Re: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
Thomas malloy wrote ( about junkscience.com):- Steve is offering $100,000 to anyone who can prove that anthropogenic global warming is real, and that it's deleterious consequences outweigh the benefits. Since it's impossible to prove either one, the prize is of no consequence. What just about everybody seems to miss on both sides of the argument, both global warming deniers and climate change scientists alike, is that the REAL idea that needs ramming down people's throats is that those who think things will be OK, that global warming is not a threat, have to absolutely PROVE it - it is not necessary for the Green lobby and the climate change scientists to have to prove that climate change definitely will occur due to man's fossil fuel emissions, they only have to establish that it probably will (which has been done). Everybody seems take it as read that the whole argument is down to the scientists and their varying opposed opinions. There is something beyond, and even greater, than what passes as scientific opinion these days - this something is raw logic and where we have a situation with an uncertain outcome, where we do not have enough knowledge or experience to be able to definitely predict what will happen, and the analysis of the situation suggests that there is a possibility of disrupting a stable climate with enormous long term consequences for humans and all the other life on Earth, then that chance MUST NOT be taken. It is up to the deniers to PROVE that there is no such danger (which is impossible) - the junkscience.com challenge is a ghastly perversion of wise thinking. Nick Palmer
[Vo]:regardless of global warming, national security demands the same remedies
Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What just about everybody seems to miss on both sides of the argument, both global warming deniers and climate change scientists alike ... Hi All, Whatever the merits of the above arguments, the real problem is national security. Do you want your grandchildren drafted to fight in th Kazakh War of 2020? If the Russians are willing to claim the oil from their north shore to the North Pole, they will certainly do whatever is necessary to maintain their control of the oil of Central Asia, as evidenced by the failure of Unocal to build a pipeline from Kazakhstan across Afghanistan to the port of Karachi in Pakistan. Certain measures to reduce oil consumption (which do not include ethanol and hydrogen production) will to some extent free us from domination by the Oil Gang, in particular individuals driving plug-in hybrids. This is something we can do now, and has the same effect as working to reduce global warming, especially wind power etc., oilgae diesel fuel to replace gasoline, etc. Jack Smith P.S. The Russians have never rehabiltated Kondratieff, and they must be baffled by the benefits to us of the current trough war in Iraq -- how can the U. S. budget deficit actually be declining while Oil Gang revenues reach record levels? The Russians aren't any smarter than we are, which is frightening.
[Vo]:Just Fiction?
Covered on a number of sites and the national news; http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/19142/?a=f A flashlight that appears to work through the visual cortex and causes a disruption in the brain. Not to surprising when I look back many years when experiments were done using LF created by ceiling mounted coils in the test rooms. At just the correct frequency test subjects experienced such things as increased aggressiveness to vertigo and up chucking. It is fairly well understood that light in many forms has a great effect on the biological system. Numerous papers exist on how the loss of or extended periods of light and how the body can be affected. Anyone that travels into significantly different time zones has experienced the problem, at least at the biological level to some maybe undetectable degree. Experimentation on trying to re-synchronize the body clock with adjustable periods and cycling of light is well documented. The effect of light on micro organisms is very marked in many species (excluding UV) and looking at Red and Blue, constant and pulsed. I have performed many experiments on cultures in this way and fully appreciate the potential effects, good and bad. So now some fictional thinking, or dreaming. Looking at light as having a frequency and thinking the body and every cell within it radiates energy (containing a frequency) and many non-linear factors are present, could one think that a heterodyning could be possible with external light stimulation and certain radiation of the body? If so carry the fiction a bit further and capture the radiation from the body (mirror for example) and vibrate that mirror, direction the energy back onto the radiating organism. What's the point? Disruption or Healing, I don't know, yet it will have an affect. Could this be the next weapon or healing tool? Of course my vision is very simple, yet knowing that light alone and EM alone at LF can cause physiological changes (maybe just short term) would it not be worth looking deeper (all you Black Labs wake up)? It could be as simple as a mirror to start with. Maybe the next Radar will ID a plane by its paint job? Just a side quip.
