only be undertaken by a fast computing machine, and then it often took hours and days to complete it. What we found was this. Looking at the square copper face which is in contact with liquid mercury, the repulsion of the mercury, away from the copper, was strongest at the center of the square and weakest at the corners and the periphery of the conductor. It meant there had to be a mercury pressure difference between the center and the corners of the conductor. With this pressure difference it was natural that mercury should flow away from the center of the copper face and return against the weaker pressure in the outer regions of the conductor. Hence the wave pattern on the mercury surface was actually due to the return flow of the liquid back to the copper interface. We went on to confirm one of Hering's results for which the apparatus was built in the first place. This involved raising the current level so high that the longitudinal Ampere forces would actually separate the mercury from the copper at one interface or the other. This did occur near the 1000 ampere level. As the separation took place, an arc formed at the interface and the current was interrupted. This made the mercury flow back and close the gap, only to re-start the current and then cause another interruption. Hering called this the circuit breaker effect. It could certainly not be explained with transverse Lorentz forces. Then we rebuilt the apparatus to shorten the 12-inch mercury section to 1/8 of an inch. According to calculation we expected a large pressure to arise in the short length of mercury. As the current was increased and approached 800 amperes, an extraordinary event occurred. All the liquid mercury was ejected upward and out of the gap by a sudden explosion. The pressure forces in the liquid metal, created by mercury repulsion from the copper, were capable oflifting the heavy mercury and pulling a vacuum underneath it. There could have been no better demonstration of the existence and strength of longi- tudinal Ampere forces. Metallurgists may have forgotten Hering's electrodynamic liquid metal pumping action; nature did not. This action must be present in the Hall-Heroult cells used for the reduction (production) of aluminum. In 1975 Robl of the Aluminum Corporation of America said [R6]: The movement of molten aluminum in Hall-Heroult cells influences economic factors such as lining wear rates, heat transfer, power efficiency, and current efficiency. (from "Newton vs. Einstein" [end] /ex From billb@eskimo.com Tue May 21 16:53:21 1996 Received: from hil-img-3.compuserve.com (hil-img-3.compuserve.com [149.174.215.203]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA17138 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 16:53:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by hil-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id TAA08847; Tue, 21 May 1996 19:53:16 -0400 Date: 21 May 96 18:47:37 EDT From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@CompuServe.COM> To: vortex Subject: Wire explosions. Message-ID: <960521224736_100433.1541_BHG24-1@CompuServe.COM> Status: RO X-Status: To:Vortex It would appear that I failed to post this, although I did refer to it. I also checked the Britannica (faute de mieux) on Ampere. The story there seems to be identical with the Graneaus' account. However, the stories do concentrate on Paris in 1920, in the wake of Oersted. Possible later squabb;es with Biot may well have happened. At least I got a cheap laugh, Britannica translates the French 'experience' as 'experience' instead of 'experiment'...! Anyway, Graneaus on wire explosions: .... a large capacitor bank which could be charged up to 100,000 volts and stored various amounts of energy. When closing a switch the capacitor bank would drive a large current pulse through the wire. We left one centimeter long air-gaps between the ends of the wire and the terminals of the discharge circuit. These gaps would be bridged by electric arcs as soon as the switch was closed. The purpose of the gaps was to allow the wire to expand in length, as it heats up, without touching anything. If the capacitor bank was charged to too low a voltage, all that would happen when the switch was closed was that the current pulse would heat up the wire and expand it into the arc gaps. Upon cooling down, the wire would contract to its original length. When the capacitor bank was charged to too high a voltage, the current pulse was so large that it would melt and possibly evaporate the wire. Yet for a certain range of capacitor voltages and current pulses, between the two extremes, the wire would fracture into a number of pieces without melting, exactly as expected from Ampere's law. The fracture faces were examined metallurgically, and this examination left no doubt that the wire ruptures were caused by a tension pulse. The outcome and the explanation of the MIT wire fragmenta- tion experiments were published in Physics Letters in 1983 [G10]. We expected a storm of indignation to descend upon us for having had the audacity to challenge relativistic electro- magnetism with Ampere's simultaneous far-actions. Nothing happened for three years. Then the lone voice of J.G. Ternan [T3] was heard. He was a physicist in the Australian Defense Science and Technology Organization. Ternan claimed the wire fractures were caused by rapid thermal expansion. If the ends ofthe wire were free to move, as they were in the MIT experiment, they would acquire a certain expansion velocity. Because of their inertia, the wire atoms should have attempted to keep on going in opposite directions at the two ends of the wire. In Ternan's opinion this ultimately caused the tension breaks in the wire. We had calculated the strength of this effect and convinced ourselves that it was far too small to rupture the wire. Ternan had not read Nasilowski's paper. In the Warsaw ex- periment both ends of the wire were clamped and could not move as assumed by Ternan. This eliminated the thermal expansion velocity and the associated inertia effect. In fact Nasilowski had strung his wires horizontally between the end- clamps. Thermal expansion then did nothing else but sag the wire a little more in the middle. Hence Nasilowski's experi- ment conclusively disproved Ternan's argument. This was pointed out in a further publication in 1987 [G11]. Nothing more was heard from Ternan, or anybody else, on the subject of wire ruptures by Ampere tension. It is now nine years since the physics community was made aware of the success of Am- pere's force law and the failure of Lorentz's contact action law. Peter Graneau's students Linda Ruscak and Robert Bruce took this experiment one step further to a thick copper rod [R51. They cut the 1/4-inch diameter rod in 2-cm long pieces. Then they stacked the pieces in a close fitting glass tube and compressed the vertical stack with a spring. This resulted in a straight conductor which had a weak link every two centime- ters. Current pulses which did rupture thin wires were unable to fracture the 1/4-inch diameter metal rod. But they were pow- erful enough to separate the pre-cut pieces by a small distance. Short electric arcs formed at all separations. Photographs of the air-arcs proved that the separation had actually taken place. We described the stack of copper pieces as a multi-arc generator. A device like this acts as a current-limiting, self- resetting fuse. At normal current strength it behaves like an ordinary conductor. When a large current pulse passes through it, the pieces will separate and the many arcs impede current flow and limit it to some safe value. When the pulse is over, the stack collapses and normal conduction is restored. This represents a modern technological advance resulting from knowledge of the far-action based Ampere electrodynamics. [end] (from "Newton vs Einstein") From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 22 04:59:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA18254; Wed, 22 May 1996 04:49:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 04:49:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31a2ff75.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Peter Glueck" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Two papers of interest. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Subject: Two papers of interest. >From Current Contents 20/1996: a) L S Bernstein, M R Zakin, E B Flint, K S Suslick "Cavitation thermometry using molecular and continuous sonoluminescence" Journal of Physical Chemistry 100:16 (Apr 18, 1996) pp 6612-6619 b)S Trentalange, S U Pandey "Bose-Einstein correlations and sonoluminescence" Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 99:4, Part 1 (APR 1996) pp 2439-2441. Can somebody belonging to our brotherhood tell what are the conclusions of these papers? Thank you in advance! I really envy the scientists working in this field, they have as much theory and understanding as has CF and they are not oppressed. I think the fine Eberlein paper/theory will not be readily accepted by the competition. The problem is awfully complex, as is CF. 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 billb@eskimo.com Wed May 22 07:02:09 1996 Received: from cluj.soroscj.ro (root@cluj.soroscj.ro [193.226.99.21]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA07502 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 06:56:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from itim.UUCP (root@localhost) by cluj.soroscj.ro (8.6.12/8.6.12) with UUCP id RAA05318 for vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com; Wed, 22 May 1996 17:04:41 +0200 Received: by itim.org.soroscj.ro (UUPC/extended 1.11x); Wed, 22 May 1996 16:54:47 GMT Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 16:54:41 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <31a32ab7.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: third paper on SL. Status: RO X-Status: A third paper on sonoluminescence which seems to be interesting too; F. Lepointmullie, D. Depaun, T. Lepoint " Analysis of the 'new electrical model' of sonoluminescence. Ultrasonics-Sonochemistry 3:1 (FEB 1996) 73-76. This journal publishes a lot of papers on this subject(s). Is this accessible for somebody from the group? Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 22 19:16:50 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA12358; Wed, 22 May 1996 19:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 19:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Cheapest CF data gathering around! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Cheapest CF data gathering around! - Well, I've done it vortexians! I have assembled information that will allow even the most conservative budget to get into the act for doing calorimetry and computer data gathering. For the most reasonable data gathering I would suggest: - DataLab Solution from LabTech Notebook. $199. This is an 8 channel A/D board CIODAS-08 JR bundled with LabTech Notebook (locked to gather only from this board) - Other items from LabTech (1-800-879-5228) that might be of use are: A teminal block. $49, a cable $25, and a D/A analog output to compliment the CIODAS-08, $50. - To help gather the data for this board I recommend a $140, 10-150ml/min flow meter from McMillan Co, Georgetown, TX (1-512-863-0231) (0-5 VDC Out, 12 VDC power supply needed.) - And last, the 0-400mV output for -40 to 300 degree F, digital thermometer kit, 3370-RB, from Marlin P. Jones, 1-800-652-6733, for $9. - As I see it, for about $600, (presuming you have a PC) one can be set up with about a +/- 1% accurrate calorimetry apparatus. I would also recommend calling Visual Solutions at 1-508-392-0100 for a DemoVisSim, which can elagantly process your data.(Cost: The phone call.) - After this information is out, and given a lag time of a year or two, anyone who whines about CF and CF experiments has NO EXCUSE, when it is this easy to get into the business of serious data gathering. MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 22 19:16:43 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA12528; Wed, 22 May 1996 19:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 19:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Here is a thought for method that might agument rail gun performace by using a magnet in the armature: * - arc point (armature to rail) A - Armature P - Projectile ---------------*------------------------------------- Rail 1 (+) -----------| / North | / Pole A North Pole Up \ Up | \ P | -----------| ---------------*------------------------------------- Rail 2 (-) The idea is that the magnetic field generated between the rails, and especially around the armature (A), will repel N-N on top and S-S on bottom of the magnetized projectile (P) which is pushed as a result of the current in the armature (A) which could simply be a metallic or graphite conductor or an arc contained within a ceramic insulator. The magnet in the projectile could either be permanent or formed by putting a twist in the armature. Think it will work? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 22 19:17:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA12651; Wed, 22 May 1996 19:13:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 19:13:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960522184324_307450183@emout10.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: bad X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I was doing well. Talking to business leaders, telling them I had a leg up with cold fusion technology. Things seemed to taking off. Then my paper, "The Source of Inertial and Gravitational Mass" came back from Physics Essays. The reviewer stated: "The manuscript is poorly written and contains several fundamental errors" [what I wrote] "what the reviewer wrote" 1. [ This theory represents matter as a series of superimposed probability waves.] " In fact, quantum theory does not represent a particle as being made of of its probability waves." I don't understand this comment. If a particle is not made up of its waves then what is it made up of? Sounds to me like that the reviewer is full of more bunk than I am. 2. [The waves of matter, like all other waves should propageate into space.] " The quantum mechanical wave function of a system is not a wave in three dimensional space except for the special case of a system consisting of a single particle. For a system of N particles, this wavefunction is a wave in an abstract 3N dimensional space." Abstract 3N space! What a joke! The reviewer is biased more towards the obsurd than to reality. I believe in reality. Do you have to believe in imaginary places to get published? 3. [According to exsisting theory photons do, howerer, have a gravitational mass that is proportional to their rest energy.] " This is surprising and false because photons have zero rest energy." This comment kills me. It makes me think that the reviewer is the one who is on the fringe. Does the reviewer believe that as the sun converts matter into energy that the gravitational potential of the universe is consumed? Photons have an inertial and a gravitational mass. Does he know not about the principle of equivalence. I said nothing about rest energy. 4. [The photon represents the matter wave.] " Photons are the quanta of the electromagnetic field. Matter waves are not electromagnetic waves." I said represents not are. How can a person who believes in 3N space not have the imagination to know what the word represents means? [The wavelength of the photon corresponds with the Compton wavelength of matter.] "This has no basis in theory." I was just stating the givens of an analogy. I said nowhere that the givens in my model represented a theory. "From my reading of the manuscript, I must conclude that the author does not have a sufficient understanding of relativity and quantum theory to make a significant contribution. This paper appears to me to come under the deading of "fringe science", and should not be published in a reputable physics journal." Very truly yours, name blanked out..good thing to..or he would be hearing from me!! Fringe! That kills me. He is the one who believes in 3N space. Perhaps I have not been brain washed enough yet to really understand the meaning of a wave that is not a wave or a place that does not exist. Horrace, I think you can appreciate this comment. No amount of additional education is going to make me believe that physics, even at the most fundamental level, is not based in reality. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 22 19:23:29 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA12734; Wed, 22 May 1996 19:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 19:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Here is an expanded thought for a method to agument rail gun performace by using a magnet in the armature: * - arc point (armature to rail) A - Armature P - Projectile ---------------*------------------------------------- Rail 1 (+) -----------| / North | / Pole A North Pole Up \ Up | \ P | -----------| ---------------*------------------------------------- Rail 2 (-) The idea is that the magnetic field generated between the rails, and especially around the armature (A), will repel N-N on top and S-S on bottom of the magnetized projectile (P) which is pushed as a result of the current in the armature (A) which could simply be a metallic or graphite conductor or an arc contained within a ceramic insulator. The magnet in the projectile could either be permanent or formed by putting a twist in the armature. Think it will work? I do. Making the projectile a magnet has some other advantages. For exmaple, the initial acceleration phase can be augmented by placing coils over and under the breech so the current goes in a direction that accelerates the projectile, i.e.: ------------- | | -----------|---*---<---|--------------------------- Rail 1 (+) -------|---| | / North | | | Projectile / Pole | A | Starting North Pole Up \ Up | | | Position \ P | | | -------|---| | -----------|---*-------|---------------->------------ Rail 2 (-) | | | |------- (-) then (+) | -------------------- (+) then (-) It's also possible to do a push/pull version: (+)-->-+--+ (repeat stator configuration many times) | | -------|--|---------------*----------------<---------- Rail 1 (+) | | -----------| South | | / North | Pole *_ / Pole A North Pole Up Up * \ Up | | | \ P | | | -----------| -------|--|---------------*----------------->--------- Rail 2 (-) | | (-)-<--+--+ Stator In this design "stators" above and below the projectile (for symmetry) but crossing over the rails purpendicularly, are shorted out by a brush on the nose of the projectile. Note the stator and armature current is in the same direction, so attracts, and the leading magnetic field poles and the projectile poles are opposite, so attract. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 22 19:19:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA12856; Wed, 22 May 1996 19:14:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 19:14:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605230057.KAA01505@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Martin Edmund Sevior To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Photovoltaics. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I've just read the annual report on the Center for PhotoVoltaics at University of New South Wales, in Sydney. These are the guys who hold the patents on the most efficient solar cells in mass production and who also hold the world record for efficiency of Silicon solar cells (24%). Last year they obtained patents on a new technology that will produce solar cells cheap enough to compete with conventional "Grid connected" electricity. It is based on multi-layer polycrystaline silicon deposited on glass substrates. These are only 50 microns thick. They've demonstrated the technology can produce cells of 17% efficiency which is already greater than their target efficiency of 15%. They expect to produce cells that cost around $2 per peak watt. These cells can then be mounted on cheap "non-imaging" concentrators of their own design that do not need to move to track the sun. Their design concentrates light by a factor of 4 while only losing 15% of the total light incident. The concentrators are robust enough to be used as roof cladding. The combination of the "thin" cells and the concentrator will reduce the cost of solar energy to $0.5 per peak watt. At this price solar energy is fully competitive with fossil fuel power. They have formed a partnership with the State of New South Wales electricity Uitility, Pacific Power and are 1 year into 5 year plan to mass produce these systems. The plan has Pacific Power investing 64 million dollars over the 5 years to bring the technology to commercial reality. They have exceeded their own milestones in the first year of operation. What has this to do with CF? Namely all those guys out their who think they will make tons of money from their marvellous inventions they can't tell anyone about had better be aware of this tidal wave from solar energy. If there is something to CF it will need the full attention of the world's scientific community and the world's capital markets to exploit. I have no more patience with people who say they have fantastic results and devices but can't let you try it for yourself. I will name names. CETI, Reed Huish, E-QUEST, Mills and Piantelli, the world doesn't need CF. It will be ignored until convincing evidence is made widespread AND anyone who wants to replicate an effect can and does. Martin Sevior From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 03:47:42 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA12712; Thu, 23 May 1996 03:45:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 03:45:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > Here is an expanded thought for a method to agument rail gun performace by > using a magnet in the armature: > > Think it will work? The magnetic field of a permanent magnet would likely be dwarfed by the magnetic field of the impulse current. In the case of using extra windings, you run into the problem of introducing more inductive reactance into the system and so the current turn on time is slowed down so that you might not get peak current until the projectile is well down the barrel. You'd have to study the tradeoffs in this regard. > In this design "stators" above and below the projectile (for symmetry) but > crossing over the rails purpendicularly, are shorted out by a brush on the > nose of the projectile. Note the stator and armature current is in the > same direction, so attracts, and the leading magnetic field poles and the > projectile poles are opposite, so attract. Note that electro-magnets which attract have their inductive reactance add in mutual support (thus slowing down the current rise time.) Whereas if you used repulsive mode electro-magnets (field opposing) the inductive reactances tend to cancel and you get faster current rise times. You can't completely eliminate inductance in this way because you never get 100% coupling. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 04:03:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA12929; Thu, 23 May 1996 03:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 03:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605230614.XAA02305@mail.eskimo.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Mark Jurich" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Sonoluminescence papers of interest. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Peter Gluck asks about the following sonoluminescence papers. I'll try to provide some rushed responses: L.S. Bernstein, M.R. Zakin, E.B. Flint, K.S. Suslick "Cavitation Thermometry Using Molecular and Continuum Sonoluminescence" J. Phys. Chem. 100:16 (Apr 18, 1996) pp 6612-9. Just took a look at it (Thanks). The most important conclusion (to me) is: "The differences between MBSL and SBSL spectra are attributed to the broad distribution of initial bubble sizes for MBSL." S. Trentalange, S.U. Pandey "Bose-Einstein correlations and sonoluminescence" J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99:4, Pt. 1 (APR 1996) pp 2439-41. Found this about 3 weeks ago doing a web search (of all things). You can get the preprint from S. Trentalange's home page: http://sseos.lbl.gov/~trent/trent.html (That's a "tilde" in the above URL, if it doesn't appear correctly.) The paper is theoretical, with the experimental part in progress. Stay tuned to his home page for the subsequent preprints (Qty:2)? It may be possible to spatially determine where the photons are originating from, and ultimately define the B-E correlation function... F. Lepointmullie, D. Depaun, T. Lepoint "Analysis of the 'new electrical model' of sonoluminescence" Ultrasonics-Sonochemistry 3:1 (FEB 1996) pp 73-6. Sorry, don't have any immediate access to this, but it sounds interesting... I wasn't aware of it either, thanks for digging it up ... Here's one I'm waiting to see (due in shortly): W. Tornow "Sonoluminescence and high-pressure gas scintillators" Phys. Rev. E 53:5 (May 1996) pp 5495-7 This paper may explain the dramatic effects of the noble gas content in SL bubbles ... Cheers, Mark Jurich From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 04:11:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA13024; Thu, 23 May 1996 03:49:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 03:49:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bad X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > >Fringe! That kills me. He is the one who believes in 3N space. Perhaps I >have not been brain washed enough yet to really understand the meaning of a >wave that is not a wave or a place that does not exist. Horrace, I think >you can appreciate this comment. No amount of additional education is going >to make me believe that physics, even at the most fundamental level, is not >based in reality. > >Frank Znidarsic Well, I can appreciate we don't know all there is to know, and if no one is generating new ideas then there will be no ideas to sieve, to test, and there will be no progress. Sometimes it takes big or radical ideas to solve big problems. Welcome to the "fringe". I suspect your high degree of education is all that stood between "fringe" and "lunatic fringe". Better luck next time! Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 04:06:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA13083; Thu, 23 May 1996 03:51:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 03:51:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605230635.XAA28296@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bad X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 07:13 PM 5/22/96 -0700, you wrote: >I was doing well. Talking to business leaders, telling them I had a leg up >with cold fusion technology. Things seemed to taking off. Then my paper, >"The Source of Inertial and Gravitational Mass" came back from Physics >Essays. The reviewer stated: > >"The manuscript is poorly written and contains several fundamental errors" > > >Fringe! That kills me. He is the one who believes in 3N space. Perhaps I >have not been brain washed enough yet to really understand the meaning of a >wave that is not a wave or a place that does not exist. Horrace, I think >you can appreciate this comment. No amount of additional education is going >to make me believe that physics, even at the most fundamental level, is not >based in reality. > >Frank Znidarsic > > Frank, you ought to try wrapping your head around an article in the latest issue of 21st Century Science (yeah, the Lyndon Larouche rag). It's called something like "Why Newtonian Classroom Mathematics Makes People Stupid" (not the exact name but close enough) by a guy named Tennanbaum (or close). I browse this mag every month at my favorite Barnes & Noble. Tennenbaum talks about the difference between Cartesian absolute MATHEMATICAL space and reality. He argues convincingly that the presumption (Cartesian) behind Newtonian arbitrary space is precisely that, deadening everything into numbers fitted to arbitrary matrices identified by names for random points makes it impossible to reconnect the analytic edifices back to "perceivable realities", which is better suited to the geometry of natural harmonics, such as explored by Kepler. For some reason, he observes, this 'observation" of the geometric harmonies in space and natural structure through time (four dimensions) is still resisted as being somehow mystical, because causality is not attributed to magnitudes in vectors, but their geometrical relationships in four dimensions. But in truth it is no more mystical than the idea of absolute space, which is arbitrary and utterly impossible to verify, and in truth, with relativity, we have some reasons (curvature of light by gravity) to consider that is is not even real, at least, ultimately. I definitely would not follow Larouche to the polls and I wouldn't touch his political stuff, even to cure myself of leprosy, but he sure comes up with some awfully good science articles for his mag. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 04:06:18 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA13193; Thu, 23 May 1996 03:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 03:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Photovoltaics. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: [snip] >I have no more patience with people who say they have fantastic results and >devices but can't let you try it for yourself. I will name names. CETI, >Reed Huish, E-QUEST, Mills and Piantelli, the world doesn't need CF. >It will be ignored until convincing evidence is made widespread AND anyone >who wants to replicate an effect can and does. > >Martin Sevior Yes. And wind energy costs have dropped by 80 percent while solar has become practical. Total 1995 world wind generating capacity is up to 4,783 MW from 3,640 MW a year ago (1994). Dollar sales of equipment are on an upward pace also, 1994 - $1 billion, 1995 - $1.5 billion, 1996 - $2 billion. Europe expanded wind capacity by 46 percent last year, and asia over 150 percent, while the US declined slightly and may eliminate money for renewable energy research this year. Meanwhile we in the US are cutting taxes on some of the cheapest gasoline in the world and buying ever larger cars. Stupidity or ignorance is not limited to the world of CF. The US Congress and Senate seems to be repleat with it, as does the US public. Is there some way to buy stock in the State of New South Wales electricity Uitility, Pacific Power, or the photovoltaic venture? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 04:06:17 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA13237; Thu, 23 May 1996 03:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 03:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: David Hildyard To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Overunity Variable reluctance Expt X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This email is directed to Hal Puthoff and other free'ers Just like to introduce myself and say "hi" to everyone. Hal, Do you have any experience with Harold Aspden's proposed "Over Unity variable reluctance Experiment" as outlined in Nexus (Feb 1994) ? I did the experiment and got a positive result. Now I am faced with interpreting the results. I tried talking to the USA-TESLA group but it seems to be dominated by a few academics crying "no free lunch". In your opinion, is the experiment valid? Could the results be due to something else? If you dont know what I am talking about, I would be glad to send you a copy of the text. Much appreciated, David. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 04:06:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA13288; Thu, 23 May 1996 03:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 03:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605231019.DAA08838@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cheapest CF data gathering around! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 07:12 PM 5/22/96 -0700, you wrote: >From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. >Subject: Cheapest CF data gathering around! >- >Well, I've done it vortexians! I have assembled information that will allow >even the most conservative budget to get into the act for doing calorimetry >and computer data gathering. For the most reasonable data gathering >I would suggest: >- thanks for the references on those. i hope the data was posted to Free Energy as well. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 06:53:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA01119; Thu, 23 May 1996 06:38:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 06:38:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31a47025.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Peter Glueck" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: SL and Salvation by Technology. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Thank you, Mark Jurich for the prompt answer re. the sonoluminescence papers. It seems there are a few groups working in this field and I wonder if there is no specialized Internet group somewhere, The subject is of great interest for some CF/New Energy systems as E-Quest, Hydrosonic Pump, Yusmar but this interest cannot be precisely motivated yet, a lot of unknowns are bound to both fields. The sonoluminescence-CF connection seems to be very significant to me especially in the frame of my "SALVATION BY TECHNOLOGY" prediction for cold fusion. I hope that the LANL experiments will confirm, beyond any imaginable doubt the over-unity performances of the Yusmars, I hope that NASA will do the same for James Griggs's machines; I am constantly praying for Russ George and Roger Stringham as well. After these much expected victories good explanation will be needed and, I think sonoluminescence will be a source of more or less direct inspiration. That means: we are interested in direct contacts with the sources of this domain, the published papers being already obsolete. An example: my life-time favorite journal Chemical Engineering News (which has made the great blunder to publish that strange paper at April 29) has informed (October 16, 1995) about a special session re SL and sonochemistry at the 1995 International Chemical Congress of Pacific Basin Societies Dec 17-22, Honolulu. The following papers --not seen in print yet---have been presented: 07-U Chemical Effects of Ultrasound Sonoluminescence and Physical Sonochemistry. K S Suslick (Presiding) 655- Single-bubble sonoluminescence L A Crum 656- Probing the unknowns of sonoluminescence S Putterman, B P Barber R Hiller, R Lofstedt, K Weninger 657- Hydrodynamic collaps simulations of single bubble collapse. J C Moss, D B Clarke, J W White, D A Young 658- Quantitative sonochemistry. J Reise 659- Use of metalloporphyrin for quantification of the effect of ultrasonic irradiation. H Nomura 660- Standardization of ultrasound intensity for sonochemical reactions. T Kimura, T Sakamoto, H Sohmiya, M. Fujita, S. Ikeda T Ando 661 Ultrasonic stimulation of inorganic reactions. R Roy, S Komarnemi D K Agarwal An other publication I forgot to mention is: T V Gordeychuk, I T Didenko, S P Pugach Sonoluminescence spectra of water in high frequency and low frequency sound fields. Accoustical Physics 42 :2 (MAR -APR 1996) p 240-1 Following the teachings of the great philosophers e.g. Popper and Pogo it's our duty to collaborate with the SL people. Peter PS Unfortunately enough at 14.4 kbs I cannot navigate and cannot find these groups. -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 13:07:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA17998; Thu, 23 May 1996 12:57:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 12:57:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Cheapest CF data gathering around! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Reply to note of 05/23/96 04:06 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Re: Cheapest CF data gathering around! Mike M.---Did not post to "free energy" as I don't cruise such areas.. Can you pass it on? MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 13:07:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA18276; Thu, 23 May 1996 12:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 12:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960523141405_72240.1256_EHB150-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Photovoltaics and windmills X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Martin Sevior writes: "I have no more patience with people who say they have fantastic results and devices but can't let you try it for yourself. I will name names. CETI, Reed Huish, E-QUEST, Mills and Piantelli, the world doesn't need CF. It will be ignored until convincing evidence is made widespread AND anyone who wants to replicate an effect can and does." I could not agree more. And, Mr. Chairman, I think the record will show that I ran out of patience before Martin did. :-} However, I think Martin's technical point is incorrect. If CF is marketed it will blow photovoltaics, windmills, coal, fission and all other alternatives out of the water. Even if it is marketed by a bunch of foolish, self-destructive, Own Worst Enemy inventors -- people we got fed up with years ago -- it will still have so many gigantic advantages that its eventual success is assured. The people marketing it may botch the job so badly they give the competition a free ride for 10 or 20 years. You will find many similar unconscionable delays in the history of commerce: whale oil versus kerosene; dead reckoning versus marine chronometers (which I am writing about for the next issue of Infinite Energy). But eventually the better technology wins. Let me list a few of the reasons why CF will beat photovoltaics and windmills: 1. Energy density. You would have to cover the whole roof of your house to gather enough electricity to keep the house going. Solar power is about 1 HP (750 watts) per square yard on a perfectly sunny summer day. Assuming 27% conversion efficiency (the world record), and no degradation from aging or dirt, I would need approximately 74 square yards of collection space in direct sunlight. I have trees around my house, so I couldn't gather enough no matter what. People who live in 20 story apartments are out of luck. Large factories with energy intense machines inside them could never gather even one-hundredth of the energy they need from the land area they take up. An automobile roof could never gather enough energy to keep the car moving, unless it is an ultralight experimental car. I cannot go shopping or drive the kids to the dentist in an ultralight. 2. Night, winter and bad weather. The sun doesn't work a lot of the time, so you must have local storage, or you have to buy electricity from the grid. Windmills are even more intermittent in most locations. 3. The grid. As Martin says: "Last year [the Center for PhotoVoltaics] obtained patents on a new technology that will produce solar cells cheap enough to compete with conventional 'Grid connected' electricity." CF does not require The Grid, so it starts out one-third cheaper, and it goes way down from there. Any source of energy that requires a distribution grid will be uneconomical compared to CF assuming the fuel and generator costs are roughly equal. As it happens, CF fuel costs nothing, and the generators will evolve into units that are as cheap as the transformers, electric motors, and heaters in your house already. Eventually, power supplies will be built into the equipment itself, doing away with the need for the power distribution grid in your house (the electric wiring). The only wires you have will coax or fiber optic controls that tell the overhead lights to turn themselves on with their own built-in power supplies. Photovoltaics might become competitive with conventional 'Grid connected' electricity, but CF will probably start out an order of magnitude cheaper, and I think within a generation it will be 4 or 5 orders of magnitude cheaper. This may seem impossible, but history is full of similar dramatic cost reductions like: the cost of crossing the Atlantic Ocean between 1492 and 1792; transportation after the introduction of railroads; communication after the telegraph; publishing and communication after Internet; clocks; energy costs overall; computer power; and kilotons of destructive power after thermonuclear weapons (what the Pentagon calls "bang for buck"). 4. This is biggest problem: environmental pollution, a mountain of junk. Multiply the number of houses, offices and other buildings in the U.S. times 74 square yards of photovoltaic material plus batteries or other storage technology. Twenty years after you install that mountain of material, it wears out. Then what do you do with it? You are faced with one of the biggest burdens of recycling or landfill in history. It is bad enough having to put a new roof on every house and building every 30 or 40 years. Conventional energy generating equipment and CF are much more compact than solar. So are windmills in the windy places where they presently being installed. No matter how good photovoltaics become they can never be used in places where the sun does not shine, like mine shafts or (more seriously) undersea telephone repeaters and pacemakers. Suppose some high tech telecommunications equipment manufacturer like, say, Motorola, develops CF power supplies to serve the undersea telephone repeater market. That is a small but immensely profitable niche market. People will pay fantastic amounts of money for a reliable battery that lasts 30 years under the ocean or implanted in your chest. Once the devices are perfected for those markets, what would stop Motorola from selling them for other purposes? What will stop the price from falling? Integrated semiconductor chips were first developed for the space program. The first ones cost more than their weight in gold. Imagine it is 1965 and you are looking at a little hunk of plastic weighing less than an ounce that costs a thousand dollars. Would you predict it has mass market potential? You would if you understood the economics of mass production. Once CF begins selling in *any* market it will begin invading *all* markets, just as integrated semiconductor chips did. I think it is entirely possible that inept marketing schemes, ass-backwards R&D projects, and foolish opposition will continue to delay the introduction of CF for many years, just as they delayed the marine chronometer and seat belts in cars. But eventually someone will bring the product to market, and few years later it will be all over for the alternatives. Do you remember how swiftly slide rules and mechanical calculators went out of style after the first electronic calculators were introduced? CF will sweep the market like that: Boom! - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 23:25:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA16678; Thu, 23 May 1996 23:20:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 23:20:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960523203623_75110.3417_CHK43-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dean Miller <75110.3417@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Overunity Variable reluctance Expt X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: David, >> Do you have any experience with Harold Aspden's proposed "Over Unity variable reluctance Experiment" as outlined in Nexus (Feb 1994) ? If you dont know what I am talking about, I would be glad to send you a copy of the text. << Would you be able to post your experiment for some of us to try and duplicate (posting the article is a copyright infringement )? I suspect there are several people here who are more electronically oriented than chemically oriented (or mechanically, for vortex experiments). Dean -- from Des Moines (using OzWin 2.01.9G) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 23:29:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA17197; Thu, 23 May 1996 23:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 23:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Horace, > In your design: >>Here is a thought for method that might agument rail gun performace by >>using a magnet in the armature: >> >>* - arc point (armature to rail) >>A - Armature >>P - Projectile >> >>---------------*------------------------------------- Rail 1 (+) >> -----------| >> / North | >> / Pole A North Pole Up >> \ Up | >> \ P | >> -----------| >>---------------*------------------------------------- Rail 2 (-) >> > >the added force should be zero using the Lorentz force. This can be seen >by using: > > Force = (mu dot grad) B > >where mu is a volume magnetic dipole element in the projectile magnet and >an integral must be done over the volume of the projectile. In your >diagram mu would de directed upward out of the plane of the rails and the >magnetic field is symmetric along this direction so the force would be >zero. Another way of seeing this is to evaluate the back force on the >rails from the projectile magnet. The Lorentz force on the rails is >perpindicular to the current so there would be no longitidunial force on >the rails. Now if the breech is far enough away from the projectile then >there would only be a small reaction force from the projectile magnet ( a >dipole field decays as 1/r^3). Therefore by the equivalence of any force >and its equal and opposite reaction force, the force on the projectile >magnet should be very small. > Any combination of magnets or looping of the armature conductor should >produce zero additional force by the same arguments. The most elegant way >of seeing this is to evaluate the magnetic stress tensor: > > T(i,j) = (1/4Pi) B(i) B(j) > >The logitidunial force on the rail is always zero and the momentum flux >(the stress tensor) propagating along the rails will be a function only of >the local rail produced magnetic field as long as you are far enough away >from the armature. It is only this magnetic stress that will exert the >reaction force at the breech and it does not depend on the armature >configuration. > So here we have an interesting experiment. Take a set of rails like a >toy train track section. Make a armature like a toy train car with as >little rolling resistance as possible. Various permanent magnets would be >placed on the armature car. Then a small current like 10 to 100 amps would >be sent along the tracks. The Lorentz force on the car would be too small >and it should never move. However, if the longitudinal force existed it >would be on the order of a million times larger than the Lorentz force >(because it would interact with the permanent magnetic field which is about >a million times larger than the rail produced field) and the car should >move. If anyone can make a car move like this it is really big news, if >not the Graneaus are wrong and the Lorentz force is correct. > >Lawrence E. Wharton >NASA/GSFC code 913 >Greenbelt MD 20771 >(301) 286-3486 I have almost no doubt whatsoever that the above design enhances the force on the projectile. I tested the concept using two permanent magnets in a plastic slide (barrel) before posting. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 23:32:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA17414; Thu, 23 May 1996 23:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 23:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605232215.PAA27170@mom.hooked.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Russ George" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Whiners X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Oh god, here we go again. It happens like clockwork around this vortex people without the gumption, skill, or patience to do an experiment themselves whining. They complain and proclaim that those who have something they want ought to give away absoulutely free everything years, perhaps a life of hard work, sacrafice, and money have bought.. Wait I can hear it coming. Another whinning blast ... sounds like - if you've got something and you give it away riches will befall you. Let's see this is a test who can identify the source of that sentiment here in this vortex. I guess sometimes at the bottom of a vortex one ought to expect to find a lot of shit. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 23:37:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA17729; Thu, 23 May 1996 23:29:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 23:29:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605232216.PAA09156@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Photovoltaics. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: re the joint venture between New South Wales and Pacific Power, is that Pacific Power, the US company on the West Coast of North America? At 03:53 AM 5/23/96 -0700, you wrote: >[snip] >>I have no more patience with people who say they have fantastic results and >>devices but can't let you try it for yourself. I will name names. CETI, >>Reed Huish, E-QUEST, Mills and Piantelli, the world doesn't need CF. >>It will be ignored until convincing evidence is made widespread AND anyone >>who wants to replicate an effect can and does. >> >>Martin Sevior > >Yes. And wind energy costs have dropped by 80 percent while solar has >become practical. Total 1995 world wind generating capacity is up to 4,783 >MW from 3,640 MW a year ago (1994). Dollar sales of equipment are on an >upward pace also, 1994 - $1 billion, 1995 - $1.5 billion, 1996 - $2 >billion. Europe expanded wind capacity by 46 percent last year, and asia >over 150 percent, while the US declined slightly and may eliminate money >for renewable energy research this year. Meanwhile we in the US are >cutting taxes on some of the cheapest gasoline in the world and buying ever >larger cars. Stupidity or ignorance is not limited to the world of CF. The >US Congress and Senate seems to be repleat with it, as does the US public. > >Is there some way to buy stock in the State of New South Wales electricity >Uitility, Pacific Power, or the photovoltaic venture? > > > >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@eskimo.com Thu May 23 23:35:34 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA17966; Thu, 23 May 1996 23:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 23:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Here is another experiment that might shed some light on my suggested enhancement to the rail gun. I think the principle involved here is the compression of flux. The denser the flux the higher the potential energy content, the greater the expansive force - just like compressed gas, or a spring. Make a vertical plastic slot (or stands with grooves) that supports two strong flat magnets (I used 35 MGO magnets) that have the magnetic fields running purpendicular to the thin dimension. Drop the two magnets into the slot. If they are oriented in opposite directions they will attract, but if oriented in the same direction the second will float above the first at a significant distance. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 23:48:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA19427; Thu, 23 May 1996 23:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 23:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Here is another experiment that might shed some light on my suggested enhancement to the rail gun. I think the principle involved here is the compression of flux. The denser the flux the higher the potential energy content, the greater the expansive force - just like compressed gas, or a spring. Make a vertical plastic slot (or stands with grooves) that supports two strong flat magnets (I used 35 MGO magnets) that have the magnetic fields running purpendicular to the thin dimension. Drop the two magnets into the slot. If they are oriented in opposite directions they will attract, but if oriented in the same direction the second will float above the first at a significant distance. Note - I did this experiment with two 35 MGO magnets, each 1" x 1" x .5". The magnetic field was in the .5" direction - through the thickness of the magnets. The two magnets were dropped into a 1" x .6" x 5.5" slot made two plexaglass sheets taped to two .6" thick plastic uprights screwed to a wooden base. The magnet poles both faced in the same direction. The bottom of the top magnet floated 1 7/8" above the top of the bottom magnet. I think it takes more than "like poles oppose" to explain an elevation 3.75 times the width of the magnets, i.e. the distance between poles on one magnet. I think it is reasonably evident that replacing one or both magnets with a current carrying coil wound not change the nature of the force, which is substantial. Pressing the top magnet down the slot with a ballpoin pen easily produced a resisting force 5-10 times the mass of the magnet. The surface flux of the magnet should be well under .5 T. This is an indication that significant performance increases can be obtained in a rail gun using the suggested enhancing technique. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 13:07:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA18623; Thu, 23 May 1996 13:00:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 13:00:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace, In your design: >Here is a thought for method that might agument rail gun performace by >using a magnet in the armature: > >* - arc point (armature to rail) >A - Armature >P - Projectile > >---------------*------------------------------------- Rail 1 (+) > -----------| > / North | > / Pole A North Pole Up > \ Up | > \ P | > -----------| >---------------*------------------------------------- Rail 2 (-) > the added force should be zero using the Lorentz force. This can be seen by using: Force = (mu dot grad) B where mu is a volume magnetic dipole element in the projectile magnet and an integral must be done over the volume of the projectile. In your diagram mu would de directed upward out of the plane of the rails and the magnetic field is symmetric along this direction so the force would be zero. Another way of seeing this is to evaluate the back force on the rails from the projectile magnet. The Lorentz force on the rails is perpindicular to the current so there would be no longitidunial force on the rails. Now if the breech is far enough away from the projectile then there would only be a small reaction force from the projectile magnet ( a dipole field decays as 1/r^3). Therefore by the equivalence of any force and its equal and opposite reaction force, the force on the projectile magnet should be very small. Any combination of magnets or looping of the armature conductor should produce zero additional force by the same arguments. The most elegant way of seeing this is to evaluate the magnetic stress tensor: T(i,j) = (1/4Pi) B(i) B(j) The logitidunial force on the rail is always zero and the momentum flux (the stress tensor) propagating along the rails will be a function only of the local rail produced magnetic field as long as you are far enough away from the armature. It is only this magnetic stress that will exert the reaction force at the breech and it does not depend on the armature configuration. So here we have an interesting experiment. Take a set of rails like a toy train track section. Make a armature like a toy train car with as little rolling resistance as possible. Various permanent magnets would be placed on the armature car. Then a small current like 10 to 100 amps would be sent along the tracks. The Lorentz force on the car would be too small and it should never move. However, if the longitudinal force existed it would be on the order of a million times larger than the Lorentz force (because it would interact with the permanent magnetic field which is about a million times larger than the rail produced field) and the car should move. If anyone can make a car move like this it is really big news, if not the Graneaus are wrong and the Lorentz force is correct. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 13:18:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA18940; Thu, 23 May 1996 13:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 13:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Overunity Variable reluctance Expt X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >This email is directed to Hal Puthoff and other free'ers > >Just like to introduce myself and say "hi" to everyone. > >Hal, > >Do you have any experience with Harold Aspden's proposed >"Over Unity variable reluctance Experiment" as outlined in Nexus (Feb 1994) ? > >I did the experiment and got a positive result. Now I am faced with >interpreting the results. I tried talking to the USA-TESLA group but it >seems to be dominated by a few academics crying "no free lunch". > >In your opinion, is the experiment valid? Could the results be due to >something else? > >If you dont know what I am talking about, I would be glad to send you a >copy of the text. > >Much appreciated, > >David. Any chance you could paraphrase or summarize the experiment a bit for the rest of us? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 13:12:03 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA19363; Thu, 23 May 1996 13:05:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 13:05:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: John Logajan wrote: >> Here is an expanded thought for a method to agument rail gun performace by >> using a magnet in the armature: >> >> Think it will work? > >The magnetic field of a permanent magnet would likely be dwarfed by the >magnetic field of the impulse current. Yes, but the force should be the product of the two. It should be significant. However, for military applications it may be undesirable to use a permanent magnet because of the low density compared to "spent" uranium slugs. A permanent magnet slug should compare favorably to a steel slug though. I think the biggest problem might be torque on the slug created by any small out of symmetry conditions. > >In the case of using extra windings, you run into the problem of introducing >more inductive reactance into the system and so the current turn on time >is slowed down so that you might not get peak current until the projectile >is well down the barrel. You'd have to study the tradeoffs in this regard Yes. > > >> In this design "stators" above and below the projectile (for symmetry) but >> crossing over the rails purpendicularly, are shorted out by a brush on the >> nose of the projectile. Note the stator and armature current is in the >> same direction, so attracts, and the leading magnetic field poles and the >> projectile poles are opposite, so attract. > >Note that electro-magnets which attract have their inductive reactance add >in mutual support (thus slowing down the current rise time.) Whereas if >you used repulsive mode electro-magnets (field opposing) the inductive >reactances tend to cancel and you get faster current rise times. You can't >completely eliminate inductance in this way because you never get 100% >coupling. > > >-- > - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - Yes. However my intent was to suggest use the push/pull mode only in the breach area, to take the initial acceleration force and current load off the rails and enhance initial acceleration force. This is what I meant by use in the "initial acceleration phase". The induced counter-EMF should be small in the breech area, and this is where a disproportionate amount of the acceleration time is spent. Also, different voltages and currents might be appropriate for use in the breech area, just like a lower gear ratio is appropriate for first gear. It might also be useful to provide high mu magnetic coupling (top and bottom) in the breech area. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 13:16:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA19670; Thu, 23 May 1996 13:06:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 13:06:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: 1927 Quote X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >To:Vortex > >All this below seems to me to make perfect sense. > >Chris [snip] >If this is so, then I must bring Bridgman to my >aid, and quote what he says on the subject: > > "Now nearly every physicist takes the next step, and ascribes > physical reality to the electric field, in that he thinks that at > every point of the field there is some real, physical phenomenon > taking place which is connected in a way not yet precisely deter- > mined with the number and direction which tag the point. At first > this view most naturally involved as a corollary the existence of a > medium, but lately it has become the fashion to say that the medium > does not exist, and that only the field is real. The reality of > the field is self-consciously inculcated in our elementary > teaching, often with considerable difficulty for the student. This > view is usually credited to Faraday, and is considered the most > fundamental concept of all modern electrical theory. Yet in spite > of this, I believe that a critical examination will show that the > ascription of physical reality to the electric field is entirely > without justification. I cannot find a single physical > phenomenon or a single physical operation by which evidence of the > existence of the field may be obtained independent of the > operations which entered the definition. The only physical > evidence we ever have of the existence of a field is by going there > with an electric charge and observing the action on the charge > (when the charges are inside atoms we may have optical phenomena), > which is precisely the operation of the definition. It is then > either meaningless to say that a field has physical reality, or we > are guilty of adopting a definition of reality which is the crassest > tautology." > >[end] It seems to me that if there is no "ether" and no "field" then only one logical possibility remains, to whit, that charged particles must interact with each other via extensions of themselves, i.e. via their own quantum wave functions. The quantum wave function for a charged particle must be different from a neutral particle's quantum wave function. The only requirement for an EM interaction is the spin, proximity and relative velocity of two (or more) charged particles. This is the simplest model because it has the smallest number of components. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 23 13:17:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA19820; Thu, 23 May 1996 13:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 13:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Graneaus on rail-guns. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: [snip] The efficiency of railguns never lived up to its original >promise. This led to the suspicion that rail buckling does take place. >Recently constructed railguns have been made very stiff to suppress >buckling. After studying the railgun recoil problem in detail, we de- >signed an experiment which can decide whether rail buckling does take >place, or not. For this purpose we set up a gun with wide rail >separation for easy observation of lateral rail deflections. The rails >are pushed apart by transverse electrodynamic forces on which both laws >agree. The lateral forces on the rails were taken up by strong >sideboards. The rails were relatively stiff-copper strips, except for >the last 30 cm behind the stationary armature. Both acceleration and >recoil forces exist regard less of whether the armature is stationary >or traveling. The short rail pieces up to and beyond the armature >consisted of very thin metal strips which, when pushed back, would >easily buckle. Furthermore, since the current pulse brought them up to >red heat, they would plastically deform and retain their buckled shape >for subsequent inspection and photography. A heavy armature was chosen >which, on the passage of a strong current pulse, would simply jump >forward. The experiment clearly confirmed rail buckling. The first >results were published in a journal of the British Institute of >Physics. Aluminum strip rails were pushed back and deflected inward, >away from the sideboards. They held their deflected shapes. Stainless >steel strip rails buckled concertina fashion and also retained their >distorted shape. Once more experiment confirmed the validity of >Ampere's law and disproved the Lorentz law. > >[end] >(From "Newton vs. Einstein") >/ex Unless there was high speed photography on a marked rail used in this test I don't believe it was definitive. This is becuase, by the prior analysis I proposed, recoil could be a delayed reaction caused by the stretching of the rails as a result of current flow inside the rails but not parallel to the rail direction, in the vicinity of the armature and the power supply connection in the breech. Such a force, as well as air resistance, could expand or distort the rail *in front* of the aramture by pushing it forward. The resulting recoil upon the armature passing a specific point on the rail would cause rail compression and or buckling in the wake of the armature passing. Careful measurements would need to be taken of the rail dynamics in the vicinity of the armature both ahead and behind the armature. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 06:57:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA23348; Fri, 24 May 1996 06:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 06:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960524134147_72240.1256_EHB120-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Whiners X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Russ George writes: "Oh god, here we go again. It happens like clockwork around this vortex people without the gumption, skill, or patience to do an experiment themselves whining." There are surprisingly few people like that on Vortex. I am always amazed at how many readers like John Logajan, Chris Tinsley, Scott Little, Martin Sevior, and others are willing to drop everything, go places, and try things out. They do that even when the descriptions of the devices are inadequate and the inventors are unhelpful. The other thing I find admirable about this group is that nearly everyone here will do his homework and read original sources before commenting on them. I know of no other e-mail forum where this is the case. I myself do not do many hands-on experiments but as Chris can tell you I stand too close to them sometimes and get flying sparks in my hair. I also assist in data processing; editing and translating for publication; arranging publicity with the media; and perhaps most important, I help to pay for experiments. So I have paid my dues in the gumption, skill and patience departments. "They complain and proclaim that those who have something they want ought to give away absolutely free everything years, perhaps a life of hard work, sacrifice, and money have bought." Nobody on Vortex -- or anywhere else -- has ever proclaimed that CF should be given away for free. That is absurd, and if Russ truly believes it he is suffering from paranoia. What many of us proclaim is that CF R&D companies ought to act in their own best interests. They ought to act like other R&D companies in other fields like computer science or medicine. They should not give away the products for free. They should apply for patents and then *sell the products at an immense profit*. The way to succeed in business is to market, support the product, and sell. Sell, sell, sell! Sell at every stage of development at which customers can be found. Sell to any customer whose money is green. Marketing means advertising, promoting, demonstrating, publishing, customer education other activities that attract customers and build confidence. I have read a great deal of the history of commerce. I know how people first developed and sold many different products, large and small, famous and obscure, from the triple expansion marine steam engine to the zipper. In every case that I have studied these products required skillful and sustained marketing. The best product in the world will not sell itself. As I said before, I am sick and tired of hearing complaints from people like Russ George who say that the world is ignoring CF or attacking it, and that they cannot get proper funding. I know better than anyone that the establishment is indeed ignoring or attacking CF. I also know that time after time legitimate investors, top notch scientists like Little and Sevior, and people at world class laboratories like the Royal Institution, Georgia Tech, and the British Ministry of Defense have contacted me and asked whether I can arrange a proper demonstration of a cold fusion device. I have been forced to tell them no, I cannot, because the scientists with effective devices refuse to cooperate. The only person who cooperates is Jim Griggs. That is why he is selling systems and making valuable connections while the others starve for lack of funding. It is their fault! If you want money, you must take action and do what other people do, in other businesses. Russ has told me that experienced R&D people like Gustave Kohn agree with him, and they are in favor of keeping product information secret at all stages of development until the product is ready for end users. I was with Kohn during Power-Gen. I discussed this topic with him and I asked him what he thought of E-Quest, CETI and the others. He expressed extreme disappointment in them, and in cold fusion scientists in general. I believe he agrees with me; I certainly do agree with him, and with Jerry Drexler, Norman Horwood, Arthur Clarke and other experienced professionals who have criticized the field over the years. (Are you with me on this, Norman?) I do not come by my views alone, with no prompting from others. I am not original. Originality has little value in business, because business is the art of dealing with human nature, which works the same today as it did five thousand years ago. The trick is to listen to what successful people say and watch what they do. What they do is *market* and *sell*. That is how you get rich. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 07:32:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA28792; Fri, 24 May 1996 07:26:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 07:26:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605241412.AAA05838@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Martin Edmund Sevior To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Whiners X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > > Oh god, here we go again. It happens like clockwork around this > vortex people without the gumption, skill, or patience to do an > experiment themselves whining. They complain and proclaim that those > who have something they want ought to give away absoulutely free > everything years, perhaps a life of hard work, sacrafice, and money > have bought.. > > Wait I can hear it coming. Another whinning blast ... sounds like - > if you've got something and you give it away riches will befall you. > Let's see this is a test who can identify the source of that > sentiment here in this vortex. > > I guess sometimes at the bottom of a vortex one ought to expect to > find a lot of shit. > It seems to me that not long ago there were a number of people here who complained that no one in the Scientific community would take them seriously. Their writings to this group could well be described as whining. I have made some attempts to personally verify their claims to no avail. I have even offered to sign non disclosure agreements. I have pointed out to some investigators that it is possible to present results and get them verified in such a way as to keep their intellectual property. If people with interesting results want to sit on them and develop them by scraping together whatever dollars they can scrounge, well don't be surprised if your 1 year development takes 10. Also don't expect to get any scientific cudos or respect either. Without this your chances of getting the support you need is greatly dimished. As I pointed out in my post there other forms of alternative energy that are well funded, show great promise and whose scientific basis is well established. The world doesn't need CF for energy. However the potential Science that CF implies is mind boggling. Martin Sevior From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 08:10:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA05643; Fri, 24 May 1996 08:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 08:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Vtx: Griggs device X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Jed Are the test results that you and Eugene Mallove did on Griggs' device available anywhere on the Internet? Hank From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 09:12:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA15083; Fri, 24 May 1996 08:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 08:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns - experimental confirmation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Horace, > In your design: >>Here is a thought for method that might agument rail gun performace by >>using a magnet in the armature: >> >>* - arc point (armature to rail) >>A - Armature >>P - Projectile >> >>---------------*------------------------------------- Rail 1 (+) >> -----------| >> / North | >> / Pole A North Pole Up >> \ Up | >> \ P | >> -----------| >>---------------*------------------------------------- Rail 2 (-) >> > >the added force should be zero using the Lorentz force. This can be seen >by using: > > Force = (mu dot grad) B > >where mu is a volume magnetic dipole element in the projectile magnet and >an integral must be done over the volume of the projectile. In your >diagram mu would de directed upward out of the plane of the rails and the >magnetic field is symmetric along this direction so the force would be >zero. Another way of seeing this is to evaluate the back force on the >rails from the projectile magnet. The Lorentz force on the rails is >perpindicular to the current so there would be no longitidunial force on >the rails. Now if the breech is far enough away from the projectile then >there would only be a small reaction force from the projectile magnet ( a >dipole field decays as 1/r^3). Therefore by the equivalence of any force >and its equal and opposite reaction force, the force on the projectile >magnet should be very small. > Any combination of magnets or looping of the armature conductor should >produce zero additional force by the same arguments. The most elegant way >of seeing this is to evaluate the magnetic stress tensor: > > T(i,j) = (1/4Pi) B(i) B(j) > >The logitidunial force on the rail is always zero and the momentum flux >(the stress tensor) propagating along the rails will be a function only of >the local rail produced magnetic field as long as you are far enough away >from the armature. It is only this magnetic stress that will exert the >reaction force at the breech and it does not depend on the armature >configuration. > So here we have an interesting experiment. Take a set of rails like a >toy train track section. Make a armature like a toy train car with as >little rolling resistance as possible. Various permanent magnets would be >placed on the armature car. Then a small current like 10 to 100 amps would >be sent along the tracks. The Lorentz force on the car would be too small >and it should never move. However, if the longitudinal force existed it >would be on the order of a million times larger than the Lorentz force >(because it would interact with the permanent magnetic field which is about >a million times larger than the rail produced field) and the car should >move. If anyone can make a car move like this it is really big news, if >not the Graneaus are wrong and the Lorentz force is correct. > >Lawrence E. Wharton >NASA/GSFC code 913 >Greenbelt MD 20771 >(301) 286-3486 I did an experiment similar to the above by hanging a magnet assembly from a balance beam. The magnet was a 1" x 1" x .5" 35 MGO magnet with the field through the .5" thickness. Below I put a 1" x 3" rectangular wire loop, with a twisted pair leading away from a bottom corner of the loop. I measured an upward force of .317 g generated with the 1" wire at a distance of 1.4 cm. from the bottom of the magnet, which was purpendicular to the loop (both fields parallel and normal to the plastic assembly hanging from the scale, i.e. the fields were both horizontal). The balance clearly moved when the current was applied to the loop from a 1.5 V battery (through an ammeter). I removed weight until the scale balanced to zero with the current on, then removed the current and added weight to again balance to zero, so both measurements were balanced to zero. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 09:12:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA15166; Fri, 24 May 1996 08:54:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 08:54:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31A5D915.18DF@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns - Horace X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: > > Here is another experiment that might shed some light on my suggested > enhancement to the rail gun. I think the principle involved here is the > compression of flux. The denser the flux the higher the potential energy > content, the greater the expansive force - just like compressed gas, or a > spring. > > Make a vertical plastic slot (or stands with grooves) that supports two > strong flat magnets (I used 35 MGO magnets) that have the magnetic fields > running purpendicular to the thin dimension. Drop the two magnets into the > slot. If they are oriented in opposite directions they will attract, but > if oriented in the same direction the second will float above the first at > a significant distance. > > Note - I did this experiment with two 35 MGO magnets, each 1" x 1" x .5". > The magnetic field was in the .5" direction - through the thickness of the > magnets. The two magnets were dropped into a 1" x .6" x 5.5" slot made two > plexaglass sheets taped to two .6" thick plastic uprights screwed to a > wooden base. The magnet poles both faced in the same direction. The > bottom of the top magnet floated 1 7/8" above the top of the bottom magnet. > I think it takes more than "like poles oppose" to explain an elevation > 3.75 times the width of the magnets, i.e. the distance between poles on one > magnet. > > I think it is reasonably evident that replacing one or both magnets with a > current carrying coil wound not change the nature of the force, which is > substantial. Pressing the top magnet down the slot with a ballpoin pen > easily produced a resisting force 5-10 times the mass of the magnet. The > surface flux of the magnet should be well under .5 T. This is an > indication that significant performance increases can be obtained in a rail > gun using the suggested enhancing technique. > > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 I think I agree with you, Horace, with reservations. As John Logajan (23 May 1996) pointed out, the electromagnetic effects would probably swamp out the permanent magnet. About 2 cm away from a 10^6 amp current, B is about 5 Tesla (50,000 Gauss). This means that the armature is already an electromagnet of about this strength. The magnetic pressure of 5 Tesla is about 1444 psi - for a .4 Tesla permanent magnet, about 9.3 psi. The big question seems to be - could the permanent magnet withstand demagnitization from the opposing magnetomotive force in front of the armature? Also,the product of currents in two conductors does not apply here! If the PM did survive the current jolt, the local pressure would still be about 1444 psi - with a slightly different shape to the vector field. For the same kinds of reasons, magnetic materials just get in the way for high-field electromagnets. I still think your general analysis of the force picture is correct. But then, I never let a little thing like complete ignorance on my part prevent me from spouting an opinion! By the way, I would not be surprised if the currents in the really big rail guns reach 5 X 10^6 amp or more! Do any rail gun fans out there have any specific info? Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 09:22:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA17392; Fri, 24 May 1996 09:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 09:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605241554.LAA14595@ns1.ptd.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net (Jeff Fink) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: 1927 Quote X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >>To:Vortex >> >>> >It seems to me that if there is no "ether" and no "field" then only one >logical possibility remains, to whit, that charged particles must interact >with each other via extensions of themselves, i.e. via their own quantum >wave functions. The quantum wave function for a charged particle must be >different from a neutral particle's quantum wave function. The only >requirement for an EM interaction is the spin, proximity and relative >velocity of two (or more) charged particles. This is the simplest model >because it has the smallest number of components. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > >At the Cold Fusion Symposium on Jan 20, 1996 somebody was handing out free books on "rotational physics". What is said in these two books seems to be quite similar to the content of the above paragraph. Has anyone here read these books and do they make sense to anyone? In all of the Vortx L transcripts I have seen no reference to them. Jeff Fink From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 11:05:41 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA06725; Fri, 24 May 1996 10:51:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 10:51:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: wharton@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov (Larry Wharton) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns - experimental confirmation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: This experiment: >I did an experiment similar to the above by hanging a magnet assembly from >a balance beam. The magnet was a 1" x 1" x .5" 35 MGO magnet with the field >through the .5" thickness. Below I put a 1" x 3" rectangular wire loop, >with a twisted pair leading away from a bottom corner of the loop. I >measured an upward force of .317 g generated with the 1" wire at a distance >of 1.4 cm. from the bottom of the magnet, which was purpendicular to the >loop (both fields parallel and normal to the plastic assembly hanging from >the scale, i.e. the fields were both horizontal). > measures the magnetic force exerted by a closed loop (the rectangular wire loop) and there is no disagreement about this force. There is some question about the force from fractions of closed loops and this experiment has no relevance to these questions. The rail gun consists of two parts, the rails plus the power supply, and the armature. The sum of these two parts constitute a closed loop. If the rails are parallel and if the breech is far enough away from the armature so that the 1/r^3 B fields from the armature may be neglected then no combination of armature magnets or armature loops will give a force any different from the usual straight conductor. The top part of the rectangular loop would be exerting most of the force in this experiment and that is nothing more than the normal magnetic force. Two things should be done: This top section should be free to slide along the side sections and it should be attatched to the weignt balance, and the bottom section should be moved down. The 1" x 3" loop should be changed to something like 1" x 12". Then the bottom section would be far enough away so that its force could be neglected. No combination of magnets in this set up should have any effect on the vertical force exerted on the weight balance. Lawrence E. Wharton NASA/GSFC code 913 Greenbelt MD 20771 (301) 286-3486 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 12:51:07 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA23881; Fri, 24 May 1996 12:34:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 12:34:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns - Horace X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank Stenger wrote: [snip] >I think I agree with you, Horace, with reservations. As John Logajan >(23 May 1996) pointed out, the electromagnetic effects would probably >swamp out the permanent magnet. About 2 cm away from a 10^6 amp >current, B is about 5 Tesla (50,000 Gauss). This means that the >armature is already an electromagnet of about this strength. >The magnetic pressure of 5 Tesla is about 1444 psi - for a .4 Tesla >permanent magnet, about 9.3 psi. The big question seems to be - could >the permanent magnet withstand demagnitization from the opposing >magnetomotive force in front of the armature? Also,the product of >currents in two conductors does not apply here! If the >PM did survive the current jolt, the local pressure would still be about >1444 psi - with a slightly different shape to the vector field. For >the same kinds of reasons, magnetic materials just get in the way for >high-field electromagnets. > >I still think your general analysis of the force picture is correct. >But then, I never let a little thing like complete ignorance on my part >prevent me from spouting an opinion! [snip] > >Frank Stenger Great! Personally, I believe if you keep quiet and never voice an opinion it greatly diminishes your chances to learn anything, or discover anything new. Besides, this group would be pretty boring without speculation. Everybody that's been in this group for a while knows that *my* opinions are coming from a rank amateur who's learning this stuff on the fly - so I don't mince words qualifying everything I say with "the following opinion should be evaluated in light of the fact it is coming from an amateurish uneducated person of nearly complete ignorance", etc. I am concerned that in the experiments I posted that the force of the magnet opposes the coil, so might *subtract* from the force on the armature. In my prior experimnets there was no moving armature. It is kind of assumed that if you tie the armature and magnet together, which each having forces on them in the same direction, that there will be a net force in that direction. This does not seem to be true. To test this I taped a length of wire to the bottom of the magnet. This copper wire was "[" shaped, with the 1" horizontal segment taped to the magnet, and about 5" dangling at the two edges. I then connected alligator clips to the bottoms of the two dangling wires, the clip wires running nearly horizontally and suspended in air by the scale. The scale was then balanced to zero. When I turned on the current nothing moved. I added a little weight to the scale and it moved - it was not stuck. There was no measurable net force on this configuration. It appears that the vast majority of the repellant force between the magnet and the coil is centered in or associated with the "armature". If this is the case, it appears a magnet would only be useful to provide a kick in the initial acceleration in the breech area where it can be used like the armature of a linear motor. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 12:47:57 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA23960; Fri, 24 May 1996 12:34:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 12:34:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rail guns - experimental confirmation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >This experiment: >>I did an experiment similar to the above by hanging a magnet assembly from >>a balance beam. The magnet was a 1" x 1" x .5" 35 MGO magnet with the field >>through the .5" thickness. Below I put a 1" x 3" rectangular wire loop, >>with a twisted pair leading away from a bottom corner of the loop. I >>measured an upward force of .317 g generated with the 1" wire at a distance >>of 1.4 cm. from the bottom of the magnet, which was purpendicular to the >>loop (both fields parallel and normal to the plastic assembly hanging from >>the scale, i.e. the fields were both horizontal). >> >measures the magnetic force exerted by a closed loop (the rectangular wire >loop) and there is no disagreement about this force. There is some >question about the force from fractions of closed loops and this experiment >has no relevance to these questions. The rail gun consists of two parts, >the rails plus the power supply, and the armature. The sum of these two >parts constitute a closed loop. If the rails are parallel and if the >breech is far enough away from the armature so that the 1/r^3 B fields >from the armature may be neglected then no combination of armature magnets >or armature loops will give a force any different from the usual straight >conductor. The top part of the rectangular loop would be exerting most of >the force in this experiment and that is nothing more than the normal >magnetic force. Two things should be done: This top section should be free >to slide along the side sections and it should be attatched to the weignt >balance, I didn't have a handy way to let the armature slide, but I could let the armature and rails move together easily by connecting alligator clips to the bottoms of the "rails" and running the alligator clip leads off to the side in a horizontal fashion - so they were free to move up and down. Hopefully this represents a good test. >and the bottom section should be moved down. The 1" x 3" loop >should be changed to something like 1" x 12". I did the experiment before reading this, so only made the vertical protion of the rails about 5". The 5" was sufficient to eliminate any measurable force, assuming my method is valid. >Then the bottom section >would be far enough away so that its force could be neglected. No >combination of magnets in this set up should have any effect on the >vertical force exerted on the weight balance. This certainly seems to be true as closely as I can measure. :( Another bad day for the longitudinal force! > >Lawrence E. Wharton >NASA/GSFC code 913 >Greenbelt MD 20771 >(301) 286-3486 Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Fri May 24 12:53:17 1996 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA27298; Fri, 24 May 1996 12:53:07 -0700 (PDT) From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com Received: by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA17216; Fri, 24 May 1996 15:52:36 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 15:52:36 -0400 Message-ID: <960524155235_542080759@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com, billb@eskimo.com Subject: list Status: RO X-Status: A listing of anything we ever wrote on this web is posted on jlogajan's skypoint page. That concerns me. We are a group of friends. If we of say anything at the spur of the moment it may be pulled up months or even years later out of context and used for who knows what purpose. This will make me error on the side of caution on any remarks I say from now on. How do the rest of you feel? Things that are intended to go into print take a lot of study and time. Things that we post here because they popped into our minds at the spur of the moment are posted forever. Next year we may be in a different place and time and we may regret our comment or remark. I wish the vortex log would go away after a few months have past. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 14:47:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA18965; Fri, 24 May 1996 14:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 14:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Multiple recipients of list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Jed Thanks for the report. Do you know if Griggs has tried running it in the dark and looking through the glass end for any luminesence? Hank From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 15:45:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA29226; Fri, 24 May 1996 15:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 15:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605242147.OAA16953@mom.hooked.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Russ George" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Whiners X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Let's not belabor the point President Clinton's campaign manager James Caravelle puts it in plain english on his book cover. It fits our situation just as aptly. We're Right They're Wrong From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 15:46:00 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA29360; Fri, 24 May 1996 15:42:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 15:42:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605242150.OAA20315@mom.hooked.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Russ George" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: list ettiquette X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Indeed the standard list ettiquette on the net is that archives of list messages are not supposed to be reposted without the permission of the authors. The fact that the computer venue within which we share ideas allows archives to be easily kept and posted simply puts the onus on responsible behaviour on the individual. Some people pay attention to the rights of others some don't. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 15:46:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA29496; Fri, 24 May 1996 15:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 15:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960524220937_100060.173_JHB33-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Whiners X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Hi Jed, >> The trick is to listen to what successful people say and watch what they do. What they do is *market* and *sell*. That is how you get rich. - Jed << I absolutely agree with your attitude on this. I've seen too many "good" products fail due to inadequate early promotion. Inventors tend to expect that sales will automatically follow the first announcement of their brainchild. I have lost more money due to that than from any other single cause. You have to shove the product hard into the public domain and demonstrate its features, not just talk about them. The other failing of many inventors is greed. Why should they give away 80% of the equity in their baby to some nasty rich outfit who don't need the cash anyway - Why! because the bloody thing won't see the light of day without the financial clout of the nasty rich guys. So what is the latest on the Yusmar boychicks? Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 15:52:01 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA29653; Fri, 24 May 1996 15:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 15:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605242216.PAA01247@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 01:47 PM 5/24/96 -0700, you wrote: >A listing of anything we ever wrote on this web is posted on jlogajan's >skypoint page. That concerns me. We are a group of friends. If we of say >anything at the spur of the moment it may be pulled up months or even years >later out of context and used for who knows what purpose. This will make me >error on the side of caution on any remarks I say from now on. How do the >rest of you feel? Things that are intended to go into print take a lot of >study and time. Things that we post here because they popped into our minds >at the spur of the moment are posted forever. Next year we may be in a >different place and time and we may regret our comment or remark. I wish the >vortex log would go away after a few months have past. > >Frank Znidarsic > > I have two reactions: one is I am glad that the archive is so available now, I wasn't aware that it is. two is that I think Frank has a valid point and I think that Frank and any other vortexian who desires to pull a post out of the archive should be given that courtesy; the value of the archive will be directly proportional to the maturity of well articulated thought and hasty off the wall stuff should be edited out. another reaction is that some threads will get chopped into destruction by people who decide to take their marbles home. maybe the way to forestall that is to put everybody on notice that anything posted to vortex from this point on is gonna end up immortal. so only say what you can live with. In general with email, only one assumption makes sense, you send into the world,it's the worlds, not yours. Maybe you can prevent resale or commercial use under copyright, but you can never prevent its use... ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 16:28:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA07463; Fri, 24 May 1996 16:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 16:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank Nobody expects you to be perfect. I know I learned a lot about the group by reading the archives, they were quite interesting and informative. The informal atmosphere allows personalities to show through the text, and I think this is useful. This is not a court, nor even a publication, it is a discussion, and mistakes and arguments are useful too. We love you, warts and all, please don't feel you have to be careful. Hank ---------- From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: list Date: Friday, May 24, 1996 1:47PM A listing of anything we ever wrote on this web is posted on jlogajan's skypoint page. That concerns me. We are a group of friends. If we of say anything at the spur of the moment it may be pulled up months or even years later out of context and used for who knows what purpose. This will make me error on the side of caution on any remarks I say from now on. How do the rest of you feel? Things that are intended to go into print take a lot of study and time. Things that we post here because they popped into our minds at the spur of the moment are posted forever. Next year we may be in a different place and time and we may regret our comment or remark. I wish the vortex log would go away after a few months have past. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 16:33:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA07589; Fri, 24 May 1996 16:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 16:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Stevie and Amanda 'VIRUS' WARNING X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Fri, 24 May 1996, Paul Camp wrote: > Received this message recently. You might want to respond. Doesn't > sound like the most complicated project in the world but I suppose > they are trying to illustrate just how far the Internet can reach. > Take a minute to help Stevie and Amanda out. > > > Hi, our names are Stevie and Amanda. We are in the 5th grade at the > Phillipston Memorial school, Phillipston, Massachusetts, USA. We are > doing a I recall seeing an announcement about this recently. In essence, it said "HELP! PLEASE STOP!" I suspect Stevie and Amanda learned far more than they wanted to about email dynamics. They unfortunately neglected to put a time limit on their request. And so their message has become an internet virus-meme-urban- legend, a meme plague living a life of its own via email as good hearted people pass it on to friends, and everyone mailbombs poor Stevie and Amanda continuously with greetings long after their project was complete. Is everyone here aware of this particular form of internet dynamics? If you ever receive a message which says "Please pass this message along to friends," all your alarm bells should go off, because chances are that the message is a self-replicating email meme. Last year just such a message got loose and almost killed the Santa Claus site. It said "please pass this message to your friends, and please send lots of email messages to the Santa Claus site because a big company donates $.01 for each message received." The message was a mistake, the donations were for webpage hits, not emails, but the message had just the right characteristics to "catch fire" (or maybe "start epidemic" is a better analogy,) spread to thousands of users, and cause them to unwittingly mailbomb santa claus. Another occurrence was the "Good Times" virus hoax. The message said to warn all your friends about a virus which spread by email. This message caught fire and spread all over the entire internet, causing several large companies to go into conniptions about a virus plague which didn't exist. Well, actually it did. The warning messages WERE THEMSELVES the virus plague. And the virus did not infect computer systems, it infected human minds and convinced them to replicate the message and propagate it to others. These epidemics aren't limited to email. There is a famous case where a request went out to send postcards to a young cancer patient in England, who was trying to collect a million postcards. Years later the thousands of postcards kept pouring in. Another case of an intentionally started meme which unfortunately did not carry a time limit as part of the request. These email-plagues are too simple really to be called viruses. They act more like naked genetic material, like the self-replicating "Prions" which cause Mad Cow disease. "Mad Email" disease? Don't become part of these waves of self organizing email-virus epidimics. Be suspicious of strange email which asks you to do something kind and also to forward a copy to your friends. Sometimes these messages are real, such as requests for donor organs or medical expertese. But if there is no mention of a time limit, it is a sure bet that the message has gone feral, and is circulating unnecessarily as an email-virus. For more info on this mind-virus concept, see Richard Dawkins THE SELFISH GENE, the part about Memetics. Or read the alt.folklore.science, alt.folklore.urban, and alt.memetics newsgroups. Or search the net for info about the history of "Good Times" memetic virus plague. ....