(OT) funny cartoon
On Homeland Security http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.05.08.BillofGoods-X.gif
Re: Fission 'diodes' and one-way criticality
Robin, There is a belt of hot water wells that traverse across Texas from Kilgore to Laredo. Many of these wells have a high H2S content . Along with the belt is lignite coal deposits. Yellowcake has been mined along the western extremity by Amoco in past years. Do you suppose we have a natural reaction taking place that results in the hot water ? Richard - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 10:22 PM Subject: Re: Fission 'diodes' and one-way criticality In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 12 May 2005 21:23:04 -0700: Hi, [snip] The natural reactor at Oklo occurred 2 million years ago when all the uranium on earth was of significantly higher enrichment then it is now. According to http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKLO/When/When.html, this was 2 billion (not million) years ago, and the U235% then would have been about 7.9% if I did the sums right. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Nuclear Battery
Did tritium suddenly become less expensive? http://www.livescience.com/technology/050513_new_battery.html How it works The technology is called betavoltaics. It uses a silicon wafer to capture electrons emitted by a radioactive gas, such as tritium. It is similar to the mechanics of converting sunlight into electricity in a solar panel.
Re: The seemingly circuitous behavior of hydrinos
From: Robin van Spaandonk ... It's not a coincidence. It's the largest integer smaller than the inverse fine structure constant. The latter is important, because if the electron could shrink to exactly the inverse fine structure constant level, it would be traveling at the speed of light (in a circle), which is why the shrinkage is limited to that value. However If one takes into account relativistic increase in the mass of the electron, then the maximum shrinkage level is even less than 137. How much less depends on which model one adopts. Seems to me that the increase in mass implies that these theoretically tiniest of all hydrino species should be heavier than their cousins, especially hydrogen at its traditionally accepted ground state. Theoretically speaking, could the additional mass-weight of these exotic hydrinos (approaching the limit of 137) be measurable on a macro scale? I suspect this might be impossible simply because these hydrinos are so small that for all purposes they may tend to behave more like sub-atomic particles, meaning they can't be physically contained in the normal way. It's my understanding that a circuitous description of hydrogen transformed to Hydrino, transformed to neutron, and ultimately transformed back to hydrogen scenario shouldn't occur precisely because of the endless extraction of energy that would result. Instead of this scenario you and other hydrino theorists have speculated that fusion may be the more likely fate precisely because these tiny critters have shrunk to such a small diameter that statistically their chances of interacting with other hydrino nuclei have been greatly improved. While I understand, statistically speaking, why fusion may be more likely what I still question would be the ramifications that the energy well would have constructed around individual hydrinos. How would these energy wells play (or not play as the case might be) into the theorized fusion mechanism. Wouldn't they act as a formidable barrier to fusion that would have to be overcome IN ADDITION TO the well-understood column barrier? I was wondering if this energy well might ultimately cancel out any fusion advantage hydrinos might possess as a result of their smaller diameters. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: Name of the Game
My evaluation of this coming technology is the same as in the past. The smarter the computer becomes the dumer people become. We are setting ourselves up to be the perfect victims of the philophescy of the Taliban and Al-quida. All they will need to do is write a program in to this great internet network -with some safty regimes that it can't be erased - and soon they would be in control. That should take civilizatio back at least a thousand years.-- Hopefully it is a least a couple decades away.-Ges-
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.
'energy hole' (Re: Mills_secret_)
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 03:06:12PM -0400, Mike Carrell wrote: In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sun, 8 May 2005 11:01:46-0400: 2) Isolated hydrogen atoms can be induced to 'shink' to lower states by the proximity of catalyst atom(s) presenting an 'energy hole' of the right value. Energy is transfered by a 'resonant transfer' mechanism which does not involve radiation. This transfer is known in physics and chemistry in other contexts. Since all matter is electromagnetic in nature, is must involve radiation in some form, though it may be near field rather than far field. Has anyone proposed the mechanism for this in terms of a modification to the Lagrangian of the standard model? In this framework the energy must be exchanged by some force carrier boson; is Mill proposing that this is done by a virtual photon? JOe -- Josef Karthauser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.josef-k.net/ FreeBSD (cvs meister, admin and hacker) http://www.uk.FreeBSD.org/ Physics Particle Theory (student) http://www.pact.cpes.sussex.ac.uk/ An eclectic mix of fact and theory. = pgpJzHPd1nc9m.pgp Description: PGP signature
Cold fusion page in German
See: http://www.erkenntnishorizont.de/energie/kernfusion/kalte_fusion.c.php
Popular Science Jume 2007 Einstein Master of the Universe
If they say so, it must be true. Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif
Re: Popular Science Jume 2007 Einstein Master of the Universe