[Vo]:IAEA reports on Kashiwazaki reactor damage
The damage appears to be less than initially expected. See: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2007/prn200716.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
Nick Palmer wrote: [If] . . . the analysis of the situation suggests that there is a possibility of disrupting a stable climate with enormous long term consequences for humans and all the other life on Earth, then that chance MUST NOT be taken. It is up to the deniers to PROVE that there is no such danger (which is impossible) . . . While I agree completely in the case of global warming, this standard cannot be applied to all conceivable risks. In some cases (other than global warming) the risk is exceedingly small, or the methods of preventing the risk are too expensive, or the methods themselves are likely to cause more damage than they might prevent. Some examples: Cold fusion might lead to very cheap, easily made weapons of mass destruction. I think this danger is real, and at present it is impossible to prove there is no danger, but I do not think it would be wise to ban research on cold fusion because of this. Recombinant DNA research, mammal cloning. Same as cold fusion. Uranium fission reactors. Obviously dangerous, as there have been several serious accidents in the U.S., but far less dangerous than coal. We should continue to build and use these things, but we should replace them as soon as something like cold fusion becomes available. Food irradiation, human cloning. Same as cold fusion, but I think the dangers are large enough that we should either go slow or abandon these technologies. A large meteor strike on earth. Everyone knows there is a significant risk of this, and there is widespread agreement that steps should be taken to identify potentially dangerous meteors, but I think it would be premature to try to deploy technology to change meteor trajectories. We need much cheaper and better rocket technology first. Star wars missile defense. The cost so far (over $100 billion, as I recall) far exceeds the potential reduction in risk. The risk is hardly reduced at all. If we could ensure that no missiles can reach the U.S., Europe or Japan for $100 billion, it might be worth it, but because countermeasure as so simple, and the technology so unreliable, the technology reduces risk a tiny fraction at best and may actually increase it. Most of the anti-terrorist steps taken so far by Homeland Security: a waste of money. The risks are small and many of the steps taken so far are so outrageously expensive they are not cost-effective. The same amount of money would save far more lives per dollar invested in things like automobile accident prevention, smoke detectors, obesity reduction, or prenatal care. There are millions of ways to reduce risk by spending money. We cannot begin to implement them all. We have to pick and choose, and live with a certain level of risk. There are also many ways to reduce risk without spending money, or in some cases by saving money. We should always implement such changes. For example, the New York Times Magazine reported that highway risks can be significant reduced with a better, more readable font on the overhead signs. These signs wear out and they must gradually be replaced over several decades anyway, and it costs nothing to print the new signs with a better font, so we might as well do it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
On 15/8/2007 10:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Cold fusion might lead to very cheap, easily made weapons of mass destruction. I think this danger is real, and at present it is impossible to prove there is no danger, but I do not think it would be wise to ban research on cold fusion because of this. What would constitute proof of a danger? Harry
RE: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
If humans are causing the current apparent warming trend, maybe we've done it before? Fossils, cores, and other evidence (legends, ancient records well known to some Vortexians) shows that the earth has warmed and cooled substantially and perhaps rather suddenly quite a few times over the last few million years, with two significant warmings and/or ice melt events (the two aren't necessarily the same thing I suppose) occurring fairly recently which caused very large sea level increases. Recently discoveries have been made that tend to point to the existence of surprisingly large and organized human populations in these ancient times. Since large populations tend to gather at near sea level, maybe we have yet to discover the extent of these civilizations since most of the land they probably once occupied now lies underwater. They could collectively have been relatively modern in size. No doubt populations that size would burn a lot of firewood. Seen the air over the Asia lately? My question is: are there wood fire soot concentrations in ice cores at the level just before these major sea level rises occurred? The reverse (soot before cooling or sea level decreases) doesn't fit the disappearance of these populations coincident with the large sea level increases, and thus not a human cause of older GW episodes. But can you imagine the refugee problems, famines, epidemics, and wars lasting for generations that would have occurred in any case? Ouch. The Mu... - Rick
Re: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
Harry Veeder wrote: Cold fusion might lead to very cheap, easily made weapons of mass destruction. I think this danger is real, and at present it is impossible to prove there is no danger, but I do not think it would be wise to ban research on cold fusion because of this. What would constitute proof of a danger? A large explosion. - Jed
