date:20130121

Eric, the theory as you describe it is quite unusual.   I understand energy 
release of this nature as being due to an isomer transition within the nucleus. 
 Is that what is being proposed?  We should review the charts and see if there 
are know isomers of nickel which might be contributing to the energy source.  
If none are known to science so far, perhaps Piantellii and his partners have 
found a new one.


Dave  



-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 3:09 am
Subject: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent


I am reading through Piantelli, Bergomi and Tiziano's 2013 EP2368252B1 patent 
[1], trying to understand the basic mechanism that is thought to be the source 
of the heat they're generating.  Here I will attempt to reproduce their 
description in my own words -- I do not know anything about its plausibility 
and am just trying to understand what they're saying.  I have attempted this 
elsewhere [2], but now that I read through the new patent it occurs to me that 
I probably misunderstood Piantelli in my previous attempt.


As an initial comment, Piantelli et al. refer to nuclear reactions several 
times in the 2013 patent, but I gather that these are not intended to be fusion 
reactions for the most part, but rather a reorganization of the nucleons in the 
substrate nuclei (primarily nickel) to a lower energy level.  They accomplish 
this through the catalytic action of hydrogen.  There are two important 
activation energies; the first (1) involves raising the temperature of the 
substrate above a critical level and the second (2) involves introducing a 
shock of some kind to the system that raises the energy in specific regions to 
an even higher level.


If I have understood the authors, the system and mechanism can be described 
like this:


You need clusters of transition metal atoms of certain sizes involving magic 
numbers above a minimum count and and below a maximum one, where the metal 
atoms are arranged in a regular crystalline pattern (fcc, bcc, hexagonal).  The 
number and atom count of the clusters determines the potential power output. 
These clusters of transition metal atoms are then exposed to hydrogen, which 
adsorbs onto the surface layers. If the substrate is heated sufficiently, 
through nonlinear and aharmonic interactions there will be phonons whose energy 
exceeds the first critical threshold (1) mentioned above.  When this happens, 
molecular hydrogen will dissociate and, through some unspecified means, H- ions 
will be created, where the H presumably take on valence electrons in the 
transition metal cluster.


At this point things won't go any further unless a second energy threshold (2) 
is exceeded through one of a large number of means (mechanical shock, electric 
current, x-rays, etc.).  If one of these triggers is supplied, the H- ion 
formed in the previous steps will, through unspecified means, replace an 
electron in the metal atom.  At this point Piantelli et al. claim that the 
Pauli exclusion principle and the Heisenberg uncertain principle will work 
together to force the negative H- ion, which is thousands of times heavier than 
an electron, into an inner shell of the transition metal atom, forming a 
complex atom that combines the transition metal atom with an orbiting H- ion, 
in a manner similar to f/H catalysis.  When this happens there will be x-rays 
and Augur electrons.  At this range the H- ion will be very close to the 
transition metal nucleus, and the size of the H- ion and its proximity to the 
metal nucleus will force a reorganization of the metal nucleus and a consequent 
mass deficit, resulting in the expelling of the H- ion as a proton and a 
release of energy into the system.  This appears to be the central mechanism 
responsible for heat in their account.  The proton can presumably go on to do 
other things, maybe causing an occasional fusion, but the authors do not appear 
to rely upon this as the primary channel.


Has anyone studied Piantelli's work enough to comment on whether I've gotten 
this right or missed something important?  Can anyone (Robin?) comment on which 
parts are controversial and which are accepted physics?  I understand that you 
can see the emission of a gamma ray from large, metastable nuclei, when the 
nucleons rearrange to a lower energy level, but is this possible with as light 
an atom as nickel?


Two interesting points to note -- first, there is evidence for 1-3 MeV protons 
in some of the CR-39 LENR experiments.  Second, Piantelli et al. are vague on 
the question of the deuterium content.  They say that the hydrogen can have the 
natural level of deuterium (0.015 percent), or it can have a deuterium content 
distinct from this, but they do not specifically say that you can use H2 that 
contains no deuterium.


Eric




[1] http://www.22passi.it/downloads/EP2368252B1[1].pdf
[2]

Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent

Stremmenos refers to the work of Zichini:

Piantelli acknowledged his own publication on Nuovo Cimento, but no
mention was made of the fact that in the following number of Nuovo Cimento
(Vol. 102, No. 12), Prof. Zichichi and his team at the University of
Bologna, where I also was teaching at the time, tested Piantelli’s
apparatus and discovered that it didn’t work at all, and that all of
Piantelli’s statements were unfounded.

What is this about?  Does anyone know about this paper? I do not have a
copy and I have never heard of it. I looked at contents of Nuovo Cimento
(Vol. 102, No. 12) at the Springer.com site but I do not see a paper by
Zichini.

I know that that Cerron-Zaballos were unable to replicate Piantelli.

Cerron-Zeballos, E., et al., Investigation of anomalous heat production in
Ni-H systems. Nuovo
Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1996. 109A: p. 1645.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent

2013-01-21 Thread Peter Gluck

the affair is explained the best at Steve Krivit's NET site.
Piantelli has told me that Zichichi has not collaborated with him, has not
followed his advices and knew anything better than him..
All the stories Stremmenos tell are not relevant-
the patent authority has decided that Piantelli's
WO 2010/058288 is good as patent and... finita
la commedia! Is useless to attack Piantelli.
In the 3 writings about Piantelli on my blog he explains who he got the
idea of nanostructures.
By the way the rods of Piantelli also have nanostructures on the surface
due to hydrogen fragilization.
Piantelli is the real Father of the Ni-H branch of LENR.

Peter

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Stremmenos refers to the work of Zichini:

 Piantelli acknowledged his own publication on Nuovo Cimento, but no
 mention was made of the fact that in the following number of Nuovo Cimento
 (Vol. 102, No. 12), Prof. Zichichi and his team at the University of
 Bologna, where I also was teaching at the time, tested Piantelli’s
 apparatus and discovered that it didn’t work at all, and that all of
 Piantelli’s statements were unfounded.

 What is this about?  Does anyone know about this paper? I do not have a
 copy and I have never heard of it. I looked at contents of Nuovo Cimento
 (Vol. 102, No. 12) at the Springer.com site but I do not see a paper by
 Zichini.

 I know that that Cerron-Zaballos were unable to replicate Piantelli.

 Cerron-Zeballos, E., et al., Investigation of anomalous heat production in
 Ni-H systems. Nuovo
 Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1996. 109A: p. 1645.

 - Jed




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent

Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

the affair is explained the best at Steve Krivit's NET site.


Unfortunately that is now behind a pay wall.



 Piantelli has told me that Zichichi has not collaborated with him, has not
 followed his advices and knew anything better than him..


Who is Zichini? I have never head of him. I found a Wikipedia page on him,
but there is nothing relating to cold fusion. Did he publish a paper?

Britz, Storms and I have compiles a good bibliography of cold fusion
papers. Zichini is not an author or coauthor.

Is is possible Stremmenos meant Cerron-Zeballos?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent

Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:


 Piantelli is the real Father of the Ni-H branch of LENR.


If Ni-H cold fusion is real, Mills is the real father. Fleischmann was the
first to suggest the use of Ni, but Mills was the first to do it, as far as
I know.

There is plenty of credit to go around.

Rossi is the first to apply the nanoparticle technique to Ni, as far I
know. Arata pioneered the nanoparticle technique. It was a darn good idea
to try it. Rossi deserves tremendous credit for this. If his technique is
as good as he claims, he is the third most important person in this history
of this field, after FP. There are many people in fourth place.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent

Peter, I consider the use of nano sized powders as different than using wires 
even if the wire has nano sized structures on its surface.  By using the 
powder, Rossi and others of a like mind are acknowledging that the surface area 
is the important variable.  Anyone that relies upon wire most likely is 
thinking of bulk effects.  The performance could be orders of magnitude 
different depending upon where the reaction takes place and how deep it occurs.


The basic reaction of nickel and hydrogen is an idea which perhaps Piantelli 
came up with and has experimented with.  The use of powder should be considered 
a major improvement to the original concept.



