Re: Ooops! Fancy that! 8-)
Hi Frank, Between the chuckle I can almost hear across the big pond, the latino blend of humor and my lack of understanding of how you arrived at T^12 gives the morning sunshine a lift. Please go over that jump again. Richard - Original Message - From: Grimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 10:35 PM Subject: Re: Ooops! Fancy that! 8-) Experimentally a black body can be improvised by taking a hollow ball - coating the walls with soot and then drilling a hole in it along the x axis. If we warm this object - the radiation seen from the x direction is given by Stefan's law: R(x) [proportional] T^4 If we now drill holes along the y and z axes then the radiation seen from the y and z directions will be R(y) [proportional] T^4 R(z) [proportional] T^4 But each of these views are one dimensional views of a three dimensional entity, i.e. the radiation in the black body. Combining the three partial views into one whole view gives us, R(x).R(y).R(z) [proportional] T^4.T^4.T^4. R(x.y.z) [proportional] T^12 Cheers, Frank Grimer == et omnis qui audit verba mea haec et non facit ea similis erit viro stulto qui aedificavit domum suam supra harenam et descendit pluvia et venerunt flumina et flaverunt venti et inruerunt in domum illam et cecidit et fuit ruina eius magna8-) ==
Re: 10 years have past since PowerGen 95
John Coviello wrote: My greatest fear vis a vis cold fusion is that it will die when the researchers all die. That's not going to happen Jed. If cold fusion is indeed a real and viable scientific discovery, the death of researchers will not end its development. Perhaps their deaths will slow cold fusion research down, but if something is real in nature it will eventually be developed by someone. The only way cold fusion will totally die is if it has been an artifact all along, gross experimental error, noise. How do you know that? People often say things like: Science always works in the end; valuable data is never truly lost. In other fields, valuable data and important techniques are lost all the time. I know of examples in computer programming, shipbuilding, metallurgy and many other fields. Programming techniques which were well known in the 1970s are unheard of today. I purchased a commercial program a couple years ago to accomplish one of the tasks at LENR-CANR.org. It took 10 minutes to execute. I wrote an old-fashioned Pascal program that ran in 20 seconds and did a better job. In his latest book, Kenneth Deffeyes wrote: the number of active exploration geologists in petroleum plus mining in the world is a few thousand, probably fewer than 10,000. Almost all the students with a natural science and today are majoring in environmental studies or ecology. The problem involves more than just the colleges and universities. Most of us learned an enormous amount on the job from our older colleagues, skilled and experienced geologists. When those threads are broken, there is a permanent loss. Beyond Oil, p. 179 Why should experimental science be different from these other fields? - Jed
Re: Wikipedia skeptics are upset
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Just like to point out that this debate is whether to keep it as a featured article or demote it -- there's apparently no question about removing the page from Wiki. I'm not too clear on exactly how a featured article is featured, however. I do not know what it is about either. It is probably unimportant, but it would be fun to see their reaction if 50 people show up and vote against them. These people are dead certain that their views represent the vast majority of scientists. They keep repeating that in the article and in the talk section, but as I and others have told them. They have no evidence for that, such as a public opinion poll data. They just assume they are right about everything. - Jed
10 years have passed since PowerGen 95
Jones BeeneWed, 28 Dec 2005 12:20:56 -0800 Frank Z, For years I have been both fascinated and puzzled by your ideas. One problem which has hindered the wider understanding and dissemination of them falls into the category of "verbalization" and another is "predictive power." I have a feeling that there should be more predictive value to the 1.094 megahertz-meter thing than you have found thus far - if the constant is valid in a universal sense. Have you even considered predictive power? snip Thank you Jones Beene What does this predict? It predicts the unknown that 50 nano meter superconducting clusters that are stimulated thermally at a frequency of about 10exp13 hertz should generate nuclear anomalies. The product of the dimension and the frequency is one megahertz-meter. It predicts the unknown that a superconductor 1/3 of meter in diameter stimlated at a frequency of 3 megahertz should produce a gravitational anamaloy. It predicts the following knowns. The transitional quantum states are associated with electromagnetic and gravitational anomalies.These anomalies equalize the strength of the two forces. "The motion constants tend toward the electromagnetic." That the energy levels of the atoms may be determined from these concepts. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapterb.html#Pg10 It predicts the energy of the photon based on the idea that photonic energy flows proceed through gravitational and electromagnetic anomalies. Again the motion constants of the gravitational and electromagnetic systems converge. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapterb.html#Pg9 It predicts that radius of the proton based on the idea that energy flow between electromagnetic, gravitational, and nuclear forces base on an equalization in the strength of the forces. These forces become equal at the edge of the proton. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptera.html#Pg8 It predicts the mass of the W particle based on the idea that quantum energy flows occur at points where the strength of the forces becomes equal. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapterb.html#Pg11 It has provided an alternate view of the major phenomena associated with thefour natural forces. It predicts that the phase velocity of the stationary Quantum State is c and the group velocity is V. From this construct a reconciliation of Special Relativity and Quantum Physics was obtained. http://www.wbabin.net/science/znidarsic.pdf It predicts much more that I will skip to limit the scope of this email. None of the predictions is solid enough to stand on its own. Taken together, however, the do point a picture. This picture of an alternate view of low energy physics. This view is from the vantage point of the transitional Quantum State. >From this view we can see that the strength of the natural forces converges during a quantum transition. These transitions occur at a dimensional frequency of 1.094 megahertz meters. The strong interaction may be employed in a macroscopic Bose condense to strongly and directly harness each of the natural forces. Most of physics has moved on to higher eneries. The search of the Higgs, string theory and the like. No practical technology will be discovered there. Low energy physics is considered done, closed, and finished. For this reason doors at journals are closed to my ideas and cold fusion. Thank your for our positive comment. It is one of the few that I have had. Frank Znidarsic
Re: 10 years have past since PowerGen 95
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 9:58 AM Subject: Re: 10 years have past since PowerGen 95 John Coviello wrote: My greatest fear vis a vis cold fusion is that it will die when the researchers all die. That's not going to happen Jed. If cold fusion is indeed a real and viable scientific discovery, the death of researchers will not end its development. Perhaps their deaths will slow cold fusion research down, but if something is real in nature it will eventually be developed by someone. The only way cold fusion will totally die is if it has been an artifact all along, gross experimental error, noise. How do you know that? People often say things like: Science always works in the end; valuable data is never truly lost. In other fields, valuable data and important techniques are lost all the time. - Jed You make a valid point Jed. What you say is indeed true in some other fields. But cold fusion, if it is indeed real beyond any doubts, will prevail. Especially now in 2005/2006, there are just too many people following cold fusion these days for it to die an unnatural death. The U.S. DOE just reviewed cold fusion a few years ago. The governments of Japan and Italy are investigating cold fusion to remediate nuclear waste. Technologies that are near death don't receive that kind of official attention. Also, because oil is nearing peak production and the price of oil appears to have started a sustain rise higher, there will be a real need for alternative energy technologies in coming decades, so the pressure will be on to find alternatives, one of which is cold fusion. Actually, I would propose that cold fusion might die from another cause of death, irrelevency. For one thing cold fusion might be provable beyond a doubt in coming years, but it might not be scalable to be useful in energy production and might just remain a useless laboratory curiosity for decades that may or may not one day be applied to some useful purpose. For two, back when cold fusion was originally discovered in 1989, the options for alternative energy were rather limited (mainly by price, but also by a lack of workable technologies). All that has changed in 2005/2006. Mainstream alternative energy technologies such as wind and solar have dropped significantly in price and have grown more efficient. Other alternatives are making gains such as fuel cells, waste-to-energy, wave/tidal power, etc. When the world needs to shift to new energy sources as fossil fuels dwindel in coming decades, they might not be looking for cold fusion or some exotic form of energy when proven mainstream alternative energy technologies are suitable to fill the gap. Cold fusion will eventually prevail if it can be proven to be reliable and cost effective. As we all know, cost considerations are what mainly drives technological implementation in this world. If someone starts selling cold fusion powered cars that can be operated for $1.00 a week on heavy water, obviously the public will flock to such a technology that would save tham $100s of dollars on their transportation costs. But as we know, the auto companies are dragging their feet on implementing such cost saving technologies as plug-in hybrid cars, so what hope does a truly revolutionary technology like cold fusion have in this world? Let's face it our government and corporate leaders make their decisions based on the bottom line. Other considerations such as the public good, environment, cost savings, safety all take a back seat to profits.
