RE: [Vo]: Speed of light confirmed
Hi Stephen, Yeah, I'll probably fiddle around some more with this, just because it seems like the pre-ring is going the wrong way and I'd like to understand why. That's good. While the scope precludes you from doing any interesting shock wave experiments ( way too slow ) you can certainly do some faster-than-light type experiments using lumped constant transmission lines. As regards the wire impedence, use a 400ohm carbon film resistor as your termination. This is good enough for basement work. When I worked with this I used aluminum foil to make ground planes, suspending wire above it in whatever form was important. Google around a bit on the term time domain reflectometery and you'll learn about how to characterize the line more accurately. But again, the scope is too slow to work such a small physical structure. BTW, the rule of thumb with aircore xmission line is 1ns/ft. Easy to remember, and it's always nice to put the kings feet in there somewhere... While you're chewing on yesterdays comments, take a few moments to read that section in Feynmans QED, http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8169.html where he talks about the photon taking all possible paths from the sender to the receiver. Strange, huh? Now think about that experiment you just did and that precursor signal I pointed out. Not so strange now... K.
RE: [Vo]: Speed of light confirmed
Hi Stephen, Well, by Dobbs, you've done an experiment. Congrats. Now for the fun part! I'm looking at the last scope shot, http://www.physicsinsights.org/images/img_0748-a1.png Amplify the receive channel (2) by 10, so you're at 100 mV rather than 1 V/div. Now let's talk about that negative going structure that is appearing between 0 and 15ns on the received channel. Any thoughts about that? K. -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:40 PM To: Vortex Subject: [Vo]: Speed of light confirmed OK, I admit it, this is pretty boring. But you folks are the only people I can think of who might possibly respond to this with something other than a glazed look and the question, You did what? Uh ... why? The answer, of course, is just cause I wanted to see for myself. Basement measurement of the speed of an EM wave (sorry, it's not really _light_, just a wave in a wire): http://www.physicsinsights.org/speed_of_light_1.html Home office measurement of the speed of sound: http://www.physicsinsights.org/speed_of_sound_1.html
RE: [Vo]: Speed of light confirmed
Hi Stephen, it looks like it has something to do with the signal itself, almost like the pre-ringing of a perfect low-pass filter Given that your cutoff frequency is 60MHz, the leading edge of the signals you are seeing probably bear little relationship to the actual state of the signal. I say this as the sparkgap type circuit you are using can generate sub nanosecond risetimes. And the measured risetimes just happen to correspond to your scopes bandwidth limit. Without more experiments it's impossible to say for sure what's going on here but my first guess is self-inductance in the loop. That's a good/reasonable guess. Are you interested in doing more experiments to prove it out? As the current experiment seems to be showing the opposite of the claim in the message header. K.
RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads
Hi Frank, That first link was most interesting, thanks kindly. I will need to study a bit more about what is meant by the Zemach radius and the magnetic radius. I do think that the whole concept of a billiard ball particle falls apart on close inspection, rather like the old Bohr model. Yet, we can still use these lumped parameter analysis to good effect. As regards the capacity, I should point out that my experience with this is pretty much all on the macro scale. Capacity is a geometric phenomena, if you can define the shape of the object and it's relation to the ground plane, and you know the permittivity of the medium in between, you can determine the capacity. As Fred pointed out in his post, in the case of the electron the radius is determined by the following equation. r = q^2/[4(pi)eo* mc^2] and you can see the energy term is hidden in there. But no matter how we determine the radius, we still end up with something in units of length. Now, it is an experimentally known fact ( hey, I designed plenty of HV capacitors using this formula, so it works for me at least ) that the capacity of a sphere in space is given by the following equ. C = 4*pi*e0*r So given those two things, that was my result. It confuses me as well as to how we end up with different numbers. I think we can both agree that the energy in a capacitor is 1/2*C*V^2. But as I said I'm not using that relationship at all to calculate my capacity, it being a purely geometric property. Perhaps what all this is really saying is that, if we use your derivation from energy considerations, that the resulting shape in not spherical? In which case, I would need to use some other formula to calculate the capacity... I don't know. If I get some free time I'll look over your derivation more closely, and see if I get any insights. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads Thank you again Keith. The 3 db point on the proton is about 1.2 Fermi's. The max extent is about 1.4 Fermi. http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdfidentifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aphysics%2F0405118 http://www.infim.ro/rrp/2005_57_4/17-795-799.pdf I don't understand where the .8 Fermi radius come from. Is it a half amplitude point? My universe is 1/2 yours because I state that the energy of a capacitor is Energy=1/2 CVV You use, energy = CVV where did the 1/2 go? I am baffled. Frank z
RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads
You're welcome, Frank. I am aware that the value of the proton radius is questionable, for example http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Proton.html the two values listed are 0.805 ± 0.011 and 0.862 ± 0.012 femtometers. So there is some wiggle room for theory, but 1.4 seems like too big a stretch from the known experimental evidence. See this for example. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9712347 which is a pretty good summation of work up to that date. Anyway, with these base figures I get a capacity for the proton of ~.96 x 10^-25 Farads. While I don't know how this all fits into your theory, it might prove more profitable to just toss out preconceived notions, find the most accurate measured values, and play with those. As I said, there's some wiggle room with the proton, but not much more than .1 femtometers. I rather like the direction Fred was going with this, although I would disagree that the impedence of the electron is the space impedence. I'd be happy to bat this around, but it seems like this list is still immersed in the kinds of discussion that drove me away last year. If you or anyone else has read this far, and you want to discuss these issues or others relating to the new energy scene, do contact me privately, I run a list for just this purpose. No requirements for joining other than the ability to think rationally and post without (too much ) axe grinding...*grin* Hope this helps. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads Thank you Keith, I made a mistake in calling the classical radius of the proton and the maximum radius of the proton by the same number. One is actually twice the other. My work required the radius of the proton 1.4 fermi meters. Do you have any ideas of why this is? Frank Znidarsic
RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads
Hi Frank, You should try moving to my universe, it's twice as large and we won't be bumping into each other as much *grin* But seriously, why do our calculations differ? If my derivation is wrong, can you show me why? Let's at least nail that down before we tackle the entire universe... K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 11:17 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads It is remarkable to me that the voltages there particles are at range from 1/2 to 2 million volts. Freds discussion about a (sort of) distributed model had too many hands for me to comment on *grin*. K. .. I hope that I am not the source of the several that have unsupscriped from this list. This, as you have said, this is remarkable. What is even more remarkable is; compute the capacitance of a sphere 13.3 billion light years in diameter. Reduce this valve of capacitance by the gravitational coupling constant. You will get 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads. Is the capacitance of the universe established by the gravitational field and its bounds? Is this universe capacitively coupled to everything within it? It think so. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptera.html What do you think? Frank Z
RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads
Hi Frank, OK, I see where we differ. I'm using this value for radius of electron. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectronRadius.html For the proton, using that capacity of sphere formula, I get... ~.9 x 10^-25 Farads using the proton radius here. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Proton.html I guess talking about the radius of either of these two particles is a bit misleading, a sort of lumped analysis where a distributed one is in order. It is remarkable to me that the voltages there particles are at range from 1/2 to 2 million volts. Freds discussion about a (sort of) distributed model had too many hands for me to comment on *grin*. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads Keith Nagel writes C = 3.135*10^-25 F and we seem to differ by a factor of two. BTW, this is pretty well known, are you claiming the idea??? I've not got a reference at hand, but I'm sure a little searching would turn up something... K. Thank you for you comment Keith. No, I am not claiming to have discovered the value of capacitance of a proton. r=1.4 x 10-15m. It is well known. It is sort of one of those uninteresting facts that no one cares about, except perhaps me. The field of physics is divided into two camps; Quantum and classical. The quantum regime is considered to be preeminent. The classical world falls out as large numbers of quantum events occur. I disagree with this. I believe that the quantum regime is a subset of the classical universe. I believe that there is a minimum of stray capacitance that can be experienced by a particle. This minimum of stray capacitance is a classical phenomena. It is a property of the universe. The quantum regime falls out a consequence of this classical property. I started with 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads and developed the quantum regime from this first principle. I got the same answers, however, I employed an underlying classical premise. I did not come directly to Planck's constant from this approach. I came to 1.09 megahertz-meters as a fundamental quantum constant. With a little math 1.09 meters/sec can be converted to Planck's constant. I hope you understand Keith http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/index.html Frank Z
RE: [Vo]: Frederick Sparber on charged spheres
Hi Frank + Fred, I usually use the formula for the capacity of a sphere in free space and the Compton radius, as so. C=4*pi*epsilon0*r with r=2.8179*10^-15 M and epsilon0 = 8.854*10^-12 F/M C = 3.135*10^-25 F and we seem to differ by a factor of two. BTW, this is pretty well known, are you claiming the idea??? I've not got a reference at hand, but I'm sure a little searching would turn up something... K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 11:39 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Frederick Sparber on charged spheres Frederick Sparber writes Single Plate Capacitor Anomaly: Plate #1 had an area five times that of plate 2 and seventeen times that of plate #3. With a Positive voltage applied it was pulled downward with a force of 2.08E-2 Nt the same as the upward force on single plate #3 with the same (+) polarity. With (-) polarity it had nearly twice the upward force of plate #3(3.90E-2/1.46E-2 Nt). snip... Frederick you understand capacitors. You understand about the isotropic capacitance of a sphere. You have, however, asked the wrong questions about capacitor anomalies.A better question would be, what it the isotropic capacitance of a point? Does the isotropic capacitance of a sphere break down when the sphere approaches the dimensions of the electron? I have asked this question and have found the isotropic capacitance of a point to be. Cq = 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads ref http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptera.html Is this important? I believe it is. This valve of capacitance effects the quantum transition. It produces a transitional velocity of 1.092 million meters /second. Frederich you are working with the correct equations, however, you need to ask more fundamental questions. Frank Znidarsic
RE: [Vo]: Removal of chi ?
Good for you, Stephen! I think this is the first experiment you've done on Vo. What you need to do to make the presented experiment statistically signficant is use about 50 plants each for boiled and uwaved H2O. Also, get your wife to mix the containers of water, so you don't know which is which. For you, it will be container A and B. Later, after you do the analysis, wife can tell you which is which. The linked experiment is anecdotal. K. -Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:20 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Removal of chi ? Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some rather profound quandaries are often presented by experiments in high school science fairs ... and often mainstream physics can only guess at the answers: hhttp://www.execonn.com/sf/ Son-of-a-gun. I'm goina try this myself. The water I plan to microwave will be done in a Pyrex glass measuring cup to hopefully eliminate the potential of any kind of leaching contaminants. I'm actually more concerned about how to reduce potential leaching from occurring when boiling water the conventional way, in a pan on a stove. If this is verifiable it will make me think twice about all that micro waved food I've consumed throughout my life. Perhaps it's the cause of my stunted growth! My father was 6'2, My older brother 6 feet. I'm 5'8. Do I see a pattern here ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.Zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]: Removal of chi ?
Hey Steve, Nope, no decoder ring...sorry. If you conduct the experiment as I described, you'll know for a _fact_ whether microwaved water is better or worse than boiled water for plant growth. Is it madness to know a fact? I suppose so, by today's standards. Certainly you can incite some real violence by reciting a few facts, so that is a sort of madness. Beware! This fact based approach is dangerous! Once you begin to drop opinions and collect facts, you'll in for a seriously bumpy ride. The blue pill is so much more pleasant. K. -Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:34 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: Removal of chi ? Good for you, Stephen! I think this is the first experiment you've done on Vo. That's spelled: Steve If I complete the experiment will I get my very own official mad scientist VO decoder ring? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]: Testing
Well, there are two options.
A) Complain.
or
B) Debug Bills mail script, as follows.
:0
* ! ^Subject: (Re:(\[[1-9]+\])? )?\[Vo\]:
{
:0 w
CURRENT_SUBJ=| formail -zx Subject:
:0 fhw
| formail -ISubject: [Vo]: $CURRENT_SUBJ
}
K.
-Original Message-
From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 2:22 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Testing
well, all i did was write a suject in the subject field. are you
adding the [Vo}: yourself jones?
On 9/29/06, leaking pen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
testing subject.
--
That which yields isn't always weak.
--
That which yields isn't always weak.
RE: [Vo]: Testing
Hi Jones,
This is the mail script Bill posted to this forum several
months ago when he implemented the new policy. Clearly,
it has a bug. He installed it on his server, so someone
needs to find the bug and correct it, then send him the
revised version for him to install.
Could I do this? Probably, but the language is unfamilar
to me, I tend to work mostly in C++ these days and
avoid the scripting stuff. I am however very curious
who will take it upon themselves to do the work at
hand and solve the problem. A social experiment, if you will.
Again, here is the script.
:0
* ! ^Subject: (Re:(\[[1-9]+\])? )?\[Vo\]:
{
:0 w
CURRENT_SUBJ=| formail -zx Subject:
:0 fhw
| formail -ISubject: [Vo]: $CURRENT_SUBJ
}
K.
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 2:54 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Testing
Hi Keith,
Well ... as a notroious non-complainer g ...
Debug Bills mail script, as follows.
:0
* ! ^Subject: (Re:(\[[1-9]+\])? )?\[Vo\]:
{
:0 w
CURRENT_SUBJ=| formail -zx Subject:
:0 fhw
| formail -ISubject: [Vo]: $CURRENT_SUBJ
}
OK ... but assume that we do not all possess your programming
acumen.