[Vo]:Moray King's Power Point Presentation
Moray King spoke on O U electrolyzers and how they may be cohering the ZPE at the Tesla conference. I called him yesterday and he said that he would be posting this. Sterling Allen just sent me the URL. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Water_Disassociation_Using_Zero_Point_Energy --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
RE: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
While it's certainly not proof, for many years after nuke came on the scene at the end of the 19th century, even top scientists were certain that we would never be able to extract usable energy from it. How times have changed. I guess the danger is in the pattern. - Rick -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:17 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize On 15/8/2007 10:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Cold fusion might lead to very cheap, easily made weapons of mass destruction. I think this danger is real, and at present it is impossible to prove there is no danger, but I do not think it would be wise to ban research on cold fusion because of this. What would constitute proof of a danger? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Potential
Terry Blanton wrote: On 8/13/07, Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: Interesting exchanges. If a pair of wires are 3 x 10^10 cm long; and, a potential is applied to the ends of the wires with a load resistor on the other end, I have two simple questions: 1) How much time passes before the first electron drifts through the load center point assuming the load is only 2 cm long? The first current will appear in at most a few seconds. Wouldn't Poynting's theorem say almost exactly 10 seconds? Can we understand by what mechanism? Maybe! :-) Here's a go at describing the mechanism by which the current in the load starts flowing, long before the first electrons from the source have traversed the wire: When the source is connected to the ends of the wires, the electrons adjacent to the source start moving (relatively slowly!) along the wire. (From here on we'll just look at the wire connected to the negative electrode.) As electrons start to move into the wire from the source, it causes a lump or wave-crest of higher electron density in the sea of electrons in the wire, just like dropping a rock into a pool pushes water aside and results in a wave-crest of deeper water around the point where the rock landed. The wave-crest of higher electron density has a stronger E field than the lower electron density sea around it, and that causes electrons in front of the wave-crest to start moving away from the wave-crest. In turn, that produces a higher electron density a little farther along the wire ... and so the wave propagates. The wave of higher electron density propagates faster than the electrons themselves are moving; again, this is not unlike what happens with water: The water in a wave train in the ocean moves slowly, while the wave crests move far faster. Modeling predicts, and observation verifies, that the wave of electrons will actually propagate along the wire at the speed of light, if the wire is in vacuum (which it presumably mostly is, if it's a light-second in length). The modeling I referred to is somewhat hairy and I don't recall enough to even start to explain it at this point, but the conclusion (which is born out by experiment) is that the wire will act as a wave guide, with an electromagnetic wave traveling along outside it, at the velocity of light in the surrounding medium. Don't know if this helps... 2) How much time passes before the first electron to leave the source of potential arrives at the load? It will take a very long time. It depends on the free charge density in the metal, the wire cross sectional area, and the current. A very rough number for electron drift speed for estimating purposes might be 10 cm/h. Thats roughly 3x10^9 s, or 9.5 years. Simple questions, eh? Yeah, when you have a handy cheat sheet. 8^) Our very own Bill Beaty has a nice write-up on this subject at: http://amasci.com/miscon/speed.html Thanks, interesting document on drift. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Potential
I completely forgot about this question. I'm getting buried in private email and mundane chores. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_propagation Horace Heffner On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: On 8/13/07, Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: Interesting exchanges. If a pair of wires are 3 x 10^10 cm long; and, a potential is applied to the ends of the wires with a load resistor on the other end, I have two simple questions: 1) How much time passes before the first electron drifts through the load center point assuming the load is only 2 cm long? The first current will appear in at most a few seconds. Wouldn't Poynting's theorem say almost exactly 10 seconds? Can we understand by what mechanism? Maybe! :-) Here's a go at describing the mechanism by which the current in the load starts flowing, long before the first electrons from the source have traversed the wire: When the source is connected to the ends of the wires, the electrons adjacent to the source start moving (relatively slowly!) along the wire. (From here on we'll just look at the wire connected to the negative electrode.) As electrons start to move into the wire from the source, it causes a lump or wave-crest of higher electron density in the sea of electrons in the wire, just like dropping a rock into a pool pushes water aside and