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,............................. William Beaty voice:206-781-3320 bbs:206-789-0775 cserv:71241,3623 EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ Seattle, WA 98117 billb@eskimo.com SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 17:28:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA17137; Fri, 24 May 1996 17:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 17:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960524224555_100433.1541_BHG43-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Wire explosions. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To:Vortex It would appear that this post just disappeared, so here it is again. --------------------------------------------------------------- I checked the Britannica (faute de mieux) on Ampere. The story there seems to be identical with the Graneaus' account. However, the stories do concentrate on Paris in 1920, in the wake of Oersted. Possible later squabb;es with Biot may well have happened. At least I got a cheap laugh, Britannica translates the French 'experience' as 'experience' instead of 'experiment'...! Anyway, Graneaus on wire explosions: .... a large capacitor bank which could be charged up to 100,000 volts and stored various amounts of energy. When closing a switch the capacitor bank would drive a large current pulse through the wire. We left one centimeter long air-gaps between the ends of the wire and the terminals of the discharge circuit. These gaps would be bridged by electric arcs as soon as the switch was closed. The purpose of the gaps was to allow the wire to expand in length, as it heats up, without touching anything. If the capacitor bank was charged to too low a voltage, all that would happen when the switch was closed was that the current pulse would heat up the wire and expand it into the arc gaps. Upon cooling down, the wire would contract to its original length. When the capacitor bank was charged to too high a voltage, the current pulse was so large that it would melt and possibly evaporate the wire. Yet for a certain range of capacitor voltages and current pulses, between the two extremes, the wire would fracture into a number of pieces without melting, exactly as expected from Ampere's law. The fracture faces were examined metallurgically, and this examination left no doubt that the wire ruptures were caused by a tension pulse. The outcome and the explanation of the MIT wire fragmenta- tion experiments were published in Physics Letters in 1983 [G10]. We expected a storm of indignation to descend upon us for having had the audacity to challenge relativistic electro- magnetism with Ampere's simultaneous far-actions. Nothing happened for three years. Then the lone voice of J.G. Ternan [T3] was heard. He was a physicist in the Australian Defense Science and Technology Organization. Ternan claimed the wire fractures were caused by rapid thermal expansion. If the ends ofthe wire were free to move, as they were in the MIT experiment, they would acquire a certain expansion velocity. Because of their inertia, the wire atoms should have attempted to keep on going in opposite directions at the two ends of the wire. In Ternan's opinion this ultimately caused the tension breaks in the wire. We had calculated the strength of this effect and convinced ourselves that it was far too small to rupture the wire. Ternan had not read Nasilowski's paper. In the Warsaw ex- periment both ends of the wire were clamped and could not move as assumed by Ternan. This eliminated the thermal expansion velocity and the associated inertia effect. In fact Nasilowski had strung his wires horizontally between the end- clamps. Thermal expansion then did nothing else but sag the wire a little more in the middle. Hence Nasilowski's experi- ment conclusively disproved Ternan's argument. This was pointed out in a further publication in 1987 [G11]. Nothing more was heard from Ternan, or anybody else, on the subject of wire ruptures by Ampere tension. It is now nine years since the physics community was made aware of the success of Am- pere's force law and the failure of Lorentz's contact action law. Peter Graneau's students Linda Ruscak and Robert Bruce took this experiment one step further to a thick copper rod [R51. They cut the 1/4-inch diameter rod in 2-cm long pieces. Then they stacked the pieces in a close fitting glass tube and compressed the vertical stack with a spring. This resulted in a straight conductor which had a weak link every two centime- ters. Current pulses which did rupture thin wires were unable to fracture the 1/4-inch diameter metal rod. But they were pow- erful enough to separate the pre-cut pieces by a small distance. Short electric arcs formed at all separations. Photographs of the air-arcs proved that the separation had actually taken place. We described the stack of copper pieces as a multi-arc generator. A device like this acts as a current-limiting, self- resetting fuse. At normal current strength it behaves like an ordinary conductor. When a large current pulse passes through it, the pieces will separate and the many arcs impede current flow and limit it to some safe value. When the pulse is over, the stack collapses and normal conduction is restored. This represents a modern technological advance resulting from knowledge of the far-action based Ampere electrodynamics. [end] (from "Newton vs Einstein") /ex From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 18:34:35 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA23845; Fri, 24 May 1996 18:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 18:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: list ettiquette X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Russ George writes: >Indeed the standard list ettiquette on the net is that archives of >list messages are not supposed to be reposted without the permission >of the authors. The fact that the computer venue within which we >share ideas allows archives to be easily kept and posted simply puts >the onus on responsible behaviour on the individual. > >Some people pay attention to the rights of others some don't. This sounds strange. Do you have a reference? I have never seen such a rule. On the contrary I got the impression it is nettiquette to quote enough material so people know what you are talking about. What's the difference between quoting now and quoting later? If anyone doesn't want their material quoted they can always put a copyright notice on it. I think posting material with copyright is very much against the spirit of internet though, unless it is material intended for later publication, or already published by the author. On the other hand, I think it is outrageous behavior if a publisher should take material right out of s.p.f or vortex and publish it in print verbatim, warts and all, without the permission of the author or the opportunity for the author to remove the warts. Well, there it is - my 2 cents worth. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 21:03:55 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA17446; Fri, 24 May 1996 21:00:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 21:00:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank Znidarsic wrote: > A listing of anything we ever wrote on this web is posted on jlogajan's > skypoint page. Actually, I only have a link to the archive that is at Bill Beaty's eskimo site. I had an archive some time ago, but the files were getting too large. We discussed this issue on vortex-l at some length -- but if newcomers want to change the rules again ... :-) -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 24 22:09:51 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA24935; Fri, 24 May 1996 22:06:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 22:06:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: William Beaty To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Marinov device X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Did the Marinov discussion touch on the following? ....................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: Ossie Callanan The Self Accelerating Plasma Tube (SAP Tube) Anyone who has recieved the latest New Energy News newsletter should have also recieved an additional advertisement by Stefan Marinov titled, "MARINOV: ANNUS HORRIBILIS", which accompanied the newsletter and also appeared in the March 28th 1996 issue of Nature magazine. Basically it is an update of his scalar magnetic field theories and devices which appeared on page 299 of the proceedings from the May 1994 Symposium on New Energy. In this paper I would like to bring to your attention one of his devices he calls the SIBERIAN COLIU. Following is a small extract from the advertisement which describes its components in principle. "A cylindrical magnet is cut along one of its axial planes and the one half is turned up-down (the magnetic forces themselves do the rotation). Around this magnet, there is a trough filled with mercury in which the copper ring which can be seen at right swims (the children take salt solution and suspend the ring on threads). After sending a current of some tens of amperes from the battery at left, which is regulated by the rheostat, the ring begins to rotate. That's all!" Circuit: Cylinder magnet in center Copper ring rotates clockwise \ __---__/ _/ __ __ \_ / / | \ \ ---->---->---| | N | S | |--->---->---- | \_ \__|__/ _/ | | \__ __/ | | --- | | | | | | | ----<----<-------| | | |-------<----<---- | | Battery According to his theories, you can do the reverse. Rotate the copper ring clockwise and it will generate power in the same direction of current flow. Yes I said the same direction. Marinov has demonstrated and proved this in his devices. What this means, and as he explains, is that working as a motor or a generator, there is no opposing torque to the direction of rotation and hence the device becomes "Self Accellerating" and as long as you draw power from it, it will power itself. There is one barrier when constructing this as a mechanical device and that is friction. Due to the low torques generated, friction halts the self accellerating process but its seems that Marinov has overcome this and implies that he has a SIBERIAN COLIU working as a PERPETUUM MOBILE and will soon present this at a press conference. It soon comes to mind that if his theories are true and his device is indeed doing what he explains then surely there must be a way to tap this energy in a more efficient way than a crudely inefficient electro mechanical device. I believe I have come up with such a way and device. I have been able to do so by deriving an analogy of Marinov's Scalar Magnetic Theory to the rotation of the Earth. If the Earth were a spherical magnet with the same field properties as that of Marinov's cylinder magnet, and the sun constantly supplied electrons just like that of the battery, then the Earth's ionosphere and crust would act like the copper ring and rotate. If this is so, no wonder that satelite tether was vaporised. It would have been tapping into an unimaginable amount of energy that was keeping the earth in perpetual rotation. You can bet NASA never heard of Marinov's theories. >From this analogy it then becomes easy to imagine an efficient device with no moving parts that may utilise Scalar magnetism to derive free energy and power itself. All that would be required is to replace the copper ring with an ionised gas plasma that may be contained in a sealed tube in the shape of a donut of which the cylinder magnet will then be placed in the hole. Two metal conductors shall be placed at oppossing ends on the outside of the donut tube of which their axis will be at right angles to the cut plane of the cylinder magnet. When a DC current is placed on the electrodes and the gas is ionised, it will become conductive (maybe even superconductive). This will cause the gas to rotate inside its donut tube (according to Marinov's theory). This will inturn generate more current in the same direction of the applied current flow and the device will become self generating and the excess power may be fed to a load. See Diagram Below: Ionising gas in donut tube-"x" \ _______ Donut shaped gas containment Cylinder magnet in centre \__/ x \__ / tube \ _/ x __---__ x \_ Metal Conductor __ / x _/ __ __ \_ x \ Metal conductor electrode electrode \ / x / / | \ \ x \ / ---->----|- | | N | S | | -|---->---- | \ x \_ \__|__/ _/ x / | | \_ x \__ __/ x _/ | | \_ x --- x _/ | | \__ x __/ | | ----- | | Changover | | | | Switch | |---<----<-------| | | |---0/--0----<---| | | | | | | Ionising Current Source | | | | | \_ | ----<----<-----/\/\/\/\----0 \0----<---- Load Changeover Switch As can be seen above, there are no mechanical parts and hence, no friction to over come so even the smallest amount of torque on the gas plasma will soon accellerate to very large amounts as determined by the amount of current the load draws. I believe other successful vacuume tube energy devices of the past must have worked by utilising the same principles. T. Henry Moray was quoted as saying the amount of energy his device produced was determined by the load he placed on it. The more load he connected, the device powered with no problems. This is inherent in the working principle of the above device. If anyone experiments with the above mentioned device, it will be appreciated if the results are forwarded to me via Keelynet or at mathew3@netspace.net.au. All comments, questions and critique welcome... Regards, Ossie Callanan From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 25 03:31:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA21895; Sat, 25 May 1996 03:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 03:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31a6edde.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Peter Glueck" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Salvation by Technology not whiners. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I think that the present situation of CF makes "internal" conflicts as for example Vortex vs. Inventors, unnecesary and even harmful. And I am convinced that this conflict is based mainly on gross misunderstandings and lack of mutual empathy. It is a clash between cultures: Scientific Research/Technological Research/Business which have much in common but have to and are differentiated by aims, methodology, modes of thinking, necessary skills etc. To be an inventor is not an easy way to become rich--not in the US, not in Japan, certainly not in Romania. To be an inventor, is, first at all, a means of SELF-ACTUALIZATION as defined by Maslow. Money is a great asset which can help them to attain the supreme values, but is not the supreme value itself. They will not accept to give up for "money now" "fame later"; i.a. fame is a way to very big money. Ask Patterson, George, Piantelli, Arata, Mills, Mizuno, Potapov about their aims. Jed wrote: << They should not give away the products for free. They should apply for patents and then *sell the products at an immense profit* The way to succeed in business is to market, support the product, and sell. Sell, sell, sell! Sell at every stage of development at which customers can be found. Sell to any customer whose money is green>> I agree 120%! However: a) they can apply for a _patent_ but as long as they have a CF/New Energy process, the Patent Office will reject the application and their idea or process or gadget will remain unprotected; Patterson's patents are a happy exception which just reinforces this rule. b) actually they have no _products_ to sell, they have only embryos of technology, chunks of information, their devices are unreliable, cannot be guaranteed for long term functionality, are each week superseeded by the next batch of stuff. For example Patterson had a 5W cell in October and a 1200 W cell in December 1995; what should he sell? It is much better to focus on the problems of controlability - good beads working at 150 deg C if necessary-elimination of negative side-effects and a lot of other TECHNOLOGICAL problems. Mizuno and George-Stringham have to master and avoid the destructive effects of the intense heat release, I do not envy them. The engineering of their devices is not an easy task. What can they sell, except ideas and difficult problems? c) "To sell at every stage at which a customer can be found" is quite paradoxical; NOW they can sell their only fledling ideas, processes and only to some potential competitors which will take the half-ready beads for example and will develop better cells (if they can) and CETI will lose priority. Why sell anything to the competitors? Kamikaze strategy? In my opinion only finished technologies and commercial devices are saleable. This is the reason for which Griggs and Potapov are working according to the above principles, yes they have products to sell, they have technologies, they have reliable, controlable devices. All the others are in different stages of development and scale-up (this word sounds like a song to me, sweet memories of the past and of the future, I dare to hope! )are collaborating with reputed institutes and Fortune 4.6, 10 or 100 companies chosen according to their will possibilities and interest. This option is one of their fundamental rights. d) Till now (I hope so), I have avoided any ideas which can seem offensive for any of our colleagues..a sensitive point remains and this is the great difference between scientific and technological research. Mark Twain has stated that you can really understand love only after 25 years of marriage, similarly you can understand technology only after 25 years industrial experience and say, 10 patents. It is fine that some people are learning more rapidly, in both areas. They are the inventors. I, personally like them despite some perfectly human weaknesses. And I am proud to belong to them. Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 25 15:05:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA11701; Sat, 25 May 1996 14:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 14:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960525125901_203852694@emout16.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Jennison/Extraordinary Science X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: A Does anyone know the address of the Journal Extraordinary Science. I am very interested in the the issue Vol 3 issue #1 Jan Feb March 91 in which Jennison found that energy in a box (a standing wave) haa gravitational and inertial mass. Does anyone know of Jennison or his work? Puthoff's ZP theorys deal with modifying matter by putting it in a box. I think there is a link between my work, Jennison's work, and Puthoff's work. Any info would be most appreciated. Frank Znidarsic 481 Boyer St Johnstown Pa. 15906 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 25 15:05:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA11762; Sat, 25 May 1996 14:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 14:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960525084131_309591785@emout14.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Fwd: Jennison X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: My books and disks are having an effect. I seem to have inspired one Ted Ground to go to the library. He was probably allready inspired. Could it be that I just missled him? --------------------- Forwarded message: From: ground@axiom.net (Ted Ground) To: FZnidarsic@aol.com CC: Sargent@axiom.net Date: 96-05-25 01:13:29 EDT Frank, I am glad the Jennison reference stirred some interest. It was the standing wave statement I read attributed to him that struck me from my memory as I read your book on disk. I will strive to get the actual wireless world article for you. My local libraries are very helpful to me in getting interlibrary loans, so I will work on that for you. Contact the International Tesla Society in Colorado for back issues of Extraordinary Science. It will serve you well in ferreting out some of the experimental verifications of your model. As I said before, I AM SURE YOU ARE ONTO SOMETHING, FRANK. I am still interested in finding out more about what you think the boundary of the "box" actually is in your model. Is it a probability boundary or zone? What exactly is a potential well in your own words, please? I have some thoughts on light and gravity and free energy which I would like to share with you, but I would appreciate your comments on the potential well description AS A PRELIMINARY TO FURTHER DISCUSSION IN DETAIL. What say you, then? Sincerely, Ted Ground From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 25 15:05:27 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA11885; Sat, 25 May 1996 15:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 15:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960525091325_309603739@emout07.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Have any of you had the "pleasure" of talking to an anti-trust lawyer? I have, and it was not fun! I see a lot of messages with the E-Mail tags of various organizations posted here. I also know that some big money people are reading some of the messages that pass on this list. I'm working with some of them myself. Once the money starts flowing, and it will soon. Some very sharp lawyer will read the list and find that we were all in COLLLUSION. This lawyer will not care about the time or the context in which the message was passed. We will tell him that we were all just a bunch of friends talking. He will not see it that way, his time and perspective will be quite different. Imagine that, Northern States Power talking with Rothwell Industries, NASA, and the Russians too. All of them conspiring to control and industry. An Bill B. the ring leader may have a day in court himself. Once the money start flowing, and major industries start taking a hit, if the list remains many of us may be hit with a brick. I say it should go after a period of 8 months of so. Its to late to get rid of the list once your are hit with a subpoena. That will get you into much bigger trouble. Otherwise watch what you say. Look at your email tag....that is all it takes. I've bin there, now I'm moving forward, if I'm sucessful I'm sure someone somewhere will want to dig and look for something to get me with. Many of you are in the same boat. Be careful. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 25 18:24:28 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA15286; Sat, 25 May 1996 18:19:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 18:19:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960525224139_100060.173_JHB34-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank, If we are in such legal danger re collusion, there should be some kind of disclaimer we can all use to eliminate that risk - is there a lawyer out there who can advise? Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 25 21:39:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA14366; Sat, 25 May 1996 21:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 21:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I553V2GPHE8Y5VPB@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Frank, >If we are in such legal danger re collusion, there should be some kind of >disclaimer we can all use to eliminate that risk - is there a lawyer out there >who can advise? >Norman I have two anti-trust attorneys working with my organization. Where patents and licenses are concerned you have a monopoly by virtue of the patent. You are not obligated to make your technology available to anyone other than those you choose. Anti-trust law in this instance deals with giving an unfair market advantage to any one company or individual with whom you choose to do business. In simple terms your first license sets the precedence for all future patents. What I think would be of greater concern here is that it is illegal to replicate a patented device, even for your own use. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat May 25 22:20:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA19458; Sat, 25 May 1996 22:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 22:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: dacha@shentel.net To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank, If we are in such legal danger re collusion, there should be some kind of disclaimer we can all use to eliminate that risk - is there a lawyer out there who can advise? Norman -----------------End of Original Message----------------- Dear Norman and Frank, It is sad that an open forum for the public good is now becoming a collection of private publications. So, so sad. I know this is the law, but still...... Lawyers can be likened to nuclear weapons, it is dangerous enough just having them around, but using them tends to really screw things up. When I have information or comments that I want to keep to myself, the last thing I would do would be to post it on the net. At this time I am holding back material that could cause problems to my friends in russia. I know that there is always a chance that if I publish it on the net this material could get into the wrong hands. Robert ------------------------------------- Name: dacha E-mail: dacha@visor.com Date: 5/26/96 Time: 12:12:40 AM No matter where you go, there you are. http://www.visor.com/info ------------------------------------- From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 26 01:19:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA07633; Sun, 26 May 1996 01:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 01:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960526081147_100060.173_JHB79-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Joe, >> What I think would be of greater concern here is that it is illegal to replicate a patented device, even for your own use. Joe Flynn << Not according to my Patent advisor. As long as you make no gain from the sale of the patented item then you can use it as much as you like internally. Maybe this is a trans pond variation. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 26 01:21:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA07728; Sun, 26 May 1996 01:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 01:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960526081149_100060.173_JHB79-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Robert, I have always been very careful to keep potentially libelous or slanderous stuff out of CIS forums or the net. As for sensitive, political, scientific or commercial stuff surely its a matter of personal discretion, and IMHO has been, and always will be so. Norman From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 26 07:24:12 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA09447; Sun, 26 May 1996 07:20:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 07:20:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605261358.XAA06967@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Martin Edmund Sevior To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: My Vortex postings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Jed writes: > > I could not agree more. And, Mr. Chairman, I think the record will show that I > ran out of patience before Martin did. :-} However, I think Martin's technical > point is incorrect. If CF is marketed it will blow photovoltaics, windmills, > coal, fission and all other alternatives out of the water. First its got to be developed into a commercially viable technology. If that's even possible it will cost many millions of dollars. That won't happen until there's clear obvious proof of principle. > > 1. Energy density. You would have to cover the whole roof of your house to > gather enough electricity to keep the house going. Solar power is about 1 HP > (750 watts) per square yard on a perfectly sunny summer day. Assuming 27% > conversion efficiency (the world record), and no degradation from aging or > dirt, I would need approximately 74 square yards of collection space in direct > sunlight. I have trees around my house, so I couldn't gather enough no matter > what. People who live in 20 story apartments are out of luck. Large factories > with energy intense machines inside them could never gather even one-hundredth > of the energy they need from the land area they take up. An automobile roof > could never gather enough energy to keep the car moving, unless it is an > ultralight experimental car. I cannot go shopping or drive the kids to the > dentist in an ultralight. > All very true. But that's the purpose of a grid and solar "farms". At 15% efficiency an area 10 km by 10 km would replace the 12 Giga-watt capacity of the Australian Utility, Pacific Power. > 2. Night, winter and bad weather. The sun doesn't work a lot of the time, so > you must have local storage, or you have to buy electricity from the grid. > Windmills are even more intermittent in most locations. > See the above. You can use our favorite chemical reaction and recombination to store and recover energy quite efficiently. > 3. The grid. As Martin says: > > "Last year [the Center for PhotoVoltaics] obtained patents on a new > technology that will produce solar cells cheap enough to compete with > conventional 'Grid connected' electricity." > > CF does not require The Grid, so it starts out one-third cheaper, and it goes > way down from there. Any source of energy that requires a distribution grid > will be uneconomical compared to CF assuming the fuel and generator costs are > roughly equal. As it happens, CF fuel costs nothing, and the generators will > evolve into units that are as cheap as the transformers, electric motors, and > heaters in your house already. Eventually, power supplies will be built into > the equipment itself, doing away with the need for the power distribution > grid in your house (the electric wiring). The only wires you have will coax or > fiber optic controls that tell the overhead lights to turn themselves on with > their own built-in power supplies. > I truely hope this comes about Jed, but I think CF powered appliances would require a whole new breakthrough in addition to CF. As of now I'm not aware of any direct CF to electricity schemes. They all produce heat. As things stand now you'd also need small compact heat engines that produce in excess of 200 watts of electricty without > > Photovoltaics might become competitive with conventional 'Grid connected' > electricity, but CF will probably start out an order of magnitude cheaper, and > I think within a generation it will be 4 or 5 orders of magnitude cheaper. > This may seem impossible, but history is full of similar dramatic cost > reductions like: the cost of crossing the Atlantic Ocean between 1492 and > 1792; transportation after the introduction of railroads; communication after > the telegraph; publishing and communication after Internet; clocks; energy > costs overall; computer power; and kilotons of destructive power after > thermonuclear weapons (what the Pentagon calls "bang for buck"). > One could make the same sort of arguments about Photovoltaics with a reasonable amount of correctness. Their basic ingredient is 2nd most abundant element in the Earth's crust. It can be spread very thin and it is not consumed in generating electricity. Once PV's are produced at rates in excess of gigawatts per year, all sorts economies of scale will accrue. Lifetimes can be increased with better designs, further breakthroughs in manufacturing etc. etc. I will grant that a grid is always neccessary for PV's because of the energy density problem. > 4. This is biggest problem: environmental pollution, a mountain of junk. > Multiply the number of houses, offices and other buildings in the U.S. times > 74 square yards of photovoltaic material plus batteries or other storage > technology. Twenty years after you install that mountain of material, it wears > out. Then what do you do with it? You are faced with one of the biggest > burdens of recycling or landfill in history. It is bad enough having to put a > new roof on every house and building every 30 or 40 years. It's not so bad. The basic material is just sand. It could be recycled into new cells very easily. Nothing like the problems of disposing of all that tritium or other strange nuclei that CF produces. Who knows what the enviromental impact of large scale CF energy production will be? > Conventional energy > generating equipment and CF are much more compact than solar. So are windmills > in the windy places where they presently being installed. > > No matter how good photovoltaics become they can never be used in places where > the sun does not shine, like mine shafts or (more seriously) undersea > telephone repeaters and pacemakers. Suppose some high tech telecommunications > equipment manufacturer like, say, Motorola, develops CF power supplies to > serve the undersea telephone repeater market. That is a small but immensely > profitable niche market. People will pay fantastic amounts of money for a > reliable battery that lasts 30 years under the ocean or implanted in your > chest. > Motorola from selling them for other purposes? What will stop the price from > falling? Integrated semiconductor chips were first developed for the space > program. The first ones cost more than their weight in gold. Imagine it is > 1965 and you are looking at a little hunk of plastic weighing less than an > ounce that costs a thousand dollars. Would you predict it has mass market > potential? You would if you understood the economics of mass production. You can make the same argments about mass production of PV's. > Once > CF begins selling in *any* market it will begin invading *all* markets, just > as integrated semiconductor chips did. I think it is entirely possible that > inept marketing schemes, ass-backwards R&D projects, and foolish opposition > will continue to delay the introduction of CF for many years, just as they > delayed the marine chronometer and seat belts in cars. But eventually someone > will bring the product to market, and few years later it will be all over for > the alternatives. Do you remember how swiftly slide rules and mechanical > calculators went out of style after the first electronic calculators were > introduced? CF will sweep the market like that: Boom! > Actually I think you're right if it's on the market within 5 years. Any further delays and it will face real competition. To get on the market within 5 years will require many millions of dollars unless someone goes for the "hobbyist" market first. It worked really well for PC's. By the way, I owned 2 microcomputers before 1980. It was great fun back then. Actually it's still lots of fun now. Regarding marketing strategies, the CF guys should look at SUN computers. They sold their designs for $100 to anyone who wanted it in order to build a market for SUN computers. More than anyone, the CF guys have to build a market. Martin Sevior From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 26 07:24:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA09511; Sun, 26 May 1996 07:21:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 07:21:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605261403.AAA09227@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Martin Edmund Sevior To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Photovoltaics. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > > Is there some way to buy stock in the State of New South Wales electricity > Uitility, Pacific Power, or the photovoltaic venture? > No. Pacific Power is wholly owned by the Australian State Government of NSW. The joint venture is a private company and no stock has been issued to the general public. Anyway, I'd only put money I could stand to lose in it at this stage. Martin Sevior From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 26 08:56:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA20975; Sun, 26 May 1996 08:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 08:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31A87E34.46F9@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: My Vortex postings X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Martin Edmund Sevior wrote: >Snip: > It's not so bad. The basic material is just sand. It could be recycled into > new cells very easily. Nothing like the problems of disposing of all > that tritium or other strange nuclei that CF produces. Who knows what the > enviromental impact of large scale CF energy production will be? > > > > Martin Sevior I agree Martin! I'm a CF fan but WHAT IS IT? Is it fusion? Is it isotope generation? Is it ZPE? What's the ash? PROVE IT! Can you imagine the field day the vested energy firms would have in a CF environmental impact hearing if it were on right now! Find out what CF is and what it makes - energy + ? . Then go for it! Friendly fire from Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 26 09:07:02 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA22306; Sun, 26 May 1996 09:04:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 09:04:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Joe Flynn wrote: > What I think would be of greater concern here is that it is > illegal to replicate a patented device, even for your own use. I'm not sure the above is true or not, but at least in the US, patent holders have to bring actions to protect the patent, rather than it being automatically enforced by the government agencies. Therefore the patent holders have to: 1.) Discover the infringement 2.) Amass a preponderance of evidence of: a.) the infringement b.) the degree of injury Since it is almost never cost effective to enforce patent rights on such onezie-twozie infringements, the act of actually doing so is unheard of -- beyond nasty letters being sent. -- - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA - - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan - From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 26 09:07:31 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA22436; Sun, 26 May 1996 09:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 09:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank Znidarsic wrote: >Have any of you had the "pleasure" of talking to an anti-trust lawyer? I >have, and it was not fun! I see a lot of messages with the E-Mail tags of >various organizations posted here. I also know that some big money people >are reading some of the messages that pass on this list. I'm working with >some of them myself. Once the money starts flowing, and it will soon. Some >very sharp lawyer will read the list and find that we were all in COLLLUSION. [snip] > >Frank Znidarsic This is not collusion, it is a public forum. There is no price fixing, no maket share gobbling, and most importantly, there is no secrecy. What there is here is the synergy of communication, the power of the press magnified by interactivity and short publication times. This is a new social phenomenon, but not a precedent. Similar forums existed prior to internet - conventions and publications. Conventions, though temporary and less effective in many ways, have similar attributes, and are far more amenable to collusion than this forum because much of what is said is behind closed doors. If anti-trust were an issue here then conventions would have been fair game for attorneys long ago. The beauty of internet is that it quickly puts information into the public domain. No referees, no delays, just pure public information flow. This can only contribute to the common good, nationally and internationally. Fraud and quackery, and just plain blunders or bad ideas, are quickly disposed of here. I think this is a public service also. As in the past, many important ideas can be expected to come from amateurs and garage experimenters. Generating interest in CF and helping this segement of the population is another public service. If the earth is on it's way to becoming like Venus, then we have no time for the methods of the past to find a solution. Every available source of non-fossil fuel energy is eventually going to be needed. Children living today can expect to see a 4-5 deg. C rise in earth mean temperature by 2050. This sounds trivial until you realize the consequences. Over a billion people will starve due to loss of growing area and loss of sea life. The US will be far more affected by the climatic change than many other major countries, due to both global weather patterns and US energy use. Entire countries, like Bangladesh, and major portions of many other countries, will be under sea water. It will be impossible to get wind and storm insurance because, due to increased sea temperature, hurricanes will produce 250 mph plus winds, and existing high wind areas will become uninhabitable. Storm surges will be capable of rolling miles inland. If anti-trust laws or patent laws inhibit energy source development then, to the extent they do, they must be struck down, or at least resisted by civil disobediance until they are. Since so many people seem to be captivated by the idea of getting rich, it does not appear to me that the laws have a net negative effect at this time. Besides, patent and anti-trust law is a local phenomenon - ignored in many countries. Good from the communication of this group will result in one place or another. Let the medalling lawyers be damned. Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sun May 26 12:28:24 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA20206; Sun, 26 May 1996 12:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 12:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31A8AD9E.332A@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: list- Horace X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Horace Heffner wrote: >Snip: > Let the medalling lawyers be damned. > > Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 > Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 Your words spring from wisdom, Horace; but, *gee* did you have to ruin my memorial day weekend? -------- Or, is this just a sneaky way to get us all to move to Alaska? Glad-not-to-be-a-lawyer, Frank Stenger From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 27 00:41:22 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA20929; Mon, 27 May 1996 00:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 00:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Joe Flynn wrote: >> What I think would be of greater concern here is that it is >> illegal to replicate a patented device, even for your own use. > >I'm not sure the above is true or not, but at least in the US, patent holders >have to bring actions to protect the patent, rather than it being automatically >enforced by the government agencies. > >Therefore the patent holders have to: > >1.) Discover the infringement >2.) Amass a preponderance of evidence of: > a.) the infringement > b.) the degree of injury > >Since it is almost never cost effective to enforce patent rights on such >onezie-twozie infringements, the act of actually doing so is unheard of -- >beyond nasty letters being sent. > >-- > - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 - I was under what appears to be the false impression that use of patented methods and devices for the sole pupose of research and development of those methods or devices was legal, provided you send $1 to the primary name and address on the patent with a notice of intent to do so. I just checked the U.S. Patent Act pointed to by the PTO's www home page. No mention of this. Maybe it was written out of the law in the recent amendment? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 27 20:31:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA03538; Mon, 27 May 1996 20:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 20:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960527223110_543704530@emout07.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: thanks X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Barry, I have read your posts on sci.phy. I would like to thank you for the bad press and the bad name you are giving to cold fusion. Thank you for the "kind" words about my work. This bad press is keeping out the people and organizations that could quickly develop the technology. This has provided a window of opportunity for me. Keep spreading the missinformation, I still need a few more months. I understand the hot fusion budget is being cut and many projects are being canceled. Don't worry once we get going Jed, I, or Hal Fox may be in the position to offer you a job. Its hard to find a good janitor. Frank Z From vortex-l@eskimo.com Mon May 27 23:09:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA27020; Mon, 27 May 1996 23:04:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 23:04:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605280453.OAA24197@nimbus.anu.edu.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dave DAVIES To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: .. > > Have any of you had the "pleasure" of talking to an anti-trust lawyer? > ... > Frank Znidarsic > We dont seem to have been seriously infected with this particular parasite yet but other varieties of Mad Lawyer disease have already crossed the Pacific so thanks for the warning. dave From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 28 00:57:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA05145; Tue, 28 May 1996 00:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 00:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: David Hildyard To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Var. Reluctance. Experiment (text) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Dear Vortexians, I dont know what happened to the include file. I dont have MIME. I cant read it so I assume others cant as well. Never mind, here it is in plain English. Good luck: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE OVER-UNITY RELUCTANCE MOTOR EXPERIMENT by Dr Harold Aspden, Sabberton Publications, PO Box 35 Southhampton, SO9 7BU, UK. Part of an open letter to Donald A. Kelly of the Space Energy Association, PO Box 11422, Clearwater, Florida 4616, USA, for inclusion in the Associations Quarterly Space Energy Association. (30 October 1993). reprinted in Nexus Magazine Feb/Mar 1994, p54. INTRODUCTION One can build and Adams motor and prove that over-unity operation is a reality. However, most academic researchers would deem this to be a waste of time since it is recognised as being a 'crank' pursuit seen as an attempt to create a 'perpetual motion' machine. My task, experimentally, therefore is to present something far more straightforward that can be assembled and tested in a school physics laboratory or at home using a standard transformer kit costing a few dollars. All one then needs is an instrument to read amps and volts and a variable mains power voltage supply. I did this experiment to satisfy myself that what I said at the Denver meeting in Colorado holds up. I am glad I did the experiment because it told me something new and important. I had thought that, in order to free energy from ferromagnetism, I would need to power the magnetic core above the 'knee' of the B-H curve, where the magnetism builds up by the atomic electron spins being forced into alignment rather than merely flipping through 180deg. Here I have to be careful because I have a very thorough grounding in ferromagnetism and I should avoid terminology unfamiliar to your readers. It must be said, however, that there is no way forward for anyone involved in real research on free energy from ferromagnetism unless that person understands the physics of the subject. The hit-and-miss ventures of those who build permanent magnet 'free energy' machines and get them to work anomalously only guide others equipped with the right training to take the research forward. I say 'only' because this is a simple situation. Those with the knowledge do not want to believe that 'free energy' is possible. Those without the knowledge cannot prove their case because they cannot speak the scientific language that implies. However, once on the scent and believing in what is possible, but not knowing why, those 'experts' on magnetism will move rapidly in advancing the technology in the real commercial world. So, here I aim to point at an introductory lesson or experiment and, to back this up, I commend those attempting this to read about the basic principles of magnetism as explained by an engineer - not a physicist! The best book that I know of for this purpose is one authored by a professor who was one of the examiners of my Ph.D thesis. His book tells the reader in simple language how magnetism develops as domains reorientate their action and, further, his book tells the reader about anomalous energy aspects, including the unsolved mystery of extremely high loss anomalies (a factor of 10 greater that theory predicts). I refer to a book sold in students' paperback edition by the Van Nostrand Company (Princeton, New Jersey), published in 1966 and authored by F. Brailsford under the title, "Physical Principles of Magnetism"[1]. If the reader belongs to a university and that book can be accessed from the library, then that reader will, I feel, after performing the following experiment, be able to make sense of the 'free-energy' opportunities now confronting the world of magnetism. The Brailsford book is not, of course, necessary as a preliminary to the experiment but it can help in onward thinking. Indeed, as an aside, I mention that when I spoke recently about the Floyd Sweet device to one of our mutual collaborators here in UK, I was gratified to hear that he, too, has a copy of the Brailsford book. THE EXPERIMENT The experiment is simplicity itself, considering the energy issue involved. Take a standard transformer kit and assemble the laminations so that there is what is virtually an air gap in the core. Be prepared to reassemble the core partially with different width gaps. I cut pieces of card of 0.25 mm thickness and performed the experiment in 10 repeat assembly stages, using 0 to 9 cards thicknesses. The idea of the experiment is to create an excited core state in which there is a known amount of energy stored in the air gap. If the AC frequency is 60 Hz this means that in 1/240th of a second an amount of energy is supplied as inductance energy that can meet the needs of the air gap. Note that I consistently made estimates of energy that were worst-case from our 'free energy' perspective. Therefore, the extra energy supplied that is stored as inductance in the ferromagnetic core itself, rather than the air gap, is ignored. The plan is to compare that energy with the mechanical energy that we could take from the gap if the poles thereby formed were to close together and do work as if in an electromagnet. Textbooks tell us that energy determined by the flux density in the gap represents that mechanically available energy. So we need, for each air gap thickness, to measure the flux that crosses the air gap. We do this by wrapping a search coil around the part of the core that is on the side of the air gap remote from the magnetising coil and measuring the voltage induced in that search coil. It may be verified, by having a separate search coil on the magnetising coil side of the gap, that the flux traversing the gap and linking the test search coil is nearly the same but a little less than that on the magnetising side. So, in our worst-case analysis we may rely on the mechanical energy calculated from the weaker flux measured in the test search coil. That flux must be less than the flux in the gap. By adjusting the current at successive gap thicknesses to ensure that the voltage sensed by the test search coil is always the same, we then know that the gap energy available as mechanical work increments linearly with gap thickness. For each such measurement we record the current registered as input to the magnetising coil. If we now multiply the current by the voltage measured, allowing for the turns ratio as between the magnetising winding and the test search coil, we can find the volt-amp input, which in the absence of losses is the reactance or inductive power. This allows us to compare the power output potentially available mechanically from such an air gap, if it were in a reluctance motor structure, compared with the reactive power supplied to set up that potential. It is found that the mechanical power is appreciably greater that the input power, thereby demonstrating that 'free energy' is to be expected. INTERPRETING THE RESULTS Now, one does not even need to worry about the calculations to find the reactive power input by multiplying volts and amps and allowing for the coil turns ratio. If surfices to plot the curve of current for different air gap thicknesses. Since the flux crossing the gap has fixed amplitude, as measured by a constant voltage reading, that means linear increase in mechanical power with air gap, so if the current were to increase at a rate that curves upwards with increasing air gap we would see a discrepancy representing a loss, but if it curves downwards then that means that there is a 'free energy' source. The experiment in very positively showing the downward curve and so gives the 'free energy' answer, but, to my surprise, with the coil arrangement shown in Fig. 2, I found that the 'free energy' becomes available well below the knee of the B-H Curve at quite normal flux densities! Even at one-fifth of magnetic saturation levels, the excess free energy potential can exceed the input power and give a twice-unity factor of performance. It is, therefore, no wonder that at higher flux densities one can aim for a 700% performance, as the Adams motor has shown. On reflection, the reason of course is that magnetism set up by a coil on a magnetic core progresses as flux around the core circuit by virtue of a 'knock-on' effect owing to internal domain flux rotation. This is essential and is usually attributed to a flux leakage reaction, as otherwise magnetism remote from a magnetising coil could not navigate the bends in the core. That flux rotation which is dominant above the knee of the B-H curve for a system with magnetising coil coextensive with the length of the core, is brought into effect at low flux densities if the coil only embraces one part of the core. CONCLUSION I regard the experiment just described as a crucial experiment proving the viability of over-unity-performing reluctance drive motors and believe it should become standard in all teaching laboratories concerned with electrical engineering and eventually, as physicists see the aether in its new light, also in all high school physics laboratories. -END QUOTE- [1] This book is available in Australia on interlibrary loan from the NSW State Library - Macquarie St Sydney. call# N538/24. ADDITIONAL NOTES BY DPH This experiment can also be performed using an audio oscillator through a (HiFi) power amplifier and detected using a CRO or, better still, an audio milli-volt meter. As pointed out by Dr Aspden, a condition of saturation is not necessary in order to produce a curve, but the effect may not be as pronounced. Dr Aspden used an E-CORE type power transformer. I used a split band-wound C-core (fig 1) and with my own coils of 50-100 turns or so each (not optimised). The frequency was about 1 KHz. The curve effect flattens when using thicker spacers than specified. I curve fitted my data using a second order polynomial best fit algorithm, but this is not necessary in order to see the effect. For my configuration the equation was I(g) = 3.12 + 0.67g - 0.0148g^2, where I is the input current and g is the gap width. The 0.0148g^2 component represents an excess of energy within the gap that is not predicted by the accepted theory of magnetism. DIAGRAMS Fig 1 (DPH's setup) Sense coil HHHH/////HHHH HHHH HHHH <--- top core HHHH HHHH HHHH HHHH ------------------ <--- spacers ------------------ HHHH HHHH HHHH HHHH <--- bottom core HHHH HHHH HHHH/////HHHH Exciter coil Fig 2 - Dr Aspden's transformer setup series connected Sense Coils HHHH////HHHHHHHH////HHHH HHHH////HHHHHHHH////HHHH <-- I-core -------------------------- <-- gap spacers -------------------------- HHHH HHHHHHHH HHHH HHHH HHHHHHHH HHHH <-- E-core HHHH //////////// HHHH HHHH //////////// HHHH <-- Exciter Coil HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 28 10:37:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA15728; Tue, 28 May 1996 10:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 10:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: Var. Reluctance. Experiment (text) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: David When working from the mains you are working with sinusoidal wave forms normally. In the old days many DC power supplies used inductive reactors with air gaps to avoid saturation due to the DC current through them. I think that you are ignoring phase angle. In a pure inductor the voltage and current are 90 degrees out of phase. A realizable inductor has resistance so the voltage and current are less then 90 degrees out of phase. The power P = V*I*Cos(phase angle). If phase angle is 90 degrees, Cos(phase angle) = 0, and a pure inductor would just store energy in half the electrical cycle and send it back the other half. In a non-linear inductor, the wave forms are not sinusoidal and more complicated analysis needs to be done, but I don't see any over unity effects possible here. The heat losses in the windings due to I*I*R force efficiencies less then 100%. Where are your over unity effects coming from? Hank ---------- From: David Hildyard To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Var. Reluctance. Experiment (text) Date: Tuesday, May 28, 1996 12:54AM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - THE OVER-UNITY RELUCTANCE MOTOR EXPERIMENT by Dr Harold Aspden, Sabberton Publications, PO Box 35 Southhampton, SO9 7BU, UK. Part of an open letter to Donald A. Kelly of the Space Energy Association, PO Box 11422, Clearwater, Florida 4616, USA, for inclusion in the Associations Quarterly Space Energy Association. (30 October 1993). reprinted in Nexus Magazine Feb/Mar 1994, p54. CONCLUSION I regard the experiment just described as a crucial experiment proving the viability of over-unity-performing reluctance drive motors and believe it should become standard in all teaching laboratories concerned with electrical engineering and eventually, as physicists see the aether in its new light, also in all high school physics laboratories. -END QUOTE- [1] This book is available in Australia on interlibrary loan from the NSW State Library - Macquarie St Sydney. call# N538/24. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 28 16:53:10 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA27603; Tue, 28 May 1996 16:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 16:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605281830.OAA13302@spectre.mitre.org> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Robert I. Eachus" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: John Logajan said: > I'm not sure the above is true or not, but at least in the US, > patent holders have to bring actions to protect the patent, rather > than it being automatically enforced by the government agencies... > Since it is almost never cost effective to enforce patent rights > on such onezie-twozie infringements, the act of actually doing so > is unheard of -- beyond nasty letters being sent. Actually, as a side effect of constitutional law, it is never possible to enforce a patent in a way that does not "promote the useful arts." (I think that is the wording...) In particular using patents to suppress research in an area is not enforcable. Anyone is allowed to study patents, and that includes building working models. Selling or using for profit requires a license, but one of the usual techniques for forcing a cross-licensing arrangement is to patent an improvement to the other guy's device. This is one of the reasons that vacuum tube radios ran to tetrodes and pentodes--Lee de Forrest had the patent on triodes and RCA, Atwater Kent, Philco, Motorola and others researched improvements to force de Forest into cross-licensing agreements. (Any audiophiles out there--of course, say beam power pentodes are better for their intended purpose than triodes. But the money spent on research to improve the triode wouldn't have been spent without the patent case law on improvements. You CAN'T use a patent to prevent someone from selling an improved version--collect royalties, yes. But if their version is better than yours, you don't have customers, they do.) Of course, all this was before my time... Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 28 17:00:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA28708; Tue, 28 May 1996 16:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 16:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Mark Hugo, Northern" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Bogus virus(es) and "real" psychological ones.... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Bogus virus(es) and "real" psychological ones.... - I have just read an article on one of my information webs talking about "bogus" virus warnings. One of them, which you may have seen, was a warning not to open any Email message with the title "Good Times" - I had seen this warning, and in point of fact it was diseminated by our IT (information technology) people. - I personally was having a hard time figuring out how someone could put a PC damaging "virus" in with an ASCII text, which is the mode of transmission for the network I retrieve and send my Vortex messages on. (As they used to say in the Bond films, "Crude, but effective...") - Any there is a "new" class of virus now. It essentially is a "psychological" one. I.e., someone things up a clever "warning" or "general interest" message, puts it out via Email, and encourages their "friends" to spread the message or warning to THEIR friends/lists, etc. You can see the result. - My suggestion: If you DO pass some information on, DON'T pass on a suggestion to send it to others. And #2, consider the likelyhood that the information is bogus, or contrived, or worthless to begin with. - MDH From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 28 17:03:11 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA29423; Tue, 28 May 1996 16:57:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 16:57:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960528205619_72240.1256_EHB139-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: CF versus Photovoltaics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex I have been working on this paper about 18th century navigation so long I am beginning to feel seasick. Ahoy! Avast, y' scurvy scum! Come hard about on the count o' three! Buckle yer swashes! I'd like to think about something else for a few minutes here, so I thought I would address some of the points Martin Sevior raised. He wrote: "First its [CF] got to be developed into a commercially viable technology. If that's even possible it will cost many millions of dollars. Rights. Hundreds of millions I would think. As much money as they spent rebuilding the 20-mile long Interstate 85 downtown connector here in Atlanta. Everything I predict is predicated upon this happening. I hope that sooner or later a cold fusion scientist will open up, take the necessary steps to convince the world that CF is real, and then, of course, hundreds of corporations will work on the problem. The companies will spend hundreds of millions and commercially viable technology will emerge. However, it is possible that no CF scientist will ever go public. Unfortunately, most of them are old men, and they may become incapacitated or die before revealing their secrets. That almost happened in the navigation saga I am writing about. Fleischmann, Arata, Patterson and Enyo are old; Stringham (E-Quest) is no spring chicken. If they take their secrets to the grave, that will be the end of cold fusion. I should make it clear that strictly speaking, most of the CF scientists are not keeping air tight secrets. E-Quest is, but most of the others publish patents and things like the Storms paper "How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect." They are not keeping secrets, but they are deliberately not doing what we all know must be done in order to convince the world that CF is real. "That won't happen until there's clear obvious proof of principle." Right. A demonstration that the effect is real and that it can be used to self-sustaining, macroscopic levels of power. Any motor over 10 watts should do the trick, but I would prefer 1000 watts. Martin describes a solution to the problem of not having enough surface area over your house: "But that's the purpose of a grid and solar "farms". At 15% efficiency an area 10 km by 10 km would replace the 12 Giga-watt capacity of the Australian Utility, Pacific Power." Yeah, well, there are two big problems with that: 1. That requires the distribution network, which makes it automatically much more expensive than CF will be. There is no getting around that! 2. Australia has a lot of desert. Places like Japan and Georgia do not. So this solution will only work in some regions. You will never be able to transmit electricity from Nevada to Georgia economically. Too much energy spills out along the way. ". . . I think CF powered appliances would require a whole new breakthrough in addition to CF. As of now I'm not aware of any direct CF to electricity schemes. They all produce heat. As things stand now you'd also need small compact heat engines that produce in excess of 200 watts of electricity . . . Not a problem. A reverse refrigerator pump would work for many electrical applications. The waste heat is not a problem with appliances like clothes washers, driers, and dishwashers. Later on I expect thermoelectrics will improve. Also, don't forget that thermal energy can be used to drive mechanical things nicely without electricity. The Smithsonian has an exhibit of the fully automatic small steam engines that were developed in the final flowering of the steam age, just before electricity came in. They were lovely little things. We could build better ones today. I'll bet you could run your washer and drier on one with no more wear and tear than an electric motor. And while we are strolling down memory lane, think about those old fashioned gas fired refrigerators. No moving parts! No electricity, no compressor. Some of them are still in use after 50 years, and the owners love them so much, they will drive hundreds of miles to get them repaired. You can build air conditioners the same way. Of course, if one of these Electricity Generating Magical Motor gadgets materializes, then all bets are off. That would make thermal CF as instantly obsolescent. It would be as useless as coal or oil. I have no idea what the prospects are for the Magic Motors. I don't know much about them so I do not want to hazard a guess. "It's [environmental problems] not so bad. The basic material is just sand. It could be recycled into new cells very easily. Nothing like the problems of disposing of all that tritium or other strange nuclei that CF produces. Who knows what the environmental impact of large scale CF energy production will be?" That *could be* a problem, I admit. But I expect they will find a way to control the transmutations to prevent production of radioisotopes. In that case, this potential problem might become a benefit. You might input thin film nickel and get out gold, copper, platinum, or who knows what. The recycling of used CF cathodes might be an extremely profitable business. When it is done an a large scale it might put the South African gold mines out of business. I wrote: "What would stop Motorola from selling them for other purposes? What will stop the price from falling? Integrated semiconductor chips were first developed for the space program. The first ones cost more than their weight in gold. Imagine it is 1965 and you are looking at a little hunk of plastic weighing less than an ounce that costs a thousand dollars. Would you predict it has mass market potential? You would if you understood the economics of mass production." Martin responded: "You can make the same arguments about mass production of PV's." Not exactly! Mass production requires a mass market. That's what I mean by the "economics." PV's, at the beginning at least, will have a tightly limited market, especially compared to CF. As I said, there are many countries like Japan where PVs can never supply more than a small fraction of energy needs directly. There are schemes for gigantic projects shipping PV generated hydrogen from desert countries to Japan, but these would take decades to implement. Plus, there are many direct energy applications that can never, ever be addressed with PVs, like pacemakers, boom-box batteries, and automobile engines. CF, on the other hand, will fit virtually all of these market segments the moment it is developed. In other words, if Motorola makes a PV for a terrestrial surface telephone repeater, they cannot sell it as an undersea repeater, or a boom-box battery, or a hearing aid battery, because there is no light in your ear and not enough light on your portable radio. But if Motorola makes a CF thermoelectric battery . . . they can use it for all of these applications, right away. Look at the economics of boom-box and kid's toy batteries. You will see that a $50 D-Cell would be a fantastic bargain if it worked for, say, 30 years non-stop. "Regarding marketing strategies, the CF guys should look at SUN computers. They sold their designs for $100 to anyone who wanted it in order to build a market for SUN computers. More than anyone, the CF guys have to build a market." Darn right! You hit the nail on the head. Actually, any marketing scheme for CF might work, even a half-assed one. As far as I know, the CF scientists and R&D companies are making NO EFFORTS to peddle the stuff. None! It's unbelievable! These people are sitting on a gold mine and they complain (to me!) that they have no money! It is like a guy stranded on a small island on Lake Erie dying of thirst. It is the craziest thing I have ever seen in my life. It is as if Bell Labs developed a prototype transistor in 1952 and then slapped a Top Secret sign on it for 5 years instead of selling the damn thing and making a fortune and Nobel Prizes to boot. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Tue May 28 21:57:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA28310; Tue, 28 May 1996 21:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 21:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "MHUGO@EPRI" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Forwarded mail...Random jokes (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: *** Resending note of 05/28/96 14:25 From: Mark Hugo, Northern States Power Sr. Eng. Subject: Forwarded mail...Random jokes (fwd) To: "- 052 ldavisa unix.atk.com" MHUGO --EPRINET HUGO, MARK Subject: Forwarded mail...Random jokes (fwd) Received: from PFIZER.COM by EPRINET.EPRI.COM (Soft*Switch Central V4L40P1A); 28 May 1996 14:25:46 PDT Received: from EMXHOST2.PFIZER.COM by pfizer.com (4.1/3.1.090690-Pfizer Inc) id AA22740; Tue, 28 May 96 10:30:43 EDT From: SHELSS@pfizer.com X400-Originator: SHELSS@pfizer.com X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:; X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=PFIZER/ADMD=ATTMAIL/C=US/;0034200001653225000002] X400-Content-Type: P2-1988 (22) Message-Id: <0034200001653225000002*@MHS> To: " - (052)ldavis(a)unix.atk.com" , " - (052)mhugo(a)epri.epri.com" Subject: Forwarded mail...Random jokes (fwd) Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 10:31:18 -0400 ---------------------------- Forwarded with Changes --------------------------- >From: langlais (INTERNET.langlais) at GLOBAL Date: 5/25/96 4:13PM To: Susan Shelso at PFIZER-MPLS-AMS-SCHNEIDER5 Subject: Forwarded mail...Random jokes (fwd) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's fun to share a chuckle. Some you've probably heard before. Susan ______________________________ Forward Header _________________________________ _ Subject: Forwarded mail...Random jokes (fwd) Author: langlais (INTERNET.langlais) at GLOBAL Date: 5/25/96 04:13 PM Forwarded message: >From yng@me.umn.edu Fri May 24 23:43:13 1996 >From: "Yvonne Ng" Message-Id: <199605250442.XAA17701@ena.me.umn.edu> Subject: Forwarded mail...Random jokes To: mitchell@cems.umn.edu (martha mitchell), jrexford@maunaloa.eecs.umich.edu (jennifer rexford), lam@ptc.com (Cora Lam), yijiri@tristan.TN.CORNELL.EDU (yumi ijiri), lins0005@gold.tc.umn.edu (betsy linstrom), langlais@me.umn.edu (Tim Langlais), bodumade@ix.netcom.com (Olubunmi Odumade), LENG@JJPRAYC1.SSW.JNJ.COM (Lisanne Eng) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 23:42:37 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 11073 thought you might like these... Forwarded message: > From curti007@maroon.tc.umn.edu Mon May 20 13:54:08 1996 > Message-ID: <01BB4653.E7203C60@stmlab.spa.umn.edu> > From: rob curtis > To: "'Yvonne Ng'" > Subject: > Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 10:24:15 -0700 > Encoding: 209 TEXT > > Well, I told you I had some jokes for you. I hope you enjoy them. > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > Frog comes into the bank with a small coconut > statue of a person. Hops over to the loan desk, to a certain > Patricia Black, loan officer extraordinaire. Frog croaks that he > wants a loan, but the statue is all he has for collateral. Ms. > Black, looking it over, says "let me ask my vice-president about this > one." Black takes the coconut statue over to the VP and asks "Is > this sufficient collateral for a loan?" VP looks it over and says > "It's a knick-knack, Patty Black, give the frog a loan!" > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > So there's this fella with a parrot. And this parrot swears like a sailor, > I mean he's a pistol. He can swear for five minutes straight without > repeating himself. Trouble is, the guy who owns him is a quiet, > conservative type, and this bird's foul mouth is driving him crazy. One > day, it gets to be too much, so the guy grabs the bird by the throat, > shakes him really hard, and yells, "QUIT IT!" But this just makes the > bird mad and he swears more than ever. Then the guy gets mad and says, > "OK for you." and locks the bird in a kitchen cabinet. This really > aggravates the bird and he claws and scratches, and when the guy finally > lets him out, the bird cuts loose with a stream of vulgarities that > would make a veteran sailor blush. > > At that point, the guy is so mad that he throws the bird into the freezer. > For the first few seconds there is a terrible din. The bird kicks and > claws > and thrashes. Then it suddenly gets _very_ quiet. At first the guy just > waits, but then he starts to think that the bird may be hurt. After a > couple > of minutes of silence, he's so worried that he opens up the freezer door. > The bird calmly climbs onto the man's outstretched arm and says, "Awfully > sorry about the trouble I gave you. I'll do my best to improve my > vocabulary from now on." > > The man is astounded. He can't understand the transformation that has > come over the parrot. Then the parrot says, "By the way, what did the > chicken do?" > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > A man goes into his son's room to wish him goodnight. His son is > having a nightmare - the man wakes him and asks his son if he is OK? > > The son replies he is scared because he dreamt that Auntie Susie had > died. The father assures the son that Auntie Susie is fine and > sends him to bed. > > The next day, Auntie Susie dies. > > One week later, the man again goes into his son's room to wish him > goodnight. His son is having another nightmare - the man again > wakes his son. The son this time says that he had dreamt that granddaddy > had died. The father assures the son that granddaddy is fine and sends > him to bed. > > The next day, granddaddy dies. > > One week later, the man again goes into his son's room to wish him > goodnight. His son is having another nightmare - the man again > wakes his son. The son this time says that he had dreamt that daddy had > died. The father assures the son that he is OK and sends the boy to bed. > > The man goes to bed but cannot sleep because he is so terrified. The > next day, the man is scared for his life- he is sure is going to die. > After dressing he drives very cautiously to work fearful of a > collision. He doesn't eat lunch because he is scared of food > poisoning. He avoids everyone for he is sure he will somehow be > killed. He jumps at every noise,starts at every movement and hides > under his desk. > > Upon walking in his front door, he finds his wife. "Good God Dear" > he proclaims, "I've just had the worst day of my entire life! She > responds, "You think your day was bad, the milkman dropped dead on > the doorstep this morning". > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----- > > The graduate with a Science degree asks, "Why does it work?" > The graduate with an Engineering degree asks, "How does it work?" > The graduate with an Accounting degree asks, "How much will it cost?" > The graduate with a Liberal Arts degree asks, "Do you want mustard > with that?" > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > Engineers think that equations approximate the real world. Scientists > think that the real world approximates equations. Mathematicians are > unable to make the connection... > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > A Mathematician, a Biologist and a Physicist are sitting in a street > cafe watching people going in and coming out of the house on the > other side of the street. > First they see two people going into the house. Time passes. After a > while they notice three persons coming out of the house. The > Physicist: "The measurement wasn't accurate.". > The Biologists conclusion: "They have reproduced". > The Mathematician: "If now exactly 1 person enters the house then it > will be empty again." > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Three engineering students were gathered together discussing the > possible designers of the human body. One said, ``It was a > mechanical engineer. Just look at all the joints.'' > Another said, ``No, it was an electrical engineer. The nervous > systems many thousands of electrical connections.'' > The last said, ``Actually it was a civil engineer. Who else would run > a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?'' > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician are shown a pasture with > a herd of sheep, and told to put them inside the smallest possible > amount of fence. The engineer is first. He herds the sheep into a > circle and then puts the fence around them, declaring, "A circle will > use the least fence for a given area, so this is the best solution." > The physicist is next. She creates a circular fence of infinite radius > around the sheep, and then draws the fence tight around the herd, > declaring, "This will give the smallest circular fence around the > herd." The mathematician is last. After giving the problem a little > thought, he puts a small fence around himself and then declares, "I > define myself to be on the outside!" > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > In some foreign country a priest, a lawyer and an engineer are about > to be guillotined. The priest puts his head on the block, they pull > the rope and nothing happens -- he declares that he's been saved by > divine intervention -- so he's let go. The lawyer is put on the > block, and again the rope doesn't release the blade, he claims he > can't be executed twice for the same crime and he is set free too. They > grab the engineer and shove his head into the guillotine, he looks up > at the release mechanism and says, "Wait a minute, I see your problem......" > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > An engineer, a mathematician, and a physicist went to the races one > Saturday and laid their money down. Commiserating in the bar after > the race, the engineer says, "I don't understand why I lost all my > money. I measured all the horses and calculated their strength and > mechanical advantage and figured out how fast they could run..." >The > mathematician interrupted him: "...but you didn't take individual > variations into account. I did a statistical analysis of their > previous performances and bet on the horses with the highest > probability of winning..." > "...so if you're so hot why are you broke?" asked the engineer. But > before the argument can grow, the physicist takes out his pipe > and they get a glimpse of his well-fattened wallet. Obviously here > was a man who knows something about horses. They both demanded to > know his secret. > "Well," he says, between puffs on the pipe, "first I assumed all the > horses were identical and spherical..." > ___________________________________________________________ > > The following are from actual medical transcripts dictated by doctors. > > On the 2nd day the knee was better and on the 3rd day it had completely > disappeared. > > This patient has been under many psychiatrists in the past. > > The patient has been depressed ever since she began seeing me in 1993. > > The pelvic examination will be done later on the floor. > > She was divorced last April. No other serious illness. > > I will be happy to go into her GI system; she seems ready and anxious. > > Patient was released to outpatient department without dressing. > > Dr. Blank is watching his prostate. > > The patient was advised not to go around exposing himself to other people. > > The patient was somewhat agitated and had to be encouraged to feed and eat > himself. > > Patient developed a puffy right eye, which was felt to be caused by an insect > bite by an opthamologist. > > The patient refused autopsy. > > The patient has no history of suicides. > > Apparently the mother resented the fact that she was born in her forties. > > Physician has been following the patient's breast for six years. > > He had a left toe amputation one month ago. He also had a left leg > amputation a year ago. > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > an urban legend passed along to me as "truth:" > > If you think you're having a bad day..... > "Fire Authorities in California found a corpse in a burnt out section of > forest whilst assessing the damage done by a forest fire. > The deceased male was dressed in a full wetsuit, complete with a dive > tank,flippers and face mask. A post mortem examination revealed that the > person died not from burns but from massive internal injuries. > > Dental records provided a positive identification. Investigators then > set about determining how a fully clad diver ended up in the middle of a > forest fire. It was revealed that, on the day of the fire, the person went > for a diving trip off the coast - some 20 kilometers away from the forest. > The firefighters, seeking to control the fire as quickly as possible, > called in a fleet of helicopters with very large buckets. The buckets were > dropped into the ocean for rapid filling, then flown to the forest fire and > emptied. You guessed it!!! One minute our diver was making like Flipper > in the Pacific, the next he was doing a breaststroke in a fire bucket 300m > in the air. Apparently, he extinguished exactly 1.78m (5'10") of the fire. > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > > From dlitman@inforamp.com Tue May 28 19:35:38 1996 Received: from mail.inforamp.net (Mail.InfoRamp.Net [204.191.136.66]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA02280 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 19:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ts47-03.tor.iSTAR.ca (ts47-03.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.141.123]) by mail.inforamp.net (8.7.3/8.7) with SMTP id WAA00253 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 22:29:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <31ABE0DE.39CC@inforamp.com> Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 22:30:06 -0700 From: SHEILA Organization: Board of Education X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: billb@eskimo.com Subject: Comments & Perhaps Advice X-URL: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/exptese.html Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: D Hi, Bill. My name is Sheila Litman and I'm a Math, Science, and Design & Technology High School Teacher in Toronto, Ontario,Canada. I am very impressed with your resume and I'm wondering how you managed to accomplish so much in such a short time and have time to get married to? Anyhow, the real reason why I'm writing is that I have developed two electronics projects for children (ages 9-15). One is currently in the process of being published by the magazine Science Scope, a popular Middle School magazine. The other has not been published in the US yet. It involves making a dog, in the shape of a box, and when you wiggle its tail, the dog's eyes (LEDs) light up. As I develop more of these ideas, I would really like to publish them in a book. Can you suggest any publishers? I am also the Assistant Editor of an Ontario teacher's magazine entitled "The Design & Technology Teachers Bulletin". This magazine has a variety of projects written by teachers, ranging from mechanics to robotics/cybernetics. No, we are not on the net yet - it will be some time before we are as our school isn't even connected to the internet yet. Any advice you wish to provide on finding/recommending a publisher(s) would be appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to read this e-mail letter. Sincerely, Sheila Litman in Toronto, Ont., Canada From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 29 02:08:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA09711; Wed, 29 May 1996 02:02:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 02:02:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605290849.BAA07151@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: list ettiquette X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 06:12 PM 5/24/96 -0700, you wrote: >Russ George writes: > >>Indeed the standard list ettiquette on the net is that archives of >>list messages are not supposed to be reposted without the permission >>of the authors. The fact that the computer venue within which we >>share ideas allows archives to be easily kept and posted simply puts >>the onus on responsible behaviour on the individual. >> >>Some people pay attention to the rights of others some don't. > > >This sounds strange. Do you have a reference? I have never seen such a >rule. On the contrary I got the impression it is nettiquette to quote >enough material so people know what you are talking about. What's the >difference between quoting now and quoting later? If anyone doesn't want >their material quoted they can always put a copyright notice on it. I >think posting material with copyright is very much against the spirit of >internet though, unless it is material intended for later publication, or >already published by the author. > >On the other hand, I think it is outrageous behavior if a publisher should >take material right out of s.p.f or vortex and publish it in print >verbatim, warts and all, without the permission of the author or the >opportunity for the author to remove the warts. > >Well, there it is - my 2 cents worth. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > Horace, I agree with you in theory. Unfortunately, practice is far out-reaching our presumed norms. I suspect we are becoming a bit old fashioned. You have to now assume that whatever you have out in digital form is immortal and ultimately uncontrollable by you. We live now in a digital glass house. Scary, huh? ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 29 02:07:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA09881; Wed, 29 May 1996 02:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 02:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605290849.BAA07158@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 01:17 AM 5/26/96 -0700, you wrote: >Joe, > >>> What I think would be of greater concern here is that it is illegal to >replicate a patented device, even for your own use. > >Joe Flynn << > >Not according to my Patent advisor. As long as you make no gain from the sale >of the patented item then you can use it as much as you like internally. Maybe >this is a trans pond variation. > >Norman > > Are you certain of this in all instances, Norman? A copyrighted software can be torn out of your machine by brute force of the police state, regardless of whether or not you "re-invented" it yourself. That, of course, is a copyright and I understand fully the difference. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 29 02:07:59 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA09976; Wed, 29 May 1996 02:05:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 02:05:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605290849.BAA07165@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 03:00 PM 5/25/96 -0700, you wrote: >Have any of you had the "pleasure" of talking to an anti-trust lawyer? I >have, and it was not fun! I see a lot of messages with the E-Mail tags of >various organizations posted here. I also know that some big money people >are reading some of the messages that pass on this list. I'm working with >some of them myself. Once the money starts flowing, and it will soon. Some >very sharp lawyer will read the list and find that we were all in COLLLUSION. > This lawyer will not care about the time or the context in which the message >was passed. We will tell him that we were all just a bunch of friends >talking. He will not see it that way, his time and perspective will be >quite different. Imagine that, Northern States Power talking with Rothwell >Industries, NASA, and the Russians too. All of them conspiring to control >and industry. An Bill B. the ring leader may have a day in court himself. > Once the money start flowing, and major industries start taking a hit, if >the list remains many of us may be hit with a brick. I say it should go >after a period of 8 months of so. Its to late to get rid of the list once >your are hit with a subpoena. That will get you into much bigger trouble. > Otherwise watch what you say. Look at your email tag....that is all it >takes. I've bin there, now I'm moving forward, if I'm sucessful I'm sure >someone somewhere will want to dig and look for something to get me with. > Many of you are in the same boat. Be careful. > >Frank Znidarsic > > For the record, Frank, you are completely and definitively in error on this subject. For the record according to ~mwm, this listserv is no more than a free-floating bull session without college dorm walls. It has no organization and no purpose other than to support free inquiry and discourse on ideas related to fusion and related new physics theories/experiments. Membership is open to individuals for no renumeration because this is just a bunch of people who love to talk and pass information to other people interested in the subject. It is presumed, like all InterNet newsgroups, that individuals speak only for themselves, unless otherwise stated. Since commercial or official announcements are considered to be advertising, and, as such, unwelcome here, it is unlikely that information which is found here is anything other than the sum total of individual posts by individuals acting spontaneously. Naturally, speculations of how people might organize or interact commercially on various technologies come up from time to time and these speculations are understood to be speculations. No one is bound here by these discussions and no one can bind here by virtue of these discussions. Hence no organizational causality can be attributed. Since these conversations are freely available information, they cannot constitute a conspiracy in any sense of the word. To collude, one must conspire, privately, with the intent to obtain unfair advantage. Public information cannot provide unfair advantage. Any other interpretation of the function, scope, and discussions of this listserv is purely and definitively lunatic. Any lawyer who attempts to make out of it something else should be considered as incompetent or as sociopathic deserving of committment to a looneybin. Frank, the main occupation of lawyers is hustling money, outrageously large amounts compared to the actual value added. Their primary marketing method is to make people feel insecure. Their primary tactic in gaining clients is to create doubts about how, when, and why to do things. The lawyers as a class conspire to make people fear themselves and each other. They turn every action into a snare of possible negative consequences. Then, to feel good, you have to pay them money so that they can make sure you are "safe". The witchdoctors used to have this monopoly. Then, the priests captured it. Now the laywers have stolen the monopoly in our secular age. The man who creates fear and doubt in your mind and demands payment to alleviate it IS A CROOK. ALWAYS. THAT IS THE EXACT METHOD OF NON-VIOLENT CON MEN WHO PREY UPON THE GULLIBLE. ALWAYS. You got hit obviously with a huge hit of possible negative consequences, speculatively derived at, by someone who is heavily marketing....I will let you draw the remaining induction, trusting in your logical instincts. The man who creates knowledge for you and thus imparts the certainty which extinguishes fear, that is the honest man who is worth listening to. Men who meet each other in these terms, are "real". These are the people who get things done, who create the world. I hope you rest easier after reading this, Frank, we all deserve to sleep well at night. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 29 02:08:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA10001; Wed, 29 May 1996 02:05:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 02:05:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605290849.BAA07167@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 09:05 AM 5/26/96 -0700, you wrote: >Frank Znidarsic wrote: > >>Have any of you had the "pleasure" of talking to an anti-trust lawyer? I >>have, and it was not fun! I see a lot of messages with the E-Mail tags of >>various organizations posted here. I also know that some big money people >>are reading some of the messages that pass on this list. I'm working with >>some of them myself. Once the money starts flowing, and it will soon. Some >>very sharp lawyer will read the list and find that we were all in COLLLUSION. >[snip] >> >>Frank Znidarsic > >This is not collusion, it is a public forum. There is no price fixing, no >maket share gobbling, and most importantly, there is no secrecy. What >there is here is the synergy of communication, the power of the press >magnified by interactivity and short publication times. This is a new >social phenomenon, but not a precedent. Similar forums existed prior to >internet - conventions and publications. Conventions, though temporary and >less effective in many ways, have similar attributes, and are far more >amenable to collusion than this forum because much of what is said is >behind closed doors. If anti-trust were an issue here then conventions >would have been fair game for attorneys long ago. > >The beauty of internet is that it quickly puts information into the public >domain. No referees, no delays, just pure public information flow. This >can only contribute to the common good, nationally and internationally. >Fraud and quackery, and just plain blunders or bad ideas, are quickly >disposed of here. I think this is a public service also. As in the past, >many important ideas can be expected to come from amateurs and garage >experimenters. Generating interest in CF and helping this segement of the >population is another public service. > >If the earth is on it's way to becoming like Venus, then we have no time >for the methods of the past to find a solution. Every available source of >non-fossil fuel energy is eventually going to be needed. Children living >today can expect to see a 4-5 deg. C rise in earth mean temperature by >2050. This sounds trivial until you realize the consequences. Over a >billion people will starve due to loss of growing area and loss of sea >life. The US will be far more affected by the climatic change than many >other major countries, due to both global weather patterns and US energy >use. Entire countries, like Bangladesh, and major portions of many other >countries, will be under sea water. It will be impossible to get wind and >storm insurance because, due to increased sea temperature, hurricanes will >produce 250 mph plus winds, and existing high wind areas will become >uninhabitable. Storm surges will be capable of rolling miles inland. > >If anti-trust laws or patent laws inhibit energy source development then, >to the extent they do, they must be struck down, or at least resisted by >civil disobediance until they are. Since so many people seem to be >captivated by the idea of getting rich, it does not appear to me that the >laws have a net negative effect at this time. Besides, patent and >anti-trust law is a local phenomenon - ignored in many countries. Good >from the communication of this group will result in one place or another. >Let the medalling lawyers be damned. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > > Frank, here is a man who imparts knowledge. Didn't you learn more from this post than you ever did from the so-called anti-trust lawyer you say you talked to. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 29 02:47:56 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA12681; Wed, 29 May 1996 02:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 02:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: David Hildyard To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: Var. Reluctance. Experiment (text) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 28 May 1996, Scudder,Henry J wrote: >I think that you are ignoring phase angle. In a pure inductor the >voltage and current are 90 degrees out of phase. A realisable inductor has >resistance so the voltage and current are less then 90 degrees out >of phase. The power P = V*I*Cos(phase angle). If phase angle is >90 degrees, Cos(phase angle) = 0, and a pure inductor would >just store energy in half the electrical cycle and send it back the >other half. The heat losses in the windings >due to I*I*R force efficiencies less then 100%. Fair enough comment. But, wouldn't any IR losses cause the graph of input current vs gap distance to curve up instead of down as it seems to do? If energy is dissipated in the internal resistance of the input winding then we would need more input current than calculated to maintain the constant flux. If the graph curves down then this implies a negative resistance! Theory predicts a straight line relationship assuming negligible IR losses. > In a non-linear inductor, the wave forms are not sinusoidal >and more complicated analysis needs to be done Point taken, but my experiment shows that saturation is not necessary in order to produce the effect. Harold Aspden also indicated this. >Where are your over unity effects coming from? Thats what I would like to know! Thats one of the reasons for posting this experiment to see if someone can come up with an acceptable explanation Some theorise that it is coming from the vacuum energy of space itself. Others call it the ZPE. Until someone can offer a good explanation for this effect, it stands as a blatant violation of the conservation of energy laws. Happy experimenting, David. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 29 03:03:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA13591; Wed, 29 May 1996 02:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 02:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31ac1105.15902654@mail.netspace.net.au> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: rvanspaa@netspace.net.au (Robin van Spaandonk) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Var. Reluctance. Experiment (text) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Tue, 28 May 1996 00:54:42 -0700 (PDT), David Hildyard wrote: >Dear Vortexians, > >I dont know what happened to the include file. I dont have MIME. I cant >read it so I assume others cant as well. Never mind, here it is in plain >English. Good luck: I found a little program called "mime64" on the net, that runs under DOS, and decoded it for me. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Check out: http://www.inett.com/himac Man is the creature that comes into this world knowing everything, Learns all his life, And leaves knowing nothing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 29 11:37:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07485; Wed, 29 May 1996 11:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 11:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960529133157_544857902@emout18.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Puthoff@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Overunity Variable reluctance Expt X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: David Hildyard asked if I was familiar with Aspden's reluctance experiment. I'm not, so would appreciate any info. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 29 11:39:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07772; Wed, 29 May 1996 11:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 11:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960529133538_544860132@emout19.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Puthoff@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: bad X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Frank, it is true that standard QM represents QM systems in a multidimensional so-called Hilbert space, which tracks in ordinary 3D space only for a single particle, so this kind of criticism is mainstream. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 29 11:41:23 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA08206; Wed, 29 May 1996 11:35:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 11:35:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Multiple recipients of list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: David, To test your apparatus fully, you need to measure input and output energies to/from your system. To measure a variable reluctance motor, measure v(t) and i(t) into the motor, and measure torque T(t) and angular velocity w(t) out of the motor. Do an experiment where you start measuring your quantities just before you turn on the power, run for a while, turn off the power, let the motor stop, then stop measuring. The experiment can be done with a four channel A/D, with v(t) and i(t) occuping two channels with a torque/voltage transducer for T(t), and a tachometer for w(t) on the other two channels. Check your calibration carefully. The input energy is: Ein = Integral(v(t)*i(t)dt) the output energy: Eout = Integral(T(t)*w(t)dt) where you integrate over the duration of the whole experiment. If Eout/Ein > 1.0 then you really have something interesting going, write papers, get patents, etc. in a hurry. Anything less then a complete experiment of this type leaves open questions, and the unbelievers come running in. A thought experiment doesn't hack it. -Hank (I'm a skeptic, an engineer, not an unbeliever, it would be very nice if your machine works {:>)} From vortex-l@eskimo.com Wed May 29 11:44:09 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA08514; Wed, 29 May 1996 11:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 11:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: list ettiquette X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Michael Mandeville writes: > Unfortunately, practice is far >out-reaching our presumed norms. I suspect we are becoming a bit old >fashioned. You have to now assume that whatever you have out in digital >form is immortal and ultimately uncontrollable by you. We live now in a >digital glass house. Scary, huh? It's still a beautiful world, and an exciting time to live. I think much good will come of this glass house - a greenhouse inside a greenhouse, a place to grow ideas. I just wish I could spell words like "meddling". Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 01:23:39 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA01605; Thu, 30 May 1996 01:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 01:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I5AOBJZP1E8Y6VCB@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Lists X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: John Logajan wrote: >.............................................................b ut at least in the US, patent holders >have to bring actions to protect the patent, rather than it being automatically >enforced by the government agencies. Under normal circumstances, an individual infringement by the replication of patented intellectual property is not pursued by the owner. Patents are closer to copyrights than would appear. A patent pertains more to intellectual property than material property, the "how to". Since the first requirement of a patent is "new and useful" a monetary gain would be realized, by legal definition, by simple ownership of a new and useful device. Paranoia was not the intent of the original response to the post re: anti-trust law. The inventor usually does not care if others wish to experiment with his intellectual property and does not pursue legal recourse unless: 1. False or incorrect experimental results are published causing both real or consequential damages to the owner of the intellectual property. 2. "How to" books or articles are published regarding the intellectual property. 3. Replication for widespread use or sale. Patents are being enforced by the courts more now than at any other previous time. Large concerns have truly realized the financial benefits through the ownership of intellectual property. Joe Flynn From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 01:25:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA02707; Thu, 30 May 1996 01:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 01:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: David Hildyard To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Overunity Variable reluctance Expt X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 29 May 1996 Puthoff@aol.com wrote: > David Hildyard asked if I was familiar with Aspden's reluctance experiment. > I'm not, so would appreciate any info. > > Hal Puthoff > Hi Hal, If you are monitoring the list you may have seen my postings on "Var. Reluctance. Experiment". Also Tommy Aanderson posted the address for the full open letter to Donald A. Kelly as http://www.iinet.net.au/~steveb/ Also look at http://www.getnet.com/~beng/russell/philosophy/fulcrum.v3n2/udt.html I hope you wont be affended if I try to place your name. I think I have seen it on some research papers to do with free energy - was it IECAC? Perhaps you can fill me in, All the best. David Hildyard. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 01:27:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA03327; Thu, 30 May 1996 01:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 01:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: David Jonsson To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Jennison/Extraordinary Science X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Wed, 29 May 1996 Puthoff@aol.com wrote: > I have a Jennsion file, which includes discussion of mass being generated by > photons bouncing around in a box. Wouldn't it be physically identical to have the photons bouncing outside the box? This would make mass dependent on the environment (eventually the ZPE) and also transform the problem to an open system. David David Jonsson Phone +46-18-24 51 52 Fax +46-8-681 20 66 GSM +46-706-339487 E-mail david@bahnhof.se Uppsala, Sweden Web: http://bahnhof.se/~david Postgiro 499 40 54-7 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 09:17:40 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA10109; Thu, 30 May 1996 08:53:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 08:53:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <31ADB7BB.60C9@interlaced.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Francis J. Stenger" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Details: Var. Reluctance Motor Exp. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Tommy Andersson wrote: > > >Part of an open letter to Donald A. Kelly > > The whole letter can be fund at > http://www.iinet.net.au/~steveb/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > And a ou? transformer at > http://www.getnet.com/~beng/russell/philosophy/fulcrum.v3n2/udt.html > (please tell if this one works) > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > --------------------------------- > Tommy Andersson > tommy.andersson@mbox2.swipnet.se > --------------------------------- Re: The OU transformer. Transformer theory made my head hurt in school, but this letter put me to sleep right after 3 cups of coffee on a bright morning! Suggest someone (not me) build such a transformer and test the ratio of output/input using fast, phase-sensitive wattmeters on in and out power. I guess I have a problem with the phrase "free energy". If you think the sunlight falling on your home garden is free, thats nice. But, you should also consider the process you go through to put 5 lb of potatoes - out of that garden - onto your dinner table! I like the phrase, "clean energy" better. If CF works, it certainly will not be "free", but it may be much cleaner than burning fuels or fissioning U-238. I also bet that, when understood, CF will be in harmony with the conservation laws of Nature. A magnetic field is not magic. It is ONE form of energy. It has mass. It can carry momentum. It will not hand you a free-energy lunch - not in a transformer - not in a magic motor! If we can get energy out of water (CF, whatever), we don't need magic! Frank Stenger From billb@eskimo.com Thu May 30 06:41:56 1996 Received: from cluj.soroscj.ro (root@cluj.soroscj.ro [193.226.99.21]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA17750 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 06:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from itim.UUCP (root@localhost) by cluj.soroscj.ro (8.6.12/8.6.12) with UUCP id QAA15587 for vortex-l@mail.eskimo.com; Thu, 30 May 1996 16:44:50 +0200 Received: by itim.org.soroscj.ro (UUPC/extended 1.11x); Thu, 30 May 1996 16:34:39 GMT Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 16:34:33 GMT From: "Peter Glueck" Message-ID: <31adb1ff.itim@itim.org.soroscj.ro> To: "vortex" Cc: "Peter Glueck" Subject: One paper in C C. Status: RO X-Status: A single sonoluminescence paper in Current Contents no 22/1996: P H Roberts, C C Wu Structure and Stability of a Spherical Implosion. Physics Letters A 213: 1-2 (APR 15, 1996). (P H Roberts, Univ. California, Los Angeles, Dept of Mathematics. Confinement fusion is one of the keywords of this paper. Has somebody studied it? Peter -- dr. Peter Gluck Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology Fax:064-420042 Cluj-Napoca, str. Donath 65-103, P.O.Box 700 Tel:064-184037/144 Cluj 5, 3400 Romania E-mail: peter@itim.org.soroscj.ro , itimc@utcluj.ro From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 13:40:06 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA29790; Thu, 30 May 1996 13:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 13:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960530125958_206904808@emout19.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Puthoff@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Overunity Variable reluctance Expt X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Several papers on ero-point-energy (ZPE) lately, including one in Phys. Rev. E that shows that conservation of energy and thermodynamic constraints are not violated by extraction of energy from the vacuum (see Cole and Puthoff, Phys. Rev. E, "Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum, vol. 48, p. 1562, Aug. 1993). Recent work on deriving inertia and F = ma from underlying ZPE concepts: see Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff, "Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force," Phys. Rev A, vol 49, p. 678, Feb 1994. Also, thru my organization EarthTech Intern'l, Inc., we have evaluated a number of claimed over-unity devices brought to our lab; unfortunately none really worked. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 13:41:13 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA29925; Thu, 30 May 1996 13:35:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 13:35:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960530130219_206906190@emout08.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Puthoff@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Jennison/Extraordinary Science X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: David Jonsson said (re Jennison model): "Wouldn't it be physically identical to have the photons bouncing outside the box? This would make mass dependent on the environment (eventually the ZPE) and also transform the problem to an open system." Good idea, worth looking into; never thought about it that way, and the tie to ZPE might be there as you suggest. Hal Puthoff From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 13:41:21 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA00183; Thu, 30 May 1996 13:36:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 13:36:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605301819.OAA05737@ns1.ptd.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: revtec@postoffice.ptd.net (Jeff Fink) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: 1927 Quote X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >>To:Vortex >> Since no one responded to my 5-24-96 post I will assume that no one is familiar with these books. The first in this series of books is called " A Primer Of Rotational Physics. The second is "The Principals Of Energy". The balance of the series has not yet been written. The authors are Myrna M. Milani and Brian R. Smith and the publisher is Fain Shaw Press in Westmorland, NH. The authors define the basic entity from which all subatomic particles and thus all matter and energy are composed. Their work leads toward a unification theory although one is not put forth. Their perspective seems unique and perhaps should be looked at by someone with a knowlege of particle physics. I am a lowly BS AsE who graduated at the bottom of his class. I don't have the intellectual horsepower to evaluate or make use of their work. But there are at least a half dozen guys in this group who do. The most peculiar thing about these books is that the authors don't know anything about particle physics either. They claim to have written this stuff by automatic writing! To some this claim will label their work totally bogus, but others may be willing to look at it anyway. Jeff Fink >It seems to me that if there is no "ether" and no "field" then only one >logical possibility remains, to whit, that charged particles must interact >with each other via extensions of themselves, i.e. via their own quantum >wave functions. The quantum wave function for a charged particle must be >different from a neutral particle's quantum wave function. The only >requirement for an EM interaction is the spin, proximity and relative >velocity of two (or more) charged particles. This is the simplest model >because it has the smallest number of components. > > >Regards, > PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 >Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 > > >At the Cold Fusion Symposium on Jan 20, 1996 somebody was handing out free books on "rotational physics". What is said in these two books seems to be quite similar to the content of the above paragraph. Has anyone here read these books and do they make sense to anyone? In all of the Vortx L transcripts I have seen no reference to them. Jeff Fink From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 15:10:48 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA15363; Thu, 30 May 1996 15:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 15:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960530210652_72240.1256_EHB178-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: News from Hal Fox X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Hal Fox reports discouraging news about his thin film nickel cathodes. The cathodes load in about 4 hours maximum, and they produce excess heat for 2 to 8 hours, but then they die off mysteriously. Polyurethane is used in the cathode fabrication process. It is supposed to be flushed out, but Hal suspects trace amounts of it remain and it gradually leaches out during electrolysis and poisons the CF reaction. He says they are working to fix the problem "as fast as we can." - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 20:03:08 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA06652; Thu, 30 May 1996 19:54:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 19:54:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605310118.SAA13337@mom.hooked.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Russ George" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: One paper in C C. X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: The physics of implosions is well studied in the "black programs" in this country. Indeed I am in touch with several people using implosion codes to model the bubble collapse. More than a few of them expect to see classical hot fusion in the bubble. The problem is that in spite of extensive experiments to create this effect no neutrons (the signature they are looking for) are ever seen. I think one group may be seeing a very small number of neutrons less than one per hour, a very low rate, and I simply don't believe they have the background under that much control. Russ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 20:03:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA06757; Thu, 30 May 1996 19:55:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 19:55:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: David Hildyard To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Overunity Variable reluctance Expt X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: On Thu, 30 May 1996 Puthoff@aol.com wrote: > Phys. Rev. E, "Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum, vol. 48, p. 1562, > Aug. 1993). Recent work on deriving inertia and F = ma from underlying ZPE > Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff, "Inertia as a zero-point-field > Lorentz force," Phys. Rev A, vol 49, p. 678, Feb 1994. Thanks for these, I will see if can grab these papers tonight at uni when all is quiet. > we have evaluated a number of claimed > over-unity devices brought to our lab; unfortunately none really worked. This bothers me. Can you tell me what devices they were and where they fell down in the sums. Were you measuring for an anomoly (losses not taken into account) or were you strictly testing for Eout/Ein closed-system perfomance? I also note that those who responded to my posting of the inductor experiment didnt acltually attempt, as yet, to perform it. I will wait and see. Head exercises are fine to a point but generally lead to a "flat-earth" conclusion. All the best, David Hildyard. From vortex-l@eskimo.com Thu May 30 22:28:54 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA25823; Thu, 30 May 1996 22:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 22:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605310428.XAA18768@natashya.eden.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Scott Little To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: News from Hal Fox X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: At 03:06 PM 5/30/96 -0700, Jed wrote: >Hal Fox reports discouraging news about his thin film nickel cathodes. The >cathodes load in about 4 hours maximum, and they produce excess heat for 2 to >8 hours, but then they die off mysteriously. Even this performance would be quite interesting to me, Jed. I am presently sitting around waiting for something to test in my calorimeter that doesn't behave exactly like a resistor. - Scott Little EarthTech International, Suite 300, 4030 Braker Lane West, Austin TX 78759 512-346-1628 (voice) 512-346-3017 (FAX) little@eden.com (email) From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 03:53:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA11373; Fri, 31 May 1996 03:45:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 03:45:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Dieter Britz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: It's all done with mirrors X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: For all you SL and ZPE freaks: here is some good news and some bad. I'm going to put a Comments update into the relevant file on my web page soon but am too busy right now, so you get a sneak preview. In New Scientist May 4, page 13, there is an item about a forthcoming paper by one Claudia Eberlein (et al?) of the UK. She has done some theory work on the collapsing bubbles seen in SL. There has been speculation about the spectrum of light emitted from these, indicating tremendous temperatures, yay perhaps even enough to bring about hot fusion if there be deuterium. It may interest you to know that this has to do with the energy of the vacuum; that's the good news part (maybe). I have had it explained to me that if you move a mirror through space, the vacuum energy causes radiation to be emitted from that mirror. Maybe Hal Puthoff can fill us in on this. The bad news is that the spectrum of that radiation only mimicks high temperatures, i.e. we are wrong in interpreting it as black body radiation of a hot body. Therefore this effect is no good for hot fusion. Interestingly, Eberlein bases some of this theory on previous work by Schwinger. The mirror? Well, the inside wall of the bubble, moving in on itself. The piece says that all this is to appear in Physical Review Letters "next week", which has passed, so I'd better go and look at the new-stuff shelves over in Physics. Next week, when I am under less pressure than I am now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk | | Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. | | Telephone: +45-89423874 (8:30-17:00 weekdays); fax: +45-86196199 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 03:58:30 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA11454; Fri, 31 May 1996 03:46:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 03:46:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605310637.QAA05367@liszt.ph.unimelb.EDU.AU> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Martin Edmund Sevior To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: News from Hal Fox X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Scott Little wrote: > > At 03:06 PM 5/30/96 -0700, Jed wrote: > > >Hal Fox reports discouraging news about his thin film nickel cathodes. The > >cathodes load in about 4 hours maximum, and they produce excess heat for 2 to > >8 hours, but then they die off mysteriously. > > Even this performance would be quite interesting to me, Jed. I am presently > sitting around waiting for something to test in my calorimeter that doesn't > behave exactly like a resistor. > If Scott saw 4 - 8 hours of excess heat in both his flow and static calorimeters you could sign me up as a true believer! Martin Sevior From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 03:52:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA11487; Fri, 31 May 1996 03:46:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 03:46:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605310747.AAA30562@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Muller Magnetic Dynamo Bulletin X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN HUNTING FOR OVER UNITY Muller is willing and able to demonstrate his dynamo device OVER UNITY at any time to serious potential investors, licensees, and science analysts/reporters. They can test it on their own terms in any non-destructive way they desire to do. Any type of test equipment can be used and you are free to share the results in any manner you wish. The main hitch, Muller cannot travel and it is not sane nor practical to ship his test device. There is one restriction, namely, Muller is sensitive about the semi-conductors he has selected and their wiring. He does not want that information published, although the general concept has already been disclosed in the Technology Profile which is available on the web. For those of you have not read my posts about the Muller Dynamo, there is a very extensive briefing at: http://www.aa.net/~mwm/magnet/mmag2.html I would like to see some Vortex people take a serious look at this technology. I would like to see Scott Little and Hal Puthoff kick its tires. I would be very interesting to see Chris Tinsley have a go with it. I know that you and a lot of other people have had a lot of bad experiences with so-called inventors. I know that it is difficult to believe that the "pony" is in the field, even though there is an abundance of "horse puckies" lieing around. I wish I had some simple way to clearly convince you that this is in an entirely different class. Muller has profoundly good goods. I have seen over-unity apparently demonstrated, but I do not want you to consider my testimonial as relevent, because it is not. My role is just to point to where you who have been hunting for OU are very likely to find what you are looking for. I am a very skeptical man but I am convinced you will find the Muller Dynamo the type of breakthrough you would like to find. I have never gone out on a limb like this for something out of my control, but it is easy to do when you see a working model of a fundamentally new device, crafted expertly, humming sweetly in front of you. There is no "magic" about it, Jed Rothwell. It is 12 years of radical re-engineering of every concept and every material used in motor/generators. Muller took Farraday at his word and found a way to use back emf. My way of understanding it is that he did it by creating a reverse magnetic mirror in the structure and wiring (Muller does not use these terms). Only the semiconductor switching capability made available during the past three years has enabled Muller to balance all phases and make ou work. How can we make it possible for you to look at this? One thing which will no doubt help is that I can arrange for you to speak directly with Bill Muller. There are a lot of hobbyists who want to talk with him, but my role is to screen them out at this point. We are all too much on the thin edge to feel comfortable about spending time in a purely educational capacity at this time. But we will open the doors to those who can in some way, anyway (this is not a pitch for money) help Muller, very broke in Canada, in gaining the next stage of acceptance. I will relay his phone number to you, which is unlisted, if you would like to talk with him and are willing to keep his number private. Please look at the bio material on Muller at his website. He knows what he is talking about. Steven Phillips, one of Muller's non-technical partners, will be in Southern California and Arizona during the first three weeks of June. If you would like to discuss Muller Magnetic, Phil has known Muller for about 12 years. I will be out in Houston most of next week visiting Apollo Engineering related to a different project (chemical specialties) and I could be available in that locale. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From billb@eskimo.com Fri May 31 06:13:41 1996 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA00874 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 06:13:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id JAA26910; Fri, 31 May 1996 09:13:04 -0400 Date: 31 May 96 09:11:41 EDT From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> To: Vortex Subject: News from Hal Fox Message-ID: <960531131141_72240.1256_EHB158-2@CompuServe.COM> Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Scott Little writes: "Even this performance would be quite interesting to me, Jed. I am presently sitting around waiting for something to test in my calorimeter that doesn't behave exactly like a resistor." Okay, so call Hal and ask him if he has any of the faulty material he can spare. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 06:33:37 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA02363; Fri, 31 May 1996 06:22:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 06:22:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19960531080132.368fb006@world.std.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Mitchell Swartz To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Muller Magnetic Dynamo Bulletin X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: have looked at the site, and there is no data at that location or at the links therein. this appears to be a coupled rotational magnetic system. is that correct? is a paper out on this? or is there a web site address where the data might be? please email me the data/info if it is available that way. thanks. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com) -------------------------------------------- At 03:46 AM 5/31/96 -0700, you wrote: >TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN HUNTING FOR OVER UNITY > >(zip) >For those of you have not read my posts about the Muller Dynamo, there is a >very extensive briefing at: > >http://www.aa.net/~mwm/magnet/mmag2.html > >I would like to see some Vortex people take a serious look at this >technology. I would like to see Scott Little and Hal Puthoff kick its >tires. I would be very interesting to see Chris Tinsley have a go with it. >I know that you and a lot of other people have had a lot of bad experiences >with so-called inventors. I know that it is difficult to believe that the >"pony" is in the field, even though there is an abundance of "horse puckies" >lieing around. I wish I had some simple way to clearly convince you that >this is in an entirely different class. Muller has profoundly good goods. >I have seen over-unity apparently demonstrated, but I do not want you to >consider my testimonial as relevent, because it is not. My role is just to >point to where you who have been hunting for OU are very likely to find what >you are looking for. I am a very skeptical man but I am convinced you will >find the Muller Dynamo the type of breakthrough you would like to find. I >have never gone out on a limb like this for something out of my control, but >it is easy to do when you see a working model of a fundamentally new device, >crafted expertly, humming sweetly in front of you. > >There is no "magic" about it (zip) >____________________________________ >MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing >Michael Mandeville, publisher >mwm@aa.net >http://www.aa.net/~mwm > > From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 06:42:46 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA02497; Fri, 31 May 1996 06:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 06:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960531131131_72240.1256_EHB158-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: It's all done with mirrors X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Dieter writes about the Eberlein paper: "The bad news is that the spectrum of that radiation only mimics high temperatures, i.e. we are wrong in interpreting it as black body radiation of a hot body." This subject is way over my head, but I note that an ICCF5 paper made a similar claim. It is: T. V. Prevenslik, "Biological Effects of Ultrasonic Cavitation," Proc. ICCF5, p. 539 Many people at the conference told me this was one of the best papers, including Fleischmann and Morrison, who seldom agree about anything. As I said, it is too technical for me, but I guess I can rev up the ol' scanner here and capture the Abstract for you physics aficionados: "Cavitation energy in a nearly evacuated bubble is shown to *not likely* reside in the thermal state of the water molecule. In a spherical bubble compression and until the bubble assumes a pancake collapse shape, a temperature increase does not occur in the bubble gas because the mean free path likely exceeds the bubble diameter. The subsequent collapse of the pancake shape to liquid density occurs with only a negligible volume change so that the temperature increase for compression heating of bubble gases is insignificant. Even near liquid density, a temperature increase does not occur as the energy transfer by molecular collisions is in the adiabatic limit for both vibrational and rotational modes. Instead, the IR radiation energy density present within the bubble is increased as required to satisfy standing wave boundary conditions with the bubble walls in the direction of collapse. For biological tissue in an opaque environment, bubble collapse is found to increase the 5-10 [micro]m IR thermal radiation at ambient temperature to about 3-5 eV that is capable of dissociating the water molecule and forming the chemically reactive hydroxyl radical. Hence, the biological effects of ultrasonic cavitation are proposed to be caused by the chemical reaction of the organisms with the excited electronic states of dissolved oxygen and water molecules." - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 08:15:32 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA20532; Fri, 31 May 1996 08:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 08:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960531132740_100433.1541_BHG102-2@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Chris Tinsley <100433.1541@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Fox, Muller X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Regarding the Fox cell, I should point out that Jed appears to have slipped up. The load time (which would be, one imagines, the longer 'initial load') is correct at four hours, but the cell appears to poison itself (or whatever) only TWO hours after the xs is reported. However, the ratio reported by HAl is pretty good - he gives it as 10:1 or even 15:1. On the matter of the Muller work, Michael Mandeville paints quite an encouraging picture of this work. If I were free to do so (read MONEY) I would certainly like to check it out, it would be quite high on my list. Chris PS Could I express my appreciation for the parrot/chicken joke. It's always nice to have a few jokes which are repeatable in polite company - not that I am often in polite company.... From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 08:18:15 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA20693; Fri, 31 May 1996 08:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 08:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <9605311427.AA3066@worldcom-47.worldcom.