How does one go about Debugging Bills mail script ?? is this
done in Outlook Express? I am loathe to change mail clients as I
have over 10 years worth of sorted messages
RE: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
Hi Robin, I was confused by this also. I don't think english is Andres first language, so his paper is a little obtuse at points. What he's saying, after a more careful read on my part, is that he assumes The Energy of a wave is transported at its phase velocity. is what Roger is claiming. I haven't had time to check the math, but having now at least read Rogers theory paper, I have my doubts about Andres assumption. Look at section 2.2 for example. Roger diagrams the path of a TEM wave inside the microwave cavity. This is the correct model, I have measured this same behavior in a real cavity with real probes, as I had described earlier ( on the Vo. list even, check the archives ). He then goes on to say something like, if we measure the group velocity by using the axial distance, rather than the true path, we see that group velocity can be much slower at the short end of the tube than the longer ( as in 2.4 ). I will add to that statement by saying that in addition, phase velocity will grow faster by the same amount. In the limit condition, phase velocity will be infinite, and group velocity will be zero. I think Roger has a pretty good handle on the mechanics of what is going on in the wave guide, based on the text at least. What I find a little questionable about Rogers idea is that the system is truly open. Look at the gedanken experiment in fig 2.1. If plate R1 and R2 are physically connected, there ought to be net motion in the direction of F1. That seems OK to me. But how about if the transmitter Tx is connected to the same frame? Now I wonder... but that's basically Rogers claim. K. -Original Message- From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor In reply to Remi Cornwall's message of Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:21:56 +0100: Hi Remi, [snip] Don, I had a few thoughts on the paper: http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/ElectromagneticPropulsion.htm In http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/FeynmanIIpg24a7sections24a2to24a4.jpg it states very explicitly: The group velocity of the waves is also the speed at which energy is transported along the guide. Which is what I always thought it was. However Andreas Rathke states in his paper The Energy of a wave is transported at its phase velocity. (See page 1). One of them seems to be wrong. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
RE: [Vo]: Re: Biomimicry in Automotive
You know, Jones, it would be fun to pursue this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. As so. The car is a miserable form of transport. Firstly, it runs on fossil fuels. Rather, we should have the vehicle run on waste vegetable matter. Preferrably the vehicle should have an on-board processing plant so we could feed the vegetable matter into it directly. What gets left over from a car is CO2 and pollution, but with my new vehicle the resulting waste would be a rich fertilizer, the better to grow more fuel! Also, tires really suck wind. And you need roads to drive on. Let's replace the wheels with something more rugged, like articulated stilts. Then we can ride on most any terrain, even up hills and across water! No roads required now. Now the steel needed to make a car is an expensive and energy rich material. Better we should make our new vehicle out of something more common, like carbon. Common as dirt. Finally, big manufacturing plants also consume a lot of energy and are very wasteful. My new vehicle will need no manufacturing, rather, it will be able to make copies of itself as needed! How revolutionary is that! This new vehicle needs a name. How about...Trigger Think I can get a patent on my revolutionary vehicle? (smile). I should try; I think there may be a big demand for this technology in the near future. Remember, you heard it here first. K. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 3:37 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Re: Biomimicry in Automotive BTW - in previous postings the term ambient heat is a bit inaccurate since the high end of ambient is optimum- what one can derive from direct solar, for instance. About 150 degrees F is adequate for onboard production in an automobile of peroxide in the 2 gallons per hour range. This is easily derived from waste heat, since some small amount of combustion cannot be eliminated easily from any design. The peroxide is made in low concentration by superoxidation of water, and then enriched in a secondary cascade to a usable level. At the genset - a mid-grade enrichment is taken to HTP in one step and then burned at once, so that no HTP is stored. HTP is too dangerous to be stored but is rather easy to enrcih from 40-50% in one step. The midgrade itself is less dangerous than gasoline, for instance, but does have some associated risks. And as for miniaturization - most every cell in your body is doing this for energy, even though the peroxide itself is toxic to them as well - if - that is, it were to be made in excess and before it is needed. That is where anti-oxidants like vitamin C come in. ... and where just in time manufacturing, and where Biomimicry comes in, as well
RE: Cold fusion advocates should put up or shut up
Walter writes: I don't propose turning science over to magicians, much less priests. Yet that is where we are at now. There is only one science that I know of. It is learning through experience and mistake. There is no other. When I wrote earlier of doing the Ohsawa carbon arc experiment, I did not say what results I got. I could, but what would be the point? _You_ must do the experiment. It is relatively easy, and perhaps there are still people here able to help. You seem to have been smart enough to pick up on the fact that electron spins can act collectively in some forms of carbon; there should be ample discussion of this issue in the archives. It is in my opinion an important issue. If you don't do the experiment, then you are left to believe the results of another. That person could be lying, they could be foolish and not understand what they are doing, they could be careless. The key word is belief. When you lack direct experience in something, and you have an opinion on the subject, then that is a belief. The Amazin' K.
RE: Cold fusion advocates should put up or shut up
Walter writes: We assume the impartiality of the experts. They don't lie; they're scientists! We believe them because theoretically at least we could get the same training and come to the same conclusions. That's what makes science different from theology. We assume the impartiality of the priests. They don't lie; they're priests! We believe them because theoretically at least we could get the same religious training and come to the same conclusions. That's what makes theology different from science. Walter also writes: I do have a little hope for one such demonstration sparked by this thread; see the new thread, http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg13665.html and particularly Michael Foster's post. Perhaps you should read the archives of this list. Better still, try the experiment yourself, it's trivially easy to do, many of us have done it. Then you can win the million dollars. Or not. Either way, now that we've turned science over to the priests and the magicians I don't hold much hope for advance. The Amazing K.
RE: Energy Secretary Sees Fusion as Part of Solution
Hi Steve, from the story you quote: President Bush's administration goal is to replace 75 percent of the United States' Middle East oil imports with alternative fuels by 2025. So what does that mean to you? Anyone else here care to comment? K.
RE: Electron Band Structure In Germanium, My Xss
Yeah, that was very funny, thanks. It sounded like Alex Doonsebury selected this college, and after a steady diet of ideal current sources and gedanken wankin' has just been tasked with making a real measurement. Ouch. I remember taking a biology course as an undergrad; we had to dissect something and all I could discern was a blob of undifferentiated muck. My lab partner had a nice collection of little organs on his tray. I then proceeded to take all the old creature parts laying about the lab and build up my own new creature, at which point I realized I was really better suited to some kind of engineering than the life sciences. K. -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 11:57 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Electron Band Structure In Germanium, My Xss OrionWorks wrote: This is for anyone who's ever struggled through a physics lab: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/hall.html I love the graphic. Especially the line drawn through the data points. First-rate, front to back! I loved this quote: This is how they treat undergrads around here: they give you broken tools and then don't understand why you don't get any results. It was explained to me, back when I was in college, that the biggest barrier to a physics degree was the junior physics lab, which one took in one's junior year. In that lab, one did things like demonstrate the Hall effect (non-trivial!), using nothing but outdated, obsolete, and/or broken equipment. The reason wasn't any lack of money (not at _that_ school). The reason, I was told, was that there were Too Many Physics Majors and Not Enough Physics Jobs. In consequence, the undergraduate physics program was made intentionally distasteful. And if, by some miracle, you got through the first two years without getting the message, you ran smack into the horrible h*** of the Junior Physics Lab, and if you got through _THAT_, then by golly you were *dedicated* and were eligible to be one of the chosen few. Me, personally, I wasn't, and I didn't... I gave it up as a bad deal halfway through the undergrad quantum course, which was awful. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.Zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: OFF TOPIC Doonsbury features calorimetry
The real joke here is that both Alex and the professor are talking from textbooks and not from actual experience. No test equipment manufacturer sells an ideal current source. What you can actually build or buy, are constant current sources. Real constant current or contant voltage source can be told apart with nothing more than a RatShack multimeter. Short both, and see which one is still working after driving the dead short. Amusingly enough, you could tell from the temp rise that the _voltage_ source is the hotter one, if it doesn't fail or explode. Mistake piled on mistake. It made me laugh, that's for sure, so it's a good comic anyway. K. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 12:02 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: OFF TOPIC Doonsbury features calorimetry And Cornell! See: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html It's not often you see Thevenin and Norton equivalences in a comic strip. - Jed
RE: OFF TOPIC Doonsbury features calorimetry
Hi Stephen, You write: There are two black boxes, each with two terminals on it. One contains an ideal 1 amp current source in parallel with a 1 ohm resistor; the other contains an ideal 1 volt voltage source in series with a 1 ohm resistor. How do you tell which is which? OK, that at least fits the answer, although it's still not an experiment that can really be done in practice. I can understand this if we're talking about black holes or something, but this is electrical engineering, and we certainly ought to be able to do actual experiments to understand the subject. It's no wonder so many EE's seem to have great difficulty when confronted with an actual analog circuit. The way this stuff is taught is utterly confusing and disconnected from reality. For example, I just built a practical constant current source, using a 5000V voltage supply and a .5 meg resistor in series. Crude, but quite effective for loads under about 50Kohms. For loads over that value, now it folds over and looks more like constant voltage. Elegant? No, but sometime brute force is the best way forward. K.
RE: OFF TOPIC Doonsbury features calorimetry
Hi Stephen, First of all, Alex is still in school. She's not going to have a lot of real world experience -- cut her some slack! Ahhh, I've been following the strip. She has several patents, founded a startup, and is being courted by several foreign companies for product development work. (grin) She ought to know better. Second, she's talking to a college prof, in an accademic environment, and this really is a pretty standard puzzle, used to elucidate various circuit models. So, of course he's heard of it and knows the correct theoretical answer. Yeah, as you put the problem, it has educational value in terms of circuit theory. Great for multiple choice questions, but the poor kid gets stumped when a real live power supply is needed. 'Course it was that same engineer who fixed the power supplies on some set of IMPs so the machines would work in Europe. When asked how to tell if a particular IMP had the fix, he said, Just listen to it when you turn it on. If it doesn't go 'thwong' it's fine. Definitely sounds like my kinda guy. Of course, it's just a comic. K.
Cold Fusion Trend
Couldn't resist trying the new google search feature with our old friend, CF. http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22cold+fusion%22 Better bail faster Jed, the boat is sinking. (grin) OTOH, hot fusion gets so few hits that the trending software doesn't want to produce a graph. Perhaps google is just full of poop. Wouldn't be the first time. K.
RE: The Pappajo engine
Interesting idea; I like the closed loop nature of the system although carrying around the extra O2 would be a problem, yes? Oh yeah, this is how you do a document link to USPTO. You can't just copy the URL, it will expire as Frank suggests. HTML version http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=4112875 TIFF version http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=04112875idkey=NONE I don't see much connection in this to the ideas of Papp et al, as the argon is being used as a working fluid. But if you had the engine you could perhaps test some of the ideas suggested here. I think Fred has the right idea, hobby engines would make for a good test bed. K. -Original Message- From: Grimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 10:46 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: The Pappajo engine At 07:18 am 09/05/2006 -0700, you wrote: Forgot to add that the patent is online (and expired of course): http://tinyurl.com/ru6vs When I clicked on the above tinyurl, that appeared to have expired likewise. 8-) Frank
RE: ReRe: Alliance for NanoHealth, Dr. Mauro Ferrari
The path of action is open to all, Phillip. You can choose to read the papers available, and work the field. If you feel for some reason unable to do this, you can contribute monetarily to one of the many projects ongoing in the field. The best person to answer your question is yourself. Because that's all there is. There is no government. There is no industry. There is no academia. There is only the person who asks and answers the question. K. -Original Message- From: Philip Winestone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:25 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ReRe: Alliance for NanoHealth, Dr. Mauro Ferrari 'Morning Richard, My question still stands: Why? Why is it necessary to have teams of lobbyists to promote action on energy when it's all too obvious that many avenues have to be explored in depth; avenues that have demonstrated at least some initial promise? And it's really not an either/or situation. It doesn't take substantial sums of money (in government terms) to put a variety of energy research projects on a sound footing, including (or perhaps, especially) CF. Heavens! If, over the past 17 years, CF researchers have come up with some great, but as yet unfinished, information, working on a shoestring, think of what they could do if they had some reasonable level of consistent funding. This scenario isn't rocket science. What do we pay our government geniuses for (yours and mine), if not to take hard looks at the world around us, and make good (not necessarily perfect) decisions based on needs, not simply schmoozing? Any such research should be ongoing, and should continue even after, at some not-too-distant point, the results are handed over to industry to do what industry does best: make practical, profit-making applications. I'll get off my soap-box now. Philip. At 07:28 PM 4/16/2006 -0500, you wrote: Philip wrote.. The indication for a steady increase in research funding is apparent across all science, except CF And at this critical point in time, one wonders why (without, of course, delving into conspiracy theories)... Howdy Philip, The article goes on the describe Dr. Ferrari as being a charismatic scholar and he is the author of the NCI $144 mil initiative. In Texan speak, that means he was the guy that hustled up the money from Uncle Sugar via NCI. The problem facing the CF initiative is the lack of a presence in D.C. The way the game is played, the money comes from Uncle Sugar, some is diverted to lobbyists that go back to the feed trough for more.. etc. We have a merry go round and we wind up watching the government fund the organizations that lobby. Tom DeLay was a piker. The CF people either pony up some serious money for lobbyists to start the circle.. or keep standing outside looking in the windows of the candy store. Richard
RE: Electrogravity Proton Repulsion of Electrons
Hi Michel, Actually, Fred has some difficulties that make it hard for him to do experiments ( much like the space shuttle, he runs on LOX ). Back in the day, several of us did implement some of Freds ideas, most notably Frank Stenger. Frank did the TV experiment for Fred, although you might not have gathered that from the posting. All that despite Fred not having received a Nobel prize, which shows I suppose that we must have been guilty as charged by [EMAIL PROTECTED], or perhaps we don't need to believe in something to try it... Speaking of Frank Stenger, he did a few experiments based on Fred's hypocharge speculations, including some stuff with pulsing transmission lines as Fred was talking about earlier. How about posting some of Franks experimental results??? K. -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Electrogravity Proton Repulsion of Electrons Fred Sparber wrote: Why/how Fred? (just curious on how one can measure any gravity effect at all, upward or downward, on an electron) A theory without an experiment to test it isn't worth much. Einstein won his Nobel for the photoelectric effect. Then after this Deification they listened to his theories and ran some experiments. :-) His theories of relativity you mean. Yes, indeed. The evacuated hollow field-free vertical drift tube should allow the electrons to fall upward at 9.8 meters/sec^2. I think they can be timed and their charge collected at the top. How? Designing experiments to test theories is not easy, you seem to be good at this. Strictly Thought Experiments, Michel :-) You are too modest Fred, when I subscribed here you were running experiments on electroniums with TV CRTs weren't you? Designing a real experiment requires thought experiments anyway. Michel Fred Michel - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Electrogravity Proton Repulsion of Electrons A 2 meter tall evacuated vertical tube sitting atop or connected to the sphere of a small Van De Graaff, might allow measurement of an upward gravity force on electrons if they can be detected without error, perhaps?
RE: Electrogravity, jerk and jounce
Hi Jones, you write: Everyone here seems to have a narrow field of specific interest and mine is not anti-gravity per-se, EXCEPT to the extent that it portends overunity or new sources of energy. A plethora of mouths, and no ears. A hallmark of our age, don't you think? Anyway... Keith, you seem pretty confident that acceleration is not required for this particular effect, despite the implications of TM. Oh, it's exactly what Martin is showing, and I'm sure he would agree with me. As I wrote, all he has to work with is accelerometers so _of course_ he needs to be focused on the rate of change of the gravitomagnetic field. If he had gravitomagnetic sensors then he could measure the gravitomagnetic London moment directly. The best thing I can suggest is to read the papers I listed from most recent back, three or four of them ought to be sufficient. But better would be to familiarize yourself with other material on the subject, that Jefimenko book Horace and I were writing about would be a good place to start. After the slashdot crowd calms down, I'll email Martin with some thoughts about his experiments. First rate work, IMHO. But I do want to finish reading all his papers before I comment. K.
RE: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline)
Hi Ham, Yes, I did like the app, and had a few thoughts about it. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline) -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian BTW Fred (and other distinguished vorts) I would be interested in your opinion on the EEStor patent I discovered a few days ago http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html (copy-paste app number 0040071944, I haven't found how to link directly to the patent) http://tinyurl.com/fmwkv Keith should love the patent app. It has lots of chemistry. T ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
RE: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline)
Wow, hey Fred, we have something in common. BTW, how's the house coming? You get any bites yet? K. -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 3:02 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline) Hi K, do you think it can work? (you seem to have a reply-to problem just like Fred BTW) Michel - Original Message - From: Keith Nagel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:55 PM Subject: RE: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline) Hi Ham, Yes, I did like the app, and had a few thoughts about it. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EEStor Patent(was: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline) -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian BTW Fred (and other distinguished vorts) I would be interested in your opinion on the EEStor patent I discovered a few days ago http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html (copy-paste app number 0040071944, I haven't found how to link directly to the patent) http://tinyurl.com/fmwkv Keith should love the patent app. It has lots of chemistry. T ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
RE: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline
I'll see your 13.4 cents, and raise you to 22 cents ( this includes the delivery costs, BTW ). Also, for Phil Winestone, I can appreciate your comments about counting the PV's that can fit on the head of a pin but given the insane cost I am now paying for electricity, you might plug through those calc's one more time... At the current rate I'll bet I could hire a couple of Mexicans from the nabe to pedal bicycles with generators attached and come out ahead, even including the cost of a few Modelos ( they're mixed ethanol/carbohydrate powered, you know? ) K. -Original Message- From: Craig Haynie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 12:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Simple comparison electric car versus gasoline Jed wrote: Electricity: 8 cents kWh You're only paying 8 cents per KWH. I'm paying something like 13.4 cents per KWH. Craig Haynie (Houston)
RE: a meteorologist speaks on climate change
Revtek writes: This is what must happen: 1. The economy must be kept roaring. Dow index / Jan 2000 - 11,500 Jan 2006 - 10,780 aggregate US economic growth, -6% Roaring, Rev? How about whimpering like a pimpslapped bitch. No point in addressing the rest. Please reconnect to reality and try again. Operators are standing by. K.
RE: Internet blows CIA cover
The cat is my controller. Damn you, Internets! You've blown my cover! Hey Jones, post the logs. I'd like to see what a CIA laptop looks like after it's been 0wned by a script kiddie. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 1:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Internet blows CIA cover -Original Message- From: Jones Beene JB: Hmm ... now I'm wondring if K. is the mole! G TB: Naaa. He sent me piccys of his cat. Cats eat moles. g JB: Ha! if they take anything seriously here, they will be looking for aliens next... TB: They already have them. T (former moderator for Mutual UFO Network on CompuServe) ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
RE: My take on the Taleyarkhan affair
Hi Ed, I think you need to look at it from the university position. There have been some high profile cases of fraud in the sciences, perhaps the most press being devoted to the South Korean cloning scientist but I could name several more if you like. Academia is no different than the corporate world, in fact the two are quickly converging into one monolithic system. So given the history of the energy field, and the high profile fraud cases, can you understand why they might proceed to investigate? There is nothing irrational about this, given that both prestige and money are in play. Let me turn the question around and ask you, what sort of due dilligence do you perform before you engage in a business venture? Do you independently verify the backgrounds of the business people and investors involved? Do you look at SEC filings and related financial information? It's been my experience that the reason frauds are so prevalent is that people greatly prefer the fraud to the honest man. They will fight tooth and nail to _not_ do the things I am suggesting above, in order that the promises made by the frauds remain real. I do not know if Taleyarkhans experiments were successful, but given that we have seen reproduction of the basic effect here on Vo. some years ago ( Knuke... ) I suspect they might be. K. -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: My take on the Taleyarkhan affair skip Ed Storms was baffled by the brouhaha in the press. He said: Naturally the detected amounts are wrong because the measurements are not sensitive enough to see the expected ratio. What is the advantage to anyone to mix these two phenomenon? As I said, the advantage is that you crush the opposition by associating them with cold fusion. But Storms, in an uncharacteristically naïve moment, said he does not understand why anyone would attack research in the newspapers in the first place. This situation makes no sense. If these other researchers feel there is a problem with the experiment, they should discuss it by e-mail, or publish papers showing an error. Here is my take on the situation: Think Zeitgeist. This is the kind of age we live in. This is what science has come to. When people publish experimental results that contradict theory, instead of debating the issues according to logic and textbook knowledge, academic rivals spread false rumors, they threaten lawsuits, they meddle, and they conduct witch hunt investigations to derail the research and destroy careers. It worked with cold fusion, so now they do it every time something new comes along. Taleyarkhan is being investigated for academic misconduct because a theoretician thinks the experiment contradicts theory. It is now officially misconduct to do experiments that challenge textbook theory. Theoreticians have appointed themselves the high priests of science, and an experimentalist who does anything to upset them is not merely mistaken or foolish, as they said back in 1989. Now he is unethical, and he must be investigated and crushed. Perhaps, as Schwinger predicted, this will be the death of science. Science is at a low point, and no one can say when, or if, it will recover. But I expect it will. Valuable, vital institutions seldom collapse completely. Usually after they reach an dysfunctional extreme, a crisis occurs, and then the problems are fixed. I still think something is odd about the approach taken by the press to bubble fusion. All fields of science have internal conflict and questions about the data. These issues are routinely resolved in the pages of scientific journals and in discussion between scientists. The press does not get involved and the general public never knows or cares about the issues. In recent times, the press has taken notice of emotional scientific issues such as stem cell research and global warming. General interest in these issues is understandable. However, why would bubble fusion get press attention and be of interest to anyone except the few people working on the subject? That is what seems strange to me. In addition, why would an important university such as Purdue risk its reputation for academic freedom by initiating a formal investigation of a minor conflict between professors? Rejection of cold fusion made sense because the phenomenon has the potential to disrupt science as well as industry. Bubble fusion has neither possibility. Of course, Jed might be right. Everyone is slowly being infected by irrationally by the examples we see in the world in general. Ed - Jed
RE: Renewable Energy Blog
Hey Jones, I also noticed this story on the blog, and I'm glad you mentioned it. It's a great example of how lies are generated and propagated by Mr. Bush and his associates. Here is the actual quote from the SOTUA. Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. (Applause.) http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-10.html So let's look at the DOE chart of oil imports to the US. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html Out total imports for 2005 were 11500 barrels per day. Our imports from the Middle East for that period was 2287 barrels per day. So if we cut our imports from the Middle East by 75 percent that would be 1715 barrels per day, or an expected reduction of 15 percent of total imports by 2025. So what Mr. Bush is actually proposing ( and this was verified by journalists the next day by asking Sam Bodman, erstwhile oilman and current secretary of energy ) is a 15 percent replacement in 20 years time with alt energy, and that in current numbers rather than predicted future usage. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13767738.htm The genius of this lie is that few people will consciously hear the Middle East part, and if they do are largely ignorant of where the bulk of our oil comes from. So rather than doing the legwork and determining the actual value from the misleading claim, what they take away is... Just as sure as the sun rises from the east, various groups have reacted rather favorably to President George W. Bush's declaration of America's addiction to oil, which he proposes to cut down by 75% over the next 20 years. http://www.rengen.info/renewableenergy/66.html See how that works? K. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 12:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Renewable Energy Blog - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rengen.info/ The Regen blogster's too-tame Dodge Dart is in need of some 'pimping' it would seem. (unless you are around teenagers, you may not know that this word nowadays refers to the popular MTV show 'pimp my ride'). He states: Just as sure as the sun rises from the east, various groups have reacted rather favorably to President George W. Bush's declaration of America's addiction to oil, which he proposes to cut down by 75% over the next 20 years. [Interesting that this is both achievable and underway - even if Bush and DoE did nothing, zero, nada... and let free market forces continue the present trend of alternative - but with proactive intervention, how long would it take for oxidized fuels to supplant 75% of our addiction ? Ans: You may be surprised that our Prez is being conservative in the 20 years estimate] One such group, which is beginning to gain significance in terms of number and importance, are domestic ethanol producers in the US. Currently, US Ethanol producers are the largest alternative fuel producers, doubling their production of 2002 to 4.0 billion gallons in 2005. Ethanol in the US is currently produced from corn, amounting to about 14% of the total corn consumption and supplying roughly 3% of the total gasoline supply. [Hmm... lets see doubling every two years sounds a lot like what we have seen as a sustainable rate in microelectronics - BUT - is there enough available land? Ans: not for corn -no - but there is enough subgrade-coal] This is possible because oil is no longer cheap. At $25 per barrel, oil really is addictive but at present levels of $50 per barrel or higher, sprouting ethanol plants all over the Midwestern part of the USA make sense, prompting experts to say that by the end of the year, the US' ethanol production capacity may rise to 5.0 billion gallons a year. [That is actually below expectations for a two-year doubling rate - which requires the year-to-year rate increase of slightly over 40%] To curb USA's oil addiction, ethanol may not be enough. But it is a start. Right now, it is the most viable and competitive alternative fuel available and as proven by countries such as Brazil, can replace nearly all oil requirements. Of course there are many other alternative energy resources available which will be developed at a faster rate, now that there is government pull and technology push. [The very best resource - far better than this corn -- ethanol stopgap measure is subgrade-coal -- methanol But this does require large investment which is only possible with a DoE pump mandate to go to 50% oxidized fuel content ASAP] Bottom line - and let me pimp the blogster's ride here: If DoE wants to move off the sidelines and into the arena - and really get proactive in a national energy policy - and do the smart thing: which is to shift some of the oxidized fuel content
RE: Fw: (off topic)
Hey Jed, The man of many words is being awfully brief here. I'm not asking you to defend your position. I'm asking that you look at the charter of the list, and see if it matches your _idea_ of what the list is. Let me quote it again. http://www.amasci.com/weird/vmore.html ** Vortex-L is intended to be a discussion area for researchers who practice extreme openmindedness and who will accept falsehoods in order to avoid rejecting truths. This forum is for those with a low tolerance for consensus-think and a high tolerance for crazy ideas. *** As such, it seems perfectly within the bounds of the list to make statements about Ben Spock, MM OHare and God being personally responsible for the destruction of an American city. OTOH, cold fusion is now more or less being accepted as science, and as such, does not at all meet the criteria expressed in the charter and should (now) be considered OT. K. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:25 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Fw: (off topic) Keith Nagel wrote: Talk about gross factual errors! Jed, this list is _not_ a science based discussion list. There is a WORLD of difference between suspending disbelief and ignoring facts. I am always ready to consider ideas and phenomena, but that is not the same as pretending that Benjamin Spock said things he did not say. Suspending disbelief would include entertaining the notion that spanking is actually good for children. That is plausible. It would not include inventing statistics to show that crime is increasing when it is actually decreasing. If I'm off base here . . . Way off base. - Jed
RE: The Horace Hiatus
Hey All, Horace writes: That was not my gedanken. It was Keith's. Woah, that's news to me. I do real experiments, not gedanken ones (grin). A Horace hiatus indeed. Einstein throwing rocks at Poincare who turns them into energy? That's Steves department. K.
RE: ZPE, Naked Women and UFOs
The answer is simple, Ed. Entertainment is more important than information. You can quote me on that. K. -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 1:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ZPE, Naked Women and UFOs I can't tell if these discussions are humor masquerading as reality or reality masquerading as humor. Trying to relate the spiritual world (angels fallen or otherwise) and the physical world outside of our little planet (aliens) is the height of humor. Understanding is not improved by relating two things about which we are almost totally ignorant. The physical existence of intelligent life-forms on other planets, some of whom visit occasionally, has been demonstrated by observation and simple logic. The existence of the spirit reality has also been demonstrated, although the explanations offered by most churches are way off the mark. Why try to relate the two realities? Regards, Ed Grimer wrote: At 12:46 pm 19/12/2005 -0500, you wrote: Grimer wrote: At 11:17 am 19/12/2005 -0500, you wrote: I think it highly unlikely that we have in this world aliens coexisting with angels. We either have aliens masquerading as angels, or fallen angels masquerading as aliens. I personally suspect the latter. Then, there is also option three for those who prefer it, that both angels and aliens are imaginary. It seems that one of these three choices must be true. Is there somebody out there able to pull enough facts together to prove the truth in this matter? Jeff There's plenty of evidence of the existence of diabolical possession in the modern world. Trouble is, people just don't want to accept it. They would rather bury their heads in the sand and thrust all ideas of the existence of a hell of eternal pain and suffering, and the idea they may end up there, as far away as possible. Yesterday upon the stair I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. I wish that man would go away. Frank Ok, for sake of argument let's accept the existence of diabolical possession in the modern world. Now what? Harry Now we have fallen angels masquerading as aliens as Jeff says. If you accept the existence of diabolical possession, then you have accepted the existence of fallen angels who not only can possess people but can also appear in both human and animal form. I can't see your problem, Harry. 8-) Frank
RE: Radio Free GMR
Hi Nick, That'd be called barkhausen noise; a magnetic effect even your dog can pronounce. The wooshing is caused by the unpinning of domain walls, if you look carefully at the signal with a scope you can see the individual avalanches of domain motion. Try it with various samples of transformer iron, I'm sure you can find certain samples that will show the effect very strongly. Your bahhh instinct is correct, the effect was discovered in 1919. Google on that keyword for more information, and consult your Bozorth for details. You do have a copy of Bozorth, huh? Well buy a used one, for bogs sake! Indispensible ref for things magnetic. K. -Original Message- From: Nick Reiter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 4:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Radio Free GMR ...or what is the sound of one electron flipping? Rather than go into a long winded preface describing the circumstances of a curious little effect I have been listening to lately, let me toss this out to the scholars of electrons. Is anyone aware of a source of white noise in electronic circuits that is related to either magnetic domain or electron spin polarization? (Or de-polarization?) I've been playing with non- or micro-inductive coils made from ferromagnetic materials (nickel wire mainly) and I've found a neat effect that manifests as a burst of strong hissy white noise whooshing when a large magnet is moved by hand toward the coil. To get a second whoosh , I have to pull the magnet away, flip it over to the opposite polarity, and then push it toward the coil again. As if the burst of white noise comes from domains being de-polarized and re-polarized... hysteresis noise? Replicating the actions with an identical coil made from copper wire produces no such effect at all. Just starting to play wit' dis' one, so my reports may be sporadic here. My ba nature says that this must be something well known, but I've never run into it before. Still, I've been thinking along the lines of spin-spin communication, and more pragmatically, spin polarized radio. I've been trying to bone up on GMR and spin valve materials technology. Maybe there is some connection here? NR __ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
RE: Radio Free GMR
Now Mr. WholeHam, if you're not nice I might do a search on the vortex list and see who else uses some of the unique features of your posts... I am legion, of course, or so it seems to the internet. I think wiegand wires can be viewed as macroscopic domains. You'll have to explain what tap the ZPF means though. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 11:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Radio Free GMR Interesting, Ms. Nagel. Or is it Mr. Nagel? Your Yahoo profile says you're female, but I have not met many Keith girls. veg http://profiles.yahoo.com/horselover_fats We need more F's in FE! I find the Wiegand Wires (WW) interesting. I'll study the references more. Do you think the WW impulses tap the ZPF? -Original Message- From: Keith Nagel [EMAIL PROTECTED] One can synchronize the jumps by playing games with the underlying material, check out wiegand wires for more information about one such implementation. I wouldn't be expecting to power my house with this just yet though...(grin) K. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
RE: Methyl Chloride
Hi Mike, I'm glad you took some measurements, but I'm confused by your results. If you see no drop off from 1 to 5 miles inland, how do you know the results are coming from the ocean? Another source listed on the EPA site is burning biomass. I recall you've had quite a bit of that in the past few years/months/days? you wrote: After spending a couple of night sweating whether I was going to be evacuated, or worse yet, loosing the new house I've been living in for only four months, I began to wonder how many MW hours per acre were going up in smoke. What's the level at your house now? K. -Original Message- From: Michael Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 10:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Methyl Chloride Keith wrote: Hi Michael, Perhaps you should actually check what the EPA sez about Methyl Chloride? http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/methylch.html Methinks you've been inhaling too much Vortex of recent, it has a corrosive effect on common sense (grin). K. I have read it. That's when I became suspicious of their giving specific numbers for industrial toxicity levels, but describing low levels in the natural environment. I have a portable gas chromatagraph. These things are really cool. They just attach to the bottom of a laptop computer and the program that comes with them identifies the peaks in the resulting graph. This is particularly nice for those of us who have forgotten most of our college chemistry. Normally, I would just leave the thing at work, but: Within a mile of the shore, I measured methyl choride levels greatly exceeding the EPA's industrial numbers. Five miles out, the level drops off slightly, but still the ocean would have to be shut down, according to the EPA. These measurements were made at five or six feet above the water line. Everything is toxic at some level. I'm afraid it's the EPA that needs a dose of common sense; theirs seems to have been corroded by a case of toxic chemophobia ;-} BTW, their are lots of volatile amines out there above the ocean. No doubt these exceed EPA permissible levels, too. M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
RE: Methyl Chloride
Hey Mike, So presumably as you go inland, the levels drop off. How fast do they do so? And what numbers did you measure? To be clear, most sources ( including the EPA ) back your claim. Here for example, the evil socialists of Sweden (grin) say... Methyl chloride (CAS No. 74-87-3) is released mainly to air during its production and use and by incineration of municipal and industrial wastes. How ever, natural sources, primarily oceans and biomass burning, clearly dominate over anthropogenic sources. http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad28.htm I'm also sure that the burning biomass in your backyard has released a slew of toxic chemicals. Should we revise the numbers to make these levels acceptable because they occur in nature? I do agree that folks are generally paranoid about chemical exposure, but if animal studies show harm with low concentrations then harm will be caused by low concentrations, regardless of the source. K. -Original Message- From: Michael Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Methyl Chloride Keith wrote: I'm glad you took some measurements, but I'm confused by your results. If you see no drop off from 1 to 5 miles inland, how do you know the results are coming from the ocean? Another source listed on the EPA site is burning biomass. I recall you've had quite a bit of that in the past few years/months/days? No, these measurements were taken out in the ocean, not inland. I could just be overly suspicious, but I think the EPA talks about other sources of methyl chloride just to obfuscate and trivialize the really large quantities made in the ocean. They just don't want to talk about it, I think, because someone might say that this is a really huge source of chlorinated hydrocarbon, so why did you bother to regulate CFCs out of existence? M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
RE: Methyl Chloride
Hey Mike, I had a similar experience to you when I got a rad counter. I was pretty surprised to find fireplaces had 3-5X background level of radiation, prolly exceeding NRC regs. It was explained to me that trees concentrate airborne radioactive particles from rain, and being heavy they tend to concentrate in the fireplace on burning of the wood. I hold Fred Sparber personally responsible for that enviromental debacle (grin). You and your atomic weapons, Fred, sheesh. Now my mom has an unlicensed nuclear reactor in her living room. I've been lurking some after a big development push in summer. I know what you mean about the MSDS, when I used to order chemicals I got a nice stack of 'em. Kind of silly, but I've come to find that there are so many idiots out there, that people do in fact need to be told in grotesque detail about the risks associated with this stuff. I think we both can agree that the real issue is quantifying risk, and acting accordingly. Clearly you have a point that the low exposure numbers aren't very realistic when compared to the natural production. As you say, I wish they would focus on more pressing problems, but you must concede that industry has a disproportionate effect on EPA legislation than the birky and sock crowd. Follow the money. K. -Original Message- From: Michael Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 2:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Methyl Chloride Keith wrote: So presumably as you go inland, the levels drop off. How fast do they do so? And what numbers did you measure? I never made any inland measurements. I just got a bug up my *** one day when I was taking my boat out and took the chromatagraph with me. I was damn lucky I didn't drop it over the side. I'll have to fire up the old air sucker again to see what I can measure inland. I wish I'd thought of it when the fires were burning and the air around my house was difficult to breathe. I have to keep the chromatagraph attached to its original laptop running Win98. When I try to run it on a later operating system, I get some strange error relating to clock speed. Hope it still functions well. To be clear, most sources ( including the EPA ) back your claim. Here for example, the evil socialists of Sweden (grin) say... Methyl chloride (CAS No. 74-87-3) is released mainly to air during its production and use and by incineration of municipal and industrial wastes. How ever, natural sources, primarily oceans and biomass burning, clearly dominate over anthropogenic sources. http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad28.htm I'm also sure that the burning biomass in your backyard has released a slew of toxic chemicals. Should we revise the numbers to make these levels acceptable because they occur in nature? I do agree that folks are generally paranoid about chemical exposure, but if animal studies show harm with low concentrations then harm will be caused by low concentrations, regardless of the source. You point out why I'm so concerned with this. Methyl chloride, while I have no use for it, has become my personal poster boy for why environmental extremists and government agencies have got it all wrong. There are serious toxic substances about that need highly watchful regulation. But you can't do a good job of it if you try to act as if everything is dangerous. Case in point, if you buy sodium chloride from a chemical company, it comes with an MSDS sheet, ditto SiO2. If vast government agencies and industrial enterprises have to waste time and resources telling us that salt and sand are dangerous, there's precious little left to address real problems. Furthermore, this sort of thing is a needless drain on the economy and yet another source of income for lawyers. BTW, Keith, good to know you're still lurkin' out there. M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
New Orleans OR A tail of two hamsters
Alexandra Kerry; comments at the DNC: We were standing on a dock waiting for a boat to take us on a summer trip. Vanessa, the scientist, had packed all her animals including her favorite hamster. Our over-zealous golden retriever got tangled in his leash and knocked the hamster cage off the dock. We watched as Licorice, the unlucky hamster bubbled down to a watery doom. That might have been the end of the story. But my dad jumped in, grabbed an oar, fished the cage from the water, hunched over the soggy hamster and began to administer CPR. There were some reports of mouth-to-mouth, but, I admit thats probably a trick of memory. He was never quite right after that, but Licorice lived. Like I said, it may sound silly. We still laugh about it today. But, to us it was serious and thats what mattered to my father. Jenna Bush; comments at the RNC: And we had a hamster, too. Let's just say ours didn't make it.