results in a wave-crest of deeper water around the point where the rock landed. The wave-crest of higher electron density has a stronger E field than the lower electron density sea around it, and that causes electrons in front of the wave-crest to start moving away from the wave-crest. In turn, that produces a higher electron density a little farther along the wire ... and so the wave propagates. The wave of higher electron density propagates faster than the electrons themselves are moving; again, this is not unlike what happens with water: The water in a wave train in the ocean moves slowly, while the wave crests move far faster. Modeling predicts, and observation verifies, that the wave of electrons will actually propagate along the wire at the speed of light, if the wire is in vacuum (which it presumably mostly is, if it's a light-second in length). The modeling I referred to is somewhat hairy and I don't recall enough to even start to explain it at this point, but the conclusion (which is born out by experiment) is that the wire will act as a wave guide, with an electromagnetic wave traveling along outside it, at the velocity of light in the surrounding medium. Don't know if this helps... 2) How much time passes before the first electron to leave the source of potential arrives at the load? It will take a very long time. It depends on the free charge density in the metal, the wire cross sectional area, and the current. A very rough number for electron drift speed for estimating purposes might be 10 cm/h. Thats roughly 3x10^9 s, or 9.5 years. Simple questions, eh? Yeah, when you have a handy cheat sheet. 8^) Our very own Bill Beaty has a nice write-up on this subject at: http://amasci.com/miscon/speed.html Thanks, interesting document on drift. Terry Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Potential
Thanks to Stephen and Horace for explanations. There is, of course, another: epo polarization . . . aether waves. Dr. (?) Bearden likes to harp on that one. I only bring it up because of another thread regarding potential differential. In a luminiferous aether, an absolute potential can exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether Terry On 8/15/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: On 8/13/07, Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: Interesting exchanges. If a pair of wires are 3 x 10^10 cm long; and, a potential is applied to the ends of the wires with a load resistor on the other end, I have two simple questions: 1) How much time passes before the first electron drifts through the load center point assuming the load is only 2 cm long? The first current will appear in at most a few seconds. Wouldn't Poynting's theorem say almost exactly 10 seconds? Can we understand by what mechanism? Maybe! :-) Here's a go at describing the mechanism by which the current in the load starts flowing, long before the first electrons from the source have traversed the wire: When the source is connected to the ends of the wires, the electrons adjacent to the source start moving (relatively slowly!) along the wire. (From here on we'll just look at the wire connected to the negative electrode.) As electrons start to move into the wire from the source, it causes a lump or wave-crest of higher electron density in the sea of electrons in the wire, just like dropping a rock into a pool pushes water aside and results in a wave-crest of deeper water around the point where the rock landed. The wave-crest of higher electron density has a stronger E field than the lower electron density sea around it, and that causes electrons in front of the wave-crest to start moving away from the wave-crest. In turn, that produces a higher electron density a little farther along the wire ... and so the wave propagates. The wave of higher electron density propagates faster than the electrons themselves are moving; again, this is not unlike what happens with water: The water in a wave train in the ocean moves slowly, while the wave crests move far faster. Modeling predicts, and observation verifies, that the wave of electrons will actually propagate along the wire at the speed of light, if the wire is in vacuum (which it presumably mostly is, if it's a light-second in length). The modeling I referred to is somewhat hairy and I don't recall enough to even start to explain it at this point, but the conclusion (which is born out by experiment) is that the wire will act as a wave guide, with an electromagnetic wave traveling along outside it, at the velocity of light in the surrounding medium. Don't know if this helps... 2) How much time passes before the first electron to leave the source of potential arrives at the load? It will take a very long time. It depends on the free charge density in the metal, the wire cross sectional area, and the current. A very rough number for electron drift speed for estimating purposes might be 10 cm/h. Thats roughly 3x10^9 s, or 9.5 years. Simple questions, eh? Yeah, when you have a handy cheat sheet. 8^) Our very own Bill Beaty has a nice write-up on this subject at: http://amasci.com/miscon/speed.html Thanks, interesting document on drift. Terry
Re: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
On 15/8/2007 1:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Cold fusion might lead to very cheap, easily made weapons of mass destruction. I think this danger is real, and at present it is impossible to prove there is no danger, but I do not think it would be wise to ban research on cold fusion because of this. What would constitute proof of a danger? A large explosion. - Jed How about the appearance of uranium and plutonium. Harry
[Vo]:Life mimics art?
