Re: Tantalizing/ tillitating
At 10:07 PM 11/21/4, RC Macaulay wrote: >Horace.. I mean't no reference to the vortex-L group, but rather to the many >websites on liquid vortex and their magic claims. No need to apologize. It was a joke. The smiley "8^)" indicated a joke. Just my sense of humor. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: Tantalizing/ tillitating
Horace.. I mean't no reference to the vortex-L group, but rather to the many websites on liquid vortex and their magic claims. Richard - Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 9:57 PM Subject: Re: Tantalizing/ tillitating At 9:03 PM 11/21/4, RC Macaulay wrote: [snip] Setting aside the many wild and far out claims of many vortex buffs,... I'm mystified. Anyone recall any wild or far out claims here lately? 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: Tantalizing/ tillitating
At 9:03 PM 11/21/4, RC Macaulay wrote: [snip] >Setting aside the many wild and far out claims of many vortex buffs,... I'm mystified. Anyone recall any wild or far out claims here lately? 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner
Tantalizing/ tillitating
One need not be a atomic phycisist to enjoy this group. The quest for CF continues. My work in liquid vortex mechanical technology continues. It has been our premise that a liquid vortex is dynamically similar to an atom. My purpose in this post is to mention a test we ran on a high speed parabolic shaped member. Watching the vortex created by the member, we witnessed a random interruption of the vortex that caused a type of "strike" by the vortex against the face of the member. The strike ( like a cobra striking) caused the entire unit with electric motor to move on its mounting. However, the event is random and not a regular event. We have tested more than 2000 shapes of rotating members over 14 years and this is the first time we have witnessed this event taking place. The good news is that the event is reproducible, the bad news is we don't have a clue how to understand the mechanics except that it must be related to cavitation of a type we have not experienced before. Setting aside the many wild and far out claims of many vortex buffs, somewhere in the scheme of things there is a relationship between your work in CF and ours in liquid vortex technology. Richard <>
Re: WashingtonPost article
I was hoping that someone from ICCF11 had a commment about the Israeli company, Energetics Technologies, mentioned in the article, or the presentation by El-Boher, which apparently... at least McKubre thinks is pretty near to having a commercial product. This "someone" will. I spent quite a bit of time with several of the "ET" folks. I am eager to share what I've learned, but I ask your patience as it will take me a while to transcribe my recordings and compile my report. I expect to have a brief mention of them in my Dec. newsletter and a more complete article on them in Q1-05. Steve
Re: WashingtonPost article
- Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 6:17 PM Subject: WashingtonPost article " The cold fusion guys can't brew a cup of tea," Cold fusion researchers may measure their net gains in milliwatts, but the hot fusioneers measure their net losses in megawatts! So, who's really closer to success? Jeff
Re: WashingtonPost article
A big thanks to Mitchell Swartz and P.J van Noorden for posting the article in both HTML and text. This is some of the most exciting reading on the subject in a while. "Maybe there is something there, some funny reaction going on." Park pauses, staring off for a moment. "If there is, I'll make another prediction. If there is, it may solve some puzzles, but it won't be important." My goodness, a momentary crack in the ediface. Park must be experiencing some internal confliction. If there is anything at all to cold fusion it is obviously paradigm shifting. It amuses me now to think last month I enjoyed a blueberry muffin and coffee at the Corner Bakery, located in the Press Club building, oblivious to the fact I was just 9 stories beneath the APS office. Later that day, on a night boat ride down the Potomac, I saw a large dish antenna pointing vertically skyward. It seemed oddly familiar to me and as I squinted carefully into the dark I could see across the top of the building the words "Naval Research Laboratory". It was one of several moving moments for me on that trip. Sometimes the world seems so small. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: resonance
In reply to thomas malloy's message of Sun, 21 Nov 2004 00:50:58 -0600: Hi, [snip] >Robin Von Sparondonk posted about the resonance of hydrogen atoms. >I'm wondering about where he got the numbers. Are there tables in the >Handbook which give these frequencies? The sizes are related to the wavelength of light with a photon energy of 27.2 eV which is the size of Mills' "energy hole". >I've been reading Chaos by James Gleick. Mandelbrock certainly >produced some pretty pictures. I've yet to figure out how he produced At least I'm not the only one whose name you spell incorrectly. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: WashingtonPost article
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:36:22 -0800: Hi, [snip] > >--- Horace Heffner wrote: > >> Would you please summarize or quote the significant >> parts of this article? > > >It appears to have been removed from their site. I >guess they only keep these articles online for one >week and this was from last Sunday. > >I was hoping that someone from ICCF11 had a commment >about the Israeli company, Energetics Technologies, >mentioned in the article, or the presentation by >El-Boher, which apparently... at least McKubre thinks >is pretty near to having a commercial product. I believe the ICCF10 paper that covers this technology can be found at:- http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIintensific.pdf Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: WashingtonPost article