Dave



-Original Message-
From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 10:45 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent


the affair is explained the best at Steve Krivit's NET site.
Piantelli has told me that Zichichi has not collaborated with him, has not 
followed his advices and knew anything better than him..
All the stories Stremmenos tell are not relevant-
the patent authority has decided that Piantelli's
WO 2010/058288 is good as patent and... finita
la commedia! Is useless to attack Piantelli.
In the 3 writings about Piantelli on my blog he explains who he got the idea of 
nanostructures.
By the way the rods of Piantelli also have nanostructures on the surface due to 
hydrogen fragilization.
Piantelli is the real Father of the Ni-H branch of LENR.


Peter


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

Stremmenos refers to the work of Zichini:

Piantelli acknowledged his own publication on Nuovo Cimento, but no mention 
was made of the fact that in the following number of Nuovo Cimento (Vol. 102, 
No. 12), Prof. Zichichi and his team at the University of Bologna, where I also 
was teaching at the time, tested Piantelli’s apparatus and discovered that it 
didn’t work at all, and that all of Piantelli’s statements were unfounded.

What is this about?  Does anyone know about this paper? I do not have a copy 
and I have never heard of it. I looked at contents of Nuovo Cimento (Vol. 102, 
No. 12) at the Springer.com site but I do not see a paper by Zichini.

I know that that Cerron-Zaballos were unable to replicate Piantelli.

Cerron-Zeballos, E., et al., Investigation of anomalous heat production in Ni-H 
systems. Nuovo
Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1996. 109A: p. 1645.



- Jed








-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent

2013-01-21 Thread Peter Gluck

Jed please try:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml
see Nos 12 and 13- let me know if it works for you.

Piantelli has discovered the effect H-Ni on Aug 16, 1989 and published it
in a local univ. journal
Have you read what I wrote about Piantelli starting with the Piantelli
Taxonomy? my info comes from him.
Peter


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:


 Piantelli is the real Father of the Ni-H branch of LENR.


 If Ni-H cold fusion is real, Mills is the real father. Fleischmann was the
 first to suggest the use of Ni, but Mills was the first to do it, as far as
 I know.

 There is plenty of credit to go around.

 Rossi is the first to apply the nanoparticle technique to Ni, as far I
 know. Arata pioneered the nanoparticle technique. It was a darn good idea
 to try it. Rossi deserves tremendous credit for this. If his technique is
 as good as he claims, he is the third most important person in this history
 of this field, after FP. There are many people in fourth place.

 - Jed




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent

2013-01-21 Thread Harry Veeder

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
 Jed please try:
 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml
 see Nos 12 and 13- let me know if it works for you.


I found the passage below significant because a fairly recent
discussion on vortex-l left me with the impression that they did not
*publish* anything in response to the CERN paper.
Harry

Piantelli-Focardi Group Responds to CERN
In November 1998, the Piantelli-Focardi group published Large Excess
Heat Production in Ni-H Systems,[14] again in Il Nuovo Cimento. The
paper directly responds to the most significant criticism of the 1996
CERN paper.

In the Piantelli-Focardi authors’ introduction to their new paper,
they state that they modified the cell they reported in 1994 [3] with
an improvement which allows the measurement and the monitoring of the
external surface temperature.

With this new set-up, the Piantelli-Focardi group writes, the
external temperature increase, together with the internal one, have
been utilized to characterize the excited state of the Ni sample. The
existence of an exothermic effect, whose heat yield is well above that
of any known chemical reaction, has been unambiguously confirmed by
evaluating the thermal flux coming from the cells.

The paper clarifies the term excited state as the phase in which the
experiment was producing anomalous heat.

Britz wrote the follow summary of the 1998 Piantelli-Focardi group’s
paper: In addition to a cell used by this team earlier, consisting of
a tubular vacuum chamber with a heating mantle around a Ni rod and a
single temperature probe on the outside and the inside of the mantle,
a new cell has now been designed with multiple probes.

“Hydrogen gas was admitted to the chambers, which were heated, and
temperatures measured. Transient lowering of the input power produced,
upon restoring the power, temperatures higher than before the
transients. This showed the presence of nuclear phenomena, and
calibrations performed calculated roughly 20 Watts of excess power
generated by the hydrided Ni rods. The effect, once started, lasted
for 278 days, the duration of the experiment.

Re: [Vo]:[OT, sort of] To all you researchers and mad scientists

2013-01-21 Thread ken deboer

Amen.
ken deboer

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:57 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

 Sunday Sermon

 ** **

 To all of you researchers and mad scientists pouring your best blood,
 sweat  tears into unraveling the mysteries behind the LENR process, please
 accept our sincerest acknowledgment of the fact that we know how difficult
 the task has been for you. We understand how frustrating this unsung quest
 must often feel. We know you are the unsung heroes of the late 20th and
 early 21st centuries. 

 ** **

 We appreciate the fact that your work has often been tedious and
 time-consuming. Not only do you receive very little acknowledgment from
 most of your peers, the very peers who ought to be cheering you on, some of
 them seem to have gone out of their way to place and your work directly in
 their cross hairs for public ridicule. As such, we sympathize with the fact
 that you often receive very little respect. 

 ** **

 There must be times when you have felt desperate about your circumstances,
 when you have hungered for a sliver of data that would tell you Yes! This
 is it! You are finally making progress!, or when you have simply desired
 to occasionally experience the tiniest modicum of respect from your peers.
 It is only human to realize the fact that we all need to receive some form
 of validation, in order to keep us sufficiently motivated to plow through
 the rough times ahead. We know you are doing your best trying to unravel a
 misunderstood miracle with little or no help from your peers.

 

 All these slings and arrows... which must be managed on a shoestring
 budget. It could cause many to ask themselves: Is there an easier way to
 manage this project? Could I possibly cut corners somewhere?

 ** **

 Some of us who work areas of tech  support can only give you the tiniest
 bit of advice that we hope you will take to heart:

 ** **

 http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-01-20/

 ** **

 Please, please, PLEASE do not outsource your work!

 ** **

 /Sunday Sermon

 ** **

 Regards,

 Steven Vincent Johnson

 www.OrionWorks.com

 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:Hot Ni Ball in Water

Ever want to drop a glowing red hot ball of Ni into water?  Well,
someone beat you to it.  Is that the real sound or an overdub?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qSEfcIfYbw

Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent

Okay, I found the problem. This is the Cerron-Zeballos paper, but the
co-author Zichichi was spelled wrong in my EndNote database.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

REALLY?  According to the research I have read the magnetic modeling and
simulation of the Earth's inner core is having a hard time accounting for
it's magnetic field and tail, etc.  Also I guess the gold and all that
other stuff the geologists believe is there just SUNK THERE according to
your theory?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/94JA03193/abstract

Also Giovanni, I want you to look closely at the picture on the following
link and tell me if you think that Rainbow might be creating that tornado.
 Look very closely or you might miss it.  But with your PhD I am assuming
you have keen awareness of the subtleties nature throws at you.  Now, if
your reality allows you to comprehend what you are seeing, you will realize
there is a HUGE thermodynamic effect taking place.  The Joplin MO tornado
also had a LARGE double rainbow, just google it.  Then, I suggest you call
your therapist and book an appointment because your astrophysics PhD came
up just a bit short and a basic engineering degree with thermodynamics
would have been all you needed.

http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/01/21/holy-rainbow-tornado-batman/

Stewart
darkmattersalot.com







On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:

 The iron at the core of the earth is there not because it was accumulated
 first but because it sunk there. Look at the sun, a lot of iron (total
 amount even if not relatively to hydrogen and helium) but it is diffuse
 around the plasma. It is diffuse because the sun is much hotter than earth.
 In the case of the earth as the surface cool down the iron sunk to the core
 during the earth formation.
 The iron in meteorite is there because they are fragments of proto planets
 that got destroyed by collisions with other proto planets. The iron got
 isolated at the core as with the case of the earth (faster given that these
 were smaller body so they cooled faster) and sunk at the center. When the
 body collided with similar ones at the solar system formation the chunks at
 the center formed iron meteorites.

 No magnetism involved, at least not as you describe it.

 Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they
 work.

 Giovanni



 On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 Giovanni, why do you want to make the calculations more difficult?  The
 principle is what we are talking about in this exercise.  I suspect it
 would be possible to calculate the magnetic moments of the sphere if it is
 important, but the shape is not an issue.  It could have been rods that are
 small relative to a meter and still given us guidance.

  I hope you are not attempting to calculate this effect to the fifth
 decimal place when an order of magnitude is adequate to demonstrate what is
 required.

