Re: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone
I built a trap version, and spent time looking at several demonstrated and proposed trap configurations (along with a host of testimonials from users). In the end, building a magnetic trap was the most satisfying route for me. The material that it collected was quite interesting, for a qualitative point of view. THe effect was more minimal that I would have wanted, which I felt stemmed from design - but it was 'attractive'. It has a very penetrating feeling to the skin that was a preferable experience. I would say that oral consumption of the liquid offered not much greater effect. Like I said, in the end I felt that the design itself was massively inefficient; and as well I didn't like the concept of taking lots of 'good' water and stripping the ORMEs from it for my own benefit - then dumping it back into the environment. Conceptually, it was a kind of sewage - but one that I didn't know how to 'compost' it so that nature would re-imbue it with ORMEs. Barring a vortex-based magnetic / mechanical separation design, the chemistry and ozonation methods are far more attractive to me. Zak On Mar 17, 2007, at 7:51 PM, thomas malloy wrote: Zachary Jones wrote: Funny that ORMUS comes up here - a nice emergence. I worked with Barry a while ago; even pitched the ozonation tech he is connected with at a DOE shindig in 2001. I have a giant poster session in a closet somewheres. Seems like an age ago. Interesting post Zachary. I have posted Barry's website on this list in the past. He was doing an emailing list. There were some people locally who had purchased his traps and were collecting the material in question, ORMES. I haven't heard from him, or them lately, are the traps still available? I assume that you've purchased one of the traps? OTOH, I know what happens when you assume. Did you collect any of the ORMES material? Did you test it? Did you ingest it? Did it affect your health? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http:// www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone
On Mar 17, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Well - the Ormus stuff and David Hudson, in particular, have been mentioned many times in the (far) past on vortex. Some of that Yea, I vaguely remember. A little secret; I transitioned to Vortex-L from Skeptics-L (was that what it was called?) around 1995. I thinks that about when it got going. I keep up intermittently. The exciton changes everything, and together with QM and the quasi- BEC (i.e. RTT BEC or room temperature transitory Bose Einstein Condensate) may end up validating parts of the Ormus concept - (and parts of LENR as well) who knows? I rarely am on the deep edge of particle physics, so thanks for these new leads. BTW - the Wiki entry on this subject (exciton) is woefully inadequate and misses much of the latest RD which is largely being performed by such heavyweights as Intel, AMD and IBM-Almaden but with little in the way of published results. If not for my personal proximity to this area and having an associates who is at least tangentially involved with this RD, it would be largely hidden from view. I'd love to hear a story or two, if you would / can. It'd be a great kick-start to more digging. Did you hear about the recent assert of a 'new state of matter'? http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/ns-hrf031407.php I talks about entangled electron fractional-spins. It's fun for me, because in my ignorant ideating ~1yr ago it occurred to me that we may be about to realize a 5th state of matter (5th world, to quote the indigenous) that would be manifest of synchronization / entanglement. I wondered if ORME stuff may be related to this 'new' state of matter, but my models aren't sufficient yet. Zak
Re: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone
Zac wrote.. Did you hear about the recent assert of a 'new state of matter'? http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/ns-hrf031407.php Howdy Zac, My what big eyes you got, Granma as Little Red Riding Hood said to the big bad wolf. The people pursuing this theory are parallel but not on track with what some scientists describe as a 5th state of matter for the simple reason that a 5th state does not exists except in the imaginary. Again, pursuit of such a synthesis of matter can only be done with a new form of synthetic( imaginary) math to describe the change in state one is imagining. Is the pursuit useful? Yes! and extremely challenging. Keep your eyes on the MS Q Team at UC Santa Barbara because they have their head screwed on straight. One may conjecture that the end product may come out of the end of the pipe opposite to the direction of flow..hmmm. Which would answer a perplexing question of how the direction of flow within a water vortex can be bi-directional while exiting down a drain. Last year we tested a high speed water vortex inducer that produced a near perfect cylinder shaped vortex. This shape differs from a parabolic tornado shape we are all familar with. The cylinder shape has an eyewall like a hurricane. This cylinder shape permits a better examination of free electrons and a host of rabbit holes one can travel and become mis-directed. Richard
Re: [Vo]: Supermag WTF?