BlankWhat... the great genius, Einstein is not all he is cracked up to be? Surely, Richard, you are not suggesting that he lifted his famous equation - e=mc^2 - from another person without attribution - or that the victim was a fellow named Olinto de Pretto, who published it in 1903, fully two years before Einstein published his paper.. This documented revelation has been known in Italy and on the net for some time, and never denied by anyone - how can it be denied ? the evidence is absolutely clear... yet no major newspaper or scientific journal has picked up the story of this injustice. Popular Science is a nothing more than a marketing tool anyway, it is a joke as far as science goes... Einstein never appologized nor even acknowledged his misdeed, AFAIK but the Nobel committee probably had suspicions then... as he was awarded the prize in 1921 solely for his work on the photoelectric effect, which he did deserve. Of course, he is still remembered mainly for his work on relativity and gravity, but that is not what he got the Nobel prize for. Were it not for the elephantine memory of the WWW, and a few iconclasts, who would know? - Original Message - From: RC Macaulay If they say so, it must be true. Richard
Re: Popular Science Jume 2007 Einstein Master of the Universe
OOPS!! June 2005 issue - Original Message - From: RC Macaulay To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:14 PM Subject: Popular Science Jume 2007 Einstein" Master of the Universe" If they say so, it must be true. Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif
Re: Popular Science June 2005 Einstein Master of the Universe
In Max Born's book _Einstein's Theory of Relativity_ there is a derivation of e = mc^2 without any special relativity concepts. see p. 283-286, 1962 edition. Harry Jones Beene wrote: BlankWhat... the great genius, Einstein is not all he is cracked up to be? Surely, Richard, you are not suggesting that he lifted his famous equation - e=mc^2 - from another person without attribution - or that the victim was a fellow named Olinto de Pretto, who published it in 1903, fully two years before Einstein published his paper.. This documented revelation has been known in Italy and on the net for some time, and never denied by anyone - how can it be denied ? the evidence is absolutely clear... yet no major newspaper or scientific journal has picked up the story of this injustice. Popular Science is a nothing more than a marketing tool anyway, it is a joke as far as science goes... Einstein never appologized nor even acknowledged his misdeed, AFAIK but the Nobel committee probably had suspicions then... as he was awarded the prize in 1921 solely for his work on the photoelectric effect, which he did deserve. Of course, he is still remembered mainly for his work on relativity and gravity, but that is not what he got the Nobel prize for. Were it not for the elephantine memory of the WWW, and a few iconclasts, who would know? - Original Message - From: RC Macaulay If they say so, it must be true. Richard
Hybrid-tether concept
Is it possible to position a large unmanned aircraft in semi-permanent stationary quasi-orbit but at only 20-50 km in altitude? This concept would allow such things as a really cheap replacement space telescope, or an antenna array high enough to broadcast television and broad-band communications all over a vast undeveloped area, such as the state of Alaska, say, or Afghanistan... or many other applications where satellites are too expensive an option, or don't have enough power. But it could even be a high launching pad for small satellites itself - IOW it would be like dispensing with the first two stages of launch. Maybe it is possible soon. There has been a lot of interest in space tethers here, and jet-stream windmills. Both just out of reach with present technology. This concept is a little of both and I don't think this slant on tethers has ever been considered even though it is (probably) within the reach of present technology. It appears to me, having just dreamed this up - that combining two ideas into a hybrid could get this field 'soaring' in the near term without the need for a major breakthrough in structural materials (such as a stronger fiber than Kevlar/Dnyeema)... The problem now is that the best fiber is just not strong enough for useful tethers which allow stationary earth orbit, of the geo-synchronous variety - but they are strong enough for several tens of km, now - as long as you do not have large loads like dealing with a wind-mill in the jet-stream of several hundred MPH. And tethers have been made electrically conductive with little penalty. Last month Robin estimated the longest Kevlar cord that would sustain it's own weight is 290 km. For Dyneema it is a bit longer. Extrapolating from available information, lets look at some 'ball-park' figures. Lets say we have an electrically conductive cable-tether, actually three of them which can carry 1-10 megawatts of high-voltage three-phase AC power to 20-50 km of altitude to power the craft in question electrically from the ground-up. Is that possible? You would have to construct the three tethers in such a way that every 10 meters or so you have a small pulsing strobe light, visible during the day. This, and an electronic warning signal, plus robotically controlled tower operators radioing-out to pilots in the neighborhood - would help keep the tether from being hit by other airplanes. We want to get a large drone airplane above the weather and just slightly above the jet stream, but still at an altitude with enough air pressure for large efficient propellers to work against. Unlike the jet-stream wind-mill idea, the cable can be much lighter than the windmill version, even though it is higher in altitude, but of course it is using-power, not producing it it. Let's bootstrap another concept in order to put a stationary craft and a succession of small payloads up there cheaply, and keep the craft there (above the weather) for as long as the materials and electrical motors, robotics, etc. will hold up with limited maintenance - maybe 5-10 years. We can lift additional loads up to it, assuming that the loads can be light and KD and assembled robotically on the craft in question. This would be beneficial for a high altitude ultra-cheap launch of payload to even higher altitude. BTW, KD is a term used in manufacturing in the USA to mean knocked-down which implies the product is designed so that small parts can be disassembled and easily reassembled (usually by the customer, like the cool stuff at Ikea). It is kind of an anachronistic term nowadays as the parts were usually never assembled first to make sure that they fit, as was once done. OK this is going to get a bit complicated. After all, it is a hybrid. First - Check out Flying circles around the helicopter in April 30 edition of 2005 New Scientist by David Hambling http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18624971.600 To paraphrase: As far back as1956, fixed wing missionary pilots learned this trick, which few others have heard of, even today, although there is no good reason why it cannot be scaled up to a much larger size. Basically, in situations where you can't afford a helicopter, a low speed aircraft which can fly in tight circles over a bull's eye drop point where a tether (rope) is lowered. The tether naturally begins to take the vortex inverted-cone shape and eventually can touch earth at a **single stationary location** Items can be lowered or raised on this rope. The tight circular flight path combines with the forces of gravity and drag to hold the rope almost motionless at its lower extremity, reminiscent of the tornado vortex. This bucket drop technique has proved invaluable for certain situations using small planes but it has been largely ignored as to scale-up - until now. Lately, a team of engineers at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Australia are exploring the same basic