  You can measure the magnetic attraction with a scale, but the
 gravitational force would be virtually impossible to determine without a
 calculation.  Assume that a mass of iron and nickel can be magnetized by
 some means to at least a tiny degree.  It would be difficult to have any
 measurable level of magnetization that would not overwhelm the force of
 gravity by many orders of magnitude.  That is the entire point of my
 hypothesis.

  The sun has a level of iron in the photosphere of .16 % by mass (according
 to wikipedia) which is a lot of matter .   I am confident that this
 represents many times the entire mass of the Earth.

  So, it has been established that there was iron available to form the
 cores of early planets such as Earth.  Also, the magnetic attraction of
 iron particles dominates the force of gravity between them by many orders
 of magnitude.  That leads me to consider my hypothesis as plausible for the
 formation of planetary cores.  Then it would be quite likely that the cores
 would become large enough to allow gravitation to complete the process of
 gathering the other elements.

  Can you suggest a mechanism that relies upon gravity only to do a
 similar task?  Why would that be more likely to be the organizing process
 considering the relative strengths of the forces?

  There is supporting evidence for my hypothesis.  The core of the earth
 is iron and nickel and massive.  Iron meteorites are available which
 demonstrate that iron and nickel has been collected in other parts of the
 solar system.

  Are you aware of any evidence that proves that the concept is not
 possible?  It would be great if you suggested additional information that
 supports the hypothesis from your education.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Jan 20, 2013 8:34 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

  So assume that there is a 0.1 N magnetic force between the two magnets
 when they are separated by 1 meter can you calculate their magnetic moments
 given their size?

  Also you should look at this for correct calculation of magnetic

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

I have a sinking feeling that the link you gave does not work.  Give it another 
try and let me know how to follow it.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 2:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational


I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed.


http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

OK, this time I got it. False alarm.



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 2:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational


I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed.


http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

I agree and my link worked.

I believe we have an entropic, LENR reactor for a core.  I did a
calculation on my site and I believe it is just a few meters in diameter.
 The earth is just one of those nodal points on the universal neural
network of dark matter that is unfolding around us at relativistic speeds.
 It is like the wiring in our brains.

Stewart
darkmattersalot.com


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed.

 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

What is in this link that contradicts what I have said about iron sinking
at the center of the earth?
Giovanni


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed.

 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html

[Vo]:Puthoof vacuum pressure, hyper-speed-dense PRE-LIGHT PHOTONS, WSM and the periodic table

2013-01-21 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Hi Jack,
Your posts are always enlightening - only wish the syntax 
existed for you to communicate from a common foundation instead of fabricating 
everything from the ground up as seems necessary for the not yet birthed 
science of vacuum engineering.. You and I are both going in the Hal Puthoff 
direction describing the periodic table as a function of hyper-speed-dense 
PRE-LIGHT PHOTONS  aka a neo Lorentzian ether or in Hal's words  vacuum 
pressure. But as always the syntax becomes jumbled as our 3d plane makes us 
incapable of visualizing 4D space.. a nonphysical axis because material only 
forms from vacuum wavelengths[virtual particles] of certain wavelengths that 
get caught in the vortice formed as this medium  intercepts our 3d plane. Like 
logs  trapped in a waterfall  the elements in the periodic table are just 
persistent wavelengths of pre-light photons trapped in the  ether fall 
between the future and past  in a WSM manner of speaking - as most of these non 
physical occupants simply form  the medium passing thru our plane They give 
energy to keep the physical matter persisting and electrons orbiting. 
Relativity tells us we can stretch our 3 space into this medium but only 
perceive this change in our 4d orientation via comparison with time 
measurements relative to objects at different orientations [frames of 
acceleration be it actual or equivalent]. I do contend that suppression of 
the ether can create equivalent negative-acceleration  just as we know that  
a gravity well can create equivalent acceleration -which is why I refer to this 
as compression and why Bernard Haisch and Alfonso Rueda use the analogy of a 
car accelerating into a rainstorm to explain their theory of inertia and zero 
point energy.

Fran

From: Jack Harbach-O'Sullivan [mailto:alset9te...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 10:47 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:MAGNETO GRAVIONIC  XO-Plasma Space Physics

MAGNETO GRAVIONIC  XO-Plasma Space Physics

But the presense of CORE IRON etc. . . as a SOURCE rather than SYMPTOM of the 
presence of MAGNETO-GRAVIONIC toroid trans-singularity phenomenon is 
basically a nonstarter.

Gibson

The trade-off would be XO-PlasmaSpacePhysics because ingress XO-Plasma creating 
and filling the Big-Bang Bubble(us/universe) is pretty much hyper-speed-dense 
PRE-LIGHT/PHOTON stage 
energy-@dark-plasma-statemailto:energy-@dark-plasma-state  in the overall 
energy gradient spectrum.

PER those pesky bleed through XO-Space toroid MAGNETO-GRAVIONIC fields that 
CONFIGURE the SHAPE OF EVERYTHING as follows:

ACCUMULATION of 'iron' etc. MAY be symptomatic obviously because 
XO-SuperPlasma is the 'source' for the formation of ALL ELEMENTS in the 
Periodic Table not to mention EVERY WAVELENGTH and ENERGETIC PHENOMENON in 
Space-Time-Normal and maybe a few we haven't yet discovered.

AND from XO-Space THIS is MAGNETO-GRAVIONIC and the BACK-GROUND cross-spectrum 
XO Field is what SHAPES THE CHARACTERISIC MAG-GRAV Field-Shaping on OURSIDE. 
. .


* * *I noticed that the comments RE: Magnetics  not Gravity: And considering 
the simple answer to the big-bang and ALL SINGULARITIES whether 
micro-MACROCOSMIC-macro-SUBATOMIC black, gray, or white; all their simple XO 
Space ORIGINs stem from XO-Space Plasma hyper-speed-dense FRACTALATING CURRENT 
DYNAMICS spinning off of VORICULAR-MAELSTROMS whether hyper-micro or 
HYPERCOSMIC etc. etc.. And these are which create the characteristic 
Einstein-Rosen Eye-Breaches into space-time-normal aka OUR SPACE.  Thus is the 
source of atoms, to suns, to black/gray/white(stars) holes and galaxies and 
EVERY THING ELSE THAT SPINS.  Toroids in XO-Space also create INCIPIENT cross 
over MAGNETO-GRAVIONIC SPIN DYNAMICS projecting into our space without becoming 
or 'before' becoming full BREAK-THROUGH Singularites.

ADJUNCT EARTH MAGNETO-GRAVIONIC THEORY: This might be a stretch; but at least 
one theory based upon sound measurements of earth's planetary thermal indices 
and gravity(actually via MORE accurate than commonly accepted empirical 
data/SUPPOSEDLY) seem to suggest that our planetary MAGNETO-GRAVIONIC field is 
dyamic enough to create a sub-sun plasma-breach or 'core sun' at the centre of 
our planet.  And this would be part and parcel to our entire MAGNETO-GRAVIONIC 
SOLAR-SYSTEM based on the white-hole XO-Space ingress fields.  And XO-Space 
ingress plasma at the centre of our sun(and all stars) as the Atomic-Creation 
factory is not such a stretch, even to the point of 
SYMPTOMATIC-but-NOT-causitive-PRESENCE OF SOLAR CORE IRON. . .The nature 
of the very atomic-mass-field of our planet supplying sufficient 
FIELD-DRAG-GROUNDING to keep our 'quasi-core-sun' plasma-breach in stable 
containment really does not seem like that far of a stretch.

I don't necessarily subscribe to this; though some variation of it my apply to 
the MAGNETO-GRAVIONIC core field consentration at the centre of good old 
Terra-kinda-Ferma.

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

From You

Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they
work

From Me:

1) The inner core of Earth is denser than iron and/or nickel
2) A true simulation of the Earth's core and magnetic field has not been
established to date

Both of these contradict your statement above.

Stewart
darkmattersalot.com




On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:

 What is in this link that contradicts what I have said about iron sinking
 at the center of the earth?
 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed.

 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of pressure,
so it can be compacted.
Giovanni


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 From You

 Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they
 work

 From Me:

 1) The inner core of Earth is denser than iron and/or nickel
 2) A true simulation of the Earth's core and magnetic field has not been
 established to date

 Both of these contradict your statement above.

 Stewart
 darkmattersalot.com




 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 What is in this link that contradicts what I have said about iron sinking
 at the center of the earth?
 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote:

 I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed.