Re: Ooops! Fancy that! 8-)
I see your point, but consider this: when a single photon leaves a star, being a wave structure, that photon extends radially in all directions. When I look at the star and the photon strikes the rod in my retina, all the energy of *that* photon is absorbed by my eye. Collegerunt ergo et impleverunt duodecim cofinos fragmentorum ex quinque panibus hordiaciis quae superfuerunt his qui manducaverunt -Original Message- From: Grimer R(x.y.z) [proportional] T^12 ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Old electrospark experiment
I've been looking at my old electrospark experiment reports for evidence of blue-green glow effects as opposed to electrospark effects. Experiment #15 below gave me quite a bit of excitement when I realized a high COP (i.e 1.27) was just being achieved during conditioning when, at time 20 minutes, I blindly and stupidly (not knowing at the time what the glow regime was really all about) punched the current up from 0.0571 amps to 0.2110 amps to achieve the electrospark regime. The data was manually recorded, so at the time of the experiment I did not know what the COP was. I found a significant problem that damped my recent excitement. Something missing in the typed report for Experiment #15, but in the lab book, is that 74.22 g out of an initial 417.98 g initial electrolyte weight boiled off. The energy from this 74.22 g boil off was distributed across *all* the data points by putting it in the cell tare. There was no means utilized to keep track of actual boil off on a per minute basis. The cell was weighed before and after only. This means the corrected power out Cor p out estimates in the first low power part of the run (time 4-20) are probably too high, and in the second high current part, too low. (THIS MAKES THE BLUE GLOW SECTION LOOK TOO GOOD.) The only way to do this right is to run in the glow range for the entire experiment. At any rate, at this point I don't know that there is anything unusual going on. I suppose the tare could be adjusted by prorating the total boil off by the power in numbers. That too would be misleading in that the waveform in the blue glow regime, as drawn in the lab book, exhibited a much lower power factor in the glow phase than in the electrospark regime, but unfortunately I did not record the phase shift number for the glow regime, nor even recognize it as a possible power producing regime. Too bad also the spread sheet and the cell setup are long gone. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Na2SiO3 Experiment #15 - 12/29/1997 The purpose of this experiment was to test a 0.5 g/l Na2SiO3 with Zr electrodes using the new boiloff protocol. The total COP derived for this run was 1.00, with Ein = 196548 J, and Eout = 196798 J. No compensation was made for H2 + O2 creation energy, nor for Zr electrode oxidation, nor for a phase difference of 25.92 deg. (power factor .899). What is most interesting about this test is that the COP is 1.11 if the power factor is taken into account. The protocol and foam box used were as described in Exp. #14. The electrodes were Zr.. The electrode weights in grams were: Electrode Before After 1 4.727.72 2 4.084.04 Despite the lack of increase in electrode weight, a thick white coating appeared on the electrodes. One of the electrodes (2) was left in distilled weater overnight and re-weighed. It weighed 4.03 g after sitting overnight, indicating the coating on the electrodes is not very water soluble. A small amount of black powder or precipitate was noted on the bottom of the cell after the run. It may have been zirconium compound. Vol. is only known at the begining and end of the experiment, so a (not very well) weighted average of volume consumption (steam generation) was spread across the time of the experiment to permit an estimate of COP per measurement interval. The measurement intervals were chosen so as to keep a good estimate of input power. At the start of the experiment the sparks did not turn on immediately despite the long prior conditioning of the electrodes, and the high starting electrolyte temperature (100 C). This may be partially due to the very high insulatng quality of the film. It appeared that, from the z-y plot on the TDS200 scope that the breakdown voltage (either positive or negative) was initially 320 V dropping eventually to about 280 V. Current lead voltage on the y-t plot by 2 msec initially, then settled down to 1.2 msec during the high power portion of the run. This gives a minimum phase angle of 25.92 deg. (power factor .899). However, the x-y I vs V curve was very distorted. It was basically a Z shape, with some hysteresis on top from the capacitance. Kind of like so: /| / / --/ / / /-/ / / |/ Any assesment of overunity (or not) depends on determining the true input power in this wave form. The electrodes glittered during the high power portion of the run, and clearly most of the steam was generated then. The basic data follows: TimeV rms I rms Temp. C P inP out TareAmb. Vol.t 0 293 0.1210 100.00 0.000.000.0025.03 418.0 0 2 293 0.1210 100.00 35.10 -0.38 9.1525.03 418.0 2 4 302 0.0984 100.00 32.26 13.71 9.1624.85 417.3