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Ray Conley To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: US Patent Office Response to an Application X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I just received a communication from the US Patent Office regarding my application. Unfortunately, it is a final action unless I can find a way to convince them otherwise. I thought the group would be interested in the content of the rejection and may have some suggestions for the rebuttal. All assistance would be greatly appreciated. Ray Conley 404-335-3776 The following are quotes taken from the communication: " Applicants arguments are unpersuasive. Upon reading applicants claims in light of the disclosure, it is apparent that applicants invention is a method of producing thermal energy in a cold fusion system. The specification on pages 3 and 4 for example, indicates that applicants invention is a method and apparatus for potential commercial scale-up and use of "cold fusion" systems...Thus, in determining whether or not applicants disclosure is sufficient and enabling, it is necessary to determine whether or not such "cold fusion" systems actually are not operative and, that the alleged showings of excess heat produced in such cold fusion systems are not valid in view of experimental errors, etc. It remains the examiner's position that there is no reputable evidence of record to support any allegations or claims that in such systems, the production of "excess heat" or of the generation of energy, due to nuclear and/or chemical reactions are valid and reproducible, nor that the invention as disclosed is capable of operating as indicated and capable of providing a useful output (including producing enough heat to be useful commercially)." "For a discussion of errors arising in cold fusion tests or experiments, note for example, the book, "Too Hot To Handle", by Frank Close." this is followed by a quote from the book about how the DOE panel noticed many errors in the experimental work back in the early days "It remains the examiner's position that an undue amount of experimentation would be required to produce an operative embodiment of applicants invention. the examiner has cited numerous documents showing that experimenters have obtained negative results using various types of cold fusion apparatuses, all based on the cold fusion concept set forth by F and P." in other words, it doesn't matter how much experimental evidence I provide, it won't be enough to change his mind. "To explain the null experiments there is one theory--the conventional theory of Quantum Mechanics, but that are a wide variety of theories to explain positive Cold Fusion results-can they all be valid simultaneously-if not, which should be rejected?" (I left his incorrect grammar intact) So much for arguing the point based on theories like Randell Mills' hydrocatalysis He goes on to reference work from Huizenga and state, "These references provide further clear evidence that no excess heat is generate in such 'cold fusion' systems no is there any evidence of nuclear reactions taking place." From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 08:13:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA20745; Fri, 31 May 1996 08:07:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 08:07:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960531105925_404484107@emout15.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Puthoff@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Overunity Variable reluctance Expt X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: David, Looked for Eout/Ein for closed systems (e.g., computer-automated calorimetry, or in the case of water cavitation devices electrical in, mechanical in with a cradle dynamometer, and heat out in calorimetry). Devices included a plasma device a la Chernetskii, the MRA (magnetic resonance amplifier), an orgone accumulator, the Potapov water-cavitation device, a Morriss-Tinsley magnetic motor, our own version of the Patterson cell made with our own beads, and anoather device can't disclose because of a nondisclosure agreement. Hal From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 11:30:33 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA12690; Fri, 31 May 1996 11:21:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 11:21:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: "Scudder,Henry J" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: Muller Magnetic Dynamo Bulletin X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Michael I looked at your posting the other day, and sent you a e-mail, which you probably did not get since you did not answer. I will be in Idaho on a river trip in late June, and could drive up to British Columbia after the trip. I can bring an oscilloscope and voltmeters with me to test the device. I just rechecked the web site posting, and there is no information available about the device, about their tests. It seems there was more information available earlier then there is now. What goes? I live in LA, and would be happy to talk with Stephen Phillips when he is here, and or Bill Muller directly. Hank Scudder ---------- >From: Michael Mandeville >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: Muller Magnetic Dynamo Bulletin >Date: Friday, May 31, 1996 3:46AM >TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN HUNTING FOR OVER UNITY >Muller is willing and able to demonstrate his dynamo device OVER UNITY at >any time to serious potential investors, licensees, and science >analysts/reporters. They can test it on their own terms in any http://www.aa.net/~mwm/magnet/mmag2.html I would like to see some Vortex people take a serious look at this technology. I would like to see Scott Little and Hal Puthoff kick its tires. I would be very interesting to see Chris Tinsley have a go with it. I know that you and a lot of other people have had a lot of bad experiences with so-called inventors. I know that it is difficult to believe that the "pony" is in the field, even though there is an abundance of "horse puckies" lieing around. I wish I had some simple way to clearly convince you that this is in an entirely different class. Muller has profoundly good goods. I have seen over-unity apparently demonstrated, but I do not want you to consider my testimonial as relevent, because it is not. My role is just to point to where you who have been hunting for OU are very likely to find what you are looking for. I am a very skeptical man but I am convinced you will find the Muller Dynamo the type of breakthrough you would like to find. I have never gone out on a limb like this for something out of my control, but it is easy to do when you see a working model of a fundamentally new device, crafted expertly, humming sweetly in front of you. There is no "magic" about it, Jed Rothwell. It is 12 years of radical re-engineering of every concept and every material used in motor/generators. Muller took Farraday at his word and found a way to use back emf. My way of understanding it is that he did it by creating a reverse magnetic mirror in the structure and wiring (Muller does not use these terms). Only the semiconductor switching capability made available during the past three years has enabled Muller to balance all phases and make ou work. How can we make it possible for you to look at this? One thing which will no doubt help is that I can arrange for you to speak directly with Bill Muller. There are a lot of hobbyists who want to talk with him, but my role is to screen them out at this point. We are all too much on the thin edge to feel comfortable about spending time in a purely educational capacity at this time. But we will open the doors to those who can in some way, anyway (this is not a pitch for money) help Muller, very broke in Canada, in gaining the next stage of acceptance. I will relay his phone number to you, which is unlisted, if you would like to talk with him and are willing to keep his number private. Please look at the bio material on Muller at his website. He knows what he is talking about. Steven Phillips, one of Muller's non-technical partners, will be in Southern California and Arizona during the first three weeks of June. If you would like to discuss Muller Magnetic, Phil has known Muller for about 12 years. I will be out in Houston most of next week visiting Apollo Engineering related to a different project (chemical specialties) and I could be available in that locale. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 11:30:49 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA13454; Fri, 31 May 1996 11:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 11:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: hheffner@anc.ak.net (Horace Heffner) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: US Patent Office Response to an Application X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: > I just received a communication from the US Patent Office regarding my >application. Unfortunately, it is a final action unless I can find a way to >convince them otherwise. I thought the group would be interested in the >content of the rejection and may have some suggestions for the rebuttal. All >assistance would be greatly appreciated. > >Ray Conley >404-335-3776 > Did you do any positive results experiments and if so did you publish the results and do you still have the apparatus? Regards, PO Box 325 Palmer, AK 99645 Horace Heffner 907-746-0820 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 21:23:05 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01045; Fri, 31 May 1996 21:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 21:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960531190554_72240.1256_EHB203-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Fox, news from Sri Lanka X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Chris says Hal's cells are running only 2 hours or so. I thought that earlier Hal told me they sometimes go all day. Maybe performance is getting worse . . . Anyway, something is poisoning it. That is a common problem in CF, alas. A month ago they thought there was oil getting into the electrolyte from the pump. Now they think it is something left behind during fabrication. I suppose they would be making more progress if they had more people working on the problem, so I hope Scott and others can get hold of the stuff even if it only warms up for a few hours. Arthur Clarke says the electricity has gone off in all of Sri Lanka. He writes: "Situation here desperate - NO ELECTRICITY FOR 72 HOURS IN WHOLE COUNTRY! - luckily we have diesel backup...but don't know how long it will last. WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH INFINITE ENERGY, FOR HEAVEN'S NAME? Tell them to hurry up!" Of course, he knows as well as anyone that the CF is still a laboratory curiosity at best. He is not serious. But his underlying message is serious, and I wish the CF scientists would take it to heart, and develop a sense of urgency. The world does desperately need CF or some other form of energy-dense, zero-fuel-cost energy. Electric power distribution grids are too expensive for the third world, and for war-torn countries like Sri Lanka. In developed countries, we look at CF as a potentially attractive alternative to what we have, but most people in the world have *nothing* -- no alternatives and no energy -- and they never will have anything unless it is CF. I do not think alternatives like solar or wind can meet the needs of the third world because they call for a distribution network or local storage as a first step, and even that first step is too expensive. (The same is true of wire or fiber optic telecommunications.) People in the third world use mostly biomass today, with disastrous results. I have studied the engineering and economics of these systems. They look to me like wonderfully clever tour de force engineering pushed to the limits. I recommend a thick book titled "Renewable Energy -- Sources for Fuels and Electricity," (Island Press, 1992), 1160 pages (!). This was part of the proceedings of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 21:28:53 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01415; Fri, 31 May 1996 21:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 21:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960531211511_72240.1256_EHB163-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: US Patent Office Response to an Applicat X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: To: Vortex Ray Conley's exchange with the Patent Office shows why it is a waste of time trying to deal with the establishment. The Patent Office, the DoE, Nature magazine and the others are stuck in a time warp. They have read Frank Close and John Huizenga, and they will NEVER read anything else. There is no point to referring them to publications from EPRI or IMRA. These institutions suffer from a form of amnesia described in the book by Oliver Sacks, "The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat." They remember only the past. You could spend an hour these people every day for years but they will never remember you. You leave the room for five minutes, come back, and they will swear they have never seen you before. Ray writes: "I just received a communication from the US Patent Office regarding my application. Unfortunately, it is a final action unless I can find a way to convince them otherwise." It is not the final action. The final action will come when we all die and cold fusion dies with us, or when Congress or the President overrules the Patent office. No, you will never overcome them by following the rules, filling in forms, filing appeals and waiting in line. That is a foolish waste of time. You must ignite a revolution. You must overthrow established physics first, and then come back months or years later to demand justice from the government. The government -- not the Patent Office. This is a political battle. In a democracy the only way to win a political battle is to mobilize public opinion. And the only way to mobilize public opinion is to go public, get into the newspapers, advertise, sell, promote, give away free samples, publish, go on television, shout, demand, play your advantages to the hilt, manipulate the press and promise the moon. Learn from history! How do you think Edison sold the world on his inventions? He used all of those tactics and more to promote his inventions. He was a great inventor and a great salesman, and he needed both skills to succeed. How do you think people built the transcontinental railroad? By following the rules? Heck no! They bribed the Congress with $25 million dollars (that's 1860 dollars, worth billions today). And they borrowed more money from their customers than the S&Ls did 120 years later, so that if they had failed they would have dragged down dozens of manufacturers and U.S. economy would have gone into a tailspin. And don't think it can't be done. If you have a viable product and you are willing to promote it like a sane businessman, I can get you on ABC and Chris can get you into the British Ministry of Defense and Lots of Other Places. Just do what has to be done to establish credibility. As long as this effort is limited to filling in forms, waiting hat in hand at the Patent Office, and publishing mousy little papers in academic journals that nobody reads, CF will not have a snowball's chance in hell. Suing Italian newspapers is also crazy. How many votes do the Italian judges control? How much influence do they have in Congress? None! Here is what you want: fifty million angry voters DEMANDING that cold fusion be licensed, patented and developed with the urgency of the Manhattan Project or the space race. Better yet (better by far!) you want a thousand corporations begging you for sample products and shoving purchase orders in your face. That does not take a patent. IBM had no patent for their Personal Computers in 1982. They couldn't make 'em fast enough. First kick ass, then take names, then when you have a gigantic constituency lined up behind you, thousands of customers and the mass media on your side, the Patent Office will roll over and play dead. They will do whatever you tell them to do. - Jed From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 21:27:38 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01488; Fri, 31 May 1996 21:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 21:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960531175808_207925077@emout14.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Muller Magnetic Dynamo Bulletin X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Michael, where does Muller live? How far is it from Western Pa. If its nearby perhaps I could drive up and give it a preliminary test. Does it run itself? Does it have batteries or does it need an infusion of power every few minutes to keep spinning. If it spins by itself for a few hours in air without stopping it would say it is getting energy from somewhere. Frank Znidarsic From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 21:29:25 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01553; Fri, 31 May 1996 21:21:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 21:21:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960531180806_207932247@emout08.mail.aol.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: FZNIDARSIC@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: never mind X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: I see Brit Columbia is on the other end of the map. Bill B. is it near you? Do you know someone in the area who could give it a quick once over for us. Frank Z From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 21:28:44 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01630; Fri, 31 May 1996 21:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 21:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <01I5D9F2ALLE8Y5GNX@delphi.com> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: JOEFLYNN@delphi.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Muller Magnetic Dynamo Bulletin X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: >Only the semiconductor switching capability made available during the >past three years has enabled Muller to balance all phases and make ou >work. Would be interested to know what new semiconductor switches have become available in the last three years? Joe Flynn Flynn Research Inc. P.O. Box 11657 Kansas City, Mo. 64138 From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 21:29:45 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01720; Fri, 31 May 1996 21:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 21:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199606010240.TAA27366@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Muller Magnetic Dynamo Bulletin #2 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Concerning the output characteristics of the Muller Dynamo and its "Free Run" ability: For the test concept model only Pin=1 Pout=2 Free Run is possible Potential Theoretical Pout=1 Pout=10 90% use of the stored, static energy in supermagnets may be convertible into rotary torque or juice, or any combination of the two. I posted this data about the output of the Muller Dynamo to a couple of people and now am being asked by several more so I am posting this information to the entire list. There are a couple of practical issues to resolve but they are not unresolvable. The biggest practical problem is that Muller built such a damn big test unit that he can't afford the expense at this point of a suitable storage/buffer medium (batteries can be used but create ambiguities so a capacitor bank is ideal because it can be precisely calibrated)through which to recycle his output. Muller is an old mining electrician and thinks in terms of hundreds and thousands of amps. His 450 hp unit is equivilent to 300 kw output, which is a lot of output and buffering of that is pretty expensive. There is a simple, cheap way around that, which is to forget about isolated output and just go for simple Pin/Pout, using any technique people want to fuss with, and of course also measuring the shaft power output, that is, put a mechanical load on it. The essence is very very simple. The dynamo is extremely efficient, very close to 100%, let's say 98%, so its unloaded operation requires very little net energy. All the load energy which is supplied comes directly from the stored energy in the supermagnets. Like the hydraulic power of the water cycle, you never use it up (ignoring the long term wear and tear). Pretty damn nifty. Since Faraday, nobody could figure out how to use magnetic energy to do that in a self-sustaining machine. The concept seemed to contradict itself in actual operation. Only supermagnets and super silicon switches make it possible, along with a more sophisticated use of the magnetic and paramagnetic (very important) properties of the elements to create such better over-all efficiency that you can actually harness most of the static power in the magnets. There are no complex abstruse theories needed to explain any of it but the net result is a true classic magnetic dynamo of a fundamental nature, in the same way that the Farraday, Tesla, and Westinghouse machines each defined a fundamental class. I having said all of this, here is what Muller says: he can demo the thing at 2000 rpm, switching at approx. 300 cps, drawing 900 watts dc or ac approximately to output 1800 watts of dc energy . This he determines by using simple scope monitoring, VTMS, and simple hall effect current (power) measuring devices. He claims that there is no reactive power factor at all. Well, hmmm. I have personally held and seen the meter readings with the output driven directly into a simple resistive load (a bank of 500 watt spotlights). I cannot personally vouchsafe the power factor question. To test the device, a highly controllable variable input power system is needed to keep its output throttled down. Then, a buffering system needs to capture the restricted output (ideal is a capacitor bank, but unfortunately these are a lot more expensive than batteries) and after powering up and charging up, the system should free run. Buffering the output for feedback is the issue. The capacitors need to handle 4000 watts at 200 volts, just to be safe and run no risk of burning them out. That's a lot of capacitance. Batteries can be used, but you would have to test and calibrate them and diddle with decisions like do you use them fully charged or do you use them partially discharged, etc, and then let the dynamo run for quite some time to get a good feeling about the result. Capacitors make it so clean, quick, and decisive. Muller didn't spend money on that because he didn't feel he needed to to prove his concepts through free run. He felft the measurements alone would be sufficient. But everyone wants it to free run to be convinced. Okay, but Muller is out of money and I don''t personally have much liquidity just at this moment. My partner and I are already sending him small checks to pay the rent. Now the output, if corroborated and defined by x number of people, will in no way define the actual performance of the dynamo concept, properly prototyped. That is one reason why I did not use numbers in the "Technology Profile". Numbers get used indiscriminately. Bad stuff gets immortalized too easily. The output from the test model is just what you get from the test model under a certain load and wiring configuration, in this case, expect Pin=1, Pout=2 (approximately close) >From calcuations of magnetic field densities which are now obtainable with super magnets in a properly engineered prototype which complete the magnetic circuits which were left open in the test model for ease of experimentation, Muller 1:10 is possible, if so, it means that around 90% of the magnetic energy in the supermagnets can be converted into torque or juice or a bit of both (which makes this so damn magical, and the perfect solution for electrical vehicles, even if it didn't operate over unity). NOW PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A SPECIFIC CLAIM. THIS IS A BELIEF ABOUT POSSIBLE OBTAINABLE RESULT WITH A BETTER ENGINEERED UNIT. Now having dealt with the over unity issue, let me add, that even if the thing didn't operate over unity, it has enormous application potential. An infinitely variable speed motor/generator with the ability to operate at a wide range of voltage and load levels, 1/4th the weight of existing technology...don't lose sight of that. There is the candidly defined situation as straightly as I am able to do it. Do with it what you will...A couple of guys have expressed interest in dropping in to test it. I am also being offered some help to get the thing moved and properly tested. My candidate for testing is Scott Little and Hal Puthoff at the Arizona shop, they deserve a good result. So the whole thing may be picked up and moved...if if if I can convince Muller to do it and there is enough resource. I will be in Houston during the first week in June related to some other business but I will be back in my computer saddle by the 10th. We can communicate further from that point on. P.S. I can absolutely guarantee under pain of any penalty that Muller is no Newman. There is not even the remotest connection or simularity in technology, concepts, or personality. You will like Muller, if you can accept that he is not a theoretical physicist and does not present his case like one. But, he is highly educated on the subject and can show you how he is applying the concepts of Farraday, Lorentz, Lentz, Ampere, Telsa, etc. He is an amazing guy who takes his stuff straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. The main problem is following his familiar and rapid fire use of these principles to explain what he is doing. You have to know your stuff to follow him, and frankly, I am only partially following him at this point. I wish he liked using computers, but he does not type and shows no interest at all in peronally using this form of communication. But, he is intrigued by the idea of connecting his technology to the right people through the internet. He is all ears, believe me. ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Fri May 31 21:30:14 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01781; Fri, 31 May 1996 21:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 21:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199606010241.TAA27559@big.aa.net> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Michael Mandeville To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: US Patent Office Response to an Application X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Translation of stuff below: You have to realize that US Patent Office officially does not process "cold fusion" because it is "impossible", contrary to the laws of nature, you dumb fool. They are probably especially sensitive to "thermal effects" since Patterson played them for the collective bunch of fools they are. Dear Ray: suggest you think strongly about withdrawing the patent entirely and starting all over. Since you did submit it, they have legal record of your priority of claims whatever they may be. Let that be for the time being. Now then, if you can afford the time and expense, see if you can patent abroad. Canada is close, Europe not so far. Amsterdam is very pleasant I understand this time of year...but Canada may be the most practical. Frankly, patenting is a monstrous consumer of resources, can't you get something going on a license deal with someone before undertaking another patent application? BTW there is a poor man's patent, a registry where you can have a disclosure notorized and filed way in a safe in one of several US offices around the country. The purpose of it is to establish priority of a claim prior to actually submitting a patent. It is a good way to get a lock on the concept before you start talking to people in industry. At 08:07 AM 5/31/96 -0700, you wrote: > I just received a communication from the US Patent Office regarding my >application. Unfortunately, it is a final action unless I can find a way to >convince them otherwise. I thought the group would be interested in the >content of the rejection and may have some suggestions for the rebuttal. All >assistance would be greatly appreciated. > >Ray Conley >404-335-3776 > > The following are quotes taken from the communication: > >" Applicants arguments are unpersuasive. Upon reading applicants claims in >light of the disclosure, it is apparent that applicants invention is a method >of producing thermal energy in a cold fusion system. The specification on >pages 3 and 4 for example, indicates that applicants invention is a method and >apparatus for potential commercial scale-up and use of "cold fusion" >systems...Thus, in determining whether or not applicants disclosure is >sufficient and enabling, it is necessary to determine whether or not such "cold >fusion" systems actually are not operative and, that the alleged showings of >excess heat produced in such cold fusion systems are not valid in view of >experimental errors, etc. >It remains the examiner's position that there is no reputable evidence of >record to support any allegations or claims that in such systems, the >production of "excess heat" or of the generation of energy, due to nuclear >and/or chemical reactions are valid and reproducible, nor that the invention as >disclosed is capable of operating as indicated and capable of providing a >useful output (including producing enough heat to be useful commercially)." > >"For a discussion of errors arising in cold fusion tests or experiments, note >for example, the book, "Too Hot To Handle", by Frank Close." this is followed >by a quote from the book about how the DOE panel noticed many errors in the >experimental work back in the early days > >"It remains the examiner's position that an undue amount of experimentation >would be required to produce an operative embodiment of applicants invention. >the examiner has cited numerous documents showing that experimenters have >obtained negative results using various types of cold fusion apparatuses, all >based on the cold fusion concept set forth by F and P." in other words, it >doesn't matter how much experimental evidence I provide, it won't be enough to >change his mind. > >"To explain the null experiments there is one theory--the conventional theory >of Quantum Mechanics, but that are a wide variety of theories to explain >positive Cold Fusion results-can they all be valid simultaneously-if not, which >should be rejected?" (I left his incorrect grammar intact) So much for >arguing the point based on theories like Randell Mills' hydrocatalysis > >He goes on to reference work from Huizenga and state, "These references provide >further clear evidence that no excess heat is generate in such 'cold fusion' >systems no is there any evidence of nuclear reactions taking place." > > > ____________________________________ MetaSyn Media, electronic publishing Michael Mandeville, publisher mwm@aa.net http://www.aa.net/~mwm From vortex-l@eskimo.com Sat Jun 1 20:23:52 1996 Received: from mail (server@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eskimo.com (8.7.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA01122; Sat, 1 Jun 1996 20:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 20:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <960601075719_100060.173_JHB64-1@CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Originator: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l@eskimo.com Precedence: bulk From: Norman Horwood <100060.173@compuserve.com> To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Muller Magnetic Dynamo Bulletin #2 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Status: RO X-Status: Michael, Your description of the Muller m/c seems to be identical with the Takahashi motor/gen which Chris T. and I inspected some months ago. The difference seems to be only that of size. I was expecting the Tak. outfit to publish and demo their thing last April but things seem to have stalled there. There seems to be an ongoing pattern to all this stuff - great news of absolute ou - promises of demo - run out of cash - black death. Jed is right!!! Norman