RE: Is iESiUSA For Real?
Hello John, I posted about this back in March, but to recap: The US applications are just that, applications. They are not patents. You're looking in the right spot, but they haven't published yet so no publication number and no love for you. When they publish, you will be able to read them. The Korean apps hadn't published in March when I looked, you can try again now at KIPRIS. The actual granted patents are all Romanian, pat #'s are sequential and US numbers are into the 600's now. 10 would be in the colonial period... Try Espacenet for those patents, for example, RO112312 GAS-GAS TYPE HEAT EXCHANGERS WITH THERMIC TUBES All the Romanian IP looks to have been acquired rather than developed in house. You ask, What to think? I would say, exercise due diligence, and use the cortex part of the brain rather than the limbic system. Unfashionable advice these days, but what can I say, I've got to be me. K. -Original Message- From: John Coviello [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 1:12 PM To: Vortex Subject: Is iESiUSA For Real? I just tried to look up iESiUSA's patent applications and suppossedly approved patent numbers on the USPTO website. Guess what? Nothing by the name of iESiUSA or any of their provided number can be found in the USPTO database?!? What to think? Not a good sign from a company making extrodinary claims. Look for yourself: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/?db=pat http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html For the numbers, see: http://www.iesiusa.com/intellectual.html
RC's AM fillings.
Hi Richard, You write: Once had a friend say he could hear music from the fillings in his teeth. Always got a laugh. We tried an experiment . He sat in another room while we had an AM radio playing popular music. He couldn't hear the radio from his location but he could tell us what melody was playing. Indeed. It is a little know fact that bone is a semiconductor, it is also piezoelectric which is why electric stimulation can be _very_ effective in causing bone fractures to heal. But whenever you have a conductor ( the filling ) and a semiconductor ( the tooth ) in contact you have the makings of a diode, which will in fact demodulate the AM signals quite handily. You will note that it is specifically AM radio, and not FM, that is mentioned in connection with this phenomena. This is why. K.
RE: Loopy field lines
Hi George, You write: - Interestingly, in the so called - spin orbit coupled materials with gyromagnetic ratios closer - to 1 the electron orbital magnetic contribution is in fact quite large - but still smaller than the electron direct contribution. The big three Fe Ni Co all have gyromagnetic ratios around 2, iron being the material we were discussing. I looked at Bozorth to verify the above statement, and he describes a short history of measurement of G listing Barnett in 1914 as having experimentally discovered the value 2, then Einstein-de Haas in 1915 listed as publishing the value as 1. Needless to say, if that is correct we have another egregious Einstein blunder to sweep under the table (grin). Stewart and Beck (1918-1919) and all subsequent researchers confirmed Barnetts number, of course. Your comments about low G materials were very interesting. I'm not quite sure what to make of values below 1. I'm tempted to say that the electron spin in such a case would be actively cancelling the orbital rotation, but I'm just guessing here. You further write: - Electromagnetically, the current loop model predicts this behavior. - Look at the magnetic forces between the loops. Side by - side loops repel but on axis loops attract and increase the field - as they move closer. Two thin disk PMs output mechanical - energy as they move closer and provide a final touching total magnetic - field energy almost twice the initial field energy of the two - separate magnetic fields added together. The same argument could be made for electric dipoles in a dielectric as for magnetic ones, yes? And yet we see the opposite results. Either I'm being thick-headed here or the world is in denial about this... I'd be delighted if we could thrash this one out. - The interesting factor is that I find no mention in textbooks of - the fact that it also implies that the current loop must source - energy as the magnetic field increases and absorb it when the - field deceases. Hmmm... and we see the opposite, at least over the whole cycle. Energy is stored in the inductor when we charge it up, and released when discharged. - The numbers are mind blowing. IIRC - the radiation intensity ,if Maxwell's equations applied, is - about 10E30 watts for a single hydrogen atom. It makes one - realize just how large an elephant we have swept under the rug - with the QM assumption of no radiation. Ain't that the truth! The amperian model is fine for some things, but it's about as accurate as the bohr model of the atom... Postulating these things away ( as is done in QM ) is just another step backwards IMHO. - QM assumes the huge violation of classical electromagnetic laws away - without any alternative physical model. Perhaps the Sakarov/ Puthoff - ZPE energy balance orbital model can be extended to explain atomic - stability without the magic wand assumptions of QM. I'll chew on that one for a while. K.
RE: OT:The will of Valis
Yes, that is a good book on PKD. BTW Jones, you never answered Stephens question. Yes, that was supposed to be Eric Clapton. The name used in the story is the thinly disguised Eric Lampton. Also note that it was well known at the time that 'Clapton is God' http://www.ericclaptonfaq.com/questions/When_and_where_did_the_phrase_Clapton_is_God_originate.htm In the story, Lampton and his wife accidentally kill the reincarnated Christ child. In real life, Erics child tragically crawled out an open window and died. Like most authors, Phil pinched heavily from the world around him to tell his story and amuse his readers. Jones favorite PKD story is most likely, The World Jones Made. Right??? (grin) K. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 12:37 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: OT:The will of Valis Stephen Ah ... just to avoid making this too totally an inside conversation, here's a little background on the above remarks... Interesting...and vaguely reminiscent of another psychotic chase worthy of its own posting...set your SPAM filters accordingly. Also, for those interested in good biography, even if PKD is not their favorite writer, Sutin's Divine Invasions: A Life of Philip K. Dick is a must read http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0806512288/002-3525695-1610443?v=glance Jones
RE: Loopy field lines
Hi Stephen, But the original issue was an assertion that the B field lines around a straight, current-carrying wire actually form a spiral pattern rather than circles. That seems pretty fundamental -- I don't see how it could result from magnetic charge being present! Yes, that's Franks ramblings, I think he's grasping at this notion of magnetic charge in an intuitive fashion. To even talk about lines of flux is dangerous at these macro levels. I have seen photographs of individual flux lines made by electron holography, if I remember correctly a superconductor was being imaged. The line looked like a little tornado or vortex, coming out of the substrate, thickening at the midpoint outside the substrate, then plunging back in to preserve your precious zero divergence (grin). This work was done at Mitsubishi, I can find you a nice printed ref if you're interested. So Franks spirals aren't _too_ far off the mark, given that he's just intuitively stabbing at it. I learned this out of a relativity textbook so my view of EM is a little cockeyed, I'm afraid, but I don't recall anything about violations of CoE... Its tempting to bring out the big guns, but lets start with something most of the people on this list can intuitively understand. If the amperian model is true, then it implies a continous flow of current in the ferromagnetic material. How does this happen outside of a superconductor? How does that electron keep spinning on itself to generate the field without any dissipation? Ah -- I finally recalled the problem with magnetic charge! (Well, anyway, the problem I'm aware of. I already said my PoV here is a bit skewed.) -snip of interesting explaination- I don't think that would mean curtains for the physical vector potential, just the mathematical shortcuts you are taking to arrive at the field equations... Finding closed form integrals is more of a free gift of physics than a right; hence the popularity of piecewise field calculators. Thanks for the interesting response, BTW. K.
RE: [O.T.]...the aliens are become my friends...
Hi Frank. You write: = 107:10. Moab the pot of my hope. Over Edom I will stretch out my shoe: the aliens are become my friends. = Clearly God is promoting the medical use of marijuana, along with a helpful hint about how to make nice with our alien neighbors ( don't bogart that joint, my alien friend ). Switching on the electricity caused the coil to rise and hover about 3 inches above the table. I feel sure some group member can enlighten me as to what was going on here. For those of us in the reality based community, we call that eddy current levitation. K.
RE: Loopy field lines
Hi Stephen, I hardly think the fact that the divergence of B field not being equal to zero will bring down modern physics and electromagnetics... As you correctly point out, all it means is that magnetic charge is present. Now I understand that the particle physics community has had great difficulty finding a monopole; but then again they haven't gotten their top quark yet so I hardly see this as a ringing damnation of monopoles. It used to be, back when the CGS system was in vogue, that magnetic charge was quite well accepted as a concept. The amperian current model is relatively new and, if you can keep a secret, has the nasty property of violating the conservation of energy theorem. So given the choice between magnetic charge and the failure of the COE, which is preferrable? K. -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 11:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Loopy field lines Grimer wrote: There are certain advantages is being a quasi modo in the cathedral of EM. One can rush in and utter terrible heresies in all innocence. I have been recently going through a rather comprehensive site on EM, to wit:- http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/lectures.html and I find that my recognition on general grounds that the field lines around a conductor form a tight spiral and not a series of closed loops is anathema as far as Gauss' law for magnetic fields Yes, that's true. The closed loops are a direct result of Maxwell's equations. If the loops don't close, you'll pretty much have to start over again with a clean slate; Maxwell won't cut it in that case, and most likely special relativity won't, either. The divergence of the B field is equal to the density of magnetic charge, which is always zero, unless we have magnetic monopoles ... so says Maxwell. And if the divergence is zero then the field lines can have no ends. In general, they (are believed to) form closed loops. In conventional EM you can find the B field of a wire by determining the E field from the moving charge carriers as viewed by someone moving with them. In that case, there's no B field, and the E field is fixed. Then, use SR's Lorentz transforms to transform the E field back to the point of view of an observer who is stationary relative to the wire. Voila, one finds a velocity -dependent force field which is exactly perpendicular to the wire, and which runs around it in circles: the B field. If the loops don't close then something very fundamental must be wrong in the theory.
More AI musings/ was RE: [OT] Insane Host
Hi Steve, One of my clients holds a few patents in brain imaging technology, and he often asserts I've looked for that little homunculus far and wide, but could not find him. I suspect something similar with the artificial version of consiousness, it's not something that can be easily put in a box as such. A good example of this is a bee or ant colony; clearly there is a large scale consiousness at work here even if the individual bees or ants seem a bit thick headed. Does the consciousness reside in the bee, or the spaces between the bees? Maybe the question is being phrased too poorly to provide sufficient space for an answer. As regards Bill, he looks more bored than mad to me, and he has good teeth. Who's your dentist, Bill? K. -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OT] Insane Host Terry Blanton wrote: Here's absolute proof our host is insane: http://amasci.com/~billb/cgi-bin/instr/instr.html#self but this is a trait common to all my friends! This little bit from BB, along with the items he links to, actually brings up a fascinating question. It is, however, such a slippery question that (at least) some people are of the opinion that it's not even valid, and that if properly framed it vanishes. The question, of course, is what is consciousness?. You can ask it of yourself, but you can't really ask anybody else about it, because, as of this moment in time, there is absolutely no way for you to know whether anyone else you meet is actually conscious. You (presumably!) know of your own experience that you are conscious, and that you are aware -- but that proves nothing about any other being. This isn't a trivial question. Assume for the moment that humans are basically alike, and so all of them must be conscious. Now ask youself if chimpanzees, our closest non-human relatives, are conscious. Then, how about dogs? Cats? Mice? Fish? Cicadas? Cockroaches? How about rotifers? Plants? Amoebas? Did we cross a line there? If so, where was that line? It's easy to assert that the last two can't be conscious because they have no nervous systems, but then, what causes a nervous system to be conscious? I have little doubt that neural net programs, running on ever faster hardware with ever larger memory systems, will eventually produce an entity that can pass the Turing test, probably in the next couple decades. Maybe Cyc will do it sooner. Will that entity be conscious? I don't think so. But OTOH I know at least one intelligent person who _does_ think so. The fascinating point of all this is that there is, at this time, absolutely no known way to resolve this! The standard copout is Question is unanswerable = question is meaningless -- you must have framed it wrong. In this case I think the copout is incorrect: There's something going on in our heads that we haven't tracked down, and, it seems to me, it's something we still have no clue at all about. The day we can imagine how to build a gedanken machine that would reliably detect consciousness, we will have made some progress in understanding it. Until then discussions of consciousness are likely to remain reminiscent of Greek philosophers discussing the possible existence of atoms. And until then, it will remain impossible to determine if someone experiencing dissociation (or whatever the technical term for that strange state is) has actually lost consciousness or is merely feeling weird. (Of course the fundamentalist members of the group no doubt feel they already know the answers. It shouldn't take more than a few seconds to see the problem with that position, however.)
