Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:21:26 -0400: Hi, [snip] We believe that the federal government should allocate between five and $10 million a year to this research. Many qualified fellow researchers would like to perform cold fusion research, but they have not been funded. [snip] When you specify an amount, you run the risk of creating an artificial ceiling that you may come to regret. OTOH if you don't specify an amount you run the risk of getting too little. Perhaps you could just say that at least x number of researchers should be supported? Also, it may not hurt to remind that the review panel said that some research should be supported. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:NaH - strong and strange
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 26 Oct 2008 14:20:48 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Robin, Have you ever come across this in Mills' CQM (or in any commentary by others): The possible direct conversion of the negative hydrogen ion (H-) into hydrino hydride in one step? No I haven't, however that doesn't mean much. Mills does cover the shrinkage of the H2 molecule in one step. (It's always intrigued me that he never followed through on that.) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:NaH - strong and strange
In reply to Remi Cornwall's message of Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:42:34 -: Hi Remi, [snip] Have you ever come across Hydrinos? Can people tell the difference between Star Trek and the Discovery channel? Despite the Arthur C Clarke quote, the initiated know the difference between science, the pursuit of science and pure and applied bullshitology. [snip] Nobody knows anything. There is no such thing as knowledge, because knowledge implies certainty, and there is always some element of doubt. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 25 Oct 2008 09:06:07 -0600: Hi Ed, Robin, my main point is that an electron leaving an atom cannot go to infinity under the conditions Mills has in his reactor. At most, it will go into some other energy level, such as the conduction band if one exists in the material. This fact is not based on speculation, assumptions, or theory. This is a simple fact of nature that is well understood. [snip] When an atom/molecule is ionized, the electron *never* goes to infinity, so in that sense, *no* measured (by *anyone*) ionization energy is 100% accurate. However due to the inverse square drop in electric field, the electron doesn't have to be removed very far from an atom before the difference between that and infinity is so small as to be trivial (a few microns is enough). Such distances are easily attained in a plasma. What happens to the electron after that is irrelevant to the process from which the electron originated. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:36:16 -0400: Hi, [snip] MC: remember to look at the DSC scan in Fig. 7. NaH goes strongly exothermic all by itself in an He atmosphere. [snip] ..and what conclusion do you draw from this? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:57:47 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] - Original Message From: Mike Carrell MC: remember to look at the DSC scan in Fig. 7. NaH goes strongly exothermic all by itself in an He atmosphere. Why, instead of all by itself is this not evidence that Helium is a catalyst? Mills once consider it to be - has he changed that view? Not that I am aware of. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Hy-Beam Concept
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 25 Oct 2008 09:15:05 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Robin has a proprietary version of a hot nuclear reactor, presumably employing U, which builds on hydrino-tech -- and this concept does also. No, my device has nothing to do with fission. It's a pure fusion device. However I have speculated in the past on the use of fast neutrons from the DT reaction to fission U238 directly. I am not the only one to have done this. do not know the details of Robin's concept, but I'm fairly sure that this is not the same thing. This concept is for a beam-line, i.e. an mildly accelerated beam of hydrinos (the so-called table-top acceleartor) ... which will cause thorium or U targets to fission or to spall, and that integrated subsystem (beam+traget) will serve as a very low cost makeup-neutron source for a subcritical fission reactor using natural unenriched fuel. AFAIK, R. Mills has not modified this viewpoint on hydrino hydride although we do not hear much about this ion any more. This stable-charged species HH is Mills' (misleading) name for (Hy-) which is a proton with one reduced radius orbit electron and one normal orbit electron. No, actually both electrons have the same orbit, but their common orbit is sqrt(2) (if I'm not mistaken) larger than that of the electron in Hy. Others have commented that this species makes more sense from a QM perspective if both eletrons have the same reduced orbital, but I am not sure if that refined version of HH has been 'borrowed' by RM yet. Not borrowed at all. It has always been that way. You can find it even in the 1996 version of his book (IIRC). At any rate, lets say that the HH - hydrino hydride - is a stable charged ion and that the hydrino which forms it can be derived rather simply from the geometric hole of charged Raney catalyst alone, along with a source of hydrogen (and that this is what has provided the spike which is seen by Jansson in the video). OK - sorry to take so long to 'set the table' for this alternative use for hydrinos, but it is not a simple thing to verbalize for the first time. The idea is that pressurized hydrogen gas would pass through a four-layer arrangemeent (thin layers) composed of: 1) a non-conducting (for electrons) ceramic proton conductor 2) which is sandwiched with a layer of Raney catalyst charged + 3) which will then has a layer of hydrino conducting ceramic or plastic (which is semi-conducting for electrons) 4) and finally through a negatively charged open pore metal which converts the hydrinos into HH. From there-on: the HH can be accelerated easily, due to its inherent stable charge, and in a simple RF driven linear accelerator, up to the threshold enegy for creating fission or spallation of a thorium target. We do not know how low that threshold would be for a fast hydrino, of course; yet for this concept to work well - it would need to be low. It is assumed by me now that this threshold will be a much lower energy than for a proton beam, since the high speed hydrino which results when the HH is stripped of the first electron will be poised to occasionally get close to a large nucleus before the second electron is stripped away.These things always reduce to statistical probability. If you are counting on the Hydrino undergoing a nuclear reaction, then you don't need to accelerate it to spallation energies. In fact that would be counterproductive, because a collision at that energy would easily remove the Hydrino electron (and thus the shielding you are counting on). I assume you are considering higher energies in order to get the Hydrino closer to the nucleus. However the only thing preventing even a thermal Hydrino from getting close, is it's own size. Speeding it up won't make any difference. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Remi Cornwall's message of Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:13:44 +0100: Hi, [snip] On a simple hydrogen model, the energy levels are proportional to the mass of the electron. To drop below would require the mass of the electron to change. [snip] Changing the mass of the electron would be one way of achieving this, but it isn't the only way. Mills achieves it by proposing that trapped photons have the same effect as the creation of extra charge on the nucleus virtual charge if you will. I do it by assuming that the De Broglie wave of the electron can take on a more complex form than a simple circle (e.g. a Lissajous structure) - see my web page ( http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/New-hydrogen.html ). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Remi Cornwall's message of Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:57:04 +0100: Hi, [snip] I'm going to go to bed soon but photons are electrically neutral. Robin, virtual photons shield charge. QED is a *big* subject that's tackled in the graduate school and it's not easily mastered unless one's done the complete groundwork and then specialised. That's Mills' hypothesis, not mine. No when revolutions come they start off with simple premises, simple paradoxes and experiments that people can get their heads around. Then the best theoreticians move in once a consensus starts to emerge to make it all cogent. Look at the history of QM from the early experiments and paradoxes (1860-1905) to about 1970. The sheer economy that people like Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Jordan, Pauli, Dirac, Feynman brought to all the disparate phenomena and sheer zoo of stuff is one of the most intellectual Everests ever climbed. People don't throw out the whole lot without good reason. It's a bit like a catchy song that has a 'hook' to rise up above all the other stuff. In my situation a very prominent academic told me some time ago keep it simple. Everything gets scan read to pass muster initially unless one has an air to the good and great and they rate you highly initially. Cock up a few times and you get set back, it takes time to win the confidence back. Barring repeatable experiments and unequivocal data the good people are too busy and just can't be bothered. :) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:32:51 -0400: Hi, [snip] All the energy comes from formation of the Hydrino (108.8 eV worth). MC: But you get that energy *after* the reaction, not *before*, no? Indeed. Why is this a problem? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:51:51 -0600: Hi, [snip] While that is true, the assumption is that the electron goes to infinity. [snip] Suppose an electron goes from a level that requires 20 eV if the electron goes to infinity. Now suppose the electron actually went to a conduction band at 3 eV relative to infinity. Would not 17 eV be required for the process? Of course, provided that source and destination are very close to one another. However if they are widely separated, then one first needs to invest 20 eV, then later one gets 3 eV back again (usually in photonic form). In contrast, you assume that the final energy of the electron does not matter provided it moves far enough from the original atom before finding another state. Precisely. The path is important to the mechanism. If the Mills energy is based on this assumption, then the environment in which the catalyst is located is important. Agreed. I agree, very little ambiguity is created when the material is in a gas, as is most of the Mills work. However, we are now talking about a solid mixture. But also about the space surrounding it, and even the space between solid particles. Note that the reaction takes place at high temperature, so the NaH once formed is likely to be gaseous. Even with a gaseous NaH however one can still have a surface phenomenon, when a gas molecule approaches the surface. Where I am heading with this is that an H atom formed on the surface may become momentarily freed from that surface, and could react with an NaH molecule floating nearby. I suggest this situation creates great ambiguity and must be acknowledged. I agree that there are still lots of unanswered questions. In addition, I can imagine a range of energy being available in such a transition if I can arbitrarily choose a distance the electron has to move from its stable state before the energy being used is identified. Perhaps because not all radii are equal? IOW the electron can only occupy stable orbitals (or be ionized). If this is the nature of the process, what is the point of choosing the ionization energy as a criteria for the hydrino process working? See above. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:25:36 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Robin When Mills talks about an energy hole he is *not* talking about a missing electron as in a hole in a semi-conductor. He simply means an energy sink or sump (like a hole in the ground). What you are saying then is that he may be employing a fairly well-known term of physics in a non-scientific way to shoehorn a result into a theory. I agree that the choice of term was not particularly wise, however he has been using it since the beginning, so it isn't true that he is depending upon it to shoehorn a result into a theory. Problem is - physicists have spent a lot of time on the imaginary particle called the hole and the analysis all revolves around applied electric fields to positively charged holes which can be modeled using Coulomb's law etc. When you start adding or removing non-electron specific energy (heat), the result is a less effective electrical theory since heat can be removed in very small quanta independently of electrons. Essentially there is little predictive value which I can see to the 27.2 eV in the expanded instance where heat or other energy (acceleration) can added or subtracted in order to make a fit (deeper hole for instance) - and this is probably why Ed thinks it is basically a hit-or-miss situation. Mills has from the beginning said that kinetic energy of the particles can make slight adjustments to the specific energy of a given energy hole in order to ensure a perfect match. IOW the resonance condition is only satisfied when a perfect match occurs, but that is never the case for any of the Mills catalysts. That's why small kinetic energy adjustments make the reaction work anyway. The fact that there is a distribution of particle energies in any substance, means that there are always a few that have just the right energy to compensate for the slight mismatch between the required energy sink size, and the actual size provided by the catalyst. This is probably why Mills in the previous decade never seriously considered sodium, and it also could mean that if you find a metal that forms an electron hole at say 27.8 eV (copper++ ?) which is not close enough by itself, then you might be able to manufacture a better fit by cooling the experiment - or alternatively in other cases apply acceleration to increase the sink. See above. Matter of fact - makes one wonder if a Farnswoth Fusor, made with a copper spherical electrode, would perfom better (produce more neutrons) if it were kept at cryogenic temps. I have 20.292 eV for the second ionization energy of Cu, and 36.83 eV for the third. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:54:12 -0400: Hi, [snip] To: Robin van Spaandonk Jones Beene Ed Storms Scott Little [and lurkers] This has been a very useful discussion. If you have not done so, I recommend downloading http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/WFC102308WebS.pdf and printing pages 10-14 and 48. Figure 7 on p48 is a scan of NaH using Differential Scanning Clorimetry. It is most instructive. At 350 C there is endothermic decompoisition of NaH. Beginning at 640 C is a very strong exothermic reaction, which I think is conventionally unexpected. The NaH was in 760 Torr He. This is unfortunate given that He+ is also a catalyst. The reactions involved in the test cell are complex, and discussed on pp 10-12, equations 23-35. The next-to-bottom paragraph of p11 is specially interesting. NaH apparently qulaifies as a catalyst because heating can intiate a reaction resulting in H[1/3] which is a hydrino catalyst. That is secondary. The primary reason it qualifies as a catalyst is that the sum of the three components of the dissociation energy into the specified components adds to 54.35 eV, which is a close match for 54.4 eV. It still is not clear to me where the 54.35 eV for ionizing Na to catalyze H comes from. Mills has this weird way of writing his equations. Note that the Hydrino reaction itself on the right hand side of equation 23 actually produces 108.8 eV, half of which goes into the electron hole, and the other half of which is just direct free energy. Any one else would just have written eq. 23 with an excess of 54.45 eV on the right hand side, and nothing on the left. He writes it the way he does, in order to indicate that the energy release occurs in 2 phases, the first resonant energy dump into the hole (which in this case is 54.35 eV), and the second phase release, which is likely in the form of kinetic energy. However don't mistake the 54.35 eV on the left as external input to the reaction. It isn't. (it's just a quantity of -54.35 eV that Mills has transferred from the right hand side of the equation to the left hand side). What he should have done was: NaH - Na++ + 2 e- -54.35 eV + H[1/3] + 108.8 eV (note that the net on the right hand side is 54.45 eV) This makes it obvious that 54.35 eV is needed to break up the molecule, while the shrinkage yields a total of 108.8 eV. After the Hydrino forming reaction is complete, there is still free Na++ in the environment, and when this reacquires its missing electrons and recombines with a free H atom, to form a new molecule of NaH, a total of 54.35 eV is released. So in total for the two reactions (23 24) we get 54.45 (from 23) and 54.35 (from 24) = 108.8, which is precisely the total released during Hydrino formation. To make a long story short, when the Hydrino forms, part of the energy released is stored in chemical form (Na++ etc.) and part is released directly to the environment. The part stored in chemical form is then shortly (and separately) also released to the environment as per equ. 24. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:05:50 -0600: Hi, [snip] I think you are close to describing the process, Robin. Simply decomposing NaH cannot result in hydrinos because the expected ion is not formed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, unless someone explicitly looked for it under the right conditions, and didn't find it. On the other hand, as you suggest, if the decomposition occurs on the Ni surface, the Na will have a complex ion state because it now is an absorbed atom, not a free, isolated atom. In addition, the electron that is promoted to a higher level has a place to go, i.e. into the conduction band of the Ni. The only problem is achieving a match between the energy change of the promoted electron and the energy shrinkage of the hydrino electron. I suspect you are needlessly multiplying entities. ;) IOW Mills provides a catalyst that has the necessary property, and gets the expected result. Why is it so hard to accept that he might be right? Granted spectroscopic results indicating presence of Na++ would go a long way to proving him right. Now for a question. Why must the electron that is promoted always come from a level that is observed to form an ion during normal ionization? Personally, I don't think it does, and have previously suggested that Li, which has an x-ray absorption energy of 54.75 eV, may be an example of this. However Na doesn't appear to fit the bill. For example, removal of a 2p electron from Na++ would occur during normal ionization, but is this happening here? No, but then Na++ is not the catalyst either. The whole molecule is the catalyst. BTW the third ionization energy of Na is 71.641 eV, and none of the immediate reactions have enough energy to do this. Only a further reaction of H[1/3] to a lower level would provide such energy. (3-4 yields 95 eV). In other words, why can't a 1s electron be removed from a neutral Na without the 2p electron being affected. After the 1s electron is removed, a 2p electron would take its place and release a small amount of energy as X-rays. This energy would be a byproduct of the process just like the hydrino energy. Do you know how much energy is required to remove a 1s electron from nearly neutral Na? 1073 eV. (K shell x-ray absorption energy). The process gets more unknown because the electron would be promoted into the conduction band, which has a lower energy than vacuum. In other words, perhaps Mills has the right process but is using the wrong electron promotion process to describe it simply because the wrong promotion gives the expected energy. If so, then I think you need to come up with an alternative (and the numbers to back it up). The work function of the metal might be a good place to start, however in this case we're looking at an alloy/compound, which complicates matters. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:36:46 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] One reaction would be 23Na + (hy) -- 24Mg. Where the pseudo-neutron adds a proton and transmutes sodium into magnesium with very little radioactivity - but there could be energetic betas and soft x-rays. One big difference over a neutron reaction is that the beta-electron is not a decay product - since- it never participates at all, except to serve the purpose of allowing the proton to get into the range of the nuclear strong force and perhaps another QM 'trick' or two. The other would be 62Ni + (hy) -- 63Cu. The latter reaction is far less likely, because the Coulomb barrier is much higher for Ni than for Na. Furthermore, if the latter were happening, then one would also expect to get a few radioactive Cu isotopes forming, based on reactions with the other (more abundant) stable Ni isotopes, e.g. Ni58 + Hy - Cu59. Also, the alternate Na reaction: Na23 + Hy - Ne20 + He4 *may* be more likely, because it uses particles to rapidly rid itself of the reaction energy. The reaction:- Na23 + Hy - Mg24 + e- (fast) is an IC reaction (internal conversion), and essentially relies upon the electron momentarily finding itself inside the new born nucleus. This may be the case if the shrunken Hydrino is captured in its entirety, rather than just the proton being captured. IOW perhaps when the nuclear force captures the proton, the proton takes the shrunken electron along for the ride, then the new nucleus snubs it's nose at the electron and says what are you doing here!, and promptly gives it the boot. ;) (Or perhaps the nuclear force is actually a short range combination of EM forces, and capture of the positive proton is accompanied by a concurrent repulsion of the negative electron - i.e. consider the short range negative field around a neutron)or the fusion reaction results in an excited nucleus, in which baryons are rapidly shifting position, creating EM disturbances that couple to the electron, expelling it in the process...i.e. a transfer of energy via virtual photon. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:48:33 -0400: Hi, [snip] There is something much simpler. NaH is formed by reactions given from NaOH coating of the R-Ni and heating. At some point the NaH decomposes, releasing Na and H atoms in close proximity, whereby Na++ then catalyses the H producing H[1/3]. There are aspects of this which puzzle me. [snip] According to Randy, the NaH decomposes directly in Na+++ + H[1/3] + 3e- . Na++ is not a catalyst. (The ionization energy is 71.641 eV). In going from H[1] to H[1/3] the H requires an energy hole of 54.4. eV. This is the sum of the first and second ionization energies of Na (5.1391 eV 47.286 eV resp.) and the energy required to break NaH into atoms (about 1.98 eV). IOW the molecule can decompose directly into the final products, and in so doing provides its own energy hole. This is probably why it is so effective (the coupling is all internal within the molecule). BTW the whole hydrino reaction actually produces 108.8 eV, so the difference between the total energy released and the energy hole (54.4 eV) will likely be released as additional kinetic energy IMO. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:04:52 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Robin, The other would be 62Ni + (hy) -- 63Cu. RvS: The latter reaction is far less likely, because the Coulomb barrier is much higher for Ni than for Na. Yes. That is the traditional viewpoint for a charged particle but if the Hy is neutral, up until it gets within range of the strong force, then essentially the Coulomb barrier does not figure in. Hydrinos are generally still so large, that they don't directly come within range of the strong force. That implies that tunneling is still the mechanism, and hence the Coulomb barrier does play a role. This remains true unless minimal sized Hydrinos can form, and even then only if the radius goes as the square of the quantum number, rather than linearly as it does according to Mills. [snip] But yes - I think that the sodium to magnesium route is where things would be more likely to be happening, and once again - why not at least make the minimum effort to look for magesium? [snip] I agree that it should be looked for, however take into account that it is also likely to be a minor contaminant in the Na before the start, and it would only take 23 micrograms of new Mg to account for the excess energy. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:49:22 -0700 (PDT): Hi Jones, Hi Robin, According to Randy, the NaH decomposes directly in Na+++ + H[1/3] + 3e- . LOL !! In going from H[1] to H[1/3] the H requires an energy hole of 54.4. eV. This is the sum of the first and second ionization energies of Na (5.1391 eV 47.286 eV resp.) and the energy required to break NaH into atoms (about 1.98 eV). OK - Here is why that cannot happen. The energy required to break the two into atoms could never result (very low statistical probability) in the H becoming un-ionized while at the same time staying very close by (geometric proximity), while at the exact instant 3 electrons are removed from the sodium. Bizarre. [snip] I think you misunderstand. The energy required to break NaH into atoms is 1.98 eV. The energy required to then ionize the Na to Na+ is 5.1391 eV. The energy required to then ionize the Na+ to Na++ is 47.286 eV. Total 54.405 eV which is an excellent match for an m=2 energy hole. That means that by shrinking from the ground state to n=1/3, the Hydrogen atom gives up first 54.4 eV (the energy hole value), resulting in the specified dissolution, then a further 54.4 eV as kinetic energy of the particles. The total energy released is 108.8 eV. Ionization of the H isn't even on the table, because either the H shrinks to a Hydrino, or nothing at all happens and the NaH simply remains NaH. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:34:47 -0700 (PDT): Hi Jones, [snip] Robin I think you misunderstand. The energy required to break NaH into atoms is 1.98 eV. The energy required to then ionize the Na to Na+ is 5.1391 eV. The energy required to then ionize the Na+ to Na++ is 47.286 eV. Total 54.405 eV which is an excellent match for an m=2 energy hole. I understand all that, but the 1.98 eV is the problem ! ... and its inclusion is irrelevant, almost a fraud. It has no business being considered, since it does not relate to the ionization potential and the hole itself - as it is the obvious shoehorn which unrelated to the electrons which DO make up the hole (at least they do in their absence). Ah, perhaps this is the clue. When Mills talks about an energy hole he is *not* talking about a missing electron as in a hole in a semi-conductor. He simply means an energy sink or sump (like a hole in the ground). IOW something capable of resonantly absorbing a multiple of 27.2 eV. Used in that sense, NaH clearly fits the bill. The 1.98 eV is energy that was released when the NaH was formed from atoms, hence needs to be returned in order to break the molecule apart. I cannot agree in any remote way that an energy hole is created by this additional invention. Where would it end? you could add in all sorts of extraneous stuff to try to balance the books ..and indeed he sometimes does, as long as it results in a net energy hole of 27.2 eV. ... and even if it were arguably relevant, he has not even addressed the larger issue of how the atomic hydrogen manages to remains non-ionized in close proximity to the 52+ eV which removes all of the 3 electrons from the sodium. That would be a modern day miracle in itself. Actually only 2 electrons. I made a mistake in my first email. The atomic Hydrogen doesn't exist, and hence isn't in proximity to anything. The molecule simply decomposes directly into the final bits. (Alternatively a single H atom approaching an NaH molecule undergoes shrinkage while supplying the energy required to break up the molecule and doubly ionize the Na. In this scenario, some of the remaining 54.4 eV may indeed directly ionize the H from the molecule, though that is going to be indistinguishable from H ionized by kinetic energy elsewhere in the cell.) Both mechanisms would have the same result, and hence could be operating concurrently and indistinguishably. The second would require the Ni to create H atoms, and both mechanisms require it, along with the NaOH, to produce NaH. This is not even wrong, as they say. I am rather amazed that you have bought into it, if you really have. It's no more outrageous than K losing three electrons while acting as a catalyst. (Mind you, it's (probably) not harmonically resonant in the tuning fork sense, but it is energetically resonant, where perhaps a virtual photon plays an intermediary role). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:02:28 -0400: Hi, answering my own question :) ...unless one of BLP's own backers decided that they wanted someone else to verify the work, so BLP got Rowan to run the tests, then were so pleased with the results that they made it public. Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:29:07 -0400: Hi, That makes a lot of sense, except for one thing. Why would BLP want a research group at a University to tell it something it already knew? IOW if the report was never intended for publication, then why commission it at all? Uh good question. You're right, that doesn't seem reasonable. Which leaves me wondering again how it came to pass that it was marked confidential and proprietary. At least in our business, we only do that with reports intended for use by just one other party, who typically has already been NDA'd. I could understand if a third party had commissioned the report, however in that case too, I would have expected a more complete report. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:09:22 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] To clarify one point on what has yet to be shown by Rown: is the excess heat the result of hydrogen shrinkage only ? - and therefore there is zero transmutation, zero gammas and zero ash ? OK - It should be mentioned prominently that 24Mg is the most common isotope of magnesium (about 79%) and therefore if some kind of virtual neutron is involved in this reactor with 23Na, which gives anaomalous energy, and it is followed by a low energy beta decay (an order of magnitude less than expected) then there should be some anomalous magnesium showing up in place of sodium in the reactor. Also hyperfine coupling should be mentioned here as Mills' CQM has fine-structure written all over it g This the weak magnetic interaction between electrons and nuclei. Hyperfine coupling causes the hyperfine splitting of atomic or molecular energy levels and supposedly this would do two things in the context of 23Na- which are to further enhance shrinkage and also lower the half-life for the transmutation into magnesium. Jones I am somewhat confused by the Rowan report. To start with they fail to mention how much Na (/or NaOH) was used in either cell. They fail to explain where the Al in reaction 2 on page 10 comes from. In short, I would have expected a full analysis to have specified *exactly* which chemicals and how much of each went into a heat producing cell (including the amount of Hydrogen), and also what was left at the end of the run. That way readers would be free to do their own calculations, rather than relying on the expertise of the Rowan chemistry department, and their judgment of which reactions took place (or could have taken place). Furthermore, given the nature of the purported reactions, I would have expected an accounting of just how much unexplained substance (Hydrino chemicals) was present at the end. However, all that having been said, if we assume that there was indeed excess heat, inexplicable by means of ordinary chemistry, then apart from the nuclear reactions mentioned by Jones, here are a couple of others: Na23 + Hy - Mg24 + 11.7 MeV carried away by a fast electron (no neutron involvement). Na23 + Hy - Ne20 + He4 + 2.37 MeV largely carried away by the alpha particle. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:As If We Didn't Enough to Worry About
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:20:13 -0400: Hi, [snip] Sun's protective 'bubble' is shrinking The protective bubble around the sun that helps to shield the Earth from harmful interstellar radiation is shrinking and getting weaker, Nasa scientists have warned. [snip] I doubt this is actually a big deal. I think that even with no magnetic shielding at all, the Earth's atmosphere would be more than adequate to the task. Besides, how do we know the magnetic field affords any shielding at all? As I see it, for every particle that is deflected, it could equally well be aiming another particle directly at us that would otherwise have missed. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Dead Sea Saga
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:16:51 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Caesar and his successors paid soldiers in Dead Sea salt salarium argentum, or salt money in Latin. This became the English word salary One of the reasons that Rome wanted to keep such tight control over the region (which did not have much else going for it economically) 2000 years ago: and that was the salt itself, which is easy to distinguish from common sea salt- and essentially served some of the same role that paper money does today ( inflation being the amount you ate) ... gBefore Rome, this variety of salt was prized by Egypt for mummification over other kinds of salt. This ties in nicely with the article on MgCl2 in the most recent edition of Nexus magazine. At more than 1300 feet below sea level, the Dead Sea is lowest place on earth leading one to wonder: could that realtive lowness and higher evaporation rate have any special relevance to a mechanism which enriches the sea in solar-derived hydrinos (assuming they percolate down through the atmosphere)? Being that low, the air pressure should be greater than 1 atm. Combine that with the water liquid crystal layer at the surface (which may be affected by the higher pressure), and perhaps you have a recipe for liquid crystal catalyzed LENR :) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:08:07 -0400: Hi, [snip] MC: The Rowan report could be more detailed, in view of the importance of it. The important thing is that they used the BLP process and were able to get heat yields of the same magnitude. The report presupposes familiarity with the Commercializable paper available on the website. Al is a residual element in the creation of Reynal-Ni. Why it is important is not clear to me. Mills has stated specifically that the only consumeable in the reaction cycle is hydrogen; all other elements are recovered and reused. The problem with this is once again that we have only his word for it. The whole point of an independent replication is to get someone else's word for it too. Exactly how this is done is not clear to me from any report I have seen. Until one has made an effort to study the Commercializable... report, I I have made some effort in that direction. think it pointless to speculate on what really happens. Furthermore, given the nature of the purported reactions, I would have expected an accounting of just how much unexplained substance (Hydrino chemicals) was present at the end. MC: The refrenced paper specifies that H[1/3] is the primary reaction product, with H[1/4] produced with available H in a secondary reaction. Once the hydrinos are produced, complex catalytic reactions can continue. I have not seen any studies of these. What I meant was that the Rowan study could at least have said e.g. We were able to identify x grams of conventional chemicals after completion of the process. This left us with y grams that we could not identify. If x = the starting amount, then the Hydrino compounds are either likely distributed around the interior walls of the reaction vessel, or only present as Hydrino molecules. However, all that having been said, if we assume that there was indeed excess heat, inexplicable by means of ordinary chemistry, then apart from the nuclear reactions mentioned by Jones, here are a couple of others: MC: Why speculated about nuclear reactions when hydrinos have been isolated and chjaracterized by BLP? [snip] ...pushing my own barrow? (in part), but also, like Jones, pointing out that LENR remains a possible alternative/associated possible means of heat production, and consequently experimenters should check for potential ionizing radiation. Of course, Mills can be counted on not to do this, because he doesn't want to find it. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:BLP Replication
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:29:07 -0400: Hi, That makes a lot of sense, except for one thing. Why would BLP want a research group at a University to tell it something it already knew? IOW if the report was never intended for publication, then why commission it at all? I could understand if a third party had commissioned the report, however in that case too, I would have expected a more complete report. Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:09:22 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] To clarify one point on what has yet to be shown by Rown: is the excess heat the result of hydrogen shrinkage only ? - and therefore there is zero transmutation, zero gammas and zero ash ? OK - It should be mentioned prominently that 24Mg is the most common isotope of magnesium (about 79%) and therefore if some kind of virtual neutron is involved in this reactor with 23Na, which gives anaomalous energy, and it is followed by a low energy beta decay (an order of magnitude less than expected) then there should be some anomalous magnesium showing up in place of sodium in the reactor. Also hyperfine coupling should be mentioned here as Mills' CQM has fine-structure written all over it g This the weak magnetic interaction between electrons and nuclei. Hyperfine coupling causes the hyperfine splitting of atomic or molecular energy levels and supposedly this would do two things in the context of 23Na- which are to further enhance shrinkage and also lower the half-life for the transmutation into magnesium. Jones I am somewhat confused by the Rowan report. To start with they fail to mention how much Na (/or NaOH) was used in either cell. They fail to explain where the Al in reaction 2 on page 10 comes from. In short, I would have expected a full analysis to have specified *exactly* which chemicals and how much of each ... Please note that the report was apparently not formatted as a formal paper intended for publication. One thing about papers intended for publication in a journal: They do *not* say Confidential and Proprietary at the bottom of every page! But this paper does. Ergo, this must have been done as a report *to* *BLP* by the group at Rowan University. The intended audience may, in fact, have known exactly what the parameters to the experiments were, and hence a lot of space devoted to that was not necessary; the results and measurements were what they were interested in, and those are laid out pretty clearly, I think. Apparently, after receiving the report BLP decided to publish it on their site. While that would have been done with the permission and knowledge of the Rowan researchers it still might not have been something either group planned on in advance. Had the Rowan folks written this up for publication, they might have done some things a little differently, and included more details on the experimental setup. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Dead Sea Saga
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:44:42 -0500: Hi, [snip] next... speaking of chickens.. anyone want to hazard a guess as to why a chicken can lay an egg ( calcium shell ),.. even IF.. their food intake has NO calcium content?? [snip] I think the suggestion has been put forward before, that they lose Calcium from their bones in order to create eggshells. Of course they wouldn't be able to do that for very long, but as a stopgap measure it might make evolutionary sense. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Black Holes from Newtonian Gravity? - discs.gif - segements.gif
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:08:35 -0800: Hi, [snip] I disagree. You are ignoring the 1/r^2 nature of gravity or electrostatic charge. The field near a line charge is 1/r normal to the line. The field near a plane charge is uniform and normal to the plane. The closer you get to a finite line or plane segment the closer it approximates an infinite line or plane. [snip] Consider the attached diagram. With the exception of C (for Center), all letters label intersections. The line segment DF is perpendicular to the radial line segment BC. Let there be a test mass at A. We examine the component of the gravitational forces within the plane for the moment. The arc segment DEF is a mirror image of DBF about the line segment DF. The forces acting on A within the plane due to the two segments DEFAD and DBFAD exactly cancel, because these two regions have the same area (uniform thickness of the disc is assumed). The rest of the mass of the disc, excluding these two segments, is all to the left of A. Hence there is a net force acting on A, pulling it to the left. This remains valid if A is outside the plane of the disk. It only ceases to be true when A is exactly on the axis of the disc, at which point the two segments each comprise half the area of the disc. Of course, the attractive force exerted by the mass of the disc also has a component normal to the plane, and the combination of the two vectors (in the plane and normal to the plane), produces the total force acting on the test mass. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] attachment: segements.gif
Re: [Vo]:Black Holes from Newtonian Gravity? - discs.gif