Last week there was a bank run in Second Life... http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/19242/ We're not talking the 10 k charity event either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run
Re: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
Harry Veeder wrote: How about the appearance of uranium and plutonium. Yup. That too. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Potential
This is quite interesting. I wonder what's the detailed mechanism by which the free electron density wave described by Stephen propagates at the speed of light *outside* the wire (in the surrounding dielectric), in spite of the electrons moving *inside* the wire and coulombically repelling each other at the speed of light in vacuum. Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Potential I completely forgot about this question. I'm getting buried in private email and mundane chores. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_propagation Horace Heffner On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: On 8/13/07, Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: Interesting exchanges. If a pair of wires are 3 x 10^10 cm long; and, a potential is applied to the ends of the wires with a load resistor on the other end, I have two simple questions: 1) How much time passes before the first electron drifts through the load center point assuming the load is only 2 cm long? The first current will appear in at most a few seconds. Wouldn't Poynting's theorem say almost exactly 10 seconds? Can we understand by what mechanism? Maybe! :-) Here's a go at describing the mechanism by which the current in the load starts flowing, long before the first electrons from the source have traversed the wire: When the source is connected to the ends of the wires, the electrons adjacent to the source start moving (relatively slowly!) along the wire. (From here on we'll just look at the wire connected to the negative electrode.) As electrons start to move into the wire from the source, it causes a lump or wave-crest of higher electron density in the sea of electrons in the wire, just like dropping a rock into a pool pushes water aside and results in a wave-crest of deeper water around the point where the rock landed. The wave-crest of higher electron density has a stronger E field than the lower electron density sea around it, and that causes electrons in front of the wave-crest to start moving away from the wave-crest. In turn, that produces a higher electron density a little farther along the wire ... and so the wave propagates. The wave of higher electron density propagates faster than the electrons themselves are moving; again, this is not unlike what happens with water: The water in a wave train in the ocean moves slowly, while the wave crests move far faster. Modeling predicts, and observation verifies, that the wave of electrons will actually propagate along the wire at the speed of light, if the wire is in vacuum (which it presumably mostly is, if it's a light-second in length). The modeling I referred to is somewhat hairy and I don't recall enough to even start to explain it at this point, but the conclusion (which is born out by experiment) is that the wire will act as a wave guide, with an electromagnetic wave traveling along outside it, at the velocity of light in the surrounding medium. Don't know if this helps... 2) How much time passes before the first electron to leave the source of potential arrives at the load? It will take a very long time. It depends on the free charge density in the metal, the wire cross sectional area, and the current. A very rough number for electron drift speed for estimating purposes might be 10 cm/h. Thats roughly 3x10^9 s, or 9.5 years. Simple questions, eh? Yeah, when you have a handy cheat sheet. 8^) Our very own Bill Beaty has a nice write-up on this subject at: http://amasci.com/miscon/speed.html Thanks, interesting document on drift. Terry Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The Junkman;s prize
On 15/8/2007 6:50 AM, Nick Palmer wrote: Thomas malloy wrote ( about junkscience.com):- Steve is offering $100,000 to anyone who can prove that anthropogenic global warming is real, and that it's deleterious consequences outweigh the benefits. Since it's impossible to prove either one, the prize is of no consequence. What just about everybody seems to miss on both sides of the argument, both global warming deniers and climate change scientists alike, is that the REAL idea that needs ramming down people's throats is that those who think things will be OK, that global warming is not a threat, have to absolutely PROVE it - it is not necessary for the Green lobby and the climate change scientists to have to prove that climate change definitely will occur due to man's fossil fuel emissions, they only have to establish that it probably will (which has been done). Everybody seems take it as read that the whole argument is down to the scientists and their varying opposed opinions. There is something beyond, and even greater, than what passes as scientific opinion these days - this something is raw logic and where we have a situation with an uncertain outcome, where we do not have enough knowledge or experience to be able to definitely predict what will happen, and the analysis of the situation suggests that there is a possibility of disrupting a stable climate with enormous long term consequences for humans and all the other life on Earth, then that chance MUST NOT be taken. It is up to the deniers to PROVE that there is no such danger (which is impossible) - the junkscience.com challenge is a ghastly perversion of wise thinking. Nick Palmer Another way to view the evidence is from a legal perspective. Contrast the charge of global warming in a criminal court with the charge in a civil court. In a criminal court you would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that mankind is guilty. In a civil court it is sufficient to establish guilt by the weight of the evidence. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Potential