 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

I was thinking a plasma was less dense.  Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein
condensate or something similar?

*Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
gases are dissociated  then due to high temperature it suffers further
heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas# 
finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube
-1032 part./meter cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
].




On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:

 It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of pressure,
 so it can be compacted.
 Giovanni



 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 From You

 Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they
 work

 From Me:

 1) The inner core of Earth is denser than iron and/or nickel
 2) A true simulation of the Earth's core and magnetic field has not been
 established to date

 Both of these contradict your statement above.

 Stewart
 darkmattersalot.com




 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 What is in this link that contradicts what I have said about iron
 sinking at the center of the earth?
 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote:

 I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed.

 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Chem, what is the density of the core of the sun?
Plasma can be squeezed to ultra high density under high pressure.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 I was thinking a plasma was less dense.  Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein
 condensate or something similar?

 *Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
 particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
 bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
 gases are dissociated  then due to high temperature it suffers further
 heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas# 
 finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube
 -1032 part./meter 
 cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
 ].




 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of
 pressure, so it can be compacted.
 Giovanni



 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 From You

 Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and
 they work

 From Me:

 1) The inner core of Earth is denser than iron and/or nickel
 2) A true simulation of the Earth's core and magnetic field has not been
 established to date

 Both of these contradict your statement above.

 Stewart
 darkmattersalot.com




 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 What is in this link that contradicts what I have said about iron
 sinking at the center of the earth?
 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote:

 I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed.

 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

The core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core of the Sun is considered
to extend from the center to about 20–25% of the solar
radius.[46]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Garcia2007-47It
has a density of up to
150 g/cm3[47] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Basu-48[48]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49(about
150 times the density of water) and a temperature of close to
15.7 million kelvin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin
(K)[48]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49
.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 I was thinking a plasma was less dense.  Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein
 condensate or something similar?

 *Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
 particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
 bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
 gases are dissociated  then due to high temperature it suffers further
 heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas# 
 finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube
 -1032 part./meter 
 cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
 ].




 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of
 pressure, so it can be compacted.
 Giovanni



 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 From You

 Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and
 they work

 From Me:

 1) The inner core of Earth is denser than iron and/or nickel
 2) A true simulation of the Earth's core and magnetic field has not been
 established to date

 Both of these contradict your statement above.

 Stewart
 darkmattersalot.com




 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 What is in this link that contradicts what I have said about iron
 sinking at the center of the earth?
 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote:

 I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed.

 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

I have not calculated it yet, but I think it is a black hole with enough
entropic gravitational pull to trigger fusion around it.

Could you run that calc for me?

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 Chem, what is the density of the core of the sun?
 Plasma can be squeezed to ultra high density under high pressure.
 Giovanni

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 I was thinking a plasma was less dense.  Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein
 condensate or something similar?

 *Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
 particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
 bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
 gases are dissociated  then due to high temperature it suffers further
 heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas# 
 finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube
 -1032 part./meter 
 cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
 ].




 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of pressure,
 so it can be compacted.
 Giovanni



 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 From You

 Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they
 work

 From Me:

 1) The inner core of Earth is denser than iron and/or nickel
 2) A true simulation of the Earth's core and magnetic field has not been
 established to date

 Both of these contradict your statement above.

 Stewart
 http://darkmattersalot.com

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

The sun core has a density 20 times higher than iron at atmospheric
pressure.
Giovanni


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have not calculated it yet, but I think it is a black hole with enough
 entropic gravitational pull to trigger fusion around it.

 Could you run that calc for me?


 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 Chem, what is the density of the core of the sun?
 Plasma can be squeezed to ultra high density under high pressure.
 Giovanni

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 I was thinking a plasma was less dense.  Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein
 condensate or something similar?

 *Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
 particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
 bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
 gases are dissociated  then due to high temperature it suffers further
 heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas# 
 finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube
 -1032 part./meter 
 cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
 ].




 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of
 pressure, so it can be compacted.
 Giovanni



 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 From You

 Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they
 work

 From Me:

 1) The inner core of Earth is denser than iron and/or nickel
 2) A true simulation of the Earth's core and magnetic field has not been
 established to date

 Both of these contradict your statement above.

 Stewart
 http://darkmattersalot.com

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Works for me, I never said it was iron

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 The sun core has a density 20 times higher than iron at atmospheric
 pressure.
 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have not calculated it yet, but I think it is a black hole with enough
 entropic gravitational pull to trigger fusion around it.

 Could you run that calc for me?


 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 Chem, what is the density of the core of the sun?
 Plasma can be squeezed to ultra high density under high pressure.
 Giovanni

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 I was thinking a plasma was less dense.  Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein
 condensate or something similar?

 *Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
 particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
 bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
 gases are dissociated  then due to high temperature it suffers further
 heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas# 
 finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube
 -1032 part./meter 
 cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
 ].




 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of pressure,
 so it can be compacted.
 Giovanni



 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 From You

 Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they
 work

 From Me:

 1) The inner core of Earth is denser than iron and/or nickel
 2) A true simulation of the Earth's core and magne

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

In fact, it is mostly hydrogen and helium.
This to show that you can have iron at the core of earth with higher
density that what iron has at atmospheric pressure. The density is
determined by the pressure and temperature not just the type of material.
When we quote densities of materials most often we mean at atmospheric
pressure.
Giovanni


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Works for me, I never said it was iron


 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 The sun core has a density 20 times higher than iron at atmospheric
 pressure.
 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 I have not calculated it yet, but I think it is a black hole with enough
 entropic gravitational pull to trigger fusion around it.

 Could you run that calc for me?


 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 Chem, what is the density of the core of the sun?
 Plasma can be squeezed to ultra high density under high pressure.
 Giovanni

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 I was thinking a plasma was less dense.  Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein
 condensate or something similar?

 *Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
 particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
 bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
 gases are dissociated  then due to high temperature it suffers further
 heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas# 
 finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube
 -1032 part./meter 
 cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
 ].




 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of
 pressure, so it can be compacted.
 Giovanni



 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 From You

 Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they
 work

 From Me:

 1) The inner core of Earth is denser than iron and/or nickel
 2) A true simulation of the Earth's core and magne

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Daniel,
This is some nice info about magnetization in asteroids:

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Vallee2/Vallee2.html

Giovanni


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:

 In fact, it is mostly hydrogen and helium.
 This to show that you can have iron at the core of earth with higher
 density that what iron has at atmospheric pressure. The density is
 determined by the pressure and temperature not just the type of material.
 When we quote densities of materials most often we mean at atmospheric
 pressure.
 Giovanni



 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Works for me, I never said it was iron


 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 The sun core has a density 20 times higher than iron at atmospheric
 pressure.
 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 I have not calculated it yet, but I think it is a black hole with
 enough entropic gravitational pull to trigger fusion around it.

 Could you run that calc for me?


 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 Chem, what is the density of the core of the sun?
 Plasma can be squeezed to ultra high density under high pressure.
 Giovanni

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 I was thinking a plasma was less dense.  Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein
 condensate or something similar?

 *Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
 particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
 bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
 gases are dissociated  then due to high temperature it suffers further
 heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas# 
 finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube
 -1032 part./meter 
 cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
 ].




 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of
 pressure, so it can be compacted.
 Giovanni



 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 From You

 Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and
 they work

 From Me:

 1) The inner core of Earth is denser than iron and/or nickel
 2) A true simulation of the Earth's core and magne

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Last time I checked most solids and liquids were
mostly  non-compressible, at least in our macro world.  Liquid Water
density changes only 4% over a wide range

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 In fact, it is mostly hydrogen and helium.
 This to show that you can have iron at the core of earth with higher
 density that what iron has at atmospheric pressure. The density is
 determined by the pressure and temperature not just the type of material.
 When we quote densities of materials most often we mean at atmospheric
 pressure.
 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Works for me, I never said it was iron


 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 The sun core has a density 20 times higher than iron at atmospheric
 pressure.
 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have not calculated it yet, but I think it is a black hole with enough
 entropic gravitational pull to trigger fusion around it.

 Could you run that calc for me?


 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 Chem, what is the density of the core of the sun?
 Plasma can be squeezed to ultra high density under high pressure.
 Giovanni

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 I was thinking a plasma was less dense.  Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein
 condensate or something similar?

 *Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
 particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
 bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
 gases are dissociated  then due to high temperature it suffers further
 heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas# 
 finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube
 -1032 part./meter 
 cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
 ].