Re: Wikipedia skeptics are upset
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidate s -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence I'm not too clear on exactly how a featured article is featured, however. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Wikipedia skeptics are upset
It appears that the inclusion of cold fusion as a featured article is entirely meaningless. So, it is featured on one prominent page (one that I have never visited over the time I've used Wikipedia), along with a lot of other articles. If people are looking for cold fusion information, they'll do a search for it and find it regardless of whether or not is has featured status. Seems like the skeptics are just making an issue out of nothing. I do think the Wikipedia article is one of the best resouces for cold fusion information, especially the links it provides. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 12:04 PM Subject: Re: Wikipedia skeptics are upset http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidate s -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence I'm not too clear on exactly how a featured article is featured, however. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: 10 years have past since PowerGen 95
I don't agree with this. Google Patterson Power Cell and look at the COPs he was getting. Either this product had a strong potential for a new energy source or it worked by some expendible as Mr. Jones has discussed. And it was a light water cell! I remember a decade ago when there were whisperings of excitement about Motorola buying the cell technology. I can't help but believe that this energy threat was squashed (game, set, match). Speaking of solid state OU devices, what ever happened to Wingate A. Lambertson's World into Neutrinos Cermet technology? I haven't seen anything on him in almost five years. -Original Message- From: John Coviello Actually, I would propose that cold fusion might die from another cause of death, irrelevency. For one thing cold fusion might be provable beyond a doubt in coming years, but it might not be scalable to be useful in energy production and might just remain a useless laboratory curiosity for decades that may or may not one day be applied to some useful purpose. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Fwd: 10 years have past since PowerGen 95
I don't agree with this. Google Patterson Power Cell and look at the COPs he was getting. Either this product had a strong potential for a new energy source or it worked by some expendible as Mr. Jones has discussed. And it was a light water cell! I remember a decade ago when there were whisperings of excitement about Motorola buying the cell technology. I can't help but believe that this energy threat was squashed (game, set, match). Speaking of solid state OU devices, what ever happened to Wingate A. Lambertson's World into Neutrinos Cermet technology? I haven't seen anything on him in almost five years. -Original Message- From: John Coviello Actually, I would propose that cold fusion might die from another cause of death, irrelevency. For one thing cold fusion might be provable beyond a doubt in coming years, but it might not be scalable to be useful in energy production and might just remain a useless laboratory curiosity for decades that may or may not one day be applied to some useful purpose. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Fwd: Why no PHEVs (was: 10 years have past since PowerGen 95)
This is not why we have no PHEV. Go back and read these from my previous post as to why Prius is not a PHEV. Cobasys (Chevron), who owns the battery technology, SUED Panasonic for building large batteries for the EV RAV4. It cost Panasonic $30M, back royalties, and Panasonic had to agree to build no more large format NiMH batteries. They are likely limited to 10 Ahrs. http://tinyurl.com/8ndbc http://tinyurl.com/d8493 There *will* be a PHEV Prius soon using LiIon technology. Today, I won't buy Chevron fuel nor Citgo (Chevez) fuel. -Original Message- From: John Coviello But as we know, the auto companies are dragging their feet on implementing such cost saving technologies as plug-in hybrid cars, so what hope does a truly revolutionary technology like cold fusion have in this world? (note, john has responded to my last two emails; but, because his reply to is set to his name I am forwarding these to vortex. I'll leave it up to john to respond to vortex if he wishes.) ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: 10 years have past since PowerGen 95
Sorry for the double post. Some people have their reply to field set to their email address. I sometimes forget to check that the email is going back to the list. This can be prevented by setting the reply to to a null field. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
signing off
Got to go for a while - its tax time. Horace Heffner
Re: 10 years have past since PowerGen 95