Recruiting from a hotmail address?!? Terry On 3/17/07, Esa Ruoho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 350 Engineers Wanted for SuperMag Production (http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=222663) - The company is now seeking a team of 350 electrical engineers from around the world to join its production team for the SuperMag electrical generator, to contact the company and to present their résumés in anticipation of a positive independent evaluation of the technology. They will also be seeking international marketers and financiers to take this technology to the international markets. (Market Wire; Mar. 5, 2007) On 19/01/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/15/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My guess is pump/dump. The stock has gone from $0.05 to $0.65 in a few months. SVET is now trading at $1.75, up $1.10 since this report. Terry
Re: [Vo]: honey bee story
On 3/18/07, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking for ideas on measuring changes in the empty hives or carcases which would account for the lack of scavenging. The missing bee might bee the result of the rapidly changing magnetic field of the earth. It would also explain odd behavior in migratory birds. Terry
Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
On 3/18/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the same book he also illustrated what I was saying yesterday BTW, the fact that a good scientist always doubts :)) Yes, but this whole issue has arisen because you French are so bloody anal about language. I have a contract administrator who is French and she is excellent in what she does. She speaks perfect english and will enter into heated arguments about some fine aspect of her second language. Indeed, she is usually correct in her argument; but, in the process, she alienates herself from her coworkers. She comes off as smug and aristrocratic. Sometimes it's better to let us wallow in our ignorant bliss. Terry
[Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
You can call me smug if it pleases you but language has nothing to do with this, J'ai électrolysé du palladium would be just as silly as I have electrolyzed palladium :) Michel - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 2:19 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack On 3/18/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the same book he also illustrated what I was saying yesterday BTW, the fact that a good scientist always doubts :)) Yes, but this whole issue has arisen because you French are so bloody anal about language. I have a contract administrator who is French and she is excellent in what she does. She speaks perfect english and will enter into heated arguments about some fine aspect of her second language. Indeed, she is usually correct in her argument; but, in the process, she alienates herself from her coworkers. She comes off as smug and aristrocratic. Sometimes it's better to let us wallow in our ignorant bliss. Terry
Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
The issue of importance on Michel's mind is whether the word electrolysis is being used correctly. He and I agree that the word describes initiation of a chemical reaction by passage of current. Thus, H2O can be electrolyzed. In fact, palladium can also be electrolyzed because it is chemically changed by passing current trough it in an electrolytic cell, something Faraday did not know. The palladium reacts to form PdD and it dissolves in the solution. Both reactions are consistent with chemical reactions being initiated by flowing current. Therefore, it is correct to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. The problem with Michel's approach is that he is unwilling to see beyond the conventional and limited understanding of electrolysis while maintaining that only he is correct in how the word is used. Ed Terry Blanton wrote: On 3/18/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the same book he also illustrated what I was saying yesterday BTW, the fact that a good scientist always doubts :)) Yes, but this whole issue has arisen because you French are so bloody anal about language. I have a contract administrator who is French and she is excellent in what she does. She speaks perfect english and will enter into heated arguments about some fine aspect of her second language. Indeed, she is usually correct in her argument; but, in the process, she alienates herself from her coworkers. She comes off as smug and aristrocratic. Sometimes it's better to let us wallow in our ignorant bliss. Terry
[Vo]: PQP2 was: Di-Ozone
Zachary Jones wrote: Did you hear about the recent assert of a 'new state of matter'? http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/ns-hrf031407.php From the article: In the experiment, electrons moving in the interface between two semiconductors behaved as though they were made up of particles with only a fraction of the electron’s charge. This so-called fractional quantum hall effect (FQHE) suggested that electrons may not be elementary particles after all. However, it soon became clear that electrons under certain conditions can congregate in a way that gives them the illusion of having fractional charge – an explanation that earned Laughlin, Horst Störmer and Daniel Tsui [L.S.T.] the Nobel prize [in 1998] Funny, I was reading this just after contemplating a few of the recent postings to the hydrino forum, and realizing that Mills Theory has even more serious problems than most realize; even if he is mostly correct on the experimental evidence. Mills' CQM is dead, but the hydrino lives - that kind of thing. Except now the verdict will read CQM is dead, but PQP2 lives... read on. The thought occurred that L.S.T. quasi-particle might offer Mills, or his reinterpreter, a way to salvage everything, as this entity answers two issues elegantly. Mills is of course too vain to ever change his views, and HSG is now moving far away from neutrality, ergo vortex is the only forum where alterations of Mills' theoretical views, but acceptance of BGSH (below ground state hydrogen) is openly permitted and can be argued without moderator interference. Actually a growing number of Vo's have, by now, been convinced of the obvious: that LENR is probably (in at least some cases) predicated on deuterium within a metal-matrix first going into the BGS transitory condition. I suspect the first two levels of Millsian shrinkage are transitory (perhaps up to even 5 levels, before stability is reached). The two open issues answered elegantly are: the source of energy, and the ability to have a stable (uncharged !!) Hydrino hydride, that is BGSH or shrinkage 6 which is essentially uncharged. I believe the solar derived hydrino hydride (especially if neutral), is the species which arrives on earth in the solar wind as a Hy bound tightly with two quasi-particles, and is found in rainwater in ppm quantities and in the oceans in ppb quantities). This is the entity which provides many water anomalies. This also revives Robin's open question about the connection between mass and charge wrt the hydrino. I suspect that - just as the photon has effective mass, we will soon have proof that in the same understanding charge also has this same kind of effective mass -- whether or not that charge-mass is measurable now or not. Instrumentation will improve soon. On HSG it was argued by Eugene Wagner: The root mean square computation is inconsistent with the fundamental classical law of the preservation of angular momentum. Plus, Mills computes it in a second way which is equally incorrect. See HSG #10337, January 6, 2006. That, and the fact that the vector sum must be less than the scalar sum (which yields hbar) suggests that the orbitsphere model comes up short in angular momentum. But it can be fixed. I suggest postulating an additional intrinsic angular momentum to make up the deficit. History has shown that that is a perfectly acceptable approach: SQM does so for spin. END of Wagner's message. Prediction: intrinsic angular momentum is itself related to charge somehow, and also to the LST quasi-particle, and all will be resolved once these three issues are integrated [the three are intrinsic angular momentum, charge, and the quasi-particle and the resolution will explain an apparently chargeless component of the solar wind which has mass near 1GeV, and looks more like a stable neutron than anything else. That particle is the solar-derived non-Millsian hydrino-hydride. It should be renamed, and one choice for this revision of the Mills hydrino is PQP2 (proton-quasi-particle sub2) Jones
[Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
- Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack The issue of importance on Michel's mind is whether the word electrolysis is being used correctly. I must be inhabited by Faraday's ghost ;-) He and I agree that the word describes initiation of a chemical reaction by passage of current. Yes but not any reaction, check the definition, a reaction of decomposition. Decomposition of course is separation of a composed body into the elements it is composed of, e.g. D2O - D2 + 0.5 O2 Thus, H2O can be electrolyzed. In fact, palladium can also be electrolyzed because it is chemically changed by passing current trough it in an electrolytic cell, something Faraday did not know. The palladium reacts to form PdD and it dissolves in the solution. Therefore it is not decomposed. Palladium cannot be decomposed BTW, as you know it is an element, not a composed body. Both reactions are consistent with chemical reactions being initiated by flowing current. Therefore, it is correct to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. It would only be correct if it was decomposed into constituting elements, which even if it was (it isn't because it can't as I said) would be of course a minor effect compared to the main decomposition that takes place, that of D2O, which would make your description about as accurate as Dissolution of a mug to describe an experiment where you dissolve sugar in your coffee. The problem with Michel's approach is that he is unwilling to see beyond the conventional and limited understanding of electrolysis while maintaining that only he is correct in how the word is used. Not just me, me and all dictionaries and textbooks which say that electrolysis is electrochemical decomposition. Does this put an end to the controversy? Michel Ed Terry Blanton wrote: On 3/18/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the same book he also illustrated what I was saying yesterday BTW, the fact that a good scientist always doubts :)) Yes, but this whole issue has arisen because you French are so bloody anal about language. I have a contract administrator who is French and she is excellent in what she does. She speaks perfect english and will enter into heated arguments about some fine aspect of her second language. Indeed, she is usually correct in her argument; but, in the process, she alienates herself from her coworkers. She comes off as smug and aristrocratic. Sometimes it's better to let us wallow in our ignorant bliss. Terry
Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack The issue of importance on Michel's mind is whether the word electrolysis is being used correctly. I must be inhabited by Faraday's ghost ;-) He and I agree that the word describes initiation of a chemical reaction by passage of current. Yes but not any reaction, check the definition, a reaction of decomposition. Decomposition of course is separation of a composed body into the elements it is composed of, e.g. D2O - D2 + 0.5 O2 No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also considered electrolysis. Thus, H2O can be electrolyzed. In fact, palladium can also be electrolyzed because it is chemically changed by passing current trough it in an electrolytic cell, something Faraday did not know. The palladium reacts to form PdD and it dissolves in the solution. Therefore it is not decomposed. Palladium cannot be decomposed BTW, as you know it is an element, not a composed body. Palladium is converted from a metal to an ion. D2O is converted from an ion to neutral elements. The issue is only the direction of the reaction. Both reactions are consistent with chemical reactions being initiated by flowing current. Therefore, it is correct to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. It would only be correct if it was decomposed into constituting elements, which even if it was (it isn't because it can't as I said) would be of course a minor effect compared to the main decomposition that takes place, that of D2O, which would make your description about as accurate as Dissolution of a mug to describe an experiment where you dissolve sugar in your coffee. The problem with Michel's approach is that he is unwilling to see beyond the conventional and limited understanding of electrolysis while maintaining that only he is correct in how the word is used. Not just me, me and all dictionaries and textbooks which say that electrolysis is electrochemical decomposition. I suggest the dictionaries are not up to date or at least not complete. Does this put an end to the controversy? I hope so. Ed Michel Ed Terry Blanton wrote: On 3/18/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the same book he also illustrated what I was saying yesterday BTW, the fact that a good scientist always doubts :)) Yes, but this whole issue has arisen because you French are so bloody anal about language. I have a contract administrator who is French and she is excellent in what she does. She speaks perfect english and will enter into heated arguments about some fine aspect of her second language. Indeed, she is usually correct in her argument; but, in the process, she alienates herself from her coworkers. She comes off as smug and aristrocratic. Sometimes it's better to let us wallow in our ignorant bliss. Terry
Re: [Vo]: PQP2 was: Di-Ozone
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:45:55 -0700: Hi, [snip] That, and the fact that the vector sum must be less than the scalar sum (which yields hbar) suggests that the orbitsphere model comes up short in angular momentum. But it can be fixed. I suggest postulating an additional intrinsic angular momentum to make up the deficit. History has shown that that is a perfectly acceptable approach: SQM does so for spin. This is not necessary. Shrinkage occurs as part of a reaction in which at least three particles participate:- The original hydrogen atom (or hydrino), the catalyst atom, and the electron ionized from the catalyst atom. By varying the angle at which the electron is ejected, any amount of change in angular momentum can be accommodated. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: PQP2 was: Di-Ozone
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:45:55 -0700: Hi, [snip] Prediction: intrinsic angular momentum is itself related to charge somehow, and also to the LST quasi-particle, and all will be resolved once these three issues are integrated [the three are intrinsic angular momentum, charge, and the quasi-particle and the resolution will explain an apparently chargeless component of the solar wind which has mass near 1GeV, and looks more like a stable neutron than anything else. That particle is the solar-derived non-Millsian hydrino-hydride. Hydrino-hydride carries a negative charge. It should be renamed, and one choice for this revision of the Mills hydrino is PQP2 (proton-quasi-particle sub2) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
[Vo]: Re: PQP2 was: Di-Ozone
Robin Prediction: intrinsic angular momentum is itself related to charge somehow, and also to the LST quasi-particle, and all will be resolved once these three issues are integrated [the three are intrinsic angular momentum, charge, and the quasi-particle and the resolution will explain an apparently chargeless component of the solar wind which has mass near 1GeV, and looks more like a stable neutron than anything else. That particle is the solar-derived non-Millsian hydrino-hydride. RvS: Hydrino-hydride carries a negative charge. Hello. Did you get caught in the Oz vortex? or was the wording not sufficiently lucid (the likely problem) g This particle - the solar-derived non-Millsian hydrino-hydride is neutral. The particle in question (revised particle from Mills' erroneous assumption) is the PQP2 (proton-quasi-particle sub2) which is a solar-derived non-Millsian hydrino-hydride in this hypothesis. It is hypothetical, like the (erroneous) Hydrino hydride, and consists of a proton strongly bound to two quasi-particle-electrons, of the L.S.T. variety, and has zero overall charge, since the fractional negative (expressed) charges of the two QPs are balanced by the proton's positive. That is what makes it a non-Millsian hydrino-hydride. It is neutral. What I am saying (hypothesizing), in effect, is that Mills got it wrong - at least insofar as the solar (natural) variety of this species is concerned. Perhaps he knows of an earthly manifestation which is charged negatively, but there is no evidence of that in any published experiment AFIK. For the moment, at least, this lack of evidence for a charged variety allows me to affirm with some smugness, that he got it wrong. J.
Re: [Vo]: Re: PQP2 was: Di-Ozone
On 3/18/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the moment, at least, this lack of evidence for a charged variety allows me to affirm with some smugness, that he got it wrong. smugness noun an excessive feeling of self-satisfaction Winter is almost over. It's time to get out more. T