 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of pressure,
 so it can be compacted.
 Giovanni



 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 From You

 Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they
 work

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

These are plasmas, the electrons are taken away from the atoms and they are
mixed with bare nuclei. You can compress a plasma to degenerate levels when
quantum mechanics exclusion principle takes over. These densities are even
more enormous.
Giovanni


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Last time I checked most solids and liquids were
 mostly  non-compressible, at least in our macro world.  Liquid Water
 density changes only 4% over a wide range


 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 In fact, it is mostly hydrogen and helium.
 This to show that you can have iron at the core of earth with higher
 density that what iron has at atmospheric pressure. The density is
 determined by the pressure and temperature not just the type of material.
 When we quote densities of materials most often we mean at atmospheric
 pressure.
 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Works for me, I never said it was iron


 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 The sun core has a density 20 times higher than iron at atmospheric
 pressure.
 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 I have not calculated it yet, but I think it is a black hole with enough
 entropic gravitational pull to trigger fusion around it.

 Could you run that calc for me?


 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 Chem, what is the density of the core of the sun?
 Plasma can be squeezed to ultra high density under high pressure.
 Giovanni

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 I was thinking a plasma was less dense.  Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein
 condensate or something similar?

 *Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
 particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
 bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
 gases are dissociated  then due to high temperature it suffers further
 heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas# 
 finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube
 -1032 part./meter 
 cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
 ].




 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of
 pressure, so it can be compacted.
 Giovanni



 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 From You

 Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they
 work

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Iron at the core of the earth is a plasma, so the hydrogen and helium at
the core of the sun.
Giovanni


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:

 These are plasmas, the electrons are taken away from the atoms and they
 are mixed with bare nuclei. You can compress a plasma to degenerate levels
 when quantum mechanics exclusion principle takes over. These densities are
 even more enormous.
 Giovanni



 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Last time I checked most solids and liquids were
 mostly  non-compressible, at least in our macro world.  Liquid Water
 density changes only 4% over a wide range


 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 In fact, it is mostly hydrogen and helium.
 This to show that you can have iron at the core of earth with higher
 density that what iron has at atmospheric pressure. The density is
 determined by the pressure and temperature not just the type of material.
 When we quote densities of materials most often we mean at atmospheric
 pressure.
 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 Works for me, I never said it was iron


 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 The sun core has a density 20 times higher than iron at atmospheric
 pressure.
 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 I have not calculated it yet, but I think it is a black hole with
 enough entropic gravitational pull to trigger fusion around it.

 Could you run that calc for me?


 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 Chem, what is the density of the core of the sun?
 Plasma can be squeezed to ultra high density under high pressure.
 Giovanni

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 I was thinking a plasma was less dense.  Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein
 condensate or something similar?

 *Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
 particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
 bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
 gases are dissociated  then due to high temperature it suffers further
 heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas# 
 finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube
 -1032 part./meter 
 cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
 ].




 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of
 pressure, so it can be compacted.
 Giovanni



 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 From You

 Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and
 they work

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Funny,

Last I read they think the inner core is solid...

The *inner core* of the Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth, its
innermost part, is a primarily solid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid
ball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_(mathematics) with a radius of
about 1,220 km (760 mi), according to seismological
studieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismology
.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core#cite_note-1[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core#cite_note-2
(This
is about 70% of the length of the Moon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon's
radius.) It is believed to consist primarily of an
ironhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron
–nickel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel
alloyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alloy,
and to be about the same temperature as the surface of the
Sunhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun:
approximately 5700 K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin(5430 °C).

So I guess we are both bucking the trend... You say solid, I say black hole

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:

Iron at the core of the earth is a plasma, so the hydrogen and helium at
the core of the sun.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

These are plasmas, the electrons are taken away from the atoms and they
are mixed with bare nuclei. You can compress a plasma to degenerate levels
when quantum mechanics exclusion principle takes over. These densities are
even more enormous.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

Last time I checked most solids and liquids were
mostly non-compressible, at least in our macro world. Liquid Water
density changes only 4% over a wide range

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

In fact, it is mostly hydrogen and helium.
This to show that you can have iron at the core of earth with higher
density that what iron has at atmospheric pressure. The density is
determined by the pressure and temperature not just the type of material.
When we quote densities of materials most often we mean at atmospheric
pressure.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

Works for me, I never said it was iron

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

The sun core has a density 20 times higher than iron at atmospheric
pressure.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

I have not calculated it yet, but I think it is a black hole with
enough entropic gravitational pull to trigger fusion around it.

Could you run that calc for me?

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

Chem, what is the density of the core of the sun?
Plasma can be squeezed to ultra high density under high pressure.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

I was thinking a plasma was less dense. Maybe you meant a Bose
Einstein condensate or something similar?

*Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
gases are dissociated then due to high temperature it suffers further
heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube
-1032 part./meter
cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
].

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of
pressure, so it can be compacted.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

From You

Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and
they work

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Sorry, you say plasma, I say black hole

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:14 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

Funny,

Last I read they think the inner core is solid...

So I guess we are both bucking the trend... You say solid, I say black
hole

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

Iron at the core of the earth is a plasma, so the hydrogen and helium at
the core of the sun.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

Last time I checked most solids and liquids were
mostly non-compressible, at least in our macro world. Liquid Water
density changes only 4% over a wide range

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

Works for me, I never said it was iron

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

The sun core has a density 20 times higher than iron at atmospheric
pressure.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

I have not calculated it yet, but I think it is a black hole with
enough entropic gravitational pull to trigger fusion around it.

Could you run that calc for me?

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

Chem, what is the density of the core of the sun?
Plasma can be squeezed to ultra high density under high pressure.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

I was thinking a plasma was less dense. Maybe you meant a Bose
Einstein condensate or something similar?

*Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
gases are dissociated then due to high temperature it suffers further
heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter
cube
-1032 part./meter
cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
].

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of
pressure, so it can be compacted.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

From You

Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and
they work

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

There is a outer core that is molten and the inner core that is solid.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:14 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

Funny,

Last I read they think the inner core is solid...

The *inner core* of the Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth, its
innermost part, is a primarily solid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid
ball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_%28mathematics%29 with a radius
of about 1,220 km (760 mi), according to seismological
studieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismology
.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core#cite_note-1[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core#cite_note-2
(This
is about 70% of the length of the Moon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon's
radius.) It is believed to consist primarily of an
ironhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron
–nickel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel
alloyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alloy,
and to be about the same temperature as the surface of the
Sunhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun:
approximately 5700 K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin(5430 °C).

So I guess we are both bucking the trend... You say solid, I say black
hole

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

Iron at the core of the earth is a plasma, so the hydrogen and helium at
the core of the sun.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

Last time I checked most solids and liquids were
mostly non-compressible, at least in our macro world. Liquid Water
density changes only 4% over a wide range

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

Works for me, I never said it was iron

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

The sun core has a density 20 times higher than iron at atmospheric
pressure.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

I have not calculated it yet, but I think it is a black hole with
enough entropic gravitational pull to trigger fusion around it.

Could you run that calc for me?

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

Chem, what is the density of the core of the sun?
Plasma can be squeezed to ultra high density under high pressure.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

I was thinking a plasma was less dense. Maybe you meant a Bose
Einstein condensate or something similar?

*Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
gases are dissociated then due to high temperature it suffers further
heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter
cube
-1032 part./meter
cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
].

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of
pressure, so it can be compacted.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

From You

Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and
they work

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Chem, also noting that the core of the Earth is at more than 5000 K, while
the melting temperature of iron at atmospheric pressure is 1800K.
At this temperature and pressure iron is not behaving as a normal solid.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:

There is a outer core that is molten and the inner core that is solid.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:14 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

Funny,

Last I read they think the inner core is solid...

The *inner core* of the Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth, its
innermost part, is a primarily solid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid
ball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_%28mathematics%29 with a
radius of about 1,220 km (760 mi), according to seismological
studieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismology
.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core#cite_note-1[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core#cite_note-2
(This
is about 70% of the length of the Moonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon's
radius.) It is believed to consist primarily of an
ironhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron
–nickel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel
alloyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alloy,
and to be about the same temperature as the surface of the
Sunhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun:
approximately 5700 K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin(5430 °C).

