Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Viscosity
They *must* use resonance in a solid state version. This is what had kept bothering me was the subtle hints of a solid state ORBO (realORBOllocks). I believe that using a cross-field interference alignment they can maximize the domain flip efficiency. H. There should be an optimum frequency for spinon depletion that could be determined. Or maybe that is not domain-related. You know that Sean denied Barkhausen effect played any part in his technology. However, Barkhausen domain flipping and renormalization is the "calculus" of magnetic viscosity. Regarding the Chladni Plate, here's a HUGE coincidence. My other hobby involves the Knights Templer (long before the DaVinci Code, BTW) and you can see how the mystery musical codes of Rosslyn Chapel are explained on the video on this site: http://www.tjmitchell.com/stuart/rosslyn.html (scroll down). The images are just those resonant images you referenced!!! Terry On 5/6/07, Esa Ruoho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: this seems very interesting! youve given me a lot of places to go into, and ive added Barkhausen and Rutherford onto the PESWiki timeline ( http://peswiki.com/index.php/Timeline ). now im looking at Harvard University pictures of Chladni Plates, and saw even an electromagnetic Chladni Plate -- what i wouldnt give to see videos of these: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/OscillationsWaves/BigChladniPlate/BigChladniPlate.html http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/OscillationsWaves/ChladniPlates/ChladniPlates.html waoohoo! do you reckon steorn will be also utilizing resonance in the tuning of their machine? On 06/05/07, Terry Blanton < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/6/07, Esa Ruoho < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > what about stochastic resonance then? > > Rutherford Berkhausen & Steorn. > > No, not the latest law firm; nor, a new wave band. However it *is* > helping me to understand what these Irish laddies are talking about. > > Rutherford essentially defined magnetic viscosity in his second paper. > Barkhausen fairly explained the cause and showed how domain flipping > causes magnetic noise. The propagation of domain flipping is the > cause of MV. Steorn has now found a way to take an advantage of the > propagation of domain flipping. > > At first I did not believe that you could build a solid state magnetic > energy source; but, I think I could bloody well do it with adequate > resources. > > Well done! > > Terry > > -- ∞
Re: [Vo]:The Ecliptic and Mass Extinctions
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 6 May 2007 02:41:17 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Further, the hypothesis doesn't give a reason the major >extinctions start about 600 My ago. I didn't think there was much life around to extinguish prior to 600 MY ago. (Or if there was, then probably mostly bacterial, and we wouldn't notice an extinction event anyway.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Viscosity
this seems very interesting! youve given me a lot of places to go into, and ive added Barkhausen and Rutherford onto the PESWiki timeline ( http://peswiki.com/index.php/Timeline ). now im looking at Harvard University pictures of Chladni Plates, and saw even an electromagnetic Chladni Plate -- what i wouldnt give to see videos of these: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/OscillationsWaves/BigChladniPlate/BigChladniPlate.html http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/OscillationsWaves/ChladniPlates/ChladniPlates.html waoohoo! do you reckon steorn will be also utilizing resonance in the tuning of their machine? On 06/05/07, Terry Blanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/6/07, Esa Ruoho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what about stochastic resonance then? Rutherford Berkhausen & Steorn. No, not the latest law firm; nor, a new wave band. However it *is* helping me to understand what these Irish laddies are talking about. Rutherford essentially defined magnetic viscosity in his second paper. Barkhausen fairly explained the cause and showed how domain flipping causes magnetic noise. The propagation of domain flipping is the cause of MV. Steorn has now found a way to take an advantage of the propagation of domain flipping. At first I did not believe that you could build a solid state magnetic energy source; but, I think I could bloody well do it with adequate resources. Well done! Terry -- ∞
Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Viscosity
On 5/6/07, Esa Ruoho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: what about stochastic resonance then? Rutherford Berkhausen & Steorn. No, not the latest law firm; nor, a new wave band. However it *is* helping me to understand what these Irish laddies are talking about. Rutherford essentially defined magnetic viscosity in his second paper. Barkhausen fairly explained the cause and showed how domain flipping causes magnetic noise. The propagation of domain flipping is the cause of MV. Steorn has now found a way to take an advantage of the propagation of domain flipping. At first I did not believe that you could build a solid state magnetic energy source; but, I think I could bloody well do it with adequate resources. Well done! Terry