For everybody who is interested I have just downloaded the Washington Post article. Greetings Peter van Noorden Warming Up to Cold Fusion Peter Hagelstein is trying to revive hope for a future of clean, inexhaustible, inexpensive energy. Fifteen years after the scientific embarrassment of the century, is this the beginning of something By Sharon Weinberger Sunday, November 21, 2004; Page W22 On a quiet Monday in late August -- a time of year when much of the Washington bureaucracy has gone to the beach -- a panel of scientists gathered at a Doubletree Hotel set between the Congressional Plaza strip mall and a drab concrete office building on Rockville Pike. They sat around a U-shaped table decked with laptops, with three government officials at the front, ready to hear about an idea that, if it worked, could change the world. The panel's charge was simple: to determine whether that idea had even a prayer of a chance at working. The Department of Energy went to great lengths to cloak the meeting from public view. No announcement, no reporters. None of the names of the people attending that day was disclosed. The DOE made sure to inform the panel's members that they were to provide their conclusions individually rather than as a group, which under a loophole in federal law allowed the agency to close the meeting to the public. At 9:30 a.m., six presenters were invited in and instructed to sit in a row of chairs along the wall. The group included a prominent MIT physicist, a Navy researcher and four other scientists from Russia, Italy and the United States. They had waited a long time for this opportunity and, one by one, stood up to speak about a scientific idea they had been pursuing for more than a decade. All the secrecy likely had little to do with national security and more to do with avoiding possible embarrassment to the agency. To some, the meeting would seem no less outrageous than if the DOE honchos had convened for a seance to raise the dead -- and in a way, they had: Fifteen years ago, the DOE held a very similar review of the very same idea. It was front-page news back in 1989. The subject was cold fusion, the claim that nuclear energy could be released at room temperature, using little more than a high school chemistry set. In one of the most infamous episodes of modern science, two chemists at the University of Utah announced at a news conference that they had harnessed the power of the sun in a test tube. It was, if true, the holy grail of energy: pollution-free, cheap and virtually unlimited. If it worked, cold fusion could supply the country's energy needs, with no more smog, no more nuclear waste, no more depending on other countries for oil. For a brief moment, an energy revolution seemed on the horizon. But when many laboratories tried and failed to reproduce the Utah results, scientists began to line up against cold fusion. Less than a year after the announcement, a DOE review found that none of the experiments had demonstrated convincing evidence of cold fusion. Almost as quickly as they had become famous, the scientists involved became the butt of comedians' jokes; they were even lampooned in a Canadian production called "Cold Fusion: The Musical." A Time magazine millennium poll ranked cold fusion among the "worst ideas" of the century. But now, at the Doubletree in Rockville, it seemed all that could change. For the scientists who had risked ostracism to persist in studying cold fusion, the very fact that the Energy Department was reviewing their work this summer seemed like a breakthrough. True, according to two of the presenters who were there, the meeting began with harsh questions. But at 5 p.m., the presenters were ordered to leave the room, and when they returned, the mood had visibly lifted. At the end, the scientists presenting the idea and those reviewing it all shook hands. The reviewers stayed on to discuss the material. The cold fusionists went to a barbecue, feeling celebratory. No one had told them if the presentation had convinced anyone that cold fusion was real. But it was nice, they said, after so many years, just to be treated with respect. "WHERE'S PETER?" It was noon and the sun was shining in California's Bay Area. It was the week before the DOE meeting in Rockville, and at SRI International, a nonprofit research center in Menlo Park, chemist Michael McKubre was gearing up for what he hoped would be cold fusion's big break. He believed that after 15 years, the new DOE review could give him and others a chance to build an energy source that had the potential to revolutionize society. But first he needed to find Peter Hagelstein for a meeting with a reporter. McKubre's secretary poked her head in the office and said she'd ask Jessica, the summer intern. A minute later the secretary was back. No Peter. "Can you call Peter?" he asked. "Tell him to comb his hair and stuff," he added, shaking his head. McKubre checked the time and settled back in h
Re: WashingtonPost article
--- Horace Heffner wrote: > Would you please summarize or quote the significant > parts of this article? It appears to have been removed from their site. I guess they only keep these articles online for one week and this was from last Sunday. I was hoping that someone from ICCF11 had a commment about the Israeli company, Energetics Technologies, mentioned in the article, or the presentation by El-Boher, which apparently... at least McKubre thinks is pretty near to having a commercial product.
Re: WashingtonPost article
At 3:17 PM 11/20/4, Jones Beene wrote: >And what about this company mentioned by McKubre, >Energetics Technologies,which has received a millions >in private support to research cold fusion and has >achieved "startling results" ? > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5496-2004Nov16.html Would you please summarize or quote the significant parts of this article? Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: Positronium Anions: Electronium Exists.
Jones Beene wrote:
>
> I think that we always "knew" that a minimally bound> Ps ion would "exist" for some (very fleeting) length> of time. After all, there is no reason for it not to> exist for a few picoseconds... but what we really have> been looking for, ultimately, is validation of a> longer-lived bound state with *far* more than a> fractional eV of binding energy - more like several> tens or even a few hundred keV -
>
>
Based on the disk or current loop model, the fractional eV value for
many (*e-) triads is counter-intuitive.
The 125 pico-second counter rotation (spin) of a positive-negative positronium pair at near c ("The antiparallel orientation of positron spin and electron spin is called para-positronium, the parallel orientation ortho-positronium.") sets up a strong attractive magnetic force between them.
If in this 125 picosecond window before annihilation, another electron with favorable spin joins
the group the stable triad is most likely formed.
I think the positronium chemistry folks are only seeing the ones that didn't make the grade.
http://positron.mpi-stuttgart.mpg.de/messungen/chemie_e.html
The "current" ( I ) in each loop/disk = q*c/2(pi)r = 2,720 amperes, thus
generating a rather strong ( 1/r^2 or 1/r^4?) magnetic binding force between adjacent loops.
The (calculated) 0.327 eV Ps- anion info cited on pages 6 and 7 of this article is qualified speculation. :-)
http://pubs.rsc.org/ej/PC/1997/PC093147.pdf
Frederick