So I guess we are both bucking the trend... You say solid, I say black
hole

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

Iron at the core of the earth is a plasma, so the hydrogen and helium at
the core of the sun.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

Last time I checked most solids and liquids were
mostly non-compressible, at least in our macro world. Liquid Water
density changes only 4% over a wide range

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

Works for me, I never said it was iron

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

The sun core has a density 20 times higher than iron at atmospheric
pressure.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

I have not calculated it yet, but I think it is a black hole with
enough entropic gravitational pull to trigger fusion around it.

Could you run that calc for me?

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

Chem, what is the density of the core of the sun?
Plasma can be squeezed to ultra high density under high pressure.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

I was thinking a plasma was less dense. Maybe you meant a Bose
Einstein condensate or something similar?

*Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
gases are dissociated then due to high temperature it suffers further
heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter
cube
-1032 part./meter
cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas#
].

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of
pressure, so it can be compacted.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

From You

Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and
they work

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Geologists say liquid not plasma so you are bucking the trend, I admire that

The *outer core* of the Earth http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth is a
liquid layer about 2,266 km (1,408 mi) thick composed of
ironhttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron
 and nickel http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel which lies above the
Earth's solid inner core http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core and
below itsmantle http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_(geology). Its
outer boundary lies 2,890 km (1,800 mi) beneath the Earth's surface. The
transition between the inner core and outer core is located approximately
5,150 km (3,200 mi) beneath the Earth's surface.

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 There is a outer core that is molten and the inner core that is solid.
 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:14 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Funny,

 Last I read they think the inner core is solid...

 The *inner core* of the Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth, its
 innermost part, is a primarily solid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid
 ball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_%28mathematics%29 with a radius
 of about 1,220 km (760 mi), according to seismological 
 studieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismology
 .[1] 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core#cite_note-1[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core#cite_note-2
  (This
 is about 70% of the length of the Moon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon's
 radius.) It is believed to consist primarily of an 
 ironhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron
 –nickel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel 
 alloyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alloy,
 and to be about the same temperature as the surface of the 
 Sunhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun:
 approximately 5700 K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin(5430 °C).

 So I guess we are both bucking the trend...  You say solid, I say black
 hole

Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent

Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:


 Piantelli has discovered the effect H-Ni on Aug 16, 1989 and published it
 in a local univ. journal
 Have you read what I wrote about Piantelli starting with the Piantelli
 Taxonomy?


Well, if he really published that early, I guess he gets priority over
Mills.

Neither of them has been satisfactorily replicated, in my opinion. Really,
the first totally convincing Ni-H results may end up being Rossi's.
Assuming HE is fully confirmed someday.

By the way, the paper I referred to is here:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CerronZebainvestigat.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

I say entropic black hole suffering from indigestion

On Monday, January 21, 2013, ChemE Stewart wrote:

 Geologists say liquid not plasma so you are bucking the trend, I admire
 that

 The *outer core* of the Earth http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth is a
 liquid layer about 2,266 km (1,408 mi) thick composed of 
 ironhttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron
  and nickel http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel which lies above the
 Earth's solid inner core http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core and
 below itsmantle http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_(geology). Its
 outer boundary lies 2,890 km (1,800 mi) beneath the Earth's surface. The
 transition between the inner core and outer core is located approximately
 5,150 km (3,200 mi) beneath the Earth's surface.

 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 There is a outer core that is molten and the inner core that is solid.
 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:14 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Funny,

 Last I read they think the inner core is solid...

 The *inner core* of the Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth, its
 innermost part, is a primarily solid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid
 ball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_%28mathematics%29 with a radius
 of about 1,220 km (760 mi), according to seismological 
 studieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismology
 .[1] 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core#cite_note-1[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core#cite_note-2
  (This
 is about 70% of the length of the Moon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon's
 radius.) It is believed to consist primarily of an 
 ironhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron
 –nickel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel 
 alloyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alloy,
 and to be about the same temperature as the surface of the 
 Sunhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun:
 approximately 5700 K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin(5430 °C).

 So I guess we are both bucking the trend...  You say solid, I say black
 hole

RE: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

2013-01-21 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Good discussion guys!  

Keeping the focus on the technical data, and so far you've been able to
avoid getting personal. excellent!

 

Giovanni, thanks for including the web-links to references. much
appreciated.

 

My only issue so far is with Giovanni's statement:

 

 The core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core  of the Sun is
considered to extend from the center to 

 about 20-25% of the solar radius.[46]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Garcia2007-47   It has a
density of up to 

 150 g/cm3[47] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Basu-48 [48]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49  (about 150 times the
density of water) and a 

 temperature of close to 15.7 million kelvin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin  (K)[48]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49 .

 

There is no way we could DIRECTLY measure either the radius of the Sun's
core or its density.  The 'accepted' figures come from theoretical models;
and applying those models to related variable.  As far as the radius is
concerned, your use of the phrasing, . is considered to extend. indicates
your conscious understanding that the ESTIMATES of the Sun's core radius is
just that. and *estimate, not backed up by direct measurement*.  However,
when you state, It has a density of upto. seems to be a bit too 'definite'
for my taste. 

 

This is a major problem I find in scientific papers.  *Definitive* wording
has crept into papers where it doesn't belong; it is not warranted by the
DIRECT experimental measurements. 

 

-Mark Iverson 

 

From: Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 12:54 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

 

The core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core  of the Sun is considered
to extend from the center to about 20-25% of the solar radius.[46]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Garcia2007-47  It has a density
of up to 150 g/cm3[47] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Basu-48
[48] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49  (about 150 times
the density of water) and a temperature of close to 15.7 million kelvin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin  (K)[48]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49 .

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

I was thinking a plasma was less dense.  Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein
condensate or something similar?

 

Plasma is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its particles
are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular bonds.In stars or
in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of gases are dissociated 
then due to high temperature it suffers further
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas heating  finally
forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube -1032
part./meter  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas
cube].

 

 

 

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com
wrote:

It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of pressure,
so it can be compacted.
Giovanni





On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

From You

 

Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they
work

 

From Me:

 

1) The inner core of Earth is denser than iron and/or nickel

2) A true simulation of the Earth's core and magnetic field has not been
established to date

 

Both of these contradict your statement above.

 

Stewart

darkmattersalot.com

 

 

 

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com
wrote:

What is in this link that contradicts what I have said about iron sinking at
the center of the earth?
Giovanni



On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed.

 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Chem,
Maybe by use of plasma is not perfectly precise but for all purposes iron
at that temperature is a plasma because it is extremely ionized. Yes, the
usual idea of a plasma is that is a sort of gas but the main property
really is that electrons are stripped away from the nucleus this is the
case with the core of the earth. It is basically a plasma from this point
of view.
Giovanni


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 Good discussion guys!  

 Keeping the focus on the technical data, and so far you’ve been able to
 avoid getting personal… excellent!

 ** **

 Giovanni, thanks for including the web-links to references… much
 appreciated.

 ** **

 My only issue so far is with Giovanni’s statement:

 ** **

  The core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core of the Sun is
 considered to extend from the center to 

  about 20–25% of the solar 
  radius.[46]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Garcia2007-47 It 
  has a density of up to
 

  150 g/cm3[47] 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Basu-48[48]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49(about
   150 times the density of water) and a
 

  temperature of close to 15.7 million 
  kelvinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin(K)
 [48] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49.

 ** **

 There is no way we could DIRECTLY measure either the radius of the Sun’s
 core or its density.  The ‘accepted’ figures come from theoretical models;
 and applying those models to related variable.  As far as the radius is
 concerned, your use of the phrasing, “… is considered to extend…” indicates
 your conscious understanding that the ESTIMATES of the Sun’s core radius is
 just that… and **estimate, not backed up by direct measurement**.
 However, when you state, “It has a density of upto…” seems to be a bit too
 ‘definite’ for my taste… 

 ** **

 This is a major problem I find in scientific papers.  **Definitive**
 wording has crept into papers where it doesn’t belong; it is not warranted
 by the DIRECT experimental measurements. 

 ** **

 -Mark Iverson 

 ** **

 *From:* Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2013 12:54 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

 ** **

 The core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core of the Sun is
 considered to extend from the center to about 20–25% of the solar radius.
 [46] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Garcia2007-47 It has a
 density of up to 150 
 g/cm3[47]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Basu-48
 [48] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49 (about 150
 times the density of water) and a temperature of close to 15.7 million
 kelvin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin 
 (K)[48]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49
 .