[Vo]:Re: Fw: Re:The Ecliptic and Mass Extinctions
Michel Jullian wrote: But Michel, the fact that in crossing the galactic plane recently (in cosmological time), there has been no apparent increase in what could be considered 'danger' or hazardous debris impacting earth - doesn't that argue against your conclusion? I don't think so, crossing the galactic plane only increases the _probability_ of a collision, it doesn't make it a certainty. Also the asteroid impact which eradicated the dinosaurs 65 Myr ago did occur precisely at a galactic plane crossing: not the one 1Myr ago, nor the previous one 1+32=33 Myr ago, but the one before 33+32 = 65 Myr ago. You are assuming that the U/Pd dating system, or related radioactivity dating systems are accurate as to an exact prior date, instead of accurate only wrt periodicity. If these methods are accurate- as an absolute marker to the 65 Myr date, then this presents a problem for any strong version of the Medvedev hypothesis - and favors what your are saying. They may not be that accurate. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html In any case, whether it can explain all mass extinctions or not, and whether it is favored by galactic plane crossings or not, there is no arguing that asteroid impact is a real danger: it has occurred before and it will occur again. Yes - and I like your proposed solution except that it does have the secondary issues of a military use - should control of the system fall into the wrong hands (or wrong mainframes - shall we say ). Reminds me of a child trying to focus the sun through a magnifying glass onto an army of ants. Jones
[Vo]:Re:The Ecliptic and Mass Extinctions
Jones wrote: > But Michel, the fact that in crossing the galactic plane recently (in > cosmological time), there has been no apparent increase in what could be > considered 'danger' or hazardous debris impacting earth - doesn't that > argue against your conclusion? I don't think so, crossing the galactic plane only increases the _probability_ of a collision, it doesn't make it a certainty. Also the asteroid impact which eradicated the dinosaurs 65 Myr ago did occur precisely at a galactic plane crossing: not the one 1Myr ago, nor the previous one 1+32=33 Myr ago, but the one before 33+32 = 65 Myr ago. In any case, whether it can explain all mass extinctions or not, and whether it is favored by galactic plane crossings or not, there is no arguing that asteroid impact is a real danger: it has occurred before and it will occur again. The next time it wants to occur it would be nice to have a countermeasure ready, e.g. what I suggested in my previous post. My guess is that focussing the reflected sunlight beams from a swarm of space mirrors large enough for GW mitigation (i.e. able to reflect off 1% of incident sunlight, i.e. collectively of a total area of 0.01*Pi*(6.4E6)^2=1.3E12 m^2) would be quite enough to deviate a hefty asteroid from a collision course if it's detected early enough. Horace wrote: > I think most of the oscillation is due to the sun's galactic orbit. > We have a 200 My galactic orbital period, so, given no matter at all > in the galactic plane, we should be in the galactic plane every 100 My. This would be right if there was no matter in the GP: the circular orbit would cross the plane at two points. With the matter there is, the sun bobs up and down with a 64 Myr periodicity so it crosses the plane roughly 8 times per 250 Myr orbit. Michel - Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "vortex" Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 3:46 PM Subject: Re:The Ecliptic and Mass Extinctions > Michel Jullian wrote: > >> No Jones, the 62My period "vertical" oscillation superimposed on the >> "horizontal" circular orbit of the sun round the galactic center has nothing >> to do with the inclination of the solar system plane wrt the galactic plane. >> It is a purely gravitational effect due to the galactic plane being denser. >> The "real nemesis" is more likely to be the galactic plane itself, around >> which our solar system is more likely to undergo collisions. Such collisions >> explain why rotating clouds of matter always end up as planes BTW. > >> Actually I believe we are still in the danger zone presently, having crossed >> the plane only 1My ago or so. It seems to me this is in favor of using solar >> sail reflectors to mitigate global warming BTW: such reflectors could also >> be used occasionally to deviate from very far away any asteroids detected to >> be on collision course, using photon pressure as was discussed here some >> time ago. > > > But Michel, the fact that in crossing the galactic plane recently (in > cosmological time), there has been no apparent increase in what could be > considered 'danger' or hazardous debris impacting earth - doesn't that > argue against your conclusion? > > Also I think that the Menvedev idea might work with some variation of > Horace's 'nemesis cloud' idea in that we already have an Oort cloud > which can serve as a model, and both the cloud and the sun's radiance > would be affected by the "northern exposure" ... > > ... which BTW - and this is the most convincing detail of all to me in > the 'big picture' - as the so-called northernmost exposure out of the > Milky Way galactic plane puts the solar system facing directly towards > the "great attractor," which is probably the source of the most intense > cosmic rays ... plus one can assume (at least I can), since we are > strongly attracted to this feature in space - that it was probably the > very source from which our entire local group was expelled 13-15 billion > years ago - which - as it turns out, fits into the argument for a > succession of 'little bangs' (supercluster size) in a non-expanding but > pulsating universe - and not a single big bang in an expanding universe.. > > Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Ecliptic and Mass Extinctions
Horace Heffner wrote: The Northern exposure idea would require a full galactic N-S traversal (bobbing up and down) period, or about 130-200 M years, while the period between extinctions is often roughly half that. Hmmm ...Are you reading the same article I am? ... the complete cycle is said to be half your ~130 my assumption and occurs exactly 4 times in one complete galactic 250 year revolution - which is probably based on our Milky Way galaxy having two radial spiraling "arms," as do many observable galaxies. Menvedev sez: "We propose that the cycle may be caused by modulation of cosmic ray (CR) flux by the Solar system vertical oscillation (64 My period) in the galaxy, the galactic north-south anisotropy of CR production in the galactic halo/wind/termination shock (due to the galactic motion toward the Virgo cluster), and the shielding by galactic magnetic fields." The Virgo cluster would be in the vector of "great attractor". Plus a secondary problem would be in assuming that every complete period must result in an extinction event. There could well be two interacting cycles which are in play in this scenario - one is the ~62+ m.y. wobble, and the other would be this: what is going-on, at that time-frame, within the "great attractor" itself - i.e. causing it to spew out the high level of cosmic rays, which are the sine qua non - needed to disrupt the Oort/Nemesis cloud. On some of the cyclical "windowing" events (62-63 m.y. complete cycle) the "great attractor" itself may be rather calm (no extinction) while on other exposures, the "great attractor" is very active. It could have been relatively calm for an extended period prior to 600 m.y.. BTW the "fudge factor" which can and does make all of these dates line-up exactly is the fact that a cosmic ray barrage will alter the decay rates of the minerals which we routinely use to do the dating. The past extinction event is said to be 65 million years ago - BUT - if the decay rate of the minerals we use to make that determination, had been speeded-up by the radiation of the event itself - the "real date" would need to be pushed back. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mitigation of Climate Change IPCC SPM report just out
The only mention in the report of planetary engineering solutions is brief, and clearly unenthusiastic: "Geo-engineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere, or blocking sunlight by bringing material into the upper atmosphere, remain largely speculative and unproven, and with the risk of unknown side-effects. Reliable cost estimates for these options have not been published (medium agreement, limited evidence) [11.2]" Some of the reasons why the agreement on this statement was only "medium" can be found in this Guardian article: US answer to global warming: smoke and giant space mirrors http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,168,00.html#article_continue Michel - Original Message - From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 11:48 AM Subject: [Vo]:Mitigation of Climate Change IPCC SPM report just out 35 pages "Summary for Policy Makers" of the IPCC report on Mitigation of Climate Change finalized today in Bangkok has just been posted online: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf ... A. Introduction 1. The Working Group III contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) focuses on new literature on the scientific, technological, environmental, economic and social aspects of mitigation of climate change, published since the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) and the Special Reports on CO2 Capture and Storage (SRCCS) and on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System (SROC). The following summary is organised into five sections after this introduction: 1.. . Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission trends 2.. . Mitigation in the short and medium term, across different economic sectors (until 2030) 3.. . Mitigation in the long-term (beyond 2030) 4.. . Policies, measures and instruments to mitigate climate change 5.. . Sustainable development and climate change mitigation. References to the corresponding chapter sections are indicated at each paragraph in square brackets. An explanation of terms, acronyms and chemical symbols used in this SPM can be found in the glossary to the main report. ... -- Michel
[Vo]:Back to the future