Private industry takes on global warming...
Private industry takes on global warming...one swiss ski resort at a time. http://www.terradaily.com/2005/050510203249.4l577zv0.html Swiss ski resort swaddles glacier to stop melting ANDERMATT, Switzerland (AFP) May 10, 2005 A Swiss ski resort Tuesday wrapped up an entire glacier to stop it melting and to protect ski runs. The protective layer covers an area of 2,500 square metres (26,910 square feet) of the Gurschen glacier at Andermatt in the centre of the country, Andermatt Gotthard Sportbahnen SA which operates ski lifts said. The initiative has been criticised by environmentalist groups which say it serves no purpose. The sheet covering the glacier, situated in the canton of Uri, is 3.8 mm (0.15 inch) thick and made of synthetic fibres which protect the snow cover from ultraviolet radiation with the aim of preventing the ice from melting. It will be removed in the autumn and put back next spring. Over the past 15 years the glacier has receded by about 20 metres from one of its stations, the ski lift company said. But the WWF environmental group said that covering up glaciers is not going to solve the problem of global warming. Only climate protection measures such as cutting back greenhouse gases are useful, it said in a statement. Eight activists from the Greenpeace environmental group unfolded banners on the glacier overnight, calling for the protection of the climate rather than treatment of symptoms. The Pro Natura group attacked the ski lift company for extending its car parks near the lifts, saying ski resorts should improve access by public transport.
RE: And this *would* solve the energy crisis
Hi Ed. You write: I suspect that when a person loses his pension, his job, and his house, and food costs rise out of sight because of high energy costs, he will be so pissed that gay rights, abortion, and other religious issues will become much less important. And you would be entirely wrong. In fact, as more people are driven into poverty by these issues, greater support for more irrational and fanatical opinions will accrue. Even a cursory study of history will prove my point. While I have great respect for your grasp of electrochemistry ( a subject near and dear to my heart ) your understanding of the human heart is meagre at best. Google denial and projection for more information from the great Noodle AI, or just read some of Thomas's posts for terrific object lessons. Speaking of which; if only you would spend 1/4 of your time posting about your research that you spend in pointless argument with Thomas, we'd all be a lot better off. Just a suggestion. K.
RE: Mile-high Solar Towers: political ramifications
OK, time for some Shelley, as my beat friend Bob Dombrowski likes to opine, Ozymandias, you've done better than most... K. Ozymandias -- I met a traveler from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read, Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed, And on the pedestal these words appear: My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair! Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away. -- -Percy Bysshe Shelley- -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:19 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Mile-high Solar Towers: political ramifications [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I specifically chose SOLAR TOWERS (not windmills) because they would be HUGE in-your-face structures. Because they are TOWERS, their structural shape tend to represent strong psychic archetypes to different people and societies depending on cultural backgrounds. Oh come now. You mean they would be phallic symbols, like the Washington Monument. Believe me, that represents the same psychic archetype to people in every society. It is unmistakable. If these structures were built by the thousands they would obviously become some of the most pervasive monuments ever built in the 21st century - monuments of what our technology is capable of erecting. Great. Just like our interstate highway system is the great monument to the 20th century. It has only cost as much as a good-sized war and killed a few million people. Of course a lot of people do think highways are beautiful, because they have never seen anything else and they have no idea what beauty is. For that matter, people think television is amusing and fast food tastes good. And highways work so well too. So efficient. This morning, for example, in Atlanta a single accident caused 11 mile backup from 7:30 to 10:00, inconveniencing maybe a few hundred thousand people at most. What other transportation system could accomplish that nearly every morning? I think the world has seen quite enough of this kind of large-scale environmental havoc, and grand-scale monumental architectural fetishes. As I wrote in the book (Chapter 21), I hope that the guiding principle of 21st century technology will be: If anyone hears a machine, it is too loud. If anyone is bothered by one, it is too intrusive. - Jed
RE: Cavitation neutrons-was; Blast from the past-
The internet gets drunk sometimes and forgets things, RC... Youds patents are in various specific countries, seemingly none in the US. NZ511385 Sonified vortex machine for communition and treatment of solids GB2354232 Cyclone apparatus for treating sewage GB2337514 Crystalline structure enhancer; calcining gypsum ZA9801137 Apparatus for processing a material and fan therefor Here's one app. WO0112332 METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR SEWAGE PROCESSING AND TREATMENT There's more stuff, but I've got to move on. This'll get you going anyway. K. -Original Message- From: RC Macaulay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 9:57 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Cavitation neutrons-was; Blast from the past- In reply to RC Macaulay's message of Tue, 17 May 2005 07:15:53 -0500: Hi, Hi Robin, The M.W.Youds website mentions patents for his device operating at 7225 RPM to achieve the result he reported. He mentioned gamma radiation present so we are careful. I found loads of stuff on his web page, but no patents. Could you supply the patent number? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandon http://www.vortexi.com/ This is one link that mentions patents although I cannot fit what is what. More details on the device was posted some time back on www,fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/youlds/htm but the Greenfield link has been cut. As is the case for so much posted on the net.. Richard
RE: Oops: SciAm article on brain
Hey Jones, A flop is a floating point operation, I don't know how you/they get from one flop to the action of a neuron. It's probably closer to 100 flops/neuron, maybe much more. I'm guessing the first hack for xbox+ will be simulating nuclear bombs, expect a rush order from Iran shortly ( Mohammad dude, final fantasy _rocks_ ) Still no espresso love, huh? Do what I do, and just eat the beans. Dipped in chocolate, they're quite delicious. Plus, unlike the solution form, the caffeine is slowly released and gives you a much more pleasant lift. It's easy to stop, and you don't get headaches. It's also easier on the stomach. OTOH it's easy to eat a big handful of them, then you find yourself organizing the sock draw by thickness,color, and wear ... at 2am. K. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:35 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Oops: SciAm article on brain Big oops on tera still haven't good my expresso machine installed !! tera=10^12 so we are not as close as claimed in premature post, but could still be a factor of 100-1000 away with the Xbox, depending on the flop to neural connection ratio. I still think the xbox can be taught to do speech and parsing rather quickly, even if we must wait for the son-of-xbox to actually match the brain's processing capability. Jones
RE: SciAm article on brain
Good point, Ron. Each of those neurons are acting in parallel, all functioning simultaneously. Trying to simulate this with a single threaded machine is just not practical. Another sort of architecture is required, like maybe using carbon rather than silicon *grin* Sort of like nanotechnology. When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. I remember as an undergradute speculating on a mixed mode analog/digital machine, as a precursor to a dedicated AI engine. You might be able to prototype such a machine on one of those fancy programmable chips they have now (ASIC?) Something simple but massively paralleled is essential. BTW, I have no philosophical problem with implementing consciousness on silicon rather than carbon, I think it just emerges naturally from certain types of massively parallel computing systems. Like life itself, it just _has_ to happen, it can't _not_ happen if you got the right circumstances and enough time. K. -Original Message- From: Ron Wormus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:02 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SciAm article on brain A nice overview (~200pages) of the brain and the emerging science of consciousness is: Stairway to the mind By Alwyn Scott; 1995 Copernicus in which he discusses the non-linear emergance of the mind from brain function. paraphrasing... ...How is the observed activity of the brain related to the activity of its consitituent neurons? The neo cortex is composed of ~ 10 billion neurons, each of which has 10,000 input connections which equates to an immense number (10exp110) raised to the10exp16 th power or the immense number (10exp110) multiplied by itself ten thousand trillion times! This is a combinatorial barrier that is much larger than those between physics chenistry or between chemistry biochemistry --On Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:55 AM -0400 Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The article I referred to yesterday is K. Boahen, Neuromorphic Microchips, Scientific American, May 2005, p. 56. The relevant quote is on the first page: The brain does not execute coded instruction; instead it activates links, or synapses, between neurons. Each such activation is equivalent to executing a digital instruction, so one can compare how many connections a brain activates every second with the number of instructions a computer executes during the same time. Synaptic activity is staggering: 10 quadrillion (10^16) neural connections a second. It would take a million Intel Pentium powered computers to match that rate -- plus a few hundred megawatts to juice them up. So computers are already within a factor of 1 million. Perhaps they will have to come within a 3 to 5 orders of magnitude before they begin to look intelligent to us. I think they will also need radically new software. My sense is that programs like Cyc will not cut the mustard. I have no idea how long it will take. Anywhere from 50 to 500 years, I suppose. Fortunately, the interim devices will be profitable, so progress toward intelligent machines seems inevitable. - Jed
RE: SciAm article on brain
Needless to say, the aptly named Jones has eschewed my cautionary advice and eaten a whole handful of those delicious chocolate espresso beans. Fasten your safety belts, Vo, your collective inboxes are in for a lumpy ride. BTW, regarding my earlier post, we already have a massively paralleled computer system. It's called the Internet. The trick is to communicate with this vast planetary intelligence. Rather like a brain cell trying to talk to you. It does already have a rudimentary ear and mouth, some call it google. Let evolution work on this system a bit more... looks promising. K. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 4:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: SciAm article on brain From: Terry Blanton Damn. I was so engrossed trying to figure out how much to pay Jonesee that I left off my DNA quote (you noticed he was born the year Crick, Watson, et.al. determined the double helix structure, right?): Excellent quote. Plus this query caused a blinding flash of remembrance about a prior typically long-winded probably boring posting (boring to the non-Illuminated, shall we say) - which was actually a DNA obit (or is that orbit): From the elephantine memory of my new 160 gig HD, which I will one-day incorporate into my new alter ego, the son-of-Xbox massively parallel new-me, when the time arrives for the final transmogrification: [count zero; start word count] Since posting an off-the-wall idea yesterday, inspired by a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory news release about DNA information transfer, a little bit of synchronicity struck. Well, maybe it wasn't really that unusual since the original poster of the following thread on Slashdot and myself undoubtedly were inspired by the same story, but anyway an avalanche of input followed on that forum (several hundred posts in one day) that can be read at: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/06/0229223mode=threadtid=126 Some of the following commentary is inspired from this ongoing thread. In typical surfer fashion, from one of these posts I was led to a long-forgotten reminiscence of Douglas Adams, whose writing went way beyond far-out humor and inspired many things that once seemed terribly bizarre then, but are more commonplace today - almost taken for granted. William Gibson and Robert Forward were Sci-Fi visionaries similarly gifted with extraordinary foresight, but lacking Adams humor. Thankfully Gibson is still alive and even has his own internet blog these days. In Douglas Adams' (Douglas Noel Adams=DNA) Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a race of intelligent beings from an advanced civilization build a supercomputer, Deep Thought in order to answer the question, What is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything? DT computed for 7.5 million years, and finally produced the answer, which is 42. Adams died in May, 2001 but long before, pundits had tried to find some hidden meaning in 42. I wonder if it had any connection to decoding the information in (artificial) DNA strands using the four amino acids known as GATC and their positions as 4-base words. I'll look to see if this question is answered on Slashdot later, as that thread seems to have struck a giant nerve - a meme nerve, so to speak. Adams was also an internet pioneer and an info junkie who believed something extraordinary was created when people pooled experiences and information over the internet. He said part of the internet's extraordinary power was the fact that it evolved as an organic entity, a bottom-up design rather than being hierarchically controlled from above. The idea that hat humans could have even been created to carry a message across time in DNA, was definitely an implication of D.N.A.'s work but others have expressed the sentiment in more detail. And for those who want to get really crazy with modern prophecy that derives from ancient prophecy, and realizing that many ancient civilizations, especially the ancient Egyptians, believed that humans came from Orion, consider 42 in that context. M-42 or Messier object 42, is a nebulae in the Orion constellation. http://www.m-42.com/images/orionmos.png Was this very spot the remnant of a long lost star in Orion - our ancestral home, or is it all just the further reverberations of some deeply ingrained meme? What is a meme? First coined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, a meme is the extrasensory counterpart to a gene - a idea, behavior or skill that can be transferred from one person to another by imitation: stories, religions, inventions, even music. Many consider the meme to be the most important explanatory concept since DNA or the gene. The key to appreciating the wide impact of memes, and what separates them from the traditional theories of cultural evolution, is *continuity* over time - the meme is a replicator. The first replicator is of course the
RE: Message from Ken Shoulders
Robin, Some quick sniffing around produced this site, http://www.proton21.com.ua/articles_en.html If you can find anything relating actual experimental proceduces, rather than results and sample analysis, please note it. I've never used copper as an electrode, as it tends to disintegrate with such ease that one ends up with a one shot spark gap. Perhaps if I did I would be more familiar with the destructive effects on the anode like what we see here. K. -Original Message- From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Message from Ken Shoulders In reply to Keith Nagel's message of Sat, 14 May 2005 00:15:35 -0400: Hi, [snip] I'm just curious how he (they) are getting that weird discharge shape in the copper electrode. I've never seen anything like that before. I'm referring to that thing on page 7. Was that a rod that was blasted back? If you look closely at the bottom of it, you can still see the remains of a small sphere, though there appears to be more metal present than would fit in a sphere. Perhaps the remains of the sphere shrunk? I must admit however to being a little wary of this whole thing. If true, it is a major discovery, however I'm curious why this sort of thing hasn't turned up previously during heavy arc welding. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
RE: non-looping smot
Hi Frank, You should be aware that back in the mid 90's, _many_ people were encouraged by Greg to build and test these devices. I was not one of them, preferring my own insanity to others, but some are still on Vo. These devices started with Emil Hartman as far as I can tell, and they do work as described. JLN has a good collection of others work on his site, check there. It's seductive for just that fact, that it does look like you can just tie the tail to the head and have a nice oroborus. That said, no one to my knowledge was ever able to close the loop and return the ball to the starting position. Many ramps were put together in a loop, a looped track was used, and as I last suggested to Greg before he was given the boot, simply allowing the ball to run under the ramp. None of these things should work, by the C of E ( Church Of England No, Conservation of Energy, damnit! ) But they should be tried all the same. Not because I doubt in the C of E, but because few systems are really closed to the environment. The funny thing is, it looks like the only person _not_ to have built a smot was Greg himself. That makes me chuckle, it really does. K.
OT: National ID card
Hi All, I'm sort of curious what you all think about the national ID card bill that President Bush signed into law last wednesday. You will all be required to prove citizenship the next time you renew your drivers licences, rather than the usual mail-in update. A federal database will store all of this information, which can be checked by law enforcement as they see fit. Your new drivers license will be a federal ID card. This is the full bill, you must look inside of the massive document to find the 7 pages relevant to this new Real ID. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.01268: Here is a short faq http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+you/2100-1028_3-5697111.html?part=rsstag=5697111subj=news A few questions. 1) Did you know of this law before I posted about it here? 2) If you did, how did you find out about it? 3) Having been rejected as a stand alone bill, would anyone like to speculate on why it was appended to this military appropriations bill? 4) Are the 54 people who voted against this bill unpatriotic? Enquiring minds want to know... K.
RE: non-looping smot
Frank writes: I don't think one has to go as far as having a circle of ramps. If the steel ball could transit a straight line of 100 SMOTS, say, that would be pretty convincing. What's the difference between 2 and 100? Nothing, IMHO. The challenge is curving the line back on itself. I have no doubt that one could string as many ramps together as one liked. I seem to remember one industrious fellow doing 3 or 4. JLN's site is like a mouse warren, keep poking around and you'll find more. K.
RE: non-looping smot
I hadn't really thought of that...a funny image, that. All the same, it seems clear from experiment that multiple ramps can be joined in a line. Perhaps as you say, after many such ramps the ball will peter out, hooking somewhere between the exit and entrance. It would seem like frictional losses would mount as you progressed down the line. Yet each ramp could also been seen to be adding a certain amount of energy, to be subtracted on the return trip. It'd really be better to focus on one ramp, and the critical return circuit. I suggested to Greg, with the usual utter lack of acknowledgement, that this would be his unique piece of IP to be patented. The heart and soul of the SMOT. The ramp had already been done by someone else, as I mentioned. He claimed to have not followed up on Emil Hartman, but someone should, probably an interesting story there. K. -Original Message- From: Grimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 6:56 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: non-looping smot At 04:09 pm 13-05-05 -0400, you wrote: Frank writes: I don't think one has to go as far as having a circle of ramps. If the steel ball could transit a straight line of 100 SMOTS, say, that would be pretty convincing. What's the difference between 2 and 100? Nothing, IMHO. Well if it will go 100 against air resistance and other losses then presumably it will go 1000, 1000,000 and eventually encircle the earth in which case the line will have curved back on itself. No? ;-) Frank
RE: Message from Ken Shoulders
I'm just curious how he (they) are getting that weird discharge shape in the copper electrode. I've never seen anything like that before. I'm referring to that thing on page 7. Was that a rod that was blasted back? Or did it grow out of the electrode? The former seems reasonable to me, the latter is downright bizarre. K. -Original Message- From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 11:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Message from Ken Shoulders In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 13 May 2005 11:13:46 -0400: Hi, [snip] Subject: EVOs And The Hutchison Effect A paper by Ken Shoulders entitled EVOs And The Hutchison Effect will be presented at the 2005 Conference on Cold Fusion to be held at MIT on May 21. A 1 MB .PDF file showing some of the graphics slides to be used in that presentation can now be downloaded from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/ Ken Now read http://www.escribe.com/science/vortex/m31728.html again. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
RE: Magnetic Monopole Patent
Hi Terry, Yes, this patent US5929732 has been around the block a few times. I even think the inventor is someone who can be found on the internet, on some of the more colorful lists ( like this one *grin* ). If I'm not mistaken, this is him. [EMAIL PROTECTED] As you say, it's easy enough to build. Calling the field a monopole field is not entirely true but for engineering purposes it could have some uses. Why don't you drop him a line and ask after it? I'll bet you'll get a good story at the least. K. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Magnetic Monopole Patent From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a resend. Looks like the eskimo server is sitting on email again. I apologize if you get it twice; but, it's quite interesting and on topic Bloody hell, after waiting almost 3 hours for the original email to post, as soon as I resent it, the bloody server delivered both. Methinks it just does this to piss us off.
RE: CF demonstrations
Hi Mitchell, A few thoughts about what I can find on the site. You don't mention current, but presumably it's in the .1 to 10 ma range? With the high voltages you use, I also assume that you're not using a salt of any kind, this to explain the rather localized electrolysis you note on the cathode and high solution resistivity. In my experience such circuits tend to concentrate losses in the electrolyte, have you made half potential measurements to determine the cathode drop? It strikes me that a lot of power in this system is just being spent heating the electrolyte and not driving the CF reaction. By the way, when I wrote earlier: That's tenacity! Not very practical, but I salute you all the same... I just wanted to make clear that the not very practical referred to legal practicality of the design patent, not to the actual instrument being described. I look forward to seeing this circuit in operation. K. -Original Message- From: Mitchell Swartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 6:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CF demonstrations At 10:39 AM 5/6/2005, Jed Rothwell wrote: There have been no LENR demos! Demos may not even be possible. Utter nonsense. JET Thermal Products gave an open demonstration of a robust cold fusion Phusor system at MIT for a week at ICCF10. Good point. I forgot about that one. I do not think it convinced many people, because the calorimetry is so exotic, Not true at all. In fact, the calorimetry was not exotic - it was simple with two cells in electrical series [the cold fusion device and the ohmic control]. It is only seen as 'exotic' by those who do not use controls and eschew their (logical and requisite) use. For this lower power demonstration system at MIT, http://world.std.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html which was in part encouraged by the late Dr. Eugene Mallove, the calorimetry was necessarily simple, and taken care of with full controls. Two identical volumes were compared, and they were wired in electrical series. One contained an ohmic control and the other contained the cold fusion Phusor device in heavy water. For approximately half the power to the cold fusion system, there resulted approximately twice the delta-T in the cold fusion Phusor device (and its surrounding water) compared to the ohmic control (and its surrounding water). BTW, the purpose of the low power demonstration system was to demonstrate in a single afternoon the optimal operating point of these systems. That was accomplished. More on this at: http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html The publication on the demonstration itself is: Swartz. M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003). The publications on theoptimal operating point of these systems include: Swartz. M., G. Verner, Excess Heat from Low Electrical Conductivity Heavy Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003) Swartz. M., Photoinduced Excess Heat from Laser-Irradiated Electrically-Polarized Palladium Cathodes in D2O, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003). Swartz. M., Generality of Optimal Operating Point Behavior in Low Energy Nuclear Systems, Journal of New Energy, 4, 2, 218-228 (1999) Swartz. M., G. Verner, A. Frank, H. Fox Importance of Non-dimensional Numbers and Optimal Operating Points in Cold Fusion, Journal of New Energy, 4, 2, 215-217 (1999) Swartz, M, Optimal Operating Point Characteristics of Nickel Light Water Experiments, Proceedings of ICCF-7 (1998) Swartz. M., Consistency of the Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena with the Quasi-1-Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading into a Material, Fusion Technology, 31, 63-74 (1997) Swartz. M., Biphasic Behavior in Thermal Electrolytic Generators Using Nickel Cathodes, IECEC 1997 Proceedings, paper #97009 (1997) with the background continuum electromechanics (applied to loading) here: Swartz, M., Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled To Reactions At An Electrode, Fusion Technology, 26, 4T, 74-77 (1994) Swartz. M., Generalized Isotopic Fuel Loading Equations Cold Fusion Source Book, International Symposium On Cold Fusion And Advanced Energy Systems. Ed. Hal Fox, Minsk, Belarus (1994) Swartz, M., Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading of Isotopic Fuel into a Metal, Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300 (1992) === But then these demonstations were of overunity cold fusion systems. By contrast, the (misnamed) LENR probably cannot give a similar demonstation. ;-)X What is the difference between overunity cold fusion systems and LENR? As far as I know the two mean exactly the same thing. Cold fusion systems use lattices such as palladium, nickel and titanium to produce nuclear products
Concrete for Frank
For our resident concrete head, http://www.physorg.com/news3985.html wow! not sure what you'd build with that stuff, but it sure can flex. K.
RE: Odd Electrostatic Phenomenon
Hi Mike, Try Richard Hull. His group did the first modern studies of this phenomena to my knowledge, I remember reading about them in the late Charles Yosts Electric Spacecraft Journal Issue #9, 1993. Here's a hint of the article from googling... http://www.pupman.com/listarchives/1996/march/msg00546.html A careful search of the pupman archives will probably produce as much info as the article, although you'll miss the wonderful pictures and experimental reports from the article. You can probably still get back issues, that one was very good for other articles as well. Charles Yost will be keenly missed. I've not time to reread the article, but from my own experimenting with discharges I've found that certain shapes of electrode tend to have a rectifying effect. Current must be drawn to ground to see the rectification. K.
RE: OFF TOPIC Today's date
DOH! I meant Wordsworth... *** Five years have past: five summers, with the length Of five long winters! And again I hear These waters, rolling from their mountain-springs With a soft inland murmur. Once again Do I behold these steep and lofty cliffs, That on a wild secluded scene impress Thoughts of more deep seclusion; and connect The landscape with the quiet of the sky. *** -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 3:19 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: OFF TOPIC Today's date Today is 05/05/05. - Jed
RE: I have started uploading ICCF-11 papers
Hey Frank. You write: I couldn't agree more. One has to turn water into wine...if one wants to be believed. 8-) OK Frank, you know I can't resist a good challenge *grin* http://www.blacktable.com/gillin030901.htm ...but I'll need some ketchup too. K.
RE: Windom Larsen paper
Hey Jed, you write: I am surprised they managed to sneak this into the archive. I predicted will soon be yanked out. It certainly will if you post the cached URL. Here's the link with some staying power. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/0505026 With 25 documents already filed, Widom will not be so easy to bump. I do smell a good story for Steve K. in this though *grin* K. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 5:53 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Windom Larsen paper David Nagel thinks this paper may be germane to CF, for obvious reasons: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0505/0505026.pdf Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces A. Widom, L. Larsen Lattice Energy LLC, 175 North Harbor Drive, Chicago IL 60601 ABSTRACT Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions in metallic hydride system surfaces are discussed. Weak interaction catalysis initially occurs when neutrons (along with neutrinos) are produced from the protons which capture heavy electrons. Surface electron masses are shifted upwards by localized condensed matter electromagnetic fields. Condensed matter quantum electrodynamic processes may also shift the densities of final states allowing an appreciable production of extremely low momentum neutrons which are thereby eciently absorbed by nearby nuclei. No Coulomb barriers exist for the weak interaction neutron production or other resulting catalytic processes. I am surprised they managed to sneak this into the archive. I predicted will soon be yanked out. - Jed
More Mills stuff ( are you reading Mike C? )
Hey Stephen, You write: He has lots of interesting results but if he has anything absolutely airtight in the way of a public demonstration of something really new I must have overlooked mention of it. This ain't academia. You gots to pay to play. He has a theory which requires throwing out QM (well tested, used every day) and starting over with a clean slate. Which had the interesting side effect of allowing US6024935 to grant while the CF folks were stymied. He has produced mysterious chemicals which should be revolutionary but which somehow don't seem to have revolutionized anything, or even gotten any mention anywhere outside of Vortex. Although when it came down to it, the patent office finally did start in on him. Another story for Steve K, find out more about what happened to this. US20030129117 Synthesis and characterization of a highly stable amorphous silicon hydride as the product of a catalytic hydrogen plasma reaction I think this is the right app, right Mike C.??? The one that got pulled _the day_ before it granted? By direct interference at the patent office. I might be wrong about the #, but the story is a corker. (Sorry, I'm crabby tonight.) Yeah, even more than me. Hey, Randy has his problems but one has to recognize that there is something here. Look more closely Stephen, this is a long story and not yet finished. BTW, here's what Randys cooking. US20050080260 Preparation of prodrugs for selective drug delivery US20040247522 Hydrogen power, plasma, and reactor for lasing, and power conversion US20040118348 Microwave power cell, chemical reactor, and power converter US20040095705 Plasma-to-electric power conversion US20040027127 4 dimensinal magnetic resonance imaging US20030228644 Pro drugs for selective drug delivery US20030129117 Synthesis and characterization of a highly stable amorphous silicon hydride as the product of a catalytic hydrogen plasma reaction US20020079440 Apparatus and method for providing an antigravitational force US20020051751 Pharmaceuticals and apparatus providing diagnosis and selective tissue necrosis And dishes served, US6555663 Prodrugs for selective drug delivery US6477398 Resonant magnetic susceptibility imaging (ReMSI) US6224848 Pharmaceuticals providing diagnosis and selective tissue necrosis using Mossbauer absorber atom US6024935 Lower-energy hydrogen methods and structures US5773592 Pro drugs for selective drug delivery US5428163 Prodrugs for selective drug delivery US5221518 DNA sequencing apparatus US5073858 Magnetic susceptibility imaging (MSI) US5064754 Genomic sequencing method US4969469 Paramagnetic dynamo electromotive force detector and imaging system incorporating same US4815448 Mossbauer cancer therapy US4815447 Mossbauer cancer therapy K.
RE: Robert Carroll
Hey Mark, you write: At least one young scientist believes he was more correct than most will allow. You ought to let the poor boy out of the basement for some air, he must have moss growing between his toes at this point. It would probably help you more than hurt. Just a thought *smile* K.
RE: ICCF-11 papers have arrived
Hey Jed, This kind of thing bothered me before the internet, but now it reads quite acceptably to me. I've come to appreciate russenglish for the novel sentence structuring and simplicity of style. That said, your insertion of the proper unit of current is a critical edit; those kinds of errors cause all sorts of problems down the road unless corrected. The kcal/kCal confusion we all had a few months ago is a perfect example of where good editorship in some old papers was lacking. What is your relation to the ICCF? Are you the official repository of papers, or are you providing the service as a favor to the organization? If the former, then you may be obligated to publish the whole of the proceedings, even papers which I agree should probably not be lumped in to CF. If the later, then it is your right to do as you may. BTW, if we agree CF is a real phenomena, then one is forced to review old alchemy reports for possible real effects. Most alchemy is bunk; but a few reports are very intriguing. Here's one thing that struck me from reading those sorts of papers. It was reported in one alchemical text that the water used in the experiment needed to be from the bottom of a deep, long standing well. We now know that that D2O will be found in higher concentrations in such water. Curious... K. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 10:48 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: ICCF-11 papers have arrived Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In what sense do [the papers] need to be edited? In papers written by non-native speakers, the English needs work. There is a broad range of problems. Papers by German authors may need a few minor adjustments of the definite and indefinite articles (the and a). Papers written by Japanese authors have many mistakes but I know how to fix them. Papers written by Russians tend to be the most difficult for me. Here is an example. Before editing: ANNOTATION The study of structure of elemental and isotopic composition of Ti cathode before and after an irradiation by ions glow discharge in plasma with an excess heat effect was fulfilled. The exposure was carried out by deuterium ions with a voltage of the discharge less than 1000 volt, with current of 10-20 . After corrections and consulting with the author: ABSTRACT In this study we report on the surface structure, distribution and isotopic composition of elements found on Ti cathodes before and after glow discharge in plasma, during which excess heat was produced. Irradiation was carried out with deuterium ions with a discharge voltage below 1000 volts, with a current of 10 to 20 mA. the LENR-CANR collection, because people come to the site to learn about cold fusion, not these other subjects. There may well be a link between CF transmutation and traditional alchemy. There may be, but for that matter there is probably a link between CF and special relativity (mass-energy equivalence), yet I do not have papers about relativity at LENR-CANR.org. In the broadest sense CF is probably related to many different fields. If you want to read about these other fields you go to textbooks or web sites about them. If a paper about traditional alchemy included a section with specific suggestions showing how it might be linked to CF, I would include it, even if I thought the link was bogus. A paper showing a relationship between relativity and CF would also be acceptable. I will grant the restriction is somewhat arbitrary, but if we have no restrictions we will end up with a huge pile of unrelated material, which will make it difficult for people to find what they are looking for. Furthermore, as I said, people who want to learn about alchemy on the Internet can do that very easily thanks to Google. We do not need to supply the links anymore. People make their own links. - Jed
Pykrete was RE: BLP implementation path
Google Pykrete and you'll find a wealth of information about this odd bit of history. http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/7/floatingisland.php K. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:52 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: BLP implementation path Standing Bear wrote: Conversely, the British once fully funded studies on a battleship made of ice, purely to mollify a fearful public during the depths of World War II. I believe that was an aircraft carrier made of ice mixed with sawdust and or ground-up newspaper. It was to be deployed in the far north Atlantic to cover the air gap where German U-boats could operate without being intercepted by long-range British aircraft. It would not be a highly mobile aircraft carrier in the usual sense, but rather a large man-made island that could be towed to any location and anchored. The craft would have had internal freezers to replenish the ice as it melted. Ice mixed with sawdust is incredibly tough material. It could easily withstand a German torpedo strike. It was actually a sensible proposal, but it was no longer needed after the US began launching small jeep aircraft carriers made from converted freighters that carried a couple dozen aircraft. (The British called them Woolworth carriers.) The proposal was not put forth to mollify the public. It was top secret. It was pursued because it appealed to Winston Churchill. - Jed
RE: ICCF-11 papers are depressing
Hey Fred, Can you get some of the magnets up to the curie point to demagnetize them? That would make a much better control than the ceramics. A propane torch might work on a small NdFeB, ceramics will break unless you use a furnace. K. -Original Message- From: Frederick Sparber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 9:07 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: ICCF-11 papers are depressing Michael Foster wrote: I wish everyone would give up on the electrolysis work. I think it's just an interesting dead end. No way to scale it up commercially. Agreed. Too much energy invested into getting the effect. A bit soon to say anything for certain, but the 10 stacked (tissue paper spacer) Neodymium super magnets (10 mm OD x 5 mm ID)in 100 grams of distilled H2O (about ~ 10^19 deuterons/gram H2O) in well-insulated cups are showing a few degree C temperature rise over a 48 hour soak. At 1.0 milliwatts it should take 116 hours (4.8 days) to get 1.0 deg C temperature rise. A similar well-insulated cup with a ceramic magnet stack is showing lessor or null results. I've got about $10.00 US and plenty of free time invested in this thing so far. But, since the Neodymium super magnets are only good up to 8o deg C if it pans out I have an eye on using it for nuke waste remediation. Maybe. Frederick
RE: Re : Magnetically Aligned CF Reactions, in H2O, Was RE: ICCF-11 papers....