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
 

 I was thinking a plasma was less dense.  Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein
 condensate or something similar?

 ** **

 *Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
 particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
 bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
 gases are dissociated  then due to high temperature it suffers further
 heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas 
 finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube
 -1032 part./meter 
 cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas
 ].

 ** **

 ** **

 ** **

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of pressure,
 so it can be compacted.
 Giovanni



 

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
 

 From You

 ** **

 Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they
 work

 ** **

 From Me:

 ** **

 1) The inner core of Earth is denser than iron and/or nickel

 2) A true simulation of the Earth's core and magnetic field has not been
 established to date

 ** **

 Both of these contradict your statement above.

 ** **

 Stewart

 darkmattersalot.com

 ** **

 ** **

 ** **

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 What is in this link that contradicts what I have said about iron sinking
 at the center of the earth?
 Giovanni

 

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 

 I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed.

 ** **

 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html

 ** **

 ** **

 ** **

 ** **

 ** **

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

You can see here that you can have solid plasma:

http://www.overclockersclub.com/news/30536/

Giovanni


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:

 Chem,
 Maybe by use of plasma is not perfectly precise but for all purposes
 iron at that temperature is a plasma because it is extremely ionized. Yes,
 the usual idea of a plasma is that is a sort of gas but the main property
 really is that electrons are stripped away from the nucleus this is the
 case with the core of the earth. It is basically a plasma from this point
 of view.
 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 Good discussion guys!  

 Keeping the focus on the technical data, and so far you’ve been able to
 avoid getting personal… excellent!

 ** **

 Giovanni, thanks for including the web-links to references… much
 appreciated.

 ** **

 My only issue so far is with Giovanni’s statement:

 ** **

  The core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core of the Sun is
 considered to extend from the center to 

  about 20–25% of the solar 
  radius.[46]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Garcia2007-47 It 
  has a density of up to
 

  150 g/cm3[47] 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Basu-48[48]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49(about
   150 times the density of water) and a
 

  temperature of close to 15.7 million 
  kelvinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin(K)
 [48] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49.

 ** **

 There is no way we could DIRECTLY measure either the radius of the Sun’s
 core or its density.  The ‘accepted’ figures come from theoretical models;
 and applying those models to related variable.  As far as the radius is
 concerned, your use of the phrasing, “… is considered to extend…” indicates
 your conscious understanding that the ESTIMATES of the Sun’s core radius is
 just that… and **estimate, not backed up by direct measurement**.
 However, when you state, “It has a density of upto…” seems to be a bit too
 ‘definite’ for my taste… 

 ** **

 This is a major problem I find in scientific papers.  **Definitive**
 wording has crept into papers where it doesn’t belong; it is not warranted
 by the DIRECT experimental measurements. 

 ** **

 -Mark Iverson 

 ** **

 *From:* Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2013 12:54 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

 ** **

 The core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core of the Sun is
 considered to extend from the center to about 20–25% of the solar radius.
 [46] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Garcia2007-47 It has a
 density of up to 150 
 g/cm3[47]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Basu-48
 [48] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49 (about 150
 times the density of water) and a temperature of close to 15.7 million
 kelvin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin 
 (K)[48]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49
 .

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I was thinking a plasma was less dense.  Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein
 condensate or something similar?

 ** **

 *Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
 particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
 bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
 gases are dissociated  then due to high temperature it suffers further
 heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas 
 finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube
 -1032 part./meter 
 cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas
 ].

 ** **

 ** **

 ** **

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of
 pressure, so it can be compacted.
 Giovanni



 

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 From You

 ** **

 Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they
 work

 ** **

 From Me:

 ** **

 1) The inner core of Earth is denser than iron and/or nickel

 2) A true simulation of the Earth's core and magnetic field has not been
 established to date

 ** **

 Both of these contradict your statement above.

 ** **

 Stewart

 darkmattersalot.com

 ** **

 ** **

 ** **

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 What is in this link that contradicts what I have said about iron sinking
 at the center of the earth?
 Giovanni

 

 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed.

 ** **

 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html

 ** **

 ** **

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Cool,

My theory explains Earth's magnetic fields, magnetotail, coronal discharge
jets and transmuted elements and the accretion of matter we live in.

Can you explain all that?

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 You can see here that you can have solid plasma:

 http://www.overclockersclub.com/news/30536/

 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 Chem,
 Maybe by use of plasma is not perfectly precise but for all purposes
 iron at that temperature is a plasma because it is extremely ionized. Yes,
 the usual idea of a plasma is that is a sort of gas but the main property
 really is that electrons are stripped away from the nucleus this is the
 case with the core of the earth. It is basically a plasma from this point
 of view.
  Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 Good discussion guys!  

 Keeping the focus on the technical data, and so far you’ve been able to
 avoid getting personal… excellent!

 ** **

 Giovanni, thanks for including the web-links to references… much
 appreciated.

 ** **

 My only issue so far is with Giovanni’s statement:

 ** **

  The core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core of the Sun is
 considered to extend from the center to 

  about 20–25% of the solar 
  radius.[46]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Garcia2007-47 It 
  has a density of up to
 

  150 g/cm3[47] 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Basu-48[48]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49(about
   150 times the density of water) and a
 

  temperature of close to 15.7 million 
  kelvinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin(K)
 [48] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49.

 ** **

 There is no way we could DIRECTLY measure either the radius of the Sun’s
 core or its density.  The ‘accepted’ figures come from theoretical models;
 and applying those models to related variable.  As far as the radius is
 concerned, your use of the phrasing, “… is considered to extend…” indicates
 your conscious understanding that the ESTIMATES of the Sun’s core radius is
 just that… and **estimate, not backed up by direct measurement**.
 However, when you state, “It has a density of upto…” seems to be a bit too
 ‘definite’ for my taste… 

 ** **

 This is a major problem I find in scientific papers.  **Definitive**
 wording has crept into papers where it doesn’t belong; it is not warranted
 by the DIRECT experimental measurements. 

 ** **

 -Mark Iverson 

 ** **

 **

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Mark,
Everything we do in science is based on models. In fact, most of our
rational understanding of the world is a model.
When you say tomorrow the sun will come up from the horizon again, you are
basing this statement on a model, maybe based on several previous
observations but still you are putting all these inputs you collected in a
model that says tomorrow the sun will rise again.
The models of astrophysics are actually among the most complete and well
studied in all science. Our understanding of stellar structure is extremely
good.
They are not just theoretical, they make very precise predictions that can
be testable and they have been tested many times in many different space
and temporal scales.
There was a period of several decades where the models could not predict
the right amount of neutrino flux on Earth from the sun and people doubted
the astrophysical models. Some physicists suggested instead that maybe our
neutrino physics was incomplete.
It turned out that the astrophysics was right and we had to change our
neutrinos models.
Also we start to have better understanding of the solar interior not just
through models but direct observation through helioseismology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helioseismology

Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

Good discussion guys!

Keeping the focus on the technical data, and so far you’ve been able to
avoid getting personal… excellent!

** **

Giovanni, thanks for including the web-links to references… much
appreciated.

** **

My only issue so far is with Giovanni’s statement:

** **

The core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core of the Sun is
considered to extend from the center to

about 20–25% of the solar
radius.[46]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Garcia2007-47 It
has a density of up to

150 g/cm3[47]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Basu-48[48]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49(about
150 times the density of water) and a

temperature of close to 15.7 million
kelvinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin(K)
[48] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49.

** **

There is no way we could DIRECTLY measure either the radius of the Sun’s
core or its density. The ‘accepted’ figures come from theoretical models;
and applying those models to related variable. As far as the radius is
concerned, your use of the phrasing, “… is considered to extend…” indicates
your conscious understanding that the ESTIMATES of the Sun’s core radius is
just that… and **estimate, not backed up by direct measurement**.
However, when you state, “It has a density of upto…” seems to be a bit too
‘definite’ for my taste…

** **

This is a major problem I find in scientific papers. **Definitive**
wording has crept into papers where it doesn’t belong; it is not warranted
by the DIRECT experimental measurements.

** **

-Mark Iverson

** **

*From:* Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2013 12:54 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

*Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

** **

The core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core of the Sun is
considered to extend from the center to about 20–25% of the solar radius.
[46] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Garcia2007-47 It has a
density of up to 150
g/cm3[47]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Basu-48
[48] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49 (about 150
times the density of water) and a temperature of close to 15.7 million
kelvin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin
(K)[48]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49
.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

I was thinking a plasma was less dense. Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein
condensate or something similar?