In reply to John Coviello's message of Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:58:45 -0500: Hi, [snip] Cold fusion will eventually prevail if it can be proven to be reliable and cost effective. As we all know, cost considerations are what mainly drives technological implementation in this world. If someone starts selling cold fusion powered cars that can be operated for $1.00 a week on heavy water, obviously the public will flock to such a technology that would save tham $100s of dollars on their transportation costs. Make that 0.4 cents / week of heavy water. :) (Based on $400/L heavy water, which with the availability of cheap energy and the increase in combined desalination/deuterium plants will probably drop considerably). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: Ooops! Fancy that! 8-)
At 11:17 am 29/12/2005 -0500, hohlraum wrote: I see your point, Goody, goody, gumdrops. 8-) but consider this: when a single photon... Hold it right there. It may surprise you to know that not everybody believes in photons. People such as Caroline Thompson for instance - one smart cookie, she - fearless too.;-) Thompson writes: That light can be converted into electricity is now common knowledge, but does this mean that individual photons cause the ejection of individual electrons? Of course not! Before the deification of Einstein by the New York Times after the claimed confirmation of his General Theory of Relativity -- the 1919 eclipse data that confirmed his prediction of the bending of starlight -- Einstein was just about on his own in thinking the light could exist as localised photons (See Forgotten History). Moreover, in the real world there are many different variations on the effect, and it merges with thermionic emission and other known effects. Presumably the complete theory should also cover Compton scattering, in which light (gamma rays) causes the ejection of electrons but leaves spare energy which goes into the production of further gamma rays, of reduced energy. snip That the process cannot be a matter of individual photon- electron interactions is clear, one reason being simply that photons do not exist. Another reason is the scale of things: the wavelengths of the light are very much greater, in most cases, than the dimensions of an electron. In my view (shared by others such as Millikan) the light arrives as a complete wave, spreading over the entire receiving surface. In the case I have thought about most -- the application of the effect in photomultipliers of the type used by Alain Aspect in his Bell test experiments -- it influences the electric field throughout the material of the photocathode. The waves will suffer both self- interference and interactions with pre-existing oscillations of electrons. Where these two effects combine favourably, some threshold is exceeded and an electron gains enough energy to escape. Yeah, well. The closest I ever got to her insights was to see electron emission as the manifestation of activation energy analogous to the chemical activation that I investigated in relation to deterioration of zirconia glass fibre used for reinforcing cement. But my strongest reason for not believing in photons is more philosophical than physical - more to do with my understanding of the totality of existence than the nature of the material world. All of which means that the rest... -- leaves a star, being a wave structure, that photon extends radially in all directions. When I look at the star and the photon strikes the rod in my retina, all the energy of *that* photon is absorbed by my eye. - ...is a bit academic - N'est pas? Collegerunt ergo et impleverunt duodecim cofinos fragmentorum ex quinque panibus hordiaciis quae superfuerunt his qui manducaverunt It's the duodecim which interests me more than the fragmentorum. g I'll leave you with this thought. Twelve dinners Eight guests Four for the staff Cheers, Frank -Original Message- From: Grimer R(x.y.z) [proportional] T^12 ___
Re: 10 years have past since PowerGen 95
Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 3:27 PM Subject: Re: 10 years have past since PowerGen 95 In reply to John Coviello's message of Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:58:45 -0500: Hi, [snip] Cold fusion will eventually prevail if it can be proven to be reliable and cost effective. As we all know, cost considerations are what mainly drives technological implementation in this world. If someone starts selling cold fusion powered cars that can be operated for $1.00 a week on heavy water, obviously the public will flock to such a technology that would save tham $100s of dollars on their transportation costs. Make that 0.4 cents / week of heavy water. :) (Based on $400/L heavy water, which with the availability of cheap energy and the increase in combined desalination/deuterium plants will probably drop considerably). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Well that's even better then. I currently spend about $120 per month on gasoline (it was around $180 per month after the hurricanes this summer). If I could reduce that cost to 2 cents per month using cold fusion, you bet I would and so would everyone else. Economics drives most innovations.