Re: 'energy hole' (Re: Mills_secret_)
In reply to Josef Karthauser's message of Sun, 15 May 2005 10:24:56 +0100: Hi, [snip] Since all matter is electromagnetic in nature, is must involve radiation in some form, though it may be near field rather than far field. Has anyone proposed the mechanism for this in terms of a modification to the Lagrangian of the standard model? Not AFAIK. Would you like to take a shot? If they have, then just look for any work done on particle collisions, that doesn't involve hard little spheres. In this framework the energy must be exchanged by some force carrier boson; is Mill proposing that this is done by a virtual photon? Not sure exactly what he is proposing. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: The seemingly circuitous behavior of hydrinos
In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message of Sun, 15 May 2005 11:08:49 -0400: Hi Steven, [snip] However If one takes into account relativistic increase in the mass of the electron, then the maximum shrinkage level is even less than 137. How much less depends on which model one adopts. Seems to me that the increase in mass implies that these theoretically tiniest of all hydrino species should be heavier than their cousins, especially hydrogen at its traditionally accepted ground state. Relativistic mass increase is really just another way of saying kinetic energy. This energy has to come from somewhere. As the hydrino shrinks, it comes from the electric field energy of the electron relative to the proton. I can see no way in which this wouldn't result in a mass reduction of at least one of the two particles involved (electron proton or both). In short particle rest mass is converted into kinetic energy, and some is also lost externally (as energy made available to the environment, see energy from hydrino shrinkage). This means that the increase in relativistic mass of the electron is not even enough to compensate for the loss in rest mass. In short the hydrino as a whole gets lighter as it shrinks. Theoretically speaking, could the additional mass-weight of these exotic hydrinos (approaching the limit of 137) be measurable on a macro scale? It is thus a mass loss rather than a gain, and would be very hard to measure, as it is still only a very small proportion of the overall mass (~0.027% at most). [snip] It's my understanding that a circuitous description of hydrogen transformed to Hydrino, transformed to neutron, and ultimately transformed back to hydrogen scenario shouldn't occur precisely because of the endless extraction of energy that would result. Well that's my opinion. Instead of this scenario you and other hydrino theorists have speculated that fusion may be the more likely fate precisely because these tiny critters have shrunk to such a small diameter that statistically their chances of interacting with other hydrino nuclei have been greatly improved. Indeed. Because they are shielded by their own shrunken electron, they can get much closer to another nucleus, which improves the chances of tunneling dramatically. While I understand, statistically speaking, why fusion may be more likely what I still question would be the ramifications that the energy well would have constructed around individual hydrinos. How would these energy wells play (or not play as the case might be) into the theorized fusion mechanism. Wouldn't they act as a formidable barrier to fusion that would have to be overcome IN ADDITION TO the well-understood column barrier? I was wondering if this energy well might ultimately cancel out any fusion advantage hydrinos might possess as a result of their smaller diameters. The loss of energy during hydrino formation would simply mean that there would be slightly less energy available from any fusion reaction than one would get from the fusion of a normal proton with the same nucleus. The reduction in fusion energy would exactly equal the amount of energy that one had already received from the hydrino shrinkage, so overall, the results would be the same. IOW hydrinos simply make fusion easier, they don't yield any more, or any less, energy over all. Furthermore, the energy freed during hydrino formation is still quite small relative to the amount released during the fusion reaction. i.e. the maximum release during hydrino formation is 255 keV. The release from an average fusion reaction involving a proton is about 5000 keV, which is about 20 times more. Note however that this assumes that the hydrino is maximally shrunken before the fusion reaction takes place. In practice, it may happen much sooner than that, after e.g. release of only 3 keV, resulting in the fusion energy being about 1000 times larger than the hydrino release energy. This means that the energy loss during shrinkage will have very little effect on the fusion energy, and not be such as to hinder the fusion event to any appreciable extent. OTOH, the reduction in size brings about an incredible increase in the chance of fusion taking place (by many orders of magnitude). To give you a feel for how enormous this is, consider the following. Calculations show that the average time between fusion events for the D atoms in D2 is at least 1E80 years. When a negative muon is used to catalyze the reaction however, the distance between the nuclei shrinks by a factor of about 207. The time needed drops to about 1E-23 seconds. IOW a size reduction by 207 yields a time reduction by 110 orders of magnitude (i.e. 3E110). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