I have always found it interesting that electricity propagates by the skin effect. I have never found a good intuitive explanation for this before I met Frank Grimer. Once you are able to get over the cognitive dissonance of what he is saying, it all makes perfect sense. Is it worth the effort? Probably not in this lifetime. ;-) http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Beta-atmosphere_group/ Terry On 8/15/07, Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I completely forgot about this question. I'm getting buried in private email and mundane chores. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_propagation Horace Heffner On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: On 8/13/07, Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: Interesting exchanges. If a pair of wires are 3 x 10^10 cm long; and, a potential is applied to the ends of the wires with a load resistor on the other end, I have two simple questions: 1) How much time passes before the first electron drifts through the load center point assuming the load is only 2 cm long? The first current will appear in at most a few seconds. Wouldn't Poynting's theorem say almost exactly 10 seconds? Can we understand by what mechanism? Maybe! :-) Here's a go at describing the mechanism by which the current in the load starts flowing, long before the first electrons from the source have traversed the wire: When the source is connected to the ends of the wires, the electrons adjacent to the source start moving (relatively slowly!) along the wire. (From here on we'll just look at the wire connected to the negative electrode.) As electrons start to move into the wire from the source, it causes a lump or wave-crest of higher electron density in the sea of electrons in the wire, just like dropping a rock into a pool pushes water aside and results in a wave-crest of deeper water around the point where the rock landed. The wave-crest of higher electron density has a stronger E field than the lower electron density sea around it, and that causes electrons in front of the wave-crest to start moving away from the wave-crest. In turn, that produces a higher electron density a little farther along the wire ... and so the wave propagates. The wave of higher electron density propagates faster than the electrons themselves are moving; again, this is not unlike what happens with water: The water in a wave train in the ocean moves slowly, while the wave crests move far faster. Modeling predicts, and observation verifies, that the wave of electrons will actually propagate along the wire at the speed of light, if the wire is in vacuum (which it presumably mostly is, if it's a light-second in length). The modeling I referred to is somewhat hairy and I don't recall enough to even start to explain it at this point, but the conclusion (which is born out by experiment) is that the wire will act as a wave guide, with an electromagnetic wave traveling along outside it, at the velocity of light in the surrounding medium. Don't know if this helps... 2) How much time passes before the first electron to leave the source of potential arrives at the load? It will take a very long time. It depends on the free charge density in the metal, the wire cross sectional area, and the current. A very rough number for electron drift speed for estimating purposes might be 10 cm/h. Thats roughly 3x10^9 s, or 9.5 years. Simple questions, eh? Yeah, when you have a handy cheat sheet. 8^) Our very own Bill Beaty has a nice write-up on this subject at: http://amasci.com/miscon/speed.html Thanks, interesting document on drift. Terry Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel cost decline
Horace Heffner wrote: On Aug 14, 2007, at 11:05 AM, OrionWorks wrote: There is a chance some change may occur: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/ Did you look through Moray King's presentation? I'm referring to the MIB harassment. I've always believed that the only way to have someone like Mrs. Clinton take this seriously is a demonstration built into an attache case. I wonder if something like that would win the prize that the man who ownes Virgin has offered, $25 million would buy a lot of beer. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Moray King's Power Point Presentation
isnt it interesting that he sheds not even one sentence for Walter Russell and his method of producing hydrogen out of watervapour? also that there seems to be no networking between Moray King and his Under certain conditions self-organization may occur. Ilya Prigogine lot and Self Organizing Flow Technology - in Viktor Schauberger's footsteps by IET-Community in Sweden. ( http://iet-community.org/bookshop/report-01.html) bit of a shame that innit from philosophy.org: I would suggest you study the Home Study Course first. If you are like most and want to fast forward to the experiment section, refer to pages 129-130 of A New Concept of the Universe. Mind you this book is the Universal One edited and given a new title. Dr. Russell *did not* want to republish this book. It is however to my knowledge the only reference to a published experiment carried out by Dr. Russell himself. This experiment shouldn't't be hard to reproduce. If you are a student of Dr. Russell, and have a desire to do something, and have the means to do it, then go for it. Quoted from A New Concept pg. 129 Instead of the expensive and time consuming chemical method of obtaining free nitrogen, in LIMITED quantities, Nature's method would produce free nitrogen cheaply, quickly, and in UNLIMITED quantities. It is not necessary to call attention to the value to commerce and to agriculture, not to mention soil regeneration that this method of obtaining nitrogen would be to the world. In September, 1927, I demonstrated this principle of dual polarity control by arranging two pairs of solenoids �C one pair with more windings than the other �C in such a manner that the dual polarity of nature was simulated. With a steel or glass disc for an equator and a steel rod for amplitude, I adjusted my solenoids approximately to a plane angle where I roughly calculated oxygen belonged in its octave. I improvised an adjustment apparatus which would enable me to fasten any adjustment securely at any angle I chose. I then inserted a few cubic centimeters of water in an evacuated quartz tube which had electrodes at each end for spectrum analysis readings. Upon heating the tube in an electric furnace, and inserting it into the solenoid with electric current turned on until the tube cooled, the first spectrum analysis showed over 80% to be hydrogen and the rest practically all helium. There was very little oxygen…… 3 short vid clips from various documentaries, at: http://merlib.org/node/5225 On 15/08/07, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Moray King spoke on O U electrolyzers and how they may be cohering the ZPE at the Tesla conference. I called him yesterday and he said that he would be posting this. Sterling Allen just sent me the URL. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Water_Disassociation_Using_Zero_Point_Energy --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! --- -- ∞