Re: Ooops! Fancy that! 8-)
At 07:47 am 29/12/2005 -0600, you wrote: Hi Frank, Between the chuckle I can almost hear across the big pond, the latino blend of humor and my lack of understanding of how you arrived at T^12 gives the morning sunshine a lift. Please go over that jump again. Richard .. Before I start, to save other Vorts from going over all this again I tried to send the following as a private email. Unfortunately it was bounced back for reasons unknown to me. .. You sound as though you need a historical resumé - so I'll go through it from the beginning. The 12th power law thing started with my discovery of the 12th, 8th and 4th power laws for the vapour pressures of ice, water and steam respectively. They were, of course, power laws from local temperature origins and not from the standard temperature origin of -273 deg.C. Professor Chaplin confirmed the existence of these power laws and put them in a refined form on his excellent web-site for water. The reason these power laws haven't be discovered before (even though the data has been around for the best part of a century) is because no one seems to have cottoned on to the idea of local absolute as opposed to standard absolute temperatures. Now it seemed obvious to me that these simple integral power laws were telling us something important. It also seemed obvious that they had two components, a dimensional component (powers 1, 2 and 3) and a quasi Stefan-Casimir component (power 4). So the three equations are really Vapour Pressure ice= constant. [T^4]^3 = T^12 Vapour Pressure water = constant. [T^4]^3 = T^8 Vapour Pressure steam = constant. [T^4]^1 = T^4 Then I started thinking about Casimir and how it related to the reduction in Beta atmosphere pressure with metal cavities such as those which form when straining metals to failure in tension. Interestingly enough, most articles which discuss Casimir refer to it as an internal tensile force. They seem very reluctant to view Casimir as an external compressive force. Maybe they don't want to humble themselves by recognising there is something out there and we are not self-sufficient. 8-) I asked myself what would happen if I had 3 orthogonal sets of Casimir plates, perfectly sealed against the Beta-atmosphere where they met, and I pulled them apart thus expanding the cavity they enclosed. I realised that this would give me three 4th power laws, mutually at right angles. But how did these three power laws combine? They had to be multiplicative. The vapour pressure laws indicated that. But how could I model that. The concept of the space expanding one dimension at a time from a small initial sphere to a prolate sphere, from a prolate sphere to an oblate sphere and finally from an oblate sphere to a large final sphere gave me the model I needed. Then it suddenly dawned on me that there was something very dodgy about the foundation stone of modern quantum theory, the Stefan Radiation Law. To vary your analogy, slightly, it was a one legged stool. That led to this following first post in the Ooops thread; Ooops! Fancy that! 8-) Grimer Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:07:12 -0800 I've just realised one of the consequences of the 3D Casimir Law. Stefan's fourth power law only presents a one dimensional view of things. In fact the energy density goes down according to (LAC)^(-12) where LAC is Local Absolute Compreture and Compreture is the reciprocal of temperature as measured from the local absolute zero. That why the Vapour Pressure vs. temperature is a twelfth power law. Oh dearie me. The physicists won't be pleased. But I will certainly enjoy the schadenfreude. 8-) Cheers, Frank Grimer and I remember, you seemed to be the only person who understood what I was driving at. However most people are not very good at three dimensional modelling based on symbols only, so I wanted to give them something related to a physical object like your three legged stool. Now the obvious object to choose was the spherical black body which was originally used in the experiment from which Stefan's Law was derived, namely a sphere with a small hole. It was only then a matter of thinking out the best verbalization to get people to see that the experiment only presented a truncated view of reality. I hope my explanation has answered your general query - but if you have any specific points I will do my best to answer them. Cheers, Frank - Original Message - From: Grimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 10:35 PM Subject: Re: Ooops! Fancy that! 8-) Experimentally a black body can be improvised by taking a hollow ball - coating the walls with soot and then drilling a hole
Re: Ooops! Fancy that! 8-)
Okay, let me try this again. Stefan's law may be used to predict the temperature of the sun. This prediction has been shown to be accurate experimentally. -Original Message- From: Grimer At 11:17 am 29/12/2005 -0500, hohlraum wrote: I see your point, Goody, goody, gumdrops. 8-) ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Ooops! Fancy that! 8-)
Okay, let me try this again. Stefan's law may be used to predict the temperature of the sun. This prediction has been shown to be accurate experimentally. -Original Message- From: Grimer At 11:17 am 29/12/2005 -0500, hohlraum wrote: I see your point, Goody, goody, gumdrops. 8-) ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
OT Re: Interesting Michael Crichton Speech on complexity
I read this Crichton speech. While I see his point, I have to severely disagree with his interpretation ofwhat are carefully selected snapshots of environmental and otherviews. He even answers his own objections to the Y2K situation. Like many problems of this type, dire warnings, often couched in overdramatised language, ARE NECESSARY to get people moving. The fact that Y2K caused minimal disruption is because of the warnings and the consequential efforts to rewrite and adapt programmes and computers. Like many "deniers" he seems to be using a post facto analysis to say that because nothing much happened, the original warnings werebaseless scaremongering. This type of thinking is highly dangerous because such people often go on to apply such hindsight to current "dire warnings" and draw the conclusion that they will prove to be just as inconsequential, therefore no effort should be made to address the problembecause past experience shows that these problems solve themselves or are not problems atall in the first place. Madness -utterillogical madness! Crichton mentions the 70's fears of global cooling and human created ice age but tricks us into thinking that we are reading an excerpt from current climate fears. The fears then were that particles, smokeand soot/acidfromcombustion would block off sunlight at high altitude and cause an accelerating cooling of Earth leading to a new ice age. I shared those fears at that time. The theory of greenhouse gas warming had yet to appear or was not widespread.This gibe had been slung at environmentalists before along the lines of " now in the 90'syou are warning about global warming - in the 70's you were scare mongering about global cooling - make up your minds!" The truth is that then, as now, environmentalists were quoting the best scientific knowledge of the time and informing the general public, who had a right to know - not just the "elite" of scientists and policy makers. Ironically, the very soot/acid particles etcthat we were warning about then have been proved to genuinely have a cooling effect that has mitigated the effects of increasing levels of greenhouse gases and thus havemasked the underlying global warming. We weren't wrong, we were terribly right - people have the power to royally screw up their planetary environment if they don't listen to warnings, take heed and take action to avoid the imminent threats and precautionary action to avoid the long term threats... Nick Palmer
Re: 10 years have past since PowerGen 95
Robin This may be the maximum velocity at which laminar flow is possible in the aether. Aren't all of Mills' sub-ground-state electrons supposedly moving at far greater velocity than this ?
Re: Ooops! Fancy that! 8-)
Hi Frank, well said. It fits. My specific purpose for asking for more, besides enjoying the discourse, was to set my mind thinking outmy problem with most theories regarding the Hutchinson Effect since I have difficulty with some references they make to ghosts and hobgobblins.grin http://www.americanantigravity.com/hutchison.html Richard Grimer wrote... The 12th power law thing started with my discovery of the 12th, 8th and 4th power laws for the vapour pressures of ice, water and steam respectively. They were, of course, power laws from local temperature origins and not from the standard temperature origin of -273 deg.C. Professor Chaplin confirmed the existence of these power laws and put them in a refined form on his excellent web-site for water.The reason these power laws haven't be discovered before (even though the data has been around for the best part of a century) is because no one seems to have cottoned on to the idea of "local absolute" as opposed to "standard absolute" temperatures.Now it seemed obvious to me that these simple integral power laws were telling us something important. It also seemed obvious that they had two components, a dimensional component (powers 1, 2 and 3) and a quasi Stefan-Casimir component (power 4).So the three equations are really Vapour Pressure ice = constant. [T^4]^3 = T^12 Vapour Pressure water = constant. [T^4]^3 = T^8 Vapour Pressure steam = constant. [T^4]^1 = T^4Then I started thinking about Casimir and how it related to the reduction in Beta atmosphere pressure with metal cavities such as those which form when straining metals to failure in tension. Interestingly enough, most articles which discuss Casimir refer to it as an internal tensile force. They seem very reluctant to view Casimir as an external compressive force. Maybe they don't want to humble themselves by recognising there is something out there and we are not self-sufficient. 8-)I asked myself what would happen if I had 3 orthogonal sets of Casimir plates, perfectly sealed against the Beta-atmosphere where they met, and I pulled them apart thus expanding the cavity they enclosed. I realised that this would give me three 4th power laws, mutually at right angles.But how did these three power laws combine? They had to be multiplicative. The vapour pressure laws indicated that. But how could I model that. The concept of the space expanding one dimension at a time from a small initial sphere to a prolate sphere, from a prolate sphere to an oblate sphere and finally from an oblate sphere to a large final sphere gave me the model I needed.Then it suddenly dawned on me that there was something very dodgy about the foundation stone of modern quantum theory, the Stefan Radiation Law. To vary your analogy, slightly, it was a one legged stool. That led to this following first post in the Ooops thread;Ooops! Fancy that! 8-)GrimerFri, 16 Dec 2005 23:07:12 -0800I've just realised one of the consequences of the 3D Casimir Law.Stefan's fourth power law only presents a one dimensional view of things. In fact the energy density goes down according to (LAC)^(-12) where LAC is Local Absolute Compreture and Compreture is the reciprocal of temperature as measured from the local "absolute" zero.That why the Vapour Pressure vs. temperature is a twelfth power law.Oh dearie me. The physicists won't be pleased. But I will certainly enjoy the schadenfreude. 8-)Cheers,Frank Grimerand I remember, you seemed to be the only person who understood what I was driving at.However most people are not very good at three dimensional modelling based on symbols only, so I wanted to give them something related to a physical object like your three legged stool. Now the obvious object to choose was the spherical black body which was originally used in the experiment from which Stefan's Law was derived, namely a sphere with a small hole. It was only then a matter of thinking out the best verbalization to get people to see that the experiment only presented a truncated view of reality.I hope my explanation has answered your general query - but if you have any specific points I will do my best to answer them.Cheers,Frank
Re: Ooops! Fancy that! 8-)
RC Macaulay wrote: Hi Frank, Between the chuckle I can almost hear across the big pond, the latino blend of humor and my lack of understanding of how you arrived at T^12 gives the morning sunshine a lift. Please go over that jump again. Richard Hopefully someone will correct my understanding if I'm wrong, but it appears that Grimer has multiplied together the three components of the radiation 3-vector expressed in Cartesian coordinates. That _product_ goes as the twelfth power. What that product means, however, is beyond me. In other words, if R is the intensity 3-vector, and its components are R_x, R_y, R_z, then, using * for multiplication, we have R = (R_x, R_y, R_z) = (K * T^4, J * T^4, L * T^4) where K, J, and L are functions of the observer's location. Then we also have R_x * R_y * R_z = (K*J*L) * T^12 Right? - Original Message - From: Grimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 10:35 PM Subject: Re: Ooops! Fancy that! 8-) Experimentally a black body can be improvised by taking a hollow ball - coating the walls with soot and then drilling a hole in it along the x axis. If we warm this object - the radiation seen from the x direction is given by Stefan's law: R(x) [proportional] T^4 If we now drill holes along the y and z axes then the radiation seen from the y and z directions will be R(y) [proportional] T^4 R(z) [proportional] T^4 But each of these views are one dimensional views of a three dimensional entity, i.e. the radiation in the black body. Combining the three partial views into one whole view gives us, R(x).R(y).R(z) [proportional] T^4.T^4.T^4. R(x.y.z) [proportional] T^12 Cheers, Frank Grimer == et omnis qui audit verba mea haec et non facit ea similis erit viro stulto qui aedificavit domum suam supra harenam et descendit pluvia et venerunt flumina et flaverunt venti et inruerunt in domum illam et cecidit et fuit ruina eius magna8-) ==
Re: 10 years have past since PowerGen 95
Jed Rothwell wrote: John Coviello wrote: My greatest fear vis a vis cold fusion is that it will die when the researchers all die. That's not going to happen Jed. If cold fusion is indeed a real and viable scientific discovery, the death of researchers will not end its development. Perhaps their deaths will slow cold fusion research down, but if something is real in nature it will eventually be developed by someone. The only way cold fusion will totally die is if it has been an artifact all along, gross experimental error, noise. How do you know that? People often say things like: Science always works in the end; valuable data is never truly lost. In other fields, valuable data and important techniques are lost all the time. I know of examples in computer programming, shipbuilding, metallurgy and many other fields. Programming techniques which were well known in the 1970s are unheard of today. I purchased a commercial program a couple years ago to accomplish one of the tasks at LENR-CANR.org. It took 10 minutes to execute. I wrote an old-fashioned Pascal program that ran in 20 seconds and did a better job. In his latest book, Kenneth Deffeyes wrote: the number of active exploration geologists in petroleum plus mining in the world is a few thousand, probably fewer than 10,000. There is a population limit below which an isolated community tends to become decadent, and lose information as time goes by rather than gaining it. I don't know what the number is but 10,000 sounds 'way less than it. There is, I believe, evidence that at least some small isolated island societies have gone extinct as a result of intellectual decadence eventually costing them the basic skills needed to survive (no references, sorry). Textbooks can hopefully make a difference here, but as you point out they don't capture on-the-job knowledge, which can be a major part of what is known in some disciplines. Almost all the students with a natural science and today are majoring in environmental studies or ecology. The problem involves more than just the colleges and universities. Most of us learned an enormous amount on the job from our older colleagues, skilled and experienced geologists. When those threads are broken, there is a permanent loss. Beyond Oil, p. 179 Why should experimental science be different from these other fields? - Jed