** **

*Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its
particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular
bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of
gases are dissociated then due to high temperature it suffers further
heating http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas
finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube
-1032 part./meter
cubehttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas
].

** **

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of pressure,
so it can be compacted.
Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

From You

** **

Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they
work

** **

From Me:

** **

1) The inner core of Earth is denser than iron and/or

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Can you send me a paper with your theory explained in details, with
calculations and simulations?
A story telling in a blog using some nonsensical words would not make it.
Thanks,

Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:05 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Cool,

 My theory explains Earth's magnetic fields, magnetotail, coronal discharge
 jets and transmuted elements and the accretion of matter we live in.

 Can you explain all that?


 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 You can see here that you can have solid plasma:

 http://www.overclockersclub.com/news/30536/

 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 Chem,
 Maybe by use of plasma is not perfectly precise but for all purposes
 iron at that temperature is a plasma because it is extremely ionized. Yes,
 the usual idea of a plasma is that is a sort of gas but the main property
 really is that electrons are stripped away from the nucleus this is the
 case with the core of the earth. It is basically a plasma from this point
 of view.
  Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
 zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 Good discussion guys!  

 Keeping the focus on the technical data, and so far you’ve been able to
 avoid getting personal… excellent!

 ** **

 Giovanni, thanks for including the web-links to references… much
 appreciated.

 ** **

 My only issue so far is with Giovanni’s statement:

 ** **

  The core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core of the Sun is
 considered to extend from the center to 

  about 20–25% of the solar 
  radius.[46]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Garcia2007-47 It 
  has a density of up to
 

  150 g/cm3[47] 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Basu-48[48]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49(about
   150 times the density of water) and a
 

  temperature of close to 15.7 million 
  kelvinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin(K)
 [48] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49.

 ** **

 There is no way we could DIRECTLY measure either the radius of the Sun’s
 core or its density.  The ‘accepted’ figures come from theoretical models;
 and applying those models to related variable.  As far as the radius is
 concerned, your use of the phrasing, “… is considered to extend…” indicates
 your conscious understanding that the ESTIMATES of the Sun’s core radius is
 just that… and **estimate, not backed up by direct measurement**.
 However, when you state, “It has a density of upto…” seems to be a bit too
 ‘definite’ for my taste… 

 ** **

 This is a major problem I find in scientific papers.  **Definitive**
 wording has crept into papers where it doesn’t belong; it is not warranted
 by the DIRECT experimental measurements. 

 ** **

 -Mark Iverson 

 ** **

 **

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

This is a good paper that describe a possible model for the outer core, not
quite a plasma but a metallic liquid with unusual properties:

http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfbdxa/pubblicazioni/nat.pdf

Giovanni


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:

 Can you send me a paper with your theory explained in details, with
 calculations and simulations?
 A story telling in a blog using some nonsensical words would not make it.
 Thanks,

 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:05 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Cool,

 My theory explains Earth's magnetic fields, magnetotail, coronal
 discharge jets and transmuted elements and the accretion of matter we live
 in.

 Can you explain all that?


 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 You can see here that you can have solid plasma:

 http://www.overclockersclub.com/news/30536/

 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
 gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 Chem,
 Maybe by use of plasma is not perfectly precise but for all purposes
 iron at that temperature is a plasma because it is extremely ionized. Yes,
 the usual idea of a plasma is that is a sort of gas but the main property
 really is that electrons are stripped away from the nucleus this is the
 case with the core of the earth. It is basically a plasma from this point
 of view.
  Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
 zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 Good discussion guys!  

 Keeping the focus on the technical data, and so far you’ve been able to
 avoid getting personal… excellent!

 ** **

 Giovanni, thanks for including the web-links to references… much
 appreciated.

 ** **

 My only issue so far is with Giovanni’s statement:

 ** **

  The core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core of the Sun is
 considered to extend from the center to 

  about 20–25% of the solar 
  radius.[46]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Garcia2007-47 It 
  has a density of up to
 

  150 g/cm3[47] 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Basu-48[48]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49(about
   150 times the density of water) and a
 

  temperature of close to 15.7 million 
  kelvinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin(K)
 [48] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49.

 ** **

 There is no way we could DIRECTLY measure either the radius of the Sun’s
 core or its density.  The ‘accepted’ figures come from theoretical models;
 and applying those models to related variable.  As far as the radius is
 concerned, your use of the phrasing, “… is considered to extend…” indicates
 your conscious understanding that the ESTIMATES of the Sun’s core radius is
 just that… and **estimate, not backed up by direct measurement**.
 However, when you state, “It has a density of upto…” seems to be a bit too
 ‘definite’ for my taste… 

 ** **

 This is a major problem I find in scientific papers.  **Definitive**
 wording has crept into papers where it doesn’t belong; it is not warranted
 by the DIRECT experimental measurements. 

 ** **

 -Mark Iverson 

 ** **

 **

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

2013-01-21 Thread Vorl Bek

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:10:02 -0600
Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:

 Can you send me a paper with your theory explained in details, with
 calculations and simulations?
 A story telling in a blog using some nonsensical words would not make it.
 Thanks,

I can not speak for Chem of course, but I have to say that if
someone asked me to produce actual *calculations* to justify the
many physical theories I dream about, I would be insulted.

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Fe, without it's electrons, is not magnetic.

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

The magnetism in the inner core is explained in terms of Eddy currents, an
induction effect.
Sun has a magnetic field that is produced by plasma currents inside its
core.

Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Fe, without it's electrons, is not magnetic.

[Vo]:Obama emphasizes energy

Obama emphasized energy again in the Inauguration Address. Saying, for
example:

We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure
to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still
deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the
devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more
powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long
and sometimes difficult.

As much as I support alternative energy, it galls me when I hear Obama say
that. I just wish there was some way we could bring cold fusion to his
attention. If we could have 0.01% of plasma fusion funding it would do
wonders. Alas we are drowned out by the noise from others, and by the
skeptics.

Energy was a large part of his Recovery and Reinvestment act. This article
is somewhat political but it describes this:

http://failuremag.com/feature/article/the-new-new-deal/

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Obama emphasizes energy

The only good news is that Chu is leaving. He is on record denigrating cold
fusion, not long ago. I don't recall when.

The next guy will probably be just a bad. Sigh . . .

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Obama emphasizes energy

2013-01-21 Thread Edmund Storms

Jed, I do not believe cold fusion will get any support from the  
government until it can be explained by an accepted and demonstrated  
theory, and until a material can be made by anyone to cause the  
effect. Neither condition exists and I see no ability of people in the  
field to achieve these requirements anytime soon.


Ed


On Jan 21, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Obama emphasized energy again in the Inauguration Address. Saying,  
for example:


We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the  
failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.  
Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none  
can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling  
drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable  
energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult.


As much as I support alternative energy, it galls me when I hear  
Obama say that. I just wish there was some way we could bring cold  
fusion to his attention. If we could have 0.01% of plasma fusion  
funding it would do wonders. Alas we are drowned out by the noise  
from others, and by the skeptics.


Energy was a large part of his Recovery and Reinvestment act. This  
article is somewhat political but it describes this:


http://failuremag.com/feature/article/the-new-new-deal/

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Obama emphasizes energy

2013-01-21 Thread Edmund Storms

I agree, but we have been hoping for 23 years and counting. But as you  
say, hope is all we have left, and Rossi. :-)  We need a wealthy  
person who is wise and smart to donate enough money to a study of the  
subject that is designed to answer the critical questions.  
Unfortunately, people in the field can not even agree on the critical  
questions.


Ed
On Jan 21, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Jed, I do not believe cold fusion will get any support from the  
government until it can be explained by an accepted and demonstrated  
theory, and until a material can be made by anyone to cause the  
effect. . . .


You may be right, but we can always hope, can't we?

We can also hope that Rossi will emerge from his cave and rescue us.  
That does not seem likely either, but you never know.


Maybe the MFM people will find something. Maybe Brillouin will.

Hope springs eternal! As Mr. Obama says, while we breathe, we hope.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Obama emphasizes energy

Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

Your silence regarding Defkalion?  You know something we don't?  ;)]


I do not know anything that hasn't been published. I think it has been
published? Didn't someone upload their ICCF17 presentation?

I was disappointed by their ICCF17 presentation. There was no hard
information. No numