Re: [Vo]:orbo is a heat pump?
2010/1/25 Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com: If orbo were extracting heat from the air then part of the orbo would become hotter than the surrounding air, but for that to happen wouldn't part of the orbo have to be cooler than the surrounding air? I guess so, isn't it the case? Michel
[Vo]:Nuclear catalysis, effective LENR isotopes, etc.
The following URL contains links to various nuclear reaction equation reports I have created relating to LENR: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt This is a work in progress, nothing is finalized, and all conclusions are tentative. Improvements are being made in reaction energy calculations, additional reports are in progress, and a review for accuracy is continuing. However, the reports at this point already exemplify some new and important principles. One such principle is nuclear catalysis, the existence of nuclear catalytic reactions, (NCRs). A nuclear catalytic reaction is one in which a heavy lattice nucleus acts as nuclear catalyst. It fuses hydrogen nuclei while remaining intact post-reaction. It is essentially a fusion reaction enabled by deflated state deuterium, followed by a reduced kinetic energy alpha decay. Another important principal is the potential effectiveness of some isotopes for producing LENR, due to all LENR channels being initially closed due to the de-energization due to the deflated hydrogen fused. These isotopes are identified in special Electron constrained isotopes sub-reports, in reports E-H. At the above URL the blue text areas are links to the actual reaction reports. Following is the text of the above URL: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) Reports of Prospective Reaction Equations and Energies Based on the Deflation Fusion Model Horace Heffner Jan, 2010 Report A - Energetically Feasible Aneutronic X + n D* - Y + Z Aneutronic Reactions, for n=1 to 12 Creating Stable Isotopes Y and Z With No Weak Reactions Report B - Energetically Feasible Aneutronic X + n p* -- Y + Z Aneutronic Reactions, n = 1 to 4 Creating Stable Isotopes Y and Z With No Weak Reactions Report C - Energetically Feasible Aneutronic X + 2 D* - X + Z Aneutronic Reactions Creating Stable Isotope Z Via Nuclear Catalytic Action Report D - Energetically Feasible Aneutronic X + n D* - X + Z Aneutronic Reactions, n = 1 to 10 Creating Stable Isotope Z Via Nuclear Catalytic Action Report E - Energetically Feasible Aneutronic X + n D* -- Y + Z Aneutronic Reactions, n = 1 to 1 Creating Stable Isotopes Y and Z With No Weak Reactions Report F - Energetically Feasible Aneutronic X + n D* -- Y + Z Aneutronic Reactions, n = 1 to 2 Creating Stable Isotopes Y and Z With No Weak Reactions Report G - Energetically Feasible Aneutronic X + n p* -- Y + Z Aneutronic Reactions, n = 1 to 1 Creating Stable Isotopes Y and Z With No Weak Reactions Report H - Energetically Feasible Aneutronic X + n p* -- Y + Z Aneutronic Reactions, n = 1 to 2 Creating Stable Isotopes Y and Z With No Weak Reactions Report i1 - Energetically Feasible X + n D* -- Y + Z + n e Reactions, n = 1 to 12 Where X = Ba56, Y=Sm62, (Potential reactions for Iwamura's Ba -- Sm transmutation) Report i2 - Energetically Feasible X + n D* -- Y + Z + n e Reactions, n = 1to 12 Where X = Cs55, Y=Pr59, (Potential reactions for Iwamura's Cs -- Pr transmutation) Report i3 - Energetically Feasible X + n D* -- Y + Z + n e Reactions, n = 1 to 12 Where X = Sr38, Y=Mo42, (Potential reactions for Iwamura's Sr -- Mo transmutation) Report i4 - Energetically Feasible X + n D* -- Y + Z + n e Reactions, n = 1 to 12 Where X = Sr38, Y=Mo42, but rfact=0.85 (Iwamura's Sr -- Mo transmutation) Report J - Evaluation Spreadsheet for Deflated Proton Fusion Candidates Notes on Report Contents Report A, including 48,031 reactions in 1093 pages, in 2 MB, is one of the most general types of report presented here. It is intended to identify every energetically feasible aneutronic deuterium LENR reaction that might be of any interest, whether likely to occur or even feasible within the confines of the deflation fusion theory. The only reaction conditions enforced in Report A aneutronic reactions are that proton and neutron counts are preserved, and that each reaction produces net energy. Isospin is conserved in these reactions. Note that in all reports summarized here that one or more of the fused entities is either p* or D*, deflated state hydrogen. The deflated state electrons are included in the equations even though their role is primarily catalytic, and the catalytic energy deficit effect, as described in “Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions”, and as applied to the intermediate or compound nucleus, is included in the energy value in brackets for each reaction. It is also notable that the deflated state electrons reduce the kinetic energy of the heavy reaction products, because the bulk of the reaction energy, due to conservation of energy and momentum, goes to the electrons. This further means that there is never less than two nonzero rest mass products, so the reaction energy is not required to be carried off via one or two high energy photons, as it is in the D(D,g)4He hot fusion reaction. What is important about some of the reports here, is not
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: THE FINAL DEMO ... ...PROVING OVERUNITY
On 01/25/2010 12:23 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Big splashy advert screens are being displayed at steorn.com Sounds like they intend to deliver the final punch line this coming Saturday, Jan 30 we shall see... For the record, here are my predictions regarding the likely outcomes: -- They burn out a wheel bearing and cancel the demo, like ol' Tilly (substitute appropriate part for wheel bearing), and like Sean did a couple years back. -- They do another demo of a motor using an external power source (battery, or other similar device) and then, through calculations and measurements, claim to have shown overunity. Others dispute the calculations, measurements, and claim. This is, of course, the most popular approach by perpetual motion machine salesmen. -- They demo a part of a motor -- a coil, say -- and take certain measurements which they claim prove that it's over unity in some way. They're selling knowledge, not devices, so this seems like a good possibility. -- They come up with something I haven't thought of, which none the less leaves the situation ambiguous, with honest skeptics unconvinced. (Pathological skeptics will never be convinced, of course.) And a very UNlikely outcome: -- They demonstrate what they claim is a self runner but don't let anyone inspect it carefully enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it's for real. Steorn has never pulled stunts like this in the past, and I don't expect them to start now. (As far as I know every device they have ever demonstrated in public has been real -- only their claims are dubious.) What we absolutely will *not* see: -- A true self-runner, which convinces all but the most pathological of skeptics. Will not happen -- not from Steorn. Not now, not ever. This includes motors with no external power supply, and motors driven by capacitors (which are shown conclusively to remain charged during the run) instead of batteries. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: THE FINAL DEMO ... ...PROVING OVERUNITY
Additional noise: http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,100567,10014947o-2000331777b,00.htm Exerpt: In the past, Sean has said that the Orbo will manage this to the tune of 3:1 - in other words, churning out three watts for every watt of input. The Saturday demo, our sources confide, will be less dramatic - if they can hit 120 percent, or 1.2 watts out for 1 watt in, it'll be a success. --- Needless to say, as Stephen has already conjectured the calculations Steorn may use to arrive at OU are likely to be subject to differing interpretations. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: THE FINAL DEMO ... ...PROVING OVERUNITY
On 01/25/2010 02:01 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Additional noise: http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,100567,10014947o-2000331777b,00.htm Exerpt: In the past, Sean has said that the Orbo will manage this to the tune of 3:1 - in other words, churning out three watts for every watt of input. The Saturday demo, our sources confide, will be less dramatic - if they can hit 120 percent, or 1.2 watts out for 1 watt in, it'll be a success. Sigh Either it has been putting out 3:1 or it hasn't. If it has, why can't they demo 3:1, or rather 2:1 mechanical:electrical? (Knock off 100% for the amount of input power converted to heat.) Have they forgotten how they used to do it? ;-) If it hasn't been putting out 3:1 then Sean's a liar. Why does anyone still believe in these people?
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: THE FINAL DEMO ... ...PROVING OVERUNITY
A blogger estimates: The Saturday demo, our sources confide, will be less dramatic - if they can hit 120 percent, or 1.2 watts out for 1 watt in, it'll be a success. If they can hit 120% I believe they could make the thing self-sustaining. The overhead from friction and a capacitor is small. Very small compared to a heat engine powered by cold fusion would be. Terry Blanton or some other magnet motor expert can probably tell us what the minimum excess would be to allow a self-sustaining gadget. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: THE FINAL DEMO ... ...PROVING OVERUNITY
At 12:23 PM 1/25/2010, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Big splashy advert screens are being displayed at steorn.com Sounds like they intend to deliver the final punch line this coming Saturday, Jan 30 we shall see... Yup. Unless all their bearings freeze up, the building mysteriously catches on fire, or, or. But assuming that this goes through, it then becomes possible to more adequately judge all the previous claims. Does the proof support them? Or were they exaggerated, puffery? Remember, Sean has claimed 2:1 (which is actually 3:1, because the 2 is the claimed excess, as I recall.)
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: THE FINAL DEMO ... ...PROVING OVERUNITY
From Mr. Lawrence Either it has been putting out 3:1 or it hasn't. If it has, why can't they demo 3:1, or rather 2:1 mechanical:electrical? (Knock off 100% for the amount of input power converted to heat.) Have they forgotten how they used to do it? ;-) Someone can correct me if I error on the following interpretation but it's my recollection that Sean stated something to the effect that the configuration currently on demo at the Waterfront has allegedly only been measured to generate a modest OU of 1.2. I believe these other OU claims Sean has inferred, some allegedly up to 3:1, were measured from different experimental devices not currently being demonstrated to the public. I seem to recall Sean saying something to the effect that these other Orbo devices are more complicated, and as such, their added complexity would have made them unsuitable for the quick slam-and-dunk dog-and-pony show they wished to demonstrate to the public. If it hasn't been putting out 3:1 then Sean's a liar. I think that may depend on which device Sean was referring to. Why does anyone still believe in these people? X-Files: I want to believe! Meanwhile, Mongo just whispered something in my ear: Light bulb! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: THE FINAL DEMO ... ...PROVING OVERUNITY
On 01/25/2010 02:43 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: From Mr. Lawrence Either it has been putting out 3:1 or it hasn't. If it has, why can't they demo 3:1, or rather 2:1 mechanical:electrical? (Knock off 100% for the amount of input power converted to heat.) Have they forgotten how they used to do it? ;-) Someone can correct me if I error on the following interpretation but it's my recollection that Sean stated something to the effect that the configuration currently on demo at the Waterfront has allegedly only been measured to generate a modest OU of 1.2. Hadn't seen that. I recall seeing a quote from him which seemed to imply that Orbo was doing 3:1 (unmeasured, of course!) but I can't find it now, so maybe I'm wrong. I believe these other OU claims Sean has inferred, some allegedly up to 3:1, were measured from different experimental devices not currently being demonstrated to the public. I seem to recall Sean saying something to the effect that these other Orbo devices are more complicated, and as such, their added complexity would have made them unsuitable for the quick slam-and-dunk dog-and-pony show they wished to demonstrate to the public. If it hasn't been putting out 3:1 then Sean's a liar. I think that may depend on which device Sean was referring to. Why does anyone still believe in these people? X-Files: I want to believe! Meanwhile, Mongo just whispered something in my ear: Light bulb! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:preview of my video production
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4I5mgBKPZY_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4I5mgBKPZY)
[Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
Is anyone here familiar with any organizations dedicated to helping push along space travel?
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: THE FINAL DEMO ... ...PROVING OVERUNITY
I gotta hand it to those Steorn folks... Their latest advert is both blunt and dramatic. Steorn's web site sez: Final Demo: PROVING OVERUNITY Saturday 16.00 GMT at Steorn.com --- Barring unforeseen technical difficulties, it is difficult for me to perceive how Steorn could possibly wiggle their way out of the corner they seem to be painting themselves into. But I suspect they will. One of the few truisms that I've finally begun to Grok inside my thick skull is the fact that whenever anyone says this is final word on anything, such declarations mean absolutely nothing. At present I find myself in sympathy with a lot of Stephen's recent speculations. I suspect Steorn is likely to demonstrate something new, something novel about the spinny thing (As Terry recently described the device as), quite possibly an interesting artifact we haven't seen yet. But, alas, the new evidence will continue to remain subject to interpretation. I sure hope I'm wrong. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: THE FINAL DEMO ... ...PROVING OVERUNITY
At 01:09 PM 1/25/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: What we absolutely will *not* see: -- A true self-runner, which convinces all but the most pathological of skeptics. Will not happen -- not from Steorn. Not now, not ever. This includes motors with no external power supply, and motors driven by capacitors (which are shown conclusively to remain charged during the run) instead of batteries. While I've seen no evidence from Steorn that would lead me to consider the possibility significant, and lots that indicates to me that it's highly unlikely based on their history, I will now take the position that overunity is possible in theory, in terms of local results, not to mention the deeper possibility of error in the concept of conservation of energy. What if something about the behavior of magnets and magnetic fields and ferrite cores and magnetic domains and all that causes some unexpected phenomenon that releases energy from unknown or unanticipated sources? Perhaps Steorn discovered an anomaly and in order to cash in on it, they adopted their approach rather than simply publishing it. It is not essential to this, at all, that they understand the anomaly. But, as I wrote, highly unlikely. But experiment is king. If the anomaly is shown, they will have indeed made a major discovery, of an anomaly, at least, and then is the anomaly worth exploring? Scientifically, yes, absolutely, until it is explained and the explanation is proven to be more than just an alternative hypothesis, and assuming that the anomaly is significant in amplitude, and is replicable. It is an entirely separate question whether or not there is enough energy over-unity to be of practical use. Hence demands for a self-running demo are excessive, as to the ultimate issues, that transcend whether or not Steorn are scammers, or legally milking this. But if it is true that there is twice as much energy going into rotational inertia than into heat, some commercial application, if only for heating!, would seem possible. Hence I do, in fact, think that puffery is highly likely, that claims of Sean for 2:1 are based on extrapolation and imagination, not actual experiment, properly analyzed. Same thing with the Szabo motor, which seems quite similar in certain ways. But, indeed, we will see the next act in this play in a few days. What rabbit will the author pull out of the hat?
Re: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
On 01/25/2010 03:08 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote: Is anyone here familiar with any organizations dedicated to helping push along space travel? http://www.nss.org/
Re: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
From Alexander: Is anyone here familiar with any organizations dedicated to helping push along space travel? Used to be the L-5 Society. Seems L-5 merged with the National Space Institute and the duo renamed themselves the National Space Society http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/National_Space_Society.html Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
FW: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
AH: NASA Consultant Engineer now private: Robert Zubrin-@Marssociety.org (he's the real deal) Burt Rutan of Scaled Composites--'X-Prize Winner' Mojave,' california-bru...@earthfiles.net also the 'real-deal' -JO- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:08:02 -0700 From: alexander.holl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization. Is anyone here familiar with any organizations dedicated to helping push along space travel? _ We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear catalysis, effective LENR isotopes, etc.
On Jan 25, 2010, at 7:41 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Wow. Impressive amount of computational effort. This could be helpful for the design stage of many refined experiments. One hopes that that the data was set up and crunched in an automated computer program - or else you must be snowed-in due to El Nino, with no other hobbies ;-) I get to borrow Santa's elves in the off season. 8^) One question: was nuclear spin not considered for a reason? IOW is conservation of spin an issue with deflation fusion? Spin and other constraints were left out intentionally so far. The intent here is to see how much can be learned without making unnecessary conventional assumptions. The principal problem is that heavy element LENR is *already* impossible using standard physics. Probable decay channels for compound nuclei (standard compound nuclei without deflated electrons) do not include large mass fissions. They involve only gamma, beta, positron, proton, neutron and alpha decays. If you throw out neutron and high energy signature decays, because these were not observed in the heavy LENR experiments, you are left with alpha decays at best, and no way to explain the lost energy. The intent here initially was merely to get a picture of the forest before looking for the best trees. Once the hypothesis of one of more deflated electrons and a de-energized composite nucleus comes into play the situation with regard to spin and other constraints becomes more complex, especially if there are numerous deflated (negative energy) electrons in the nucleus initially. One consequence of deflation fusion theory is that these electrons play a continuously changing role in the nucleus through time, as their wavefunctions expand out of the nucleus proper due to zero point field pressure. The problem then is how to determine composite spin and to account for spin conservation, as well as the decay probabilities which change through time. The decay time for de- energized compound nuclei is much longer that for conventional compound nuclei. I am considering a number of decay models. Hopefully more reports looking at these alternative models will be forthcoming. I was looking through the various tables to try to find reactions which seemed most probable from a minority perspective - that is, if one began with the premise that Mills is partly correct insofar as his experimental results confirm his claims, and that deflation fusion is compatible with the early stages of CQM - and also that Iwamura's experimental findings are important. He tends to be overlooked. I don't see Mill's theory as important to deflation fusion theory, except that the deflated state might be more likely in a fractional quantum state hydrogen. It also may not be. I just don't know. It is irrelevant to my current analysis effort. I expect there may eventually be various uses for the data and kinds of analysis that I am providing, especially in terms of experiment design, depending on the theoretical perspective of the user. As you may be aware, Strontium is one of Mill's best catalysts for Rydberg matching in the IP, and the main isotope is 88. The fourth reaction on your table for that isotope would then be a great candidate from this perspective- especially if one wanted to find at least two reaction products to carry away excess energy, with one of them being an alpha. 88Sr38 + 6 D* -- 96Mo42 + 4He2 + 77.258 MeV [13.225 MeV] However, that is almost too much energy to imagine as possible without a strong gamma signal, unless much of it could be deposited elsewhere. Jones The above energy levels indicate to me the above reaction is not a viable reaction, under the assumptions used in its calculation, to explain Iwamura's results. That was the initial point of the computation of these tables, to show there is too much energy involved for any models to date (not involving electrons in the nucleus) to make any sense. Only reactions with negative energies in the brackets are feasible to consider further as viable explanations, unless some additional mechanisms are available to further reduce that energy quantity in brackets. If you look at Report i3: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rpti3 You will see *no* feasible explanation for strontium transmutation as observed Iwamura. However, the assumption in Report i3 is that the deflated electron negative energy is a result of being located at the mean radius of the compound nucleus. If the electrons are assumed to reside at an average of 0.9 times that radius, then many of the strontium reactions start looking like viable explanations. This was done in Report i4 at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rpti4 All this means is that, as noted in my paper, the energy deficit based on electrons at the compound nucleus average radius is not enough to explain the
Re: FW: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
Jack you beat me to what I would be asking for in about a year, if other plans go to speed. THANK YOU SIR! On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Jack Harbach-O'Sullivan alset9te...@hotmail.com wrote: AH: NASA Consultant Engineer now private: Robert Zubrin-@Marssociety.org (he's the real deal) Burt Rutan of Scaled Composites--'X-Prize Winner' Mojave,' california-bru...@earthfiles.net also the 'real-deal' -JO- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:08:02 -0700 From: alexander.holl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization. Is anyone here familiar with any organizations dedicated to helping push along space travel? Not got a Hotmail account? Sign-up now - Free
Re: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
Thank you to both steves, steven and stephen. I've got them though, I was hoping there were some others to add to my list? On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:17 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Alexander: Is anyone here familiar with any organizations dedicated to helping push along space travel? Used to be the L-5 Society. Seems L-5 merged with the National Space Institute and the duo renamed themselves the National Space Society http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/National_Space_Society.html Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:OFF TOPIC Davos predictions: predictably wrong?
Here are some predictions quoted from Davos meetings: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/24/AR2010012403399.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/24/AR2010012403399.html I bring this up here because it demonstrates that so-called experts are often wrong. So it is not surprising they don't get cold fusion, and a lot of them don't even understand hybrid automobiles. To be more precise, I think these quotes demonstrate that: 1. Some subjects are beyond anyone's knowledge. There can be no experts in them. Predictions about the economy (2008, John Snow) probably fall in this category. 2. Some people who are considered experts do not deserve that title. In these examples, it turned out that Ken Lay (2001) was not a financial expert; he was a crook. And Colin Powell (2003) was no expert on political intelligence relating to Saddam Hussein. He probably is an expert on military intelligence, if anyone is, but that does not extend to politics or the intentions of leaders. Granted these are difficult subjects. Perhaps a leader's intention is an example of #1, because the leader himself does not know what he will do in the future. By the way, I think Bill Gates (2004) was right and spam has been largely eliminated. Out of all subjects, technology is the easiest thing to accurately predict the future, at least for the next 20 to 50 years. Things like politics, social trends, fundamental physics research, religion and so on are harder, because they are serendipitous and they largely depend on whimsey and imagination. The near-term limits to technology is mainly bounded by existing engineering limitations, which change only slowly. We already know what optimum hybrid automobile will be like, and approximately how much it will cost, even though hybrid technology is still in its early stages. Very few people are good at predicting the future in any field. In my opinion, Arthur Clarke was the best in the last 150 years. Clarke said that Hugo Gernsback thought of everything. I have a book somewhere of predictions made in 1890 about a variety of subjects and how the future will be in 1990. The technical predictions made by Westinghouse and some other engineers were remarkably accurate. Ah, ha. Here is a paragraph about in a critique I wrote of Mark Mills (unrelated to Randell Mills): . . . Mills tries to make George Westinghouse look foolish, by quoting him out of context. . . . Westinghouse wrote in 1893 that a speed of 90 to 100 miles an hour could be secured with modern locomotives and with improvements which are sure to come. [D. Walter, Then And Now, (American and World Geographic Publishing, 1992)] He meant exactly what he said: locomotives in 1893 could go 100 mph. This was common knowledge. The point of his essay was that slower speeds are more economical and safer for various reasons, and he predicted that most trains would travel at 40 mph in the future. That turned out to be a little optimistic: most trains carry freight, and the national average speed is 30 mph. [Sources: CSX transportation, the Alaska Railroad, U.S. Department of Transportation.] It seems unlikely they will ever go faster. A few passenger trains in France and Japan have achieved straight track speeds as high as 160 mph. Their average speed in actual travel is much lower because of braking, the distance between stations, curves, and other factors that Westinghouse spelled out. They are powered by electricity, just as Westinghouse predicted. . . . Mills says, Westinghouse, in 1893, thought about travel in 1993 in terms of how fast trains might travel -- which he egregiously underestimated in any case. Others, not involved in the rail industry of 1893, foresaw a future enhanced by far faster and different forms of travel, including aviation, despite the fact that the Wright brothers' first historic flight was at that time a decade away. Westinghouse did not egregiously underestimate; he overestimated slightly. He was talking about ground-level locomotive drawn railroad trains, not aviation, automobiles, elevated trains, trolley cars or any other vehicle. He knew that lighter vehicles could safely attain faster speeds. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
If the space elevator people succeed the rest will be easy. I would include the elevator advocates and experimentalists in the top ranks of those promoting space travel. I don't know how much support NSS is giving elevators but they should be a top priority. NASA, unfortunately, gave the elevator people the frozen boot years ago, in favor of retro-design rockets. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
unfortunately, space elevator research has stalled due to a lot of issues with voltage differentials in the upper atmosphere. The last test I heard of of stretching a ribbon between the ground and leo, after it got about 5 miles long, it vaporized in a discharge, acting as a ground. not pretty. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If the space elevator people succeed the rest will be easy. I would include the elevator advocates and experimentalists in the top ranks of those promoting space travel. I don't know how much support NSS is giving elevators but they should be a top priority. NASA, unfortunately, gave the elevator people the frozen boot years ago, in favor of retro-design rockets. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: THE FINAL DEMO ... ...PROVING OVERUNITY
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton or some other magnet motor expert can probably tell us what the minimum excess would be to allow a self-sustaining gadget. That's like being a pink unicorn expert; but, with Sprain, considering the conversion losses and other inefficiencies, we calculated about 280% efficiency of the motor was required. T
Re: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
On 01/25/2010 03:27 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote: Thank you to both steves, steven and stephen. I've got them though, I was hoping there were some others to add to my list? Did you check the links page at NSS? http://www.nss.org/spacelinks/ Under Organizations they list about 20. You probably know them all already, but worth checking just in case. Are you familiar with SSI? http://ssi.org/ They're kind of low profile but back when O'Neill was running them, they were one of the few organizations actually pursuing research into how to build colonies in space (like, doing experiments, testing materials, working with mass drivers, that kind of thing). I haven't followed them in recent years, don't know what they're up to these days. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:17 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Alexander: Is anyone here familiar with any organizations dedicated to helping push along space travel? Used to be the L-5 Society. Seems L-5 merged with the National Space Institute and the duo renamed themselves the National Space Society http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/National_Space_Society.html Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: THE FINAL DEMO ... ...PROVING OVERUNITY
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Hadn't seen that. I recall seeing a quote from him which seemed to imply that Orbo was doing 3:1 (unmeasured, of course!) but I can't find it now, so maybe I'm wrong. No, you are correct. 3:1 was the claim, For every watt you put in, you get one watt of heat and two watts of useable electricity out. (maybe not exact quote) T
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: THE FINAL DEMO ... ...PROVING OVERUNITY
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:13 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: I sure hope I'm wrong. Me too. It looks like they have two replicants who have joined the fray from the most recent piccys on their facebook: http://www.flickr.com/photos/steornofficial/4304018674/ T
Re: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
On 01/25/2010 03:39 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote: unfortunately, space elevator research has stalled due to a lot of issues with voltage differentials in the upper atmosphere. The last test I heard of of stretching a ribbon between the ground and leo, after it got about 5 miles long, it vaporized in a discharge, acting as a ground. not pretty. I don't recall that. I know the tethered satellite experiment done on the Shuttle failed with a burned cable, but I hadn't heard of any further work with long tethers after that. I'd be interested in hearing more about the 5 mile cable drop-and-fry from LEO, if you have a link to more info. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If the space elevator people succeed the rest will be easy. I would include the elevator advocates and experimentalists in the top ranks of those promoting space travel. I don't know how much support NSS is giving elevators but they should be a top priority. NASA, unfortunately, gave the elevator people the frozen boot years ago, in favor of retro-design rockets. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
I did not look at the links page, thank you. and ssi is exactly the kind of thing im looking for. thank you again. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 01/25/2010 03:27 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote: Thank you to both steves, steven and stephen. I've got them though, I was hoping there were some others to add to my list? Did you check the links page at NSS? http://www.nss.org/spacelinks/ Under Organizations they list about 20. You probably know them all already, but worth checking just in case. Are you familiar with SSI? http://ssi.org/ They're kind of low profile but back when O'Neill was running them, they were one of the few organizations actually pursuing research into how to build colonies in space (like, doing experiments, testing materials, working with mass drivers, that kind of thing). I haven't followed them in recent years, don't know what they're up to these days. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:17 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Alexander: Is anyone here familiar with any organizations dedicated to helping push along space travel? Used to be the L-5 Society. Seems L-5 merged with the National Space Institute and the duo renamed themselves the National Space Society http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/National_Space_Society.html Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: THE FINAL DEMO ... ...PROVING OVERUNITY
On 01/25/2010 03:55 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:13 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: I sure hope I'm wrong. Me too. It looks like they have two replicants who have joined the fray from the most recent piccys on their facebook: http://www.flickr.com/photos/steornofficial/4304018674/ Replication of **WHAT**?? They're not demonstrating OU (in any visible form), so what, exactly, is being replicated? T
Re: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
At 03:16 PM 1/25/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 01/25/2010 03:08 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote: Is anyone here familiar with any organizations dedicated to helping push along space travel? http://www.nss.org/ Well, I was Administrator of the L-5 Society, over thirty years ago, which was later absorbed into the National Space Society
Re: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
On 01/25/2010 04:09 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 03:16 PM 1/25/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 01/25/2010 03:08 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote: Is anyone here familiar with any organizations dedicated to helping push along space travel? http://www.nss.org/ Well, I was Administrator of the L-5 Society, over thirty years ago, That is seriously cool!