Back in the 1920s, when diesel fuel was not yet as cheap as it would soon be, compression ignition engines were in a primitive stage, but even then advantageous - and the "Still" engine diesel hybrid was about to be applied to locomotive engines in the UK in order to use less fuel. The Still engine was a hybridized steam-diesel. Patents were filed in the early 1920s by an English company called Kitson. The Still engine had already enjoyed some success in large marine and grid-power applications in Europe. The basic principle was that of a 4-cycle diesel (compression ignition) engine, but with double acting pistons. One side of the pistons was the normal diesel, and the other side was enclosed with valves to be operated by steam pressure. The engine developed 28,000 ft-lbs of torque at low RPM so no transmission was needed. Steam could be raised using the diesel exhaust, or boosted using a separate oil burner (for startup). The engine was 40% Carnot efficient at a time when the competitive diesels were less than 25% and gasoline engines were 15%. Due to its complexity and new sources of cheap oil (Texas and California), the engine was not a commercial success. The efficient design was abandoned after the great depression when fuel dropped to 2 cents per gallon. But not forgotten, thanks to the elephantine memory of the www. What could this basic steam-hybridized design do for us today, one wonders? BMW has recently taken another approach to a steam-gasoline hybrid, as has the Crower 6-cycle, but perhaps there is yet a better scheme "out there" waiting to be found for use in what can be best described as a double-double hybrid. This would be a back-to-the-future scheme using the 'Still principle' combined with the Prius-style electric drive and batteries. Actually the best design is probably none of the above, but something closer to the old Jumo diesel. This opposed piston (valveless!) design is said to be the most efficient (non hybrid) ICE ever produced - even without the benefit of steam, and wow, it is over 60 years young: http://www.geocities.com/hjunkers/ju_jumo207_a1.htm Wonder if a small variety of the Jumo style engine (one liter) could be hybridized with steam? ... say by alternating oil and steam injection on every other stroke. That would make the 2-cycle into ?? (not a 4-cycle, but a double-2-cycle). This avoids the problem of needing steam valving and gigantic cylinders needed for double sided pistons. Add the Prius-type hybrid drive train and you have the double-double hybrid. Maybe something along these lines will become the answer to that idiomatic question of how 2 and 2 does not equal 4 ... but instead it is something even better (and back-to-the-future, more or less). Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Ecliptic and Mass Extinctions
On May 6, 2007, at 3:15 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: No Jones, the 62My period "vertical" oscillation superimposed on the "horizontal" circular orbit of the sun round the galactic center has nothing to do with the inclination of the solar system plane wrt the galactic plane. It is a purely gravitational effect due to the galactic plane being denser. The "real nemesis" is more likely to be the galactic plane itself, around which our solar system is more likely to undergo collisions. Such collisions explain why rotating clouds of matter always end up as planes BTW. I think most of the oscillation is due to the sun's galactic orbit. We have a 200 My galactic orbital period, so, given no matter at all in the galactic plane, we should be in the galactic plane every 100 My. Actually I believe we are still in the danger zone presently, having crossed the plane only 1My ago or so. It seems to me this is in favor of using solar sail reflectors to mitigate global warming BTW: such reflectors could also be used occasionally to deviate from very far away any asteroids detected to be on collision course, using photon pressure as was discussed here some time ago. It seems to me likely we are interacting with something that bobs back and forth just like we do. Once two bodies in orbit closely interact it is as if they were at one time a single body, and thus they tend to interact more frequently and closely in the future (e.g the Shoemaker-Levy Comets and Jupiter.) This is a reason why hitting a golf ball off the space station may not have been a great idea! On May 6, 2007, at 5:46 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Also I think that the Menvedev idea might work with some variation of Horace's 'nemesis cloud' idea in that we already have an Oort cloud which can serve as a model, and both the cloud and the sun's radiance would be affected by the "northern exposure" ... The Oort cloud might indeed be the secondary source of the swarm. A single large mass gravitationally linked to the sun, but having a differing galactic orbit, will pass the sun roughly twice per galactic orbital bobbing up and down period, i.e. about every 70-100 MY or so. A very roughly "close" passing would be sufficient to disrupt the Oort cloud, placing many objects in orbits of extreme eccentricity, and send them eventually pouring down toward the sun. However, it could take a fairly random period of time for the few larger Oort objects so disrupted to actually collide with