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:35:02 +0200: Hi, [snip] The BH being a relatively small object, and there being near-continuous collisions in the accretion disk, it seems to me that matter from the disk attracted to the BH and missing it can make their closest approach from basically all directions (in 3D, not just 2D), and therefore get slingshot-ejected in all directions. Agreed. Hence my hypothesis that only that which is ejected fastest and closest to the polar direction, a small minority, does not fall back on the disk Why? What is special about the polar direction? I can agree with the fastest, but not with the direction. In fact if the slingshot effect were responsible, then I would expect to see most matter primarily ejected in the plane of the accretion disc, with progressively less ejected as the ejection angle with the disc increases, and the *least* ejected in the polar directions. Now you might easily argue that when matter is ejected within the disc, it usually gets thermalized (to borrow a term), and soon just once again becomes part of the disc. However this doesn't explain why the jets are so strongly collimated, and so narrow, and why they are *maximal* perpendicular to the disc. What might explain it is if the jets comprise fast charged particles and the whole thing is an incredibly powerful magnet, such that the particles are forced to circulate around the magnetic field lines (which I think Horace says in his theory, though I only skimmed it, so I could have misunderstood). BTW if this is true, then they should also be incredibly strong emitters of cyclotron radiation (though probably not coherent). If one thinks of the empty space around the jets as a huge invisible magnetic doughnut, with a very small hole, then the jets escape out through the holes. At least that's how I could envisage it happening. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Black Holes from Newtonian Gravity? - discs.gif
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:31:05 -0800: Hi, [snip] But it is so for a very thin disc, therefore a very thin disc can not exist in the vicinity of the black hole. A thin disc's field is not a 1/r^2 field, nor even a 1/r field, but rather a uniform field directed at the disc. Actually, it is precisely the opposite. The gravitational field of the disc is only perpendicular to the surface for an infinitely *thick* disk, because then the centre of gravity (halfway down the length of what has become a column), is at an angle which approaches 90 degrees to the plane of the disc. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Black Holes from Newtonian Gravity? - discs.gif
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:49:52 -0800: Hi, [snip] This is because the electric field about an infinite plane of uniform charge is given by: E = a rho/(2 * epsilon_0) so it is just a matter of applying the gravimagnetic isomorphism to obtain the result. In both formulations rho includes the sign of [snip] however in reality, the plane is not infinite. In fact if you look at real galactic jets, the jet usually extends much farther out into space than the diameter of the accretion disc. Therefore, consider a point e.g. 10% in from the edge of an accretion disk and some distance away from it. An inscribed circle in the plane of the accretion disk centered on the normal projection of the point onto the plane thereof, and with a radius of 10% of that of the accretion disc will have perpendicular gravity vector components that cancel one another, while the parallel components (toward the disc) all reinforce one another. IOW if that small (non-concentric) circle were all there were, then the point mass would indeed experience an attractive force normal to the disc. However it isn't all there is. The rest of the accretion disc is there too, and it is largely to one side of the small virtual disk, hence its gravitational component will shift the direction of the overall vector toward the centre of the accretion disk. (and that's without taking the mass of the black hole itself into account). (The virtual disc is inside the real one, has a smaller radius, and it's outer edge just touches the outer edge of the real disc - see attached gif file). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] attachment: discs.gif
Re: [Vo]:Black Holes from Newtonian Gravity? - discs.gif
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:19:12 -0800: Hi, [snip] My initial point was that Michel's explanation of jet formation was unlikely to be correct IMO, because there is little or no matter ejected at an angle between that of the disc and that of the jet. His explanation made use of the supposition that the gravitational field of the disc was perpendicular to it, and I was pointing out that that wasn't so. In short, I still don't see how the slingshot effect can provide an adequate explanation for the jets. The only comment I made about your theory, was to point out that the disc is not infinite. On Oct 12, 2008, at 1:24 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:49:52 -0800: Hi, [snip] This is because the electric field about an infinite plane of uniform charge is given by: E = a rho/(2 * epsilon_0) so it is just a matter of applying the gravimagnetic isomorphism to obtain the result. In both formulations rho includes the sign of [snip] however in reality, the plane is not infinite. In fact if you look at real galactic jets, the jet usually extends much farther out into space than the diameter of the accretion disc. Sure, but that is probably irrelevant to the mechanism which creates the near light speed jets. Such a mechanism must occur very close to the black hole. Once the near light speed jets are formed there the effect of the BH or disk at great distance is likely moot, true? In any case, a model of jets which includes negative mass charge creation by black holes seems to me to make much more sense. BTW, congrats on the All Ordinaries being up 3% at the moment. A propitious sign for all markets Monday I hope. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:HiPER Fusion
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:47:43 -0500: Hi Richard, Maybe real tornadoes do this when they suck something up with a difference consistency (e.g. pass over a pool). If so, then you may not have much luck recreating the effect with a vortex in pure water. Howdy Jones, I have been reading this thread with interest. We believe a vortex configuration whereas the center funnel can be formed or shaped into a series of several hourglass stages, progressively larger toward the top, may add much. It may be possible to configure these hourglass shapes using magnets. We are working on it but have yet to produce one in the test tank. A keen observer of vids of tornadoes can occasionally see several of these hourglasses in the funnel. It is interesting that these particular funnels are the the one's that create inner funnel lightning. The vids show an occasional inner lighting effect. Strange and wonderful stuff.. Fun stuff. Richard Jones wrote, Magnetization might help. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Black Holes from Newtonian Gravity?
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:13:17 +0200: Hi, [snip] BTW, I have found a (possibly plausible?) reason why matter falling from the internal edge of the accretion disk, missed and slingshot-accelerated by the BH, would form near light speed velocity polar beams: the part of that matter ejected beyond a certain angle from the polar directions, and-or with insufficient velocity, would fall back onto the massive and dense accretion disk because of insufficient vertical component of the ejection velocity. ...but the gravitational field is supposed to be radial, not directed toward the accretion disk. IOW the polar directions are not vertical, and angle should have no bearing. (The word vertical implies parallel with the direction of maximum gradient in the gravitational field). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Black Holes from Newtonian Gravity?
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:34:39 +0200: Hi, I haven't actually worked it out, but I don't even think that the gravitational field of a massive disc would be perpendicular to the disk, but probably directed more toward the center, and I suspect exactly at the center. The gravitational field of the Black Hole itself is indeed radial, but that of the whole system can be essentially perpendicular to the disk if the accretion disk's mass is orders of magnitude higher than that of the Black Hole's, which was my (possibly ludicrous) hypothesis. There may be other problems with my simplistic suggestion, such as the fact that it would imply a broader than observed spectrum of velocities in the jet as pointed out by Horace (whose theory BTW I can't comment on, having not studied it in any detail for lack of time and skill) Michel [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:GM and EPA dispute Volt's MPG rating
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:05:44 -0400: Hi, [snip] Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Clearly the EPA needs a new category for PLUG-IN hybrids, as opposed to ordinary hybrids. (The volt is NOT an electric car. It IS a plug-in hybrid). Yes. The thing is, there are gradations with hybrid technology. A car can be mostly an ICE (weak hybrid) or a balance (like the Prius) or it can be mainly an electric car (the Volt). The difference lies in the plug. If the car comes equipped with one, then it is clearly designed to be driven for extended distances on electric power alone (otherwise there is no point in supplying a recharging capability), and should not be subject to the same rules that apply to ordinary hybrids or gas vehicles. What the new rules should be, is an open question. So it is hard to categorize. You have to have some sympathy for the EPA on this. It is difficult to measure efficiency when you have to take into account inputs from electric power which can be generated with fossil fuel, nuclear power, wind, etc. Conventional cars are simple. Their efficiency and carbon footprint does not change when you refuel them in the middle of the night. The EPA has to adapt to the fact that it is not just going to be difficult to measure efficiency, it's going to be absolutely impossible. This is because every driver will travel different paths, and hence achieve different efficiencies, and also because of the fuel mix you mention. At most, the EPA can measure maximum and minimum efficiencies. However the advertising used by the manufacturers, and the experiences of the general public, can provide a hint as to what direction the new standards should take. E.g. I would think that the maximum distance that can be traveled in pure electric mode would be a useful criterion (which is already in use by the manufacturers and public). There have been proposals to allow hybrid cars to use the HOV lanes on highways. The trouble is that some weak hybrid cars are less efficient than ordinary cars, and an ordinary compact car that gets 35 miles per gallon carrying two people equals 75 mpg per passenger, which is better than a Prius. So this policy makes no sense. Perhaps they should open up HOV lanes to any car that gets 35 mpg or better, but it would be awfully difficult to identify them. I don't think a change to the HOV rules is necessary. Soon, many if not most vehicles will be plug-ins anyway, without any encouragement from government. The public can't wait to get their hands on them. Ultimately, what we need is a RFID identification and onboard computer on every car that automatically tallies and pays a toll for every mile driven on every road, depending on the gas mileage of the car, the time of day (with a premium charge at rush hour) and other factors. It would be intrusive, but it is the only fair way to pay for roads and reduce congestion. This will especially be needed if cold fusion is commercialized and gasoline taxes go away. See chapter 17 of my book. [snip] There is a simpler and less intrusive solution. Put a tax on tyres iso gasoline. Has the added advantage that careful drivers pay less tax. :) Toll roads help too. Of course, that wouldn't be enough, so the rest should be taken from consolidated revenue. Perhaps needless to say, this shouldn't be done until gasoline has gone the way of the Dodo. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:HiPER Fusion
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:37:33 -0400: Hi, [snip] Now, however, they believe they are on the verge of achieving controlled fusion in a laboratory for the first time. [snip] Where have they been for the last 20 years? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:air turbine
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 07 Oct 2008 08:47:49 -0400: Hi, [snip] I like this quote from the airturbineengine page: The air we breathe is the same air that drives the AATE; no wind required. This is not a perpetual motion machine. It runs forever with no fuel or energy input, using air but without requiring wind (or, by implication, a temperature differential) but it's not a perpetual motion machine. And the difference is what, exactly...? Sure, sure, everybody knows perpmo is impossible, and this is anything but that, so it can't be a perpmo machine. Ho, hum. [snip] That's what I initially thought too, however it wouldn't be a perpmo machine if it obtained energy from the air. That is available in two (possibly 3) forms:- 1) thermal energy 2) nuclear energy (fusion) 3) Hydrino energy (from the Hydrogen in water vapour) The second (and possibly the third) would likely produce ionizing radiation sufficient to fog a photographic plate. Another possibility is that it taps into the energy available in the lower van Allen belt (cyclotron radiation) at about 200-300 Hz = 12000-18000 rpm. Rotating at around 3 rpm it could be on a second or third harmonic (due to the extent of the belt, and the variation in strength of the Earth's magnetic field, the frequency is somewhat spread). Air passing through the device could leave internal components with a static charge, and this rotating static charge could synchronize with rotating charge in the belt. (See work previously reported in the press and discussed on this list regarding wireless resonant transmission of power). 200-300 Hz has a wavelength of 1500-1000 km which puts at least part of the lower belt within a single wavelength, which in turn meets the requirement for resonant transmission. (The lower belt is the one where the protons are trapped, and it's the protons that carry the lions share of the kinetic energy available from the solar wind). If this is how it works, it would certainly be able to at least meet all our transportation energy requirements, and the power density could probably be improved upon by deliberately increasing the static charge. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:air turbine
In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message of Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:49:17 -0500 (CDT): Hi, [snip] Hum, I assume from the tone of your message that you don't think their air turbine will work. Their plan is to have it independentaly verified. I'd like to see it heat water. [snip] I would be happy with accurate frequency x torque measurements combined with temperature, pressure and volume measurements of in and out flowing air. I would also like to know if the humidity of the air passing through it makes a difference. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:GM and EPA dispute Volt's MPG rating
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:31:08 -0400: Hi, [snip] Somehow it doesn't seem surprising that they're not very friendly toward moves in the direction of fully electric cars. [snip] Bingo! :) Clearly the EPA needs a new category for PLUG-IN hybrids, as opposed to ordinary hybrids. (The volt is NOT an electric car. It IS a plug-in hybrid). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:the air turbine
In reply to thomas malloy's message of Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:53:45 -0500 (CDT): Hi, [snip] I posted Hum, I assume from the tone of your message that you don't think their air turbine will work. Their plan is to have it independently verified. I'd like to see it heat water. and Robin van Spaandonk replies I would be happy with accurate frequency x torque measurements combined with temperature, pressure and volume measurements of in and out flowing air. I would also like to know if the humidity of the air passing through it makes a difference. You're asking for way more than me. If my friend can help, my plan is to see and test the machine. It's in Las Vegas, so the humidity is low. I'd like to place a piece of X Ray film in close proximity to the machine. It would be factory sealed so if when developed, if it is fogged, then Frank Germano 's observations about X Ray emissions from the Respine are correct. I'm wondering about imaging, perhaps I might be able to find an X Ray camera. I'm assuming that the area emitting the X Rays will be triangular. I suggest placing a key between the machine and the film, against the outside of the film pack. That way, if there are X-rays coming from the machine, you will get a key shadow on the film. Otherwise, you won't know if the machine caused any eventual fogging, or something else. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:UK hot fusion project
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:29:11 -0400: Hi, (what would you do with 1% of £1 billion? Harry )Nuclear fusion energy project could lead to limitless clean electricity With 10% of that 1%, I would build something that has a good chance of being a hundred times more efficient. [snip] The power of the sun is to be recreated in a new £1 billion science project which aims to provide a clean and almost limitless source of energy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/10/05/scisun104.xmlsource=EMC-new_05102008 Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Black Holes from Newtonian Gravity?
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Sat, 4 Oct 2008 08:12:26 +0200: Hi, [snip] As I recall, those jets are satisfactorily explained without resorting to matter creation. The jets' matter comes from the internal edge of the accretion disk orbiting around the BH and failing to fall into it (slingshot effect I believe) Michel That seems a little odd to me. Why would it all be axial? I would expect at least some mass (if not all of it) subject to a slingshot effect to remain in the plane of the accretion disk. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Black Holes from Newtonian Gravity?
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Thu, 02 Oct 2008 07:52:37 -0400: Hi, [snip] However, consider the case where a black hole swallows a planet sized chunk of matter. How long will it be before the *change* in strength of the gravitational field of the BH will be felt outside the event horizon? ...and perhaps more to the point how does the information pertaining to that change in mass escape? It doesn't. The planet-sized chunk of matter starts out OUTSIDE the event horizon. From the point of view of an observer outside, the result is the same as if the planet just smashed itself out flat *on* the event horizon, and never crossed it. Then perhaps that's exactly what happens. The matter is completely converted to energy which circulates around the center of mass at the event horizon. That would mean that there is no point mass at the center of a black hole, in fact there isn't anything there at all. If so, then this results in an interesting question:- Suppose that the circulating energy forms a ring rather than a spherical shell. What would happen to something passing down the axis of that ring? Suggestion, suppose that matter is created from space time directly by the field from the ring, and is spewed out along the axis (resulting in the frequently seen jets emitted from the cores of many galaxies). The gravitational field, as measured by a distant observer, is unaffected by the planet's traversal of the horizon. In that scenario, nothing escapes. The mass starts out outside, and its influence remains outside. The appearance, from the outside, is very much as though the entire mass of the black hole is distributed in an infinitesimally thin layer right on the event horizon. You can't see anything inside. In fact, as viewed by a distant observer, it appears that time slows to a stop for objects which approach the event horizon, as a result of which an outside observer can never actually observe anything crossing the event horizon, in either direction. (Hawking radiation also originates just outside the event horizon, as I understand it, which isn't very well.) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Yet another ultra
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 2 Oct 2008 18:13:24 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Bottom line - GM has said the volt lithium batteries will cost the buyer $10,000 for the 40 mile range. With this UltraBattery instead, although the weight would be considerably more, the cost would be only $3000. The higher weight will decrease the range, which will result in even more battery weight. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Black Holes from Newtonian Gravity?
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:41:21 -0400: Hi, [snip] Second, and more to the point, a static gravitational field, whether Newtonian or classical GR, doesn't propagate, it just is. This is *IDENTICAL* to the case of the (static) electrical field of an electron or proton: The field doesn't propagate, it just exists. You cannot discuss the propagation velocity of a static field because there is no time-dependent property to it. (Note that, in my limited understanding of current theory, charge is conserved; consequently, whatever charge may be lying around was there from the beginning, and there was never any need to consider how the field behaved when it appeared.) [snip] However, consider the case where a black hole swallows a planet sized chunk of matter. How long will it be before the *change* in strength of the gravitational field of the BH will be felt outside the event horizon? ...and perhaps more to the point how does the information pertaining to that change in mass escape? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:The evolution of good governance
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:08:37 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Quick - vorticians - name the country that is the world's second largest exporter of food and agricultural products, after the United States. The Netherlands is primarily a trading nation and has been for centuries, so some of the exports may also be imports. Hint- that country is not large and warm, like Australia or Brazil, and in fact is *tiny* - having only twice the acreage of the state of Massachusetts. And with about one-fourth of its land located below sea level, it is far from ideal cropland. Actually most of it is excellent cropland, because it is silt washed down by the rivers from the rest of Europe. I think that the land that was reclaimed from the sea is washed free of its salt by rain water and pumping. That leaves good soil (silt) for growing food. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:36:53 -0400: Hi, I heard on TV last night that the level of private debt in the US is $41 trillion. Imagine what is going to happen if the banks start calling in *all* their loans. [snip] This is an extraordinary moment in US history. The situation is a lot more critical than most people realize, according to friends of mine who understand something about economics. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
In reply to OrionWorks's message of Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:42:04 -0500: Hi, [snip] $41T does sound a little high. A colleague at work got out his calculator and figured out that if you divided 40T by 400 million Americans, that would amount to a debt load of approximately $100,000, each. That seems too high. [snip] How much is the average home loan, and how many people on average per house? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:It Was Magnetism
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:32:13 -0500: Hi, [snip] I knew it! I knew it! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/magnetic-forces-to-blame-for-911-tower-collapse-924509.html [snip] ...and this magically only happened in the WTC, and has never happened to other steel structures elsewhere Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticle accelerator ?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:14:32 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] and there was substantial QM tunneling triggered by impact [snip] Why would you expect this to be the case? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticle accelerator ?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:03:28 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] The 'magic' if there is any, would be in the special properties of the BEC state. If that state were to be strongly involved, then it is not simply 5 keV used to push nuclei together, which want to repel - but it is more comparable to 5 keV added to already superimposed nuclei, which is used to keep them in that condition for long enough, in a phase transition, so that the lower entropy alpha particle results in the ending nucleus, instead of the two deuterons repelling. This could have been essentially unknown or unappreciated when the early atom smashers were being designed... Or else - maybe that is for good reason. Perhaps it is impossible to maintain such a required very hard vacuum in an accelerator, such that the BEC state is maintained in an accelerated particle. There is an early CF experiment where Pd/D(Or was that Al?) is bombarded with fast electrons. That is almost a turned around version of what you want. IOW iso accelerating the BEC and crashing it into something, accelerate the something and crash it into the BEC. That is probably easier to do, as it avoids your vacuum problem. For that matter, if BECs are forming in CF cathodes, and fast particles are being generated by fusion events, then this is probably already happening. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:It Was Magnetism
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:16:11 -0500: Hi, [snip] Personally, I intended it as a joke. That's fine, but for the sake of others I had to point out the obvious flaw. OTOH, if someone were doing John Hutchison experiments...(see http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/) ;) Terry On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:32:13 -0500: Hi, [snip] I knew it! I knew it! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/magnetic-forces-to-blame-for-911-tower-collapse-924509.html [snip] ...and this magically only happened in the WTC, and has never happened to other steel structures elsewhere Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
In reply to Taylor J. Smith's message of Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:41:57 +: Hi Jack, [snip] I have chosen a different approach. Make a guess at the mechanism, and assume it is correct. Then optimize a design based upon the guess. Build the design. If the guess was correct, it will pay off. If not, then little is lost. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Hi Robin, I want to send you $1000 US for your project, no strings. Please post instructions. Thanks, Jack Smith That's very generous of you, but I'm afraid it wouldn't make any difference, and besides, I'm not looking for handouts. What I am looking for is a genuine partnership, where all involved benefit from the resultant work. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:42:24 -0400: Hi, [snip] In an industrial society, the people who make things must have enough money to buy those things. [snip] If that were the case, there would be none left over for those who don't make anything. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
In reply to leaking pen's message of Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:31:48 -0700: Hi, [snip] you mean, like all the rich that inherit their wealth, and dont do anything useful with it? They get plenty of things, it seems. Yes they are amongst those I meant. The bottom line is that in our current society, those who *do* produce, produce *more* than they consume (actually quite a bit more), and this excess is consumed by those who produce nothing. Actually that's very simplistic, because there is great variety in the amount produced and consumed by individuals. IOW among the producers there are those who produce nearly nothing, and those who produce vast amounts. The same goes for consumers. My statement below was not intended to present my point of view (which it doesn't represent), but rather to point out that's Jed's statement was wrong. What he said implied that the producers and consumers are one and the same, whereas I was trying to point out that that is frequently not the case. On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:42:24 -0400: Hi, [snip] In an industrial society, the people who make things must have enough money to buy those things. [snip] If that were the case, there would be none left over for those who don't make anything. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:00:51 -0400: Hi, [snip] Experts at the Naval Research Laboratory estimate that cold fusion can be fully developed and commercialized for roughly $300 million to $600 million, which is what it cost to develop similar surface effect, solid-state devices such as the Aegis radar. [snip] If my device works, it could be thousands of times more effective than the current CF reactors, and could be developed for less than 2 million dollars (and that's a very high estimate). With 2 or 3 dedicated people willing to work for free in their spare time and the availability of a good machine shop, a prototype could be built for a few thousand dollars. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:20:27 -0400: Hi, [snip] Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Experts at the Naval Research Laboratory estimate that cold fusion can be fully developed and commercialized for roughly $300 million to $600 million . . . [snip] If my device works, it could be thousands of times more effective than the current CF reactors, and could be developed for less than 2 million dollars (and that's a very high estimate). Well, it would still cost hundreds of millions to make it into a practical device. No, that's precisely the difference. CF as it stands rarely yields an excess of more than a few percent (and when it does, no one understands why). It is this primitive state of affairs which would make it expensive to develop. My device (if it worked at all), would more likely yield an excess on the order of 1000 fold (by design). That means that even the prototype would be immediately commercially feasible, and also easily scaled up. The entire expensive and painstaking improvement by baby steps process is eliminated. This is a consequence of the huge energy multiplication factor inherent in the process, combined with the elimination of the process randomness inherent in current CF designs. One advantage that CF does have over my design, is that it is essentially radiation free, while my design would most likely result in ordinary fusion reactions. However I think that considering the state the World is currently in, that many would be prepared to accept ordinary fusion as a stop gap measure until a radiation free form could be developed. At ICCF-14 another NRL person told me, we are one breakthrough away from a practical device. I think Celani may also be in that position, but let us wait to see if he is replicated. Arata also has promising approach but who knows what to make of his calorimetry. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:33:40 -0600: Hi, [snip] No one is even close to a breakthrough until the mechanism is understood. Simply replicating a process that works is only the first step. This only makes possible a search for the mechanism, a process that will take much money and time. Even after the mechanism is understood, many more millions will be needed to show that the device is safe and will last long enough to be practical. Meanwhile, most investment money will go into solar and wind where the advantages are obvious and where a return on the dollar can be calculated. Cold fusion will get pennies until it can discover the mechanism though lucky chance. Meanwhile, we all can beat on the system to make it more receptive when the mechanism is discovered. Ed [snip] I have chosen a different approach. Make a guess at the mechanism, and assume it is correct. Then optimize a design based upon the guess. Build the design. If the guess was correct, it will pay off. If not, then little is lost. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:48:07 -0400: Hi, [snip] Frankly, even $100 million cannot guarantee clear thinking or a breakthrough. [snip] There is no such thing as a perfect guarantee. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:02:06 -0800: Hi, [snip] Another alternative explanation is that the stuff is being *pushed* by an invisible clump of negative gravitational charge matter that is located in the visible part of the universe. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ [snip] ...or perhaps is just has intrinsic momentum left over from the creation of the Universe? Is it known to be accelerating? ...or perhaps they simply got it wrong, and the flow doesn't even exist? ...or maybe there really is an aether, and these galaxies got caught up in a stream? (IOW maybe gravity is not the motivating force - if there even is one). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:05:23 -0600: Hi, [snip] Everyone has their hopes and dreams. Next, a person needs to get other people to follow their lead, which is not easy to do even under the best of circumstances. This process will take years. Meanwhile enjoy the process but don't quit your day job. Ed [snip] Truer words were n'er spake! :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Do do do doo. Do do do doo...
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:47:34 -0400: Hi, [snip] Fundmentally, it depends on energy, the energy of human intelligence, and the physical energy to do work of all kinds. [snip] ...and this is why a new source of essentially unlimited energy can lead to a golden age for all, not just a few. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:01:45 -0400: Hi, [snip] Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Well, it would still cost hundreds of millions to make it into a practical device. No, that's precisely the difference. CF as it stands rarely yields an excess of more than a few percent (and when it does, no one understands why). That's incorrect on two counts: 1. In recent years devices at Energetics Technology and elsewhere produce much more than a few percent. I said rarely, not never. Yet even a 25 fold output:input ratio pales by comparison to the 1000:1 or better ratio that I expect/hope for. The reason for this ratio BTW is because Hydrinos can achieve the geometric mean between nuclear and chemical energies (I.e. sqrt(1 eV x 1E6 eV) = 1E3 eV), and thus act as a stepping stone to fusion. 2. They know exactly why this is so. That is to say, control factors and necessary conditions have been identified. That is not necessarily the same thing as being certain that the theory is correct. See the section I appended here the other day: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Cold_fusion It is this primitive state of affairs which would make it expensive to develop. Obviously these primitive conditions must be overcome before anything can be developed. Overcoming them may cost only of $2 million. For that matter it might cost nothing and be made from some old stuff lying around in Ed's basement, or Mizuno's soon-to-be-closed lab-in-a-broom-closet. There is a more fundamental problem. The NAE in these systems is scarce, because it relies primarily on being created by accident. I intend to mass manufacture it. But you are missing the main point. Even if you come up with a device that produces power 100% of the time with perfect control, someone still has to spend billions of dollars dealing with practical issues such as redesigning automobiles and other products; ensuring consumer safety; and setting up production lines. No. The initial market would be retrofitted large power plants. This would result in cheap electricity, and abundant cheap clean water, essentially anywhere on Earth. With cheap electricity also comes cheap recycling of everything, and with electric cars, (cheap?) clean transportation. In time a cleaner form of fusion directly amenable to personal transportation may follow, but even if it didn't, a golden age would still ensue. These are minor cost compared to the benefit. I am sure that if you could demonstrate a potentially practical device the money to do this sort of Qhing would quickly be forthcoming. But that money will be needed. There is a difference between money for RD, and money for deployment. The latter is always needed, irrespective of the technology. The difference between my design and all the rest is that my RD costs would be trivial by comparison, because I'm not wandering around in the dark trying to guess which part of the elephant I'm holding on to. IOW it will probably either work well (if the theory is correct), or not at all, if it's wrong. Furthermore, the validity of the theory can be discussed beforehand, with no investment at all. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Google Project 10^100
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:05:23 -0600: Hi Ed, [snip] Evidence is growing for several mechanisms to be operating. We know that tritium can be produced on occasion without neutrons. Perhaps, the same mechanism makes neutrons without tritium. [snip] I find this somewhat confusing. The two common DD reactions are: D + D - T + p + 4 MeV (no neutrons) I and D + D - He3 + n + 3.3 MeV (one neutron).II Therefore, if only the first reaction takes place, then it is to be expected that T would be found with no neutrons. The second reaction would make neutrons, but would concurrently produce He3, not Tritium. Granted, in hot fusion, both reactions happen with about equal frequency, hence the concurrent production of both T and neutrons, however I see no reason why there couldn't be a shift in the ratio of the two reactions under the conditions of CF. (This may particularly be true if rather larger Deuterinos are involved, where the internuclear distance severely limits the reaction rate, thus perhaps enhancing any probability difference between the two reactions.) In that case I would expect it to be skewed toward the reaction with the largest energy release, and that is of course the first reaction. IOW I would expect to occasionally see T and protons, but rarely He3 plus neutrons. (It's easier for a neutron from one nucleus to tunnel across the gap to the other nucleus than for a proton to do so, because the neutron doesn't experience the Coulomb barrier - at least that's my simplistic explanation). You can also think of this in Mills' terms: On average in a Deuterino molecule, the nuclei will try to orient themselves such that the two protons are as far apart as possible (even at distance, before tunneling), which puts the two neutrons in the middle when tunneling does occur, preferentially resulting in the formation of T). If the distance between the nuclei gets very small OTOH, then it makes less and less difference, because the short range nuclear force will act without fear or favour, which is what we see with ordinary hot fusion, or with muon catalyzed fusion. Furthermore, in hot fusion the temperatures are so high that the rotational energy of the ions must of necessity also be high. That means that any preference the protons might have for staying as far apart as possible gets largely washed out. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Dilithium pt2 The Immaculate Conception
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:04:01 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Cosmology: It should be noted that lithium is primordiual and was created in the big bang but carbon was not. [snip] The reaction:- He4 + D - Li6 + 1.47 MeV (gamma) has a very low reaction rate, but does exist. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Dilithium pt2 The Immaculate Conception
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:25:27 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Admittedly, this is new territory and there is maybe a chance in a zillion that lithium has such an active bosonic unit (either a pair of atoms or more) - but - it could be worth a try to find out. The pair of lithium-6 atoms, if that is the most useful boson which can be found - might be amenable to a QM tunneling reaction to form carbon and give up about 30 MeV per atom in the process - but that is an even more remote possibility-- and even worse, if the excess energy turned out to be in the form of a neutrino, it would not be usable. [snip] There is no weak force reaction involved in the fusion of Li6 to C12, so the only way for a neutrino to be produced would be in the form of neutrino-anti-neutrino pair production. However I have never seen this reported as a means of removing energy from energetic nuclei, so if it exists, then it must be extremely rare, in which case it isn't likely to be a problem anyway. OTOH, if shrunken Li can exist, then it may be possible to remove the energy of the reaction through an IC (internal conversion) reaction, which becomes more likely, the smaller the electron orbital becomes. This is also what may make IC a likely energy removal option in CF reactions involving Hydrinos. The reason for raising this possibility at all is because while converting Li6 to C12 there are no hadrons left over, which normally implies energy removal through gamma ray emission. Although if the lattice loss mechanisms are correct, then perhaps it may turn up as heat in the lattice. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Palin probably reduced the Bradley effect
In reply to Jeff Fink's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:19:42 -0400: Hi, [snip] The terrorists around the world are rooting for Obama. Doesn't that tell you something? Obama calls himself a Christian, but Qadhafi of Libya in a recent interview obviously considers him to be a Muslim in good standing. [snip] ...then if he gets elected, perhaps they will feel less inclined to bomb US targets. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Here comes $500 oil
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:41:44 -0600: Hi, [snip] The obese problem will gradually go away and be replaced by the underweight problem. I wonder how the government will handle this problem? [snip] The problem of obesity may not go away, because it is probably more related to eating the wrong things than to eating too much. For it to go away would require a shift back to home cooking and away from fast food and snacks. Even then I suspect that it would also require the banning of margarine and canola. Margarine (and fast food) contains trans fats which interfere with the energy transport mechanism of the cell, and canola is IMO the primary candidate for an explanation of tiny holes in the insulating layer of fat that the body uses for blood vessels and nerves. Natural body processes attempt to plug these holes with cholesterol which then gives rise to plaques. When these plaques occur in the arteries around the heart they call it arteriosclerosis, when they occur around nerve cells in the brain they call it Alzheimer's disease. (All this is just my opinion, but I think worthy of further investigation). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VO]: Sub-prime submarines
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:05:37 -0600: Hi, [snip] I hope the people who elected and supported him are pleased. [snip] He was voted for by lots of people, but he was never elected, as both elections were rigged. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Citizendium article pretty good
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:46:29 -0400: Hi, [snip] I have expanded and improved this from the original draft by Storms. (Perhaps Ed would not agree that I improved it! Actually I did not change the parts he wrote). See: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Cold_fusion If this were Wikipedia someone would have come and trashed everything I have written. So far that has not happened. The talk page is much more collegiate. There is much to be said for signing your real name to contributions. - Jed Under explanations, I see no mention of Hydrinos, except perhaps indirectly in number 4? Creation of clusters of deuterons that interact as units. There is also an error farther down: Figure 3 shows a more recent example of excess heat. Compared to Fig. 2, this cell produced higher absolute power (~10 W), more excess energy (1.14 MJ), and a larger ratio of input to output (2500%). It should read .ratio of output to input (2500%). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:09:18 -0400: Hi, [snip] I'm also afraid that the Li battery might be a wet dream but not for the scarcity of the element. Lithium battery charge efficiency is quite poor above 90 deg F. And where are we gonna charge our Volts? Maybe not in the hot garage in Phoenix. Terry The Volt really shines as a commuter vehicle, and particularly for short commutes where the gas engine is not needed. Hence ideally one doesn't try to charge the batteries from the engine (so hot recharging during the day doesn't occur). At night, the temperature is generally lower anyway, particularly after midnight, so if shouldn't be such a problem (just program it to start recharging as late as possible, but in time to be fully charged by the time you leave the next morning). Furthermore, as electricity supply shifts away from fossil fuels, it may not make much difference whether or not recharging is optimally efficient. Bottom line is that the drop in recharging efficiency is will probably only have a very minor overall impact. Imagine being stuck in traffic in the middle of the city, and opening the window to let the stuffy air *out*, and the fresh air *in*, while contemplating the complete silence of all the stopped electric motors as everyone enjoys their jolt of Volt. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:21:25 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Over half the cost of the Volt is probably in the batteries, and if they need to be replaced in 4 years at $20,000 retail -- then the yearly cost of ownership has gone through the roof. [snip] I think Lithium batteries are more expensive than other types, because Lithium is fairly scarce. If so, then it should be possible to get a significant rebate on new batteries by trading in the old ones, which still contain the Lithium they started out with (in one form or another). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Advanced Lead-Acid Battery
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:02:19 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Here is a typical anti-lithium battery rag - from an insider - a former exec of a NiMH company. Most of the negative press wrt lithium, and there are many outspoken critics of lithium batteries, come from insiders - or competitors in the industry, which can mean one of two things: they know better, or they are very jealous. Take your pick. http://seekingalpha.com/article/95552-energy-storage-opportunities-vs-irrational-expectations Only problem for this blogger is: in actual testing in a Honda Insight last year - which has NiMH, and which many people hated to see go the way of the dinosaur -- the advanced SLA (from EFFPower) has already exceeded anything and everything which NiMH can offer- and without the need for nickel (much more costly than lead). http://www.effpower.com/ From the website:- Battery: Capacity: 6 Ah Voltage: 150 V Weight: 37.5 kg If I am not mistaken this works out to 24 Wh/kg, which is nothing to write home about. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:38:19 +0200: Hi, 2008/9/18 Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED]: IOW the electric motor plus batteries make it seems like you have 3 times more power when you need it on hills - that your genset can put out. Jones, the idea kind of made sense to me up to now, but Ed's sensible objection is that IF your battery is empty --which BTW is most probably the case otherwise you wouldn't be running on the genset-- then you don't have enough power to keep up with the traffic. Isn't he right to conclude that the genset must be able to provide the full power, as it does on the GM Volt? Michel Not necessarily. If the trip computer knows in advance that you are going to take a long trip, then the gas engine can be turned on immediately at the start of the trip, recharging the batteries continuously, rather than waiting till they are near empty. This extends the range of the batteries, and still only requires a small gas engine while the electric motors provide full power the whole time. The trick is for the trip computer to know in advance when to turn on the gas engine. This would be possible for a vehicle with a GPS system. You tell the computer your destination before starting, and whether or not you can recharge at your destination, and it calculates when to turn on the engine, based upon the current state of charge in the batteries. It would also make sense to have a set of preprogrammed destinations (like preprogrammed radio stations, or a better analogy might be programmed cooking schemes in a microwave), for places that you visit frequently. The general idea of course is to delay the engine start as long as possible, while ensuring that the driver experiences no inconvenience. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:16:15 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] All I am suggesting to do - to make this concept more affordable to the average Joe, is to: 1) dump the lithium in favor of advanced SLA 2) go for a battery range of 20 miles instead of 40 miles (20 was the range of the VH-1) which covers most day-to-day errands and short commutes I suspect the rationale is that they want to save as much gas as possible. If the average round trip commute is 40 miles, then cutting the all electric range to 20 miles would result on average in at most a 50% reduction in gas usage. By making the all electric range 40 miles OTOH, the average reduction is almost 100%. That makes a big difference in the dependence on imported fuel. 3) keep the electric motor the same size 4) trim the 4-cylinder down in power and weight to about 35 kW and make it a diesel, possibly a two cylinder diesel. I believe this would cut $10,000 off the cost of batteries - making the vehicle affordable for a much larger segment of drivers. Compared to the present Prius, the smaller diesel will get significantly better mileage. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VO]: Coining the New Science of Post Reality
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Mon, 15 Sep 2008 06:47:02 -0500: Hi Richard, [snip] Howdy Vorts, Scientists at the Dime Box Saloon research Labs now believe there is evidence pointing toward post Reality. Proof of existence of Post reality has been theorized but never proven because the laws of human nature prohibit such a happening. This belief is supported by several new technology breakthroughs that include NIST's proof of anti-gravity, FEMA's new food distribution model for hurricane relief, and the Fed's financial rescue plan for born losers. We have yet to assess NASA, DARPA, PETA and several other promising areas but the evidence is now sufficent to believe we are now entering an era of Camelot where nobody has to work, nobody needs to worry and everybody gets everything they want handed to them. A team of scientists are enroute to Houston, Washington and Wall Street to poll intellectuals on their reaction. Richard Not quite yet. First someone has to take a gamble on my fusion device. Then we will effectively have (almost) free energy indefinitely. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Nano-thermite aka Superthermite
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:21:46 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] This then is the very reason that ballotechnics are said to be MORE energetic, not less. IOW you want the particle to burn away the surface area of atoms of small particles very rapidly but ONLY the surface area - so the interior volume of the particle reaches maximum compression (about 300,000-1,000,000 psi equivalent has been reported). This is not unlike the situation with nuclear weapons but the modality is non-nuclear and can be called suprachemical. [snip] This sounds a lot like the http://www.proton21.com.ua/index_en.html work. They talk about a severely compressed shell of charge passing through the material, and suggest that it catalyzes LENR reactions of the severe fusion-fission variety. I also have a vague recollection of about a 10:1 energy ratio being bandied about. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:57:31 -0800: Hi, [snip] It is currently thought that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface. The runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other greenhouse gases.[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus Quote:- The temperature and pressure at the surface are 740 K (467°C) and 93 bar, respectively.[1] Note that if all the Earth's oceans existed as water vapour in the atmosphere, the pressure at the surface would be about 250 bar. http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/1988Icar...74..472K [snip] Quote from the abstract: Finally, the results of the model are used to speculate about when an Earth-like planet might lose its water and how much closer to the Sun Earth could have formed without ending up like Venus. ...I take it from this that they concluded that it couldn't have ended up like Venus at it's current location. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Perosin
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:34:52 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Not just for blondes anymore ... http://techrepublic-cnet.com.com/military-tech/?keyword=Perosin A search on Perosin yielded http://www.chemdrug.com/MSDSInfo.asp?ID=4311. Food for conspiracy fans? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Mon, 8 Sep 2008 09:12:24 -0800: Hi, [snip] The immediate problem is passing the tipping point where the methane is released. The tipping point is presumably when the temperature rises above zero deg C and the ground starts to melt. Since the permafrost has already started melting in Siberia, the process has already begun. That means we are now in a race against the clock. Not only do we need to reduce CO2, we need to do it fast enough to actually drop the temperature back below freezing so that the methane production stops. Methane is 20 times more effective than CO2 at the greenhouse effect, and is lighter than air. It eventually oxidizes into CO2, but at high altitude. High altitude water vapor is a very effective greenhouse gas, and at some point the more you get the more you get. Even low altitude water vapour is an effective greenhouse gas, despite the fact that it rains out regularly. If we get enough of it we're permanent toast - fully burnt toast at that. The oceans will boil off and the surface of the earth will likely end up over 200 deg. C. Welcome to New Venus. If the oceans were to boil off, where would all the water to go? Besides, there is also the evaporative cooler effect. The faster the hydrological cycle takes place, the more rapidly heat is removed. I think this is the major negative feedback effect. Also increasing rainfall tends to dissolve more CO2 and carry it into the oceans. Though I don't know how close they are to saturation (another tipping point), though I suspect that they are already effectively in balance with the CO2 in the atmosphere. There is also the possibility that increasing geothermal action will release the methane from the clathrates (and they want to put CO2 down there too???). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:49:11 -0800: Hi, [snip] On Sep 8, 2008, at 11:23 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: If the oceans were to boil off, where would all the water to go? Same place it went on venus, into building a higher altitude more dense atmosphere. [snip] I doubt there was ever much water on Venus. See http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/Venusatmos.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:02:40 -0800: Hi, [snip] I haven't seen any evidence this is true. My understanding is the ice melted due to vulcanism changing the albedo by depositing dust on the ice. If this happened then there would be no CO2 overshoot. [snip] In how many places around the world, is the ice dirty due to volcanic dust? The problem with this theory is that snow falls tend to be a lot more frequent than volcanic eruptions, and the next snowfall will cover the dust again. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool
In reply to Taylor J. Smith's message of Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:29:10 +: Hi, [snip] On Sep 8, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Check out the snowball Earth era(s) which occurred in the past. Glaciation was extreme, reaching all the way -- or nearly all the way -- to the Equator. The Earth's albedo went sky-high, as a result of which the effective insolation rate plummeted -- runaway cooling. Why, you may ask, do we no longer have a snowball Earth? What finally stopped the runaway? [snip] Possible alternatives to a past snowball Earth:- 1) The crust has slipped several times, resulting in different land masses being located near the poles and accumulating ice, and leaving evidence that has been interpreted at snowball Earth. 2) Continental drift with the same result(?) IOW maybe there never was a snowball Earth. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nano-thermite aka Superthermite
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 9 Sep 2008 14:51:39 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] But even in Mills CQM when oxygen is active, if I am not mistaken, - it is the O++ catalyst and not the hydrino, which emits the excess energy. In CQM, the O++ first absorbs 54 eV from the Hydrino, becoming O+++ in the process. Then later, the O+++ recaptures the lost electron to become O++ again, reemitting the 54 eV that it absorbed from the Hydrino. Usually it doesn't stop there, but also grabs as many other loose electrons as it can get it's paws on, trying to become O--. In the mean time, having relinquished 54 eV to O++, the Hydrino has become unstable and promptly drops to a stable level dumping even more energy in the process. ERGO one might ask this pregnant question: ... in the superthermite reaction, where aluminum appears to steal two oxygen ions from iron oxide - and the result is an apparent 2xHartree energy gain - is this some kind of redundant ground state but hydrino-less reaction which involves oxygen, not hydrogen, facilitating the exchange by appearing to have a reduced orbital ? I have wondered about He iso H undergoing shrinkage, and have previously also suggested that perhaps virtually any nucleus could steal a shrunken electron from a Hydrino. However I doubt that there is really anything like this going on in super thermite. From the very little that I have read, I get the impression that it just reacts faster than normal because the particles are (much) smaller. See your own quote:- The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out, Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly... Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices However, researchers aren't permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research. Dr Son has now apparently been silenced by the powers that be, and has no further comment. Not surprising. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:12:25 -0400: Hi, Thanks, that helped. However it raises another question. What about circularly polarized radiation? [snip] This makes me wonder how an ordinary photon manages to go through umpteen cycles between source and destination with a stopped clock. :) It doesn't. A photon is the same no matter when you sample it. The wave function associated with it goes through multiple cycles (which are distributed in space) but the photon itself does not oscillate in any sense of the word. Remember, the photon is traveling with the wave front, and ON THE WAVE FRONT the E and B fields are stationary. If, at the crest of the wave, E points up, then it's that up-pointing E vector which is traveling through space; at the crest it always points up, but the crest is moving at C. Any observer in any inertial frame will see an oscillating E field as the photon passes, of course, because the up-pointing E field at the crest is preceded and followed by down-pointing E fields -- but they're all moving along through space in tandem. If you could travel at C, and you flew along with a radio wave (which is easier to measure than a light wave), and you sampled the E and B fields, you would find that they didn't seem to be changing. This is one of the problems with traveling at C: In a frame of reference moving at C the traveling wave no longer looks like a solution to Maxwell's equations, because @E/@t = @B/@t = 0. The way out of this box chosen in special relativity is to let @t - 0 when you travel at C. A traveling wave is exactly that. It is not a changing wave; rather it's a fixed pattern which travels through space. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:45:47 +1000: Hi, Don't bother answering this, I get it. [snip] In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:12:25 -0400: Hi, Thanks, that helped. However it raises another question. What about circularly polarized radiation? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
In reply to Taylor J. Smith's message of Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:14:36 +: Hi, [snip] What I see here is a peak around solar max superimposed on a general upward trend. It's a pity about the missing years. This is perhaps more use: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif It seems to indicate that we *may* be at the peak of a wave with a 180-200 year period. (previous minimum in 1910). The next 10 years or so should be quite revealing. Global 10 Warmest Years Mean Global temperature (°C) (anomaly with respect to 1961-1990) 1998 0.52 2005 0.48 2003 0.46 2002 0.46 2004 0.43 2006 0.42 2007(Jan-Nov) 0.41 2001 0.40 1997 0.36 1995 0.28 Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 22:12:01 -0800: Hi, [snip] I posted a message, then went shopping. I just got back, and discovered this post from Horace. :) [snip] Given that graviphotons carry no charge, and have a very weak coupling to electrostatic charge, i.e. to virtual photons, it is reasonable to suspect the possibility that neutrinos are comprised of graviphotons. [snip] Is it possible that they are in fact one and the same thing? IOW the gravity waves that various experiments are looking for, may have been here all along, in the form of neutrinos. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:05:13 -0800: Hi, [snip] First, let me be very clear that I said neutrinos may be comprised of graviphotons, not gravitons the messenger particles. [snip] ...and that's exactly what I meant. Is it possible that neutrinos and graviphotons (not gravitons) are identically the same thing, rather than neutrinos being comprised of graviphotons? Note that we normally think of neutrinos as being particles, but surely there is every reason to believe that they have a wave aspect, given that they must have a frequency. If they don't have a frequency, then how can they have differing energies if they all travel at the speed of light? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:25:43 -1000: Hi, [snip] The argument is whether there are anthropogenic causes to it. I say that the models are incapable of directing that conclusion because of their inherent shortcomings. [snip] I agree that the models are only models and will never get it 100% correct, however a few facts are obvious. 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 2) The temperature is rising. 3) Reducing CO2 is the only means we have of influencing the situation (albeit that we don't know exactly how (in)effective that will be). 4) As a byproduct of switching from fossil fuels, we get less air pollution which is better for our health. 5) If we do it right, we make a net profit rather than a net loss. 6) If my ideas on fusion are correct, then that is going to be a very large profit. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:45:00 -1000: Hi, [snip] Robin - Well and concisely put. I only take issue with #3 because of the assumptions that we should be trying to interfere with the situation, and that warming is necessarily a bad thing in the long run. Used to be a lot warmer, and for a very long time. I say let nature handle the climate. It's our job to adapt to it. So let's put our opposable thumbs and big brains to work on the right problems. That still leaves people like you for #6 in at least the same, if not an even better, position. Right? [snip] While a warmer world might be nice in some respects, it could have major consequences for humanity. 1) Coastal flooding (where most major cities have been located for historical reasons). 2) Spreading of tropical diseases into temperate zones. 3) Possible major shifts in what will grow where. This could have a serious impact on agriculture. 4) Increases in the frequency and severity of weather extremes (which will also impact on agriculture). While we undoubtedly have the ingenuity to deal with all of these things, it is unlikely we can do so at no economic and political cost. By political cost, I mean the cost in lives lost due to wars brought on by major migrations of people when the region where they currently live becomes unsustainable. A primary example of this is Bangladesh. Therefore it seems wise to me to make a profit by pulling on the only lever we have and possibly making a difference, rather than just sitting back and doing nothing (while probably making the situation worse) while we incur considerable extra costs. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:gravity = pdf
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:29:00 -0400: Hi, [snip] They (apparently) oscillate, which, at least according to my limited and rather primitive understanding of relativity theory, means time passes for them, which suggests pretty strongly that their speed must be subluminal. At C, 1/gamma=0 and the particle must remain immutable between events, because its internal clock has stopped. This makes me wonder how an ordinary photon manages to go through umpteen cycles between source and destination with a stopped clock. :) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 05:55:59 -0800: Hi, [snip] If black holes can carry charge, then it may be feasible for them to form negative atoms in which they are the nuclei, and ordinary atomic nuclei act like electrons. [snip] What is to stop the accelerated positive nuclei from emitting EM radiation and spiraling into the BH? Since the BH has a huge gravitational force associated with it, there is no need for either it, or the orbiting matter, to be charged. Other matter will happily orbit it (in the conventional sense), just in very tiny orbits. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:08:25 -0600: Hi, [snip] The obvious problem with the argument of whether to do something about global warming always involves a basic error. The error is that if we try to do something, it will result in economic damage. [snip] It will result in economic damageto the oil barons. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:37:43 -0600: Hi, [snip] Yes Robin, but why do the nonoil barons keep making this point? Are you really sure that those who keep making the point are not influenced by the oil barons? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 3 Sep 2008 05:53:13 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] OK - but then what about the situation with our moon or Mars -- with almost no atmosphere and a dense solid core to absorb cosmic rays ? This is an excellent point, and I concede. You have put my mind at rest. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:07:51 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Is there enough of a small asymmetry in macro magnetic effects, such that one pole can be slightly hotter than the other due to solar wind; and could that dynamic enter into the ice mass situation ?? As unlikely as this may seem at first... [snip] I think the asymmetry is primarily due to the fact that the North Pole is all sea level floating ice, while the South Pole is high altitude ice on land. That means that as Arctic ice melts, water is revealed with a very large change in albedo (promoting further warming), whereas the high altitude ice in the Antarctic doesn't get warm enough to melt at all (whereas low altitude ice in the Antarctic does melt - ice shelves disintegrating). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:32:23 -0600: Hi, [snip] behavior of the stock market and the government. The bigger question, is what does an individual do to protect themselves from this growing irrationally? [snip] Rational behaviour is a luxury. Irrational behaviour based upon fear is a part of human basic instinct. Fear arises when people perceive their existence threatened. The cure is to ensure that it is less threatened, by improving the quality of life. This will flow automatically from the introduction of a sustainable economy based upon sustainable energy. That's where we come in. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Sunspotless
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 2 Sep 2008 10:25:15 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] The bigger question for the rest of us - what is the true situation? -- and the true unpoliticized risk of this situation? -- i.e. IF both Algore AND also his critics are partly correct in that yes, humans are rapidly changing the normal course of environmental change in a way which could have been harmful, BUT that change, as it turns out is not harmful at all, and in fact the short-term benefit is poised to have the (unforeseen by the polluters) effect of forestalling another little ice age Interesting moral dilemma, if nothing else ... wrong for the right reason, or right for the wrong reason? [snip] It's even possible that CO2 based global warming may trigger a state change in the climate leading to regional global cooling (e.g. failure of or drastic change in the Atlantic conveyor). IOW the changes we are experiencing may not be an either/or situation (the Sun or human influence), but rather due to both combined (an and situation). It's possible both are working in concert, rather than in opposition. however it's also possible that the sunspots will pick up again. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VO]: Scientists sue to stop 'black hole' from sucking up Earth
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Tue, 2 Sep 2008 20:20:19 -0500: Hi, [snip] The large Hadron back in the news, Richard http://www.worldnetdaily.com:80/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewpageId=74044 Quote: The Large Hadron Collider will not be producing anything that does not happen routinely in nature due to cosmic rays, he told the Sunday Telegraph. If they were dangerous we would know about it already. This is wrong. Cosmic rays are stopped in the atmosphere which is a gas, and not very dense. That means that microscopic black holes have a chance to evaporate before traveling their MFP. With the supercollider however any black holes formed may collide with a solid, which has a much smaller MFP, potentially giving black holes a chance to grow before they evaporate. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