Re: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
best link ive found so far. http://www.data4science.net/essays.php?EssayID=850 hmm, i think its the same one you are talking about. I THOUGHT there was another one done, but i could be wrong. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 01/25/2010 03:39 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote: unfortunately, space elevator research has stalled due to a lot of issues with voltage differentials in the upper atmosphere. The last test I heard of of stretching a ribbon between the ground and leo, after it got about 5 miles long, it vaporized in a discharge, acting as a ground. not pretty. I don't recall that. I know the tethered satellite experiment done on the Shuttle failed with a burned cable, but I hadn't heard of any further work with long tethers after that. I'd be interested in hearing more about the 5 mile cable drop-and-fry from LEO, if you have a link to more info. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If the space elevator people succeed the rest will be easy. I would include the elevator advocates and experimentalists in the top ranks of those promoting space travel. I don't know how much support NSS is giving elevators but they should be a top priority. NASA, unfortunately, gave the elevator people the frozen boot years ago, in favor of retro-design rockets. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
Ditto. I am in awe. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 01/25/2010 04:09 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 03:16 PM 1/25/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 01/25/2010 03:08 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote: Is anyone here familiar with any organizations dedicated to helping push along space travel? http://www.nss.org/ Well, I was Administrator of the L-5 Society, over thirty years ago, That is seriously cool!
Re: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
Alexander Hollins wrote: unfortunately, space elevator research has stalled due to a lot of issues with voltage differentials in the upper atmosphere. I have a book on this topic, B. E. Edwards, E. A Westling, The Space Elevator, (no publisher listed). This is well written and authoritative. The authors discount this problem on p. 130 - 131, with a technical discussion which I cannot easily copy, ending with this comment: Even without the math we should be able to appraise the situation on an intuitive level. We do not drain the whole State of Texas of its thunderstorms by putting up one lightening rod. When we erect a TV antenna we don't drain away all the radio waves so that our neighbors don't get any. (Don't laugh, an obnoxious neighbor once blamed his poor reception on just such a claim.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
Alexander Hollins wrote: The last test I heard of of stretching a ribbon between the ground and leo, after it got about 5 miles long . . . I do not think anyone has tested such a long tether, and I am sure no one has tested between low earth orbit and the ground. That would be impossible, given how quickly the tether would move at the ground, or even the upper atmosphere. It would burn up, just the shuttle did when there was a problem with the heat shield. I think you are confused with reports of a tether being used to generate power. Do you recall when this test was conducted? Edwards and Westling's book was published in 2003. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: THE FINAL DEMO ... ...PROVING OVERUNITY
- Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, January 25, 2010 1:09:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:STEORN: THE FINAL DEMO ... ...PROVING OVERUNITY What we absolutely will *not* see: -- A true self-runner, which convinces all but the most pathological of skeptics. Will not happen -- not from Steorn. Not now, not ever. This includes motors with no external power supply, and motors driven by capacitors (which are shown conclusively to remain charged during the run) instead of batteries. In the last set of videos, Sean made it pretty clear that it is not part of Steorn's mission to build such a device. He expects future developers of orbo technology to build one. If he does present a self-runner, he is a liar! ;-) Harry __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
Re: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.
At 04:28 PM 1/25/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 01/25/2010 04:09 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Well, I was Administrator of the L-5 Society, over thirty years ago, That is seriously cool! Thanks. I thought so myself. I've done some other cool things, too! Right now I'm working on several projects -- that's always been the case, the good news and the bad news. I'm working on, of course, cold fusion. That's what brought me here. But I'm also working on social structures (organizational technology) that can avoid the kinds of mistakes involved in rejecting cold fusion. And, as well, the space colonization concept. More accurately, if these things were rejected, we'd know exactly why, and pathways would exist for gaining reconsideration if circumstances or evidence change. Efficiently. And, then, what happened to the L-5 Society? That, too, has to do with defects in organizational structure (of the Society), very common. Same problem with Wikipedia, in fact. Same problem all over the effing place and very few people looking at the root problems, just lots of people complaining about the symptoms. So I'm changing that, adding and attracting more people to at least start looking at it First step, eh?
Re: [Vo]:STEORN: THE FINAL DEMO ... ...PROVING OVERUNITY
At 07:45 PM 1/25/2010, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com What we absolutely will *not* see: -- A true self-runner, which convinces all but the most pathological of skeptics. Will not happen -- not from Steorn. Not now, not ever. This includes motors with no external power supply, and motors driven by capacitors (which are shown conclusively to remain charged during the run) instead of batteries. In the last set of videos, Sean made it pretty clear that it is not part of Steorn's mission to build such a device. He expects future developers of orbo technology to build one. If he does present a self-runner, he is a liar! ;-) Or, hey, they managed to find an easy way to do it. However, self-running is a red herring. What we would want to know are these things, which they could easily provide: The inertia of the rotor, i.e, how much energy it stores at a particular rotational speed, so we can understand how much energy is stored at a particular RPM level. How this energy decays (the rotor slows down) in the absence of any input, to determine the energy being dissipated in friction or other losses. How much energy is being supplied from the power supply, which is difficult to assess with a battery, but far easier with a capacitor bank, which could be designed to emulate the low resistance of a battery, avoiding the problems of high current spiking of batteries, which could produce spurious results. The capacitor voltage will show the rate of energy supply from the capacitor bank, which can be calibrated by dumping current through a resistor of known value. So we can compare the energy being accumulated in the rotor with the energy being supplied from the power supply. It is not necessary to reach self-running, which might fail even if the system is overunity, by not being sufficiently efficient in recovering power from the rotor. It is also possible to apply an electromagnetic brake, a pickup coil that generates current from the motion of the permanent magnets past it. If the coil is open circuit, it will not slow the rotor at all, but as resistance in series with the coil is decreased, the coil will draw more energy from the rotor and slow it. This can be adjusted to keep the rotor at constant speed, thus providing an almost direct measure of power being supplied to the rotor by the process. (It would only be off by the friction, measured already by the slowing down study). Then, study of and measurements of voltage and current in the toroidal circuit can be performed, and the disposition of the power dissipated there determined. How much power is being dissipated in the coil and in other circuit elements. How much heat is being generated? Calorimetry of the whole system would, of course, be of great interest. If the rotor is held at constant RPM by a brake as described, then the total heat generated should be directly correlated to the consumption of power from the capacitor bank, and be about the same, unless it is overunity. If it's over unity by a factor of two, that would be hard to miss, eh? The reason for using a capacitor bank is that the voltage provides a measure of stored energy, and its decline, that is not dependent upon calculations from what may be ridiculously complex waveforms. The most difficult of all these would be the calorimetry, I assume. The rest is trivial. The rest, however, might make the calorimetry unnecessary. They are presumably not presenting calorimetry data in the final demo, as of a few days ago that was still a future project, not a done deal, it seems. The back-EMF claims, which seem reasonable as a first approximation, imply that all the energy of the battery is going into heating, in the end. So, put a heat sink on the coil, and measure the thermal mass of the assembly, which can estimate energy dissipation in the coil from differential temperature measurements. Measure or calculate heat in the rest of the circuit and add it all up. Does this sum correlate well with what is expected from energy drawn from the battery? Or is there some missing energy? And, if so, how does the missing energy compare with the energy appearing in rotation of the rotor? Let me guess. The energy appearing in the rotor is quite the same as missing energy in the coil circuit, or indistinguishable from noise in the measurements. It is not necessary to understand the system adequately to calculate stuff, what calculations are needed should be simple ones, such as rotational inertia from the effect of known energy draw (through a pickup coil, for example). Instead, let me guess. It will be complicated, with calculations being asserted as proper and complete, neglecting minor variations. Such as the claim that there is no back EMF, based on a display that only showed that, sort of, what we'd expect from back EMF could not be seen. But which would