the sun. At 9:13 PM 3/20/4, Horace Heffner wrote: It has been speculated at various times that a cloud or swarm of asteroids and/or comets exists which tends to all return at once. Such a swarm could be created by various means. One is that a heavy but fairly dark object, a dark or small star might periodically traverse or might have at some time traversed our neighborhood and disrupted the Ort cloud, sending numerous bodies sunward at the same time. ... On May 6, 2007, at 5:46 AM, Jones Beene wrote: ... which BTW - and this is the most convincing detail of all to me in the 'big picture' - as the so-called northernmost exposure out of the Milky Way galactic plane puts the solar system facing directly towards the "great attractor," which is probably the source of the most intense cosmic rays ... plus one can assume (at least I can), since we are strongly attracted to this feature in space - that it was probably the very source from which our entire local group was expelled 13-15 billion years ago - which - as it turns out, fits into the argument for a succession of 'little bangs' (supercluster size) in a non-expanding but pulsating universe - and not a single big bang in an expanding universe.. The Norther exposure idea would require a full galactic N-S traversal (bobbing up and down) period, or about 130-200 M years, while the period between extinctions is often roughly half that. Age Period Interval Cambrian 570-500 70 * Ordovician 500-430 70 * Silurian 430-395 35 Devonian 395-345 50 * Carboniferous 345-280 65 Permian 280-225 55 * Triassic 225-195 30 * Jurassic 195-136 56 Cretaceous 136-65 71 * Tertiary 65-present 65 * general agreement on extinction Fig. 1 - Ages, Periods, and Interval lengths (My) Age Start Interval = === Cambrian 570 70 Ordovician 500 105 Devonian 395 115 Permian 280 55 Triassic 225 89 Cretaceous 136 136 Fig. 2 - Extinctions Ages and Intervals (My) It certainly is worrisome that it's been 136 My since the last go- round! Cognitive dissonance tells me we missed it this time! 8^)
Re: [Vo]:Re:The Ecliptic and Mass Extinctions
On 5/6/07, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But Michel, the fact that in crossing the galactic plane recently (in cosmological time), there has been no apparent increase in what could be considered 'danger' or hazardous debris impacting earth - doesn't that argue against your conclusion? No material collisions; but, don't forget Shirley Kemp's PHOTON BELT: http://www.salemctr.com/photon/center5b.html whose peak is only half a decade away! Terry
[Vo]:Re:The Ecliptic and Mass Extinctions
Michel Jullian wrote: No Jones, the 62My period "vertical" oscillation superimposed on the "horizontal" circular orbit of the sun round the galactic center has nothing to do with the inclination of the solar system plane wrt the galactic plane. It is a purely gravitational effect due to the galactic plane being denser. The "real nemesis" is more likely to be the galactic plane itself, around which our solar system is more likely to undergo collisions. Such collisions explain why rotating clouds of matter always end up as planes BTW. Actually I believe we are still in the danger zone presently, having crossed the plane only 1My ago or so. It seems to me this is in favor of using solar sail reflectors to mitigate global warming BTW: such reflectors could also be used occasionally to deviate from very far away any asteroids detected to be on collision course, using photon pressure as was discussed here some time ago. But Michel, the fact that in crossing the galactic plane recently (in cosmological time), there has been no apparent increase in what could be considered 'danger' or hazardous debris impacting earth - doesn't that argue against your conclusion? Also I think that the Menvedev idea might work with some variation of Horace's 'nemesis cloud' idea in that we already have an Oort cloud which can serve as a model, and both the cloud and the sun's radiance would be affected by the "northern exposure" ... ... which BTW - and this is the most convincing detail of all to me in the 'big picture' - as the so-called northernmost exposure out of the Milky Way galactic plane puts the solar system facing directly towards the "great attractor," which is probably the source of the most intense cosmic rays ... plus one can assume (at least I can), since we are strongly attracted to this feature in space - that it was probably the very source from which our entire local group was expelled 13-15 billion years ago - which - as it turns out, fits into the argument for a succession of 'little bangs' (supercluster size) in a non-expanding but pulsating universe - and not a single big bang in an expanding universe.. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Ecliptic and Mass Extinctions
> As it turns out the ecliptic may be the 'real nemesis,' responsible for > past mass extinctions on earth. > > The ecliptic plane is canted wrt the galactic plane, and the result is > that the sun traces what is in effect a circumferential sine wave, such > that it swings sequentially closer, and then furhter away from the the > MW plane No Jones, the 62My period "vertical" oscillation superimposed on the "horizontal" circular orbit of the sun round the galactic center has nothing to do with the inclination of the solar system plane wrt the galactic plane. It is a purely gravitational effect due to the galactic plane being denser. The "real nemesis" is more likely to be the galactic plane itself, around which our solar system is more likely to undergo collisions. Such collisions explain why rotating clouds of matter always end up as planes BTW. Actually I believe we are still in the danger zone presently, having crossed the plane only 1My ago or so. It seems to me this is in favor of using solar sail reflectors to mitigate global warming BTW: such reflectors could also be used occasionally to deviate from very far away any asteroids detected to be on collision course, using photon pressure as was discussed here some time ago. Michel - Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "vortex" Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 5:04 AM Subject: [Vo]:The Ecliptic and Mass Extinctions > Once upon a time ... it was believed that our sun was paired with a > hypothetical companion star, 'Nemesis' which might orbit at a distance > of a light year or so. Nemesis was introduced to explain an apparent > periodicity in the occurrence of mass extinctions of around 65 million > years. In the past 26 years of intense searching, Nemesis was never > found - and it should be relatively easy to find if it were there. In > the mean time, we have discovered dozens of planets orbiting stars at > similar distances, for instance. This companion star, if it existed, > would need to be much larger than any planet. ERGO, it is most likely > that no such companion star exists. > > Reference was recently made on Vo to the 'ecliptic,' which is the > apparent path that the Sun traces out along the sky, and the imaginary > disk of the ecliptic which is enclosed within the larger Milky Way disk. > As it turns out the ecliptic may be the 'real nemesis,' responsible for > past mass extinctions on earth. > > The ecliptic plane is canted wrt the galactic plane, and the result is > that the sun traces what is in effect a circumferential sine wave, such > that it swings sequentially closer, and then furhter away from the the > MW plane and the protection (from extremely strong comic rays) which is > afforded within the galactic plane, but not when we swing outside pf it. > > The cycle of this swing is around 63 million years, which is a close fit > with the cycle of mass extinctions. > > There is an short article in 'Science News' two weeks ago: > > http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070421/fob3ref.asp > > "Northern Exposure: The inhospitable side of the galaxy?" by Davide > Castelvecchi > > Executive Summary: Our solar system's periodic motion from one side of > the galaxy to the other could expose life on Earth to massive amounts of > cosmic rays and cause recurring, catastrophic mass extinctions. > > References: > > Medvedev, M.V., and A.L. Melott. In press. Do extragalactic cosmic rays > induce cycles in fossil diversity? Astrophysical Journal Abstract and > preprint available at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602092. > > Rohde, R.A., and R.A. Muller 2005. Cycles in fossil diversity. Nature > 434(March 10):208-210. Abstract available at > http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature03339. > > Further Readings: > > Monastersky, R. 1997. The big chill. Science News 152(Oct. 4):220-222. > Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/ > data/1997/152-14/15214-15.pdf. > >
Re: [Vo]:They Obviously Believe in UCaps
thomas malloy wrote: Wesley Bruce wrote: snip But the structure is vitrified ceramic not the dielectric. Its a very hard brick with no voids, the dielectrics break down does not matter. Its also in a solid box that negates any easy penetration. I've corresponded with Dick Weir the principle of EEstor. Its wrapped up very well and the switching means that if one cap goes its isolated to that cap. Let's do a thought experiment here and we'll see. It would seem to me that the mechanical stresses would eventually weaken the dielectric. Correct only if the structure is not prestressed to take the cycling. Sensors in the matertial could detect an log the stress. There are als selfhealing matterials now that cycle in the reverse to the stress. If a fuel tank has the same energy does they mean its as dangerous as dynamite? IMHO, this is a nonsequetor. The energy in a Mars bar or a gas tank is potential, it lacks the other half, O2, and the flame front of a fuel O2 reaction is slow. And the electrostatic equivilent of controling O2 is controling the earth. Or controled discharge of the stressed section of the block into the load. Use the most stressed section first. No because the reaction has other variables: flame speed and oxygen supply in the case of fuels. In the case of EEstor caps its the fracture resistance of the ceramic, the percentage of the caps broken in a breach and whether there is a earth available and the temperature of any arc relative to thermal properties of adjacent materials. It would seem to me that the entire structure would degrade over time with the mechanical stresses of charging - discharging and road vibration. When a spot breaks down there will be a big stress on the surrounding structure. The big factor, IMHO, is the instantaneous release of electrical energy. 3.5 KV is some potent stuff. IMHO, It depends on whether the rest of the energy is a package will flow into this fault. Reportedly their lab samples have been cycled thousands of times. No reported Booms. The things will be subjected to a destructive testing. Yes I would like to be behind some balistic plastic while watching the test but it should be fun to see. Military people are in the Eestor loop. Their tests of field durability include shotting thing to see if the go boom. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:The Ecliptic and Mass Extinctions
On May 5, 2007, at 7:04 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Once upon a time ... it was believed that our sun was paired with a hypothetical companion star, 'Nemesis' which might orbit at a distance of a light year or so. Nemesis was introduced to explain an apparent periodicity in the occurrence of mass extinctions of around 65 million years. In the past 26 years of intense searching, Nemesis was never found - and it should be relatively easy to find if it were there. In the mean time, we have discovered dozens of planets orbiting stars at similar distances, for instance. This companion star, if it existed, would need to be much larger than any planet. ERGO, it is most likely that no such companion star exists. Reference was recently made on Vo to the 'ecliptic,' which is the apparent path that the Sun traces out along the sky, and the imaginary disk of the ecliptic which is enclosed within the larger Milky Way disk. As it turns out the ecliptic may be the 'real nemesis,' responsible for past mass extinctions on earth. The ecliptic plane is canted wrt the galactic plane, and the result is that the sun traces what is in effect a circumferential sine wave, such that it swings sequentially closer, and then furhter away from the the MW plane and the protection (from extremely strong comic rays) which is afforded within the galactic plane, but not when we swing outside pf it. It appears you are confusing the ecliptic, which is the plane that includes the earth's orbit around the sun (and thus the apparent annual path of the sun against the stars), and the solar system's glactic orbit, i.e. the path of the sun about the galactic center. The cycle of this swing is around 63 million years, which is a close fit with the cycle of mass extinctions. The "fit" is not all that close, except statistically. See the data I present at: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Nemesis.pdf It seems to me the evidence is more for gravitation entanglement with a nemesis cloud. There is an short article in 'Science News' two weeks ago: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070421/fob3ref.asp "Northern Exposure: The inhospitable side of the galaxy?" by Davide Castelvecchi Executive Summary: Our solar system's periodic motion from one side of the galaxy to the other could expose life on Earth to massive amounts of cosmic rays and cause recurring, catastrophic mass extinctions. References: Medvedev, M.V., and A.L. Melott. In press. Do extragalactic cosmic rays induce cycles in fossil diversity? Astrophysical Journal Abstract and preprint available at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/ 0602092. This article gives no quantitative analysis of the effect of cosmic rays on albedo - a very long stretch of the imagination. I think it is more likely the effect is the other way around, a large solar anomaly plus meteor hits strip the earth of cosmic ray and UV protection. Further, the hypothesis doesn't give a reason the major extinctions start about 600 My ago. Again, a gravitational entanglement event 600 MY ago, to me, provides a better explanation. In addition, there have been correlations of some of the extinctions with meteor hits, which are sufficient to explain the extinctions. This is coincidence? I think not. There are extinctions for which no meteor craters of sufficient size have been found. What is not commonly realized, and what my 2004 Nemesis article brings to the table, is the notion that it may not be the earth hits that are most important, but rather solar meteor hits, which are much more likely, and vastly more energetic events. Sun spots affect the upper atmosphere. The effects on the atmosphere and earth environment of huge sun spots resulting from solar meteor hits, and the huge increase of solar output resulting from large volumes of solar meteor hits, to me, provide a much more plausible explanation for all the data, especially the *lack* of extinctions prior to 600 My ago. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Viscosity
what about stochastic resonance then? On 05/05/07, Terry Blanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is it conceivable that Barkhausen noise could provide a source of quantum energy? Terry On 5/5/07, Terry Blanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sean McCarthy dropped this term again today: > > http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=57711&page=1#Item_17 > > http://snipurl.com/1jgm1 > > about how his technology works. Isn't this the same as hysteresis? > > Terry > > -- ∞