Hi Fred, Boiling water won't quite cut it; 300C needed. You might try the oven in a pinch, it might just do it. This is a neat experiment for a variety of reasons, what are you using for calorimeters? A related thought: A while back I had it in my head that the surface morphology could be modified by plating on a PM, I was disappointed to find that Ni plating on a charged magnet seemed to have no noticable effect. Isn't that surprising? K. -Original Message- From: Frederick Sparber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:59 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re : Magnetically Aligned CF Reactions, in H2O, Was RE: ICCF-11 papers Hi Keith, Boiling hot water should do it, but I'm not going to try it until I get some more precise measurements with some digital thermometers due in today or tomorrow. BTW, the Neodymium magnets are Nickel-Plated which makes for thinking of it as a Condensed Plasma Interface with magnetic alignment of the protons/deuterons in the H2O-HDO-D2O, possibly as well as the stable Nickel 61 isotope. It would take over 200 Atmospheres of Metal-D2 gas pressure to come close to it. I think the gas discharge-metal surface research is knocking at this door, as is/was CF Cell Electrolysis D2 loading of Pd. Frederick [Original Message] From: Keith Nagel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Vortex vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: 5/3/05 11:08:07 AM Subject: RE: ICCF-11 papers are depressing Hey Fred, Can you get some of the magnets up to the curie point to demagnetize them? That would make a much better control than the ceramics. A propane torch might work on a small NdFeB, ceramics will break unless you use a furnace. K. -Original Message- From: Frederick Sparber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 9:07 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: ICCF-11 papers are depressing Michael Foster wrote: I wish everyone would give up on the electrolysis work. I think it's just an interesting dead end. No way to scale it up commercially. Agreed. Too much energy invested into getting the effect. A bit soon to say anything for certain, but the 10 stacked (tissue paper spacer) Neodymium super magnets (10 mm OD x 5 mm ID)in 100 grams of distilled H2O (about ~ 10^19 deuterons/gram H2O) in well-insulated cups are showing a few degree C temperature rise over a 48 hour soak. At 1.0 milliwatts it should take 116 hours (4.8 days) to get 1.0 deg C temperature rise. A similar well-insulated cup with a ceramic magnet stack is showing lessor or null results. I've got about $10.00 US and plenty of free time invested in this thing so far. But, since the Neodymium super magnets are only good up to 8o deg C if it pans out I have an eye on using it for nuke waste remediation. Maybe. Frederick
RE: Report from Max Planck work
Hey RC, You may have to repost; I'm getting a 403 forbidden error on the link, even the root domain rejects requests. Can you cut and paste the story? K. -Original Message- From: RC Macaulay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 1:05 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Report from Max Planck work Work continues http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2005/4/29/7401/23280 Richard
RE: Arie DeGeus
Hey Mark, you write: I am not qualified to evaluate the fractional hydrogen experiments, but he seemed to have carried those forward some distance toward practical hardware. The patent picture remains cloudy. It looks from the INPADOC legal data like he's been fighting it out with the examiners since 2002. This stuff is cited, US6024935, EP0395066, EP0461690 ( Boeing??? How 'bout that. ) BTW, WO0208787A3 sort of has heartburn written all over it. Every claim... Incidently, the late Dr. Robert Carroll, who was a consultant to our firm the last dozen years of his life, predicted the importance of fractional quantum states many years prior to Mills or DeGeus. Huh. I'll have to check him out, this is the site then? http://www.pride-net.com/physics/ K.
RE: Magnetic Field Measuring Devices
Hi Fred, Good introductory article, but I suspect the author was just googling for data after looking at the freq. ranges listed for the various detector modalities. Many seem way too high for commercial devices ( can you find me a commercial hall effect device that's good to better than 100KHz? ) others too low for theoretical capability ( proton precession doesn't _have_ to be limited to 2 hz, it's a design consideration. ) I was very hopeful with the new magnetoresistive devices that we could see commercial devices in the MHz range, but the linearity sucks so you end up with something only really good for square wave/counter sensing. Is anyone aware of a commercial H field sensor that can see from DC into the MHz range, that's reasonably linear? Tek sort of solved this problem by making mixed mode detectors, using hall for the low freq. and a coil for the RF. K. -Original Message- From: Frederick Sparber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 7:08 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: Magnetic Field Measuring Devices Very lucid article. The Proton Precession Magnetometer is of particular interest. http://www.autex.spb.ru/download/wavelet/books/sensor/CH48.PDF Frederick
RE: BLP implementation path
Someone whose name I don't know writes: There was a government funded study that stopped short of testing the power of this rocket. Then nothing. Probably working now and highly classified. Hey, how about just writing Anthony and asking him about the project? http://users.rowan.edu/~marchese/ Take your meds, try to act civil, and I'm sure he'll be happy to update you. K.
RE: ICCF-11 papers are depressing
Hi Jed, Mike's right. Electrolysis is a dead end. It's too difficult to control, and messy besides. There are still electroplating plants around, but they have largely been displaced by higher energy deposition processes. Same with CF. Also, with no property rights extended to CF research, I wouldn't be expecting a lot of public research of any value anymore. If you want to see public domain CF work, open up your pocketbook and fund it, or do it yourself. Your library is a good resource; it's what you do to keep the public face of the field going, so do that. K. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 5:44 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: ICCF-11 papers are depressing These ICCF-11 papers are depressing. There are only a few experimental papers. Most are reviews of old work, or papers about theory. As far as I can tell, most of the theory is of the crackpot variety, and usually about subjects unrelated to CF, such as POSSIBLE NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION OF NITROGEN IN THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE. This field is dying, and I cannot think of any way to save it. - Jed
Interesting gas tax proposal
Hi All. If Horace is still out there, I thought he would get a big kick out of this proposal. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/26/152946/325 It's a non-starter for a couple reasons; but it is somewhat more feasible than a simple tax. K.
RE: BLP implementation path
A guy whose name I still don't know writes: The web site is a resume. Dr. Marchese is highly qualified as a researcher and has worked on several government projects. All of these will have had a classification of confidential or better. Without a need to know and the required clearances, a requester to him pertaining to even these public projects would soon run afoul of Title 18, USC! Gosh, that sounds dangerous! Better not click any of those links to his research pages, http://users.rowan.edu/~marchese/blr.html You might learn all about the secret project! And what's this? The full report in PDF? http://users.rowan.edu/~marchese/final-niac.pdf If you read it, he'll probably have to kill you If I sound frustrated, well, I am. Tony's an educator, read the links and write him and he'll tell you all about the project he did for NASA. Or don't read them, and spout conspiracy theories on Vo. Your call. K.
Exploding cell phone Redux
Sure enough, more of those cheaply made lithium batteries are failing. http://www.local6.com/news/4434305/detail.html With picture of injury, that looks mighty painful. K.
New Energy researches at KPN Consulting
Hi All. I may be a cynic; but I am not lazy. At the urgings of some list members I have begun to post some of the public domain experimental researches of KPN Consulting. The first posting is an experiment I did for long time list member Fred Sparber. I will review my own work and see what I can afford to share with the group, look for new postings in the coming months. http://www.kpnconsulting.com/Research.htm Enjoy, and feel free to pass the link around to other lists. K.
RE: Reqest for Prometheus Effect verifiers
Hi Greg, Of course, I'd be delighted to help. In fact, I'll meet you more than half way here. I'm sure that the energy measurements you describe occur as you describe them. So there is no need at all to include the energy measuring device. The SMOT alone is more than sufficient. I will be happy to post the results of this landmark experiment on my website; with your ball return circuit ( the heart and soul of the SMOT ) we'll be able to easily convince the skeptics! When you're ready with the completed SMOT, I'll send you the shipping details. I'm glad you've taken the step of closing the loop and then sending out the kits; an MPEG on your website wouldn't be very convincing. K. -Original Message- From: Prometheus Effect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 5:23 AM To: Vortex; FreeEnergy; Prometheus Effect Group Subject: Reqest for Prometheus Effect verifiers Guys, I would like to enlist the aid of some of the members of the OU / Free Energy community to independently verify the virtually no magnetic dragback exit of the Prometheus Effect. To that end I will provide a SMOT device and the new lossless measurement system at no cost. In return you will be asked to do a series of measurement on the SMOT device and report back your results comments either way. The SMOT device and the measurement system will be yours to keep. To that end I would like to ask the following for their so kind assistance: 1) Bill Beaty (Vortex) 2) Scott Little or Hal Puthoff (Vortex) 3) Jed Rothwell (Vortex) 4) Terry Blanton (Vortex) 5) Keith Nagel (Vortex) 6) Jean-Louis Naudin (JLN Labs) 7) Stefan Hartman (Overunity.com) 8) Cyril Smith (OU Builders) 9) David Squires (OU Builders) Now it's just engineering effort, time and money, Greg Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com
RE: Long Delayed Echoes
I agree. Ducting between the poles is a well known phenomena, although the 20 minute delay is much more common than the 82 hour one. The ducting is due to the ionosphere and the magnetic poles, and the effect varies with the solar weather. I disagree that gravity is the cause. This is a plasma effect in conjunction with the earths magnetic field. It's interesting that RC has been banging on about frozen light, this effect is very closely related. K. -Original Message- From: Robert Brady [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 12:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Long Delayed Echoes I believe that the delayed echoes are caused by electromagnetic ducting around the earth. I remember that a TV station in the mid-USA had a test pattern which appeared long after the station ceased to function. Ducting is not uncommon for short periods. Note that radio waves are bent by gravity and could possibly orbit under the right conditions. It would be interesting to know what fresquencies were involved and the time of day. Bob KB7HP
RE: Times: Tabletop Fusion
Hi Jones, Here's some fresh links for ya. http://www.aip.org/pnu/2005/split/729-1.html http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=05/04/27/2025254mode=thread And your link, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/science/28fusion.html? The voltages quoted seem lower than what we were looking at yesterday, 120KV is something you could do in the dentists office. I assume the gradient is what matters more; just as one has a massive gradient at the interfacial layer between electrolyte and metal in an electrolytic cell. But this is hot fusion, or at least stripping. No wonder the yield is so tiny. The first link gives the most detail I have seen short of the Nature article. The girl is making noises about hitting the NYU library today, perhaps I'll impose upon her to copy the article and I'll post a bit more later. The site I posted yesterday is still 'dotted, tell your minions to lay off huh Leaky (grin). But try this later for more info. http://rodan.physics.ucla.edu/pyrofusion/ As you say, this has nothing to do with fusion in the solid state, probably any pyroelectric crystal could be made to do this, although the material choosen has certain physical properties which make it very amenable to this kind of work. Jones writes: Anyway, the difference between this is and other small neutron accelerators is that *heat* is substituted for *high voltage*... and the results are the same. I don't understand you here. The heat is just to get the charge separating on the cystal surface. Mechanical shock would work too, although heating is much easier to control and dimensional stability is maintained. K. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 10:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Times: Tabletop Fusion There is an excellent story in the NY Times (Kenneth Chang) today on the UCLA device, which, although developed in the acoustics lab by sonofusion expert Putterman, is basically just a small deuterium accelerator and ICF target. side note: ...is putterman a great name for a sonofusion guy or what? Anyway, the difference between this is and other small neutron accelerators is that *heat* is substituted for *high voltage*... and the results are the same. That is it... in a nutshell. There is a piezo transducer, just as in sonofusion, but it is pretty clear that alternate piezos could work just as well and that the lithium content of the transducer is not active. Electric fields are interesting phenomena when we get below nano-dimensions. When all is said and done, it is becoming mor and more conceivable to me and others that the very same modality here will be found to have been active in some forms of prior LENR work (beyond sonofusion), especially those experiments where neutrons are seen along with that unusual branching ratio where 3He is gound but no 3H. But Putterman is a notorious headline-grabber and possible plagiarist (some have used far harsher descriptors for him) so I doubt he will give proper attribution to any of them. Very intriguing, but of course, even Chang is very careful not to mention cold fusion by name (that probably was put into his interview agreement by UCLA/Putterman) Jones
RE: Computers and Religion
But Hank, You're neglecting the key theological issue. Did Jesus or Satan use the Mac? / Some important theological questions are answered if we think of god as a computer programmer. Q: Does God control everything that happens in my life? A: He could, if he used the debugger, but it's tedious to step through all those variables. Q: Why does God allow evil to happen? A: God thought he eliminated evil in one of the earlier revs. Q: Does God know everything? A: He likes to think so, but he is often amazed to find out what goes on in the overnight job. Q: What causes God to intervene in earthly affairs? A: If an critical error occurs, the system pages him automatically and he logs on from home to try to bring it up. Otherwise things can wait until tomorrow. Q: Did God really create the world in seven days? A: He did it in six days and nights while living on cola and candy bars. On the seventh day he went home and found out his girlfriend had left him. Q: How come the Age of Miracles Ended? A: That was the development phase of the project, now we are in the maintenance phase. Q: Will there be another Universe after the Big Bang? A: A lot of people are drawing things on the white board, but personally, God doubts that it will ever be implemented. Q: Who is Satan? A: Satan is an MIS director who takes credit for more powers than he actually possesses, so people who aren't programmers are scared of him. God thinks of him as irritating but irrelevant. Q: What is the role of sinners? A: Sinners are the people who find new an imaginative ways to mess up the system when God has made it idiot-proof. Q: Where will I go after I die? A: Onto a DAT tape. Q: Will I be reincarnated? A: Not unless there is a special need to recreate you. And searching those .tar files is a major hassle, so if there is a request for you, God will just say that the tape has been lost. Q: Am I unique and special in the universe? A: There are over 10,000 major university and corporate sites running exact duplicates of you in the present release version. Q: What is the purpose of the universe? A: God created it because he values elegance and simplicity, but then the users and managers demanded he tack all this senseless stuff onto it and now everything is more complicated and expensive than ever. Q: If I pray to God, will he listen? A: You can waste his time telling him what to do, or you can just get off his back and let him program. Q: What is the one true religion? A: All systems have their advantages and disadvantages, so just pick the one that best suits your needs and don't let anyone put you down. Q: Is God angry that we crucified him? A: Let's just say he's not going to any more meetings if he can help it, because that last one with the twelve managers and the food turned out to be murder. Q: How can I protect myself from evil? A: Change your password every month and don't make it a name, a common word, or a date like your birthday. Q: Some people claim they hear the voice of God. Is this true? A: They are much more likely to receive email. -Original Message- From: Hank Scudder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Computers and Religion Jesus and Satan were having an on-going argument about who was better on the computer. They had been going at it for days, and frankly God was tired of hearing all the bickering. Finally fed up, God said, THAT'S IT! I have had enough. I am going to set up a test that will run for two hours, and from those results, I will judge who does the better job. So Satan and Jesus sat down at the keyboards and typed away. They moused. They faxed. They e-mailed. They downloaded. They did spreadsheets. They wrote reports. They created labels and cards. They created charts and graphs. They did some genealogy reports. They did every job known to man. Jesus worked with heavenly efficiency and Satan was faster than hell. Then, ten minutes before their time was up, lightning suddenly flashed across the sky, thunder rolled, rain poured, and, of course, the power went off. Satan stared at his blank screen and screamed every curseword known in the underworld. Jesus just sighed. Finally the electricity came back on, and each of them restarted their computers. Satan started searching frantically, screaming It's gone! It's all GONE! I lost everything when the power went out! Meanwhile, Jesus quietly started printing out all of his files from the past two hours of work. Satan observed this and became irrate. Wait! he screamed. That's not fair! He cheated! How come he has all his work and I don't have any? God just shrugged and said, JESUS SAVES
RE: RE: Computers and Religion
Terry, I'm searching without results for the think different ad with Anton LaVey. You know the one, you animal... Can you work your linking magic It's gotta be out there somewhere. K. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: RE: Computers and Religion From: Keith Nagel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/04/28 Thu PM 01:42:49 EDT To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Computers and Religion But Hank, You're neglecting the key theological issue. Did Jesus or Satan use the Mac? Uh, you can look at the Mac logo and ask that question? Jesus saves souls . . . and trades them in for valuable prizes!
RE: Times: Tabletop Fusion
Hi Michael, About 50 pounds of iron, and a wall outlet. You could warm the pyroelectric crystal with your hands and generate neutrons. But there is no new physics here, sadly. You are not missing anything. K. -Original Message- From: Michael Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 3:02 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Times: Tabletop Fusion Am I missing something? What is the advantage of using the pyroelectric crystal as a high voltage source over some other more conventional power supply? M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
OT : Social Insecurity
Mr. Bush on Social Security...tonite. / Mr Bush sez: In a reformed Social System, voluntary personal retirement accounts would offer workers a number of investment options that are simple and easy to understand. I know some Americans have reservations about investing in the stock market, so I propose that one investment option consist entirely of TREASURY BONDS, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Options like this will make voluntary personal retirement accounts a safer investment. / Mr Bush continues... Now, it's very important for our fellow citizens to understand there is not a bank account here in Washington, D.C., where we take your payroll taxes and hold it for you and then give it back to you when you retire. Our system is called pay as you go. You pay into the system through your payroll taxes and the government spends it. It spends the money on the current retirees and with the money left over, it funds other government programs. And all that's left behind is file cabinets full of IOUs. // Hm IOUs? What are those? Sounds risky... From the US government site Social Security Online http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm Social Security is largely a pay-as-you-go system with today's taxpayers paying for the benefits of today's retirees. Money not needed to pay today's benefits is invested in special-issue TREASURY BONDS. // Oh, so those IOU's are TREASURY BONDS. How about that. Comments? K.
A new generation of Geeks take on Dean Kamen!
Heartburn for Dean Kamen. http://www.ebikes.ca/Projects/Emanual/Index.html Watch out Dean, someone might actually get laid riding one of these boards, me thinks you have some serious competition... K. PS: I've seen a grand total of two (2) Segway in NYC. One was the real McCoy, the other a Chinese knockoff with 4 wheels. I've seen _many_ other scooter and minibike devices, perhaps this summer I'll take some pictures and post. There is a real market for this stuff, but as the boys say on their site, top-down orchestration of social change tends to produce spectacular flameouts and failures.
RE: Heavyweight anachronism?
Terry writes: How can anyone doubt the obvious? No one doubts the obvious. The failure in Iraq however is making it very hard to do anything about Iran. Let's tune in to todays press conference with the folks who know... // Asked during the briefing are we winning the war, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did not directly respond. The United States and the coalition forces, in my personal view, will not be the thing that will defeat the insurgency, Rumsfeld said. So, therefore, winning or losing is not the issue for 'we,' in my view, in the traditional, conventional context of using the word 'winning' and 'losing' in a war. The people that are going to defeat that insurgency are going to be the Iraqis. After Rumsfeld finished, Myers interjected, I'm going to say this: I think we are winning, OK? I think we're definitely winning. I think we've been winning for some time. /// So, it all depends on what your definition of winning, losing, and we is, is it? Gosh, my dictionary finger is getting sore. How...Clintonian. K.
RE: Nature re Putterman cold fusion
Thanks Mark, You must have a subscription. I was disappointed the articles are blocked. I wish they would adopt the policy of this publisher and list recent articles. http://www.iop.org/EJ/ All these journals are accessable for the first month or so. The New Journal of Physics is a lot like E-Print server in that all articles are available. BTW, this is an interesting article, but more for the method of HV generation than fusion as such. Very clever. K. -Original Message- From: Mark Goldes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 4:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Nature re Putterman cold fusion News Nature 434, 1057 (28 April 2005) | doi: 10.1038/4341057a Physicists look to crystal device for future of fusion Mark Peplow, London Top of page Abstract Desktop apparatus yields stream of neutrons. Seth Putterman is usually on the side of the sceptics when it comes to tabletop fusion. But now he has created a device that may convince researchers to change their minds about the 'f-word'. Tabletop fusion has been a touchy subject since Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann said in 1989 that they had achieved 'cold fusion' at room temperature. Putterman helped to discredit this claim, as well as more recent reports of 'bubble fusion'. Now Putterman, a physicist at the University of California, Los Angeles, has turned a tiny crystal into a particle accelerator. When its electric field is focused by a tungsten needle, it fires deuterium ions into a target so fast that the colliding nuclei fuse to create a stream of neutrons. Putterman is not claiming to have created a source of virtually unlimited energy, because the reaction isn't self-sustaining. But until now, achieving any kind of fusion in the lab has required bulky accelerators with large electricity supplies. Replacing that with a small crystal is revolutionary. The amazing thing is that the crystal can be used as an accelerator without plugging it in to a power station, says Putterman. Putterman got the idea when he delivered a lecture on sonoluminescence and energy focusing at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. Physicist Ahmet Erbil suggested that Putterman should instead consider ferroelectricity. Here's someone telling me in front of 100 people that I'm working on the wrong thing, recalls Putterman. But the comment got him started on his fusion reactor. The result is published in this week's Nature (see page 1115). Will he be able to avoid the controversy that has dogged other fusion claims? My first reaction when I saw the paper was 'oh no, not another tabletop fusion paper', says Mike Saltmarsh, an acclaimed neutron hunter who was called in to resolve the dispute over bubble fusion. But they've built a neat little accelerator. I'm pretty sure no one has been able to generate neutrons in this way before. Putterman himself isn't worried. If people think this is a crackpot paper that's just fine, he says. We're right. Any scientist who says this is too wonderful to believe is welcome to reproduce the experiments. Top of page Related links RELATED STORIES * Collapsing bubbles have hot plasma core * US review rekindles cold fusion debate * Nuclear flash in a pan * Table-top nuclear fusion EXTERNAL LINKS * Putterman on energy focusing * Fusion tutorial
RE: Nature re Putterman cold fusion
Hi Akira, Lithium Tantalate. http://www.sawseek.com/prody1.html http://www.almazoptics.com/LiTaO3.html K. -Original Message- From: Akira Kawasaki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 4:48 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Nature re Putterman cold fusion April 27, 2005 Vortex, Hi Mark. Did the Nature article say what the crystal was? Thanks for the news tip. -ak- [Original Message] From: Mark Goldes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: 4/27/2005 1:00:00 PM Subject: Nature re Putterman cold fusion News Nature 434, 1057 (28 April 2005) | doi: 10.1038/4341057a Physicists look to crystal device for future of fusion Mark Peplow, London Top of page Abstract Desktop apparatus yields stream of neutrons. Seth Putterman is usually on the side of the sceptics when it comes to tabletop fusion. But now he has created a device that may convince researchers to change their minds about the 'f-word'. Tabletop fusion has been a touchy subject since Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann said in 1989 that they had achieved 'cold fusion' at room temperature. Putterman helped to discredit this claim, as well as more recent reports of 'bubble fusion'. Now Putterman, a physicist at the University of California, Los Angeles, has turned a tiny crystal into a particle accelerator. When its electric field is focused by a tungsten needle, it fires deuterium ions into a target so fast that the colliding nuclei fuse to create a stream of neutrons. Putterman is not claiming to have created a source of virtually unlimited energy, because the reaction isn't self-sustaining. But until now, achieving any kind of fusion in the lab has required bulky accelerators with large electricity supplies. Replacing that with a small crystal is revolutionary. The amazing thing is that the crystal can be used as an accelerator without plugging it in to a power station, says Putterman. Putterman got the idea when he delivered a lecture on sonoluminescence and energy focusing at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. Physicist Ahmet Erbil suggested that Putterman should instead consider ferroelectricity. Here's someone telling me in front of 100 people that I'm working on the wrong thing, recalls Putterman. But the comment got him started on his fusion reactor. The result is published in this week's Nature (see page 1115). Will he be able to avoid the controversy that has dogged other fusion claims? My first reaction when I saw the paper was 'oh no, not another tabletop fusion paper', says Mike Saltmarsh, an acclaimed neutron hunter who was called in to resolve the dispute over bubble fusion. But they've built a neat little accelerator. I'm pretty sure no one has been able to generate neutrons in this way before. Putterman himself isn't worried. If people think this is a crackpot paper that's just fine, he says. We're right. Any scientist who says this is too wonderful to believe is welcome to reproduce the experiments. Top of page Related links RELATED STORIES * Collapsing bubbles have hot plasma core * US review rekindles cold fusion debate * Nuclear flash in a pan * Table-top nuclear fusion EXTERNAL LINKS * Putterman on energy focusing * Fusion tutorial
RE: Nature re Putterman cold fusion
Hi All, Some additional info. Movies etc. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/suppinfo/nature03575.html When the slashdot crowd gets through with it, more stuff here. http://rodan.physics.ucla.edu/pyrofusion/ K. -Original Message- From: Keith Nagel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 5:05 PM To: Vortex Subject: RE: Nature re Putterman cold fusion Hi Akira, Lithium Tantalate. http://www.sawseek.com/prody1.html http://www.almazoptics.com/LiTaO3.html K. -Original Message- From: Akira Kawasaki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 4:48 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Nature re Putterman cold fusion April 27, 2005 Vortex, Hi Mark. Did the Nature article say what the crystal was? Thanks for the news tip. -ak- [Original Message] From: Mark Goldes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: 4/27/2005 1:00:00 PM Subject: Nature re Putterman cold fusion News Nature 434, 1057 (28 April 2005) | doi: 10.1038/4341057a Physicists look to crystal device for future of fusion Mark Peplow, London Top of page Abstract Desktop apparatus yields stream of neutrons. Seth Putterman is usually on the side of the sceptics when it comes to tabletop fusion. But now he has created a device that may convince researchers to change their minds about the 'f-word'. Tabletop fusion has been a touchy subject since Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann said in 1989 that they had achieved 'cold fusion' at room temperature. Putterman helped to discredit this claim, as well as more recent reports of 'bubble fusion'. Now Putterman, a physicist at the University of California, Los Angeles, has turned a tiny crystal into a particle accelerator. When its electric field is focused by a tungsten needle, it fires deuterium ions into a target so fast that the colliding nuclei fuse to create a stream of neutrons. Putterman is not claiming to have created a source of virtually unlimited energy, because the reaction isn't self-sustaining. But until now, achieving any kind of fusion in the lab has required bulky accelerators with large electricity supplies. Replacing that with a small crystal is revolutionary. The amazing thing is that the crystal can be used as an accelerator without plugging it in to a power station, says Putterman. Putterman got the idea when he delivered a lecture on sonoluminescence and energy focusing at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. Physicist Ahmet Erbil suggested that Putterman should instead consider ferroelectricity. Here's someone telling me in front of 100 people that I'm working on the wrong thing, recalls Putterman. But the comment got him started on his fusion reactor. The result is published in this week's Nature (see page 1115). Will he be able to avoid the controversy that has dogged other fusion claims? My first reaction when I saw the paper was 'oh no, not another tabletop fusion paper', says Mike Saltmarsh, an acclaimed neutron hunter who was called in to resolve the dispute over bubble fusion. But they've built a neat little accelerator. I'm pretty sure no one has been able to generate neutrons in this way before. Putterman himself isn't worried. If people think this is a crackpot paper that's just fine, he says. We're right. Any scientist who says this is too wonderful to believe is welcome to reproduce the experiments. Top of page Related links RELATED STORIES * Collapsing bubbles have hot plasma core * US review rekindles cold fusion debate * Nuclear flash in a pan * Table-top nuclear fusion EXTERNAL LINKS * Putterman on energy focusing * Fusion tutorial
On the other hand...
Here's another view of the personal computer revolution, http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/04/24/RVGSIC93AT1.DTL West Coast style for Jones amusement (grin). // He romanticizes both the era -- how unlike the cynical, selfish nineties -- and his subjects, even to the point of paradox: Researchers at Stanford's Artificial Intelligence Lab shared a passionate belief in an unbounded future, coupled with a slightly dark and sardonic worldview that only people with a truly deep understanding of the way things work could have. And his profiles are so uniformly of the brilliant-misfit-leaves-East-Coast- culture-to-find-freedom-in-San-Francisco kind that after what seems like two dozen such sketches, one dreads meeting a new character. Ironically, it's the ever-splintering counterculture that lends some much needed balance to the book. Diligently following each radical thread, Markoff shows how the military funding behind SRI's computer science programs led increasingly militant protesters to oppose the very research that would ultimately produce the PC. Yet when one of the labs is occupied by activists, a student saves the mainframe from destruction by convincing his fellows that the machine is politically neutral. Not a visionary statement, perhaps, but a refreshingly grounded one. /// K.
RE: Prometheus Effect and SMOT kits
Hi Greg, You write: What I do know is that you can drop the ball vertically from the entry position, without magnets and measure the KE delivered in a fall to a level reference plane, then replace the ball at the entry point and allow it to do the climb, drop and fall to the the same entry plane. The measured final exit KE is not significantly different to the calculated exit PE. This to me indicates there has been very little effective magnetic dragback. OK, thanks for the capsule summary. I would disagree that this is really novel from your first experiments, but let's put that aside for the moment and focus on the experiment. How much energy is required to push the ball back to the starting position? It's trivial to redirect the ball, recovering the kinetic energy. That's your input energy. Pushing the ball under the ramp will no doubt take some energy. Making the ball go around the ramp in a big loop will also take energy, although this may not be as clear or easy to measure as the first method. Start with the first method, and experimentally determine the energy. You have two gradients, one magnetic, one gravitational. The vectors are complex as the gradients are not parallel and equal at all points. Yet, you should pretty easily experimentally determine if you've got extra energy if you do the last bit. Also, like many people on this list, due to the list software and my email client, hitting the reply button sends mail to me. Be assured, if you receive something from me, it's coming from the list, and it's best to reply there. Thanks. K.
RE: Prometheus Effect and SMOT kits
Hi Greg, I'm working on a simple to build / replicate single ramp, ball return system and expect to post a video in the next week or so. Keep us posted. I expect that last inch will be challenging, if you're going under the ramp. Say, with tongue firmly in cheek, might I suggest the moniker Sisyphus rather than Prometheus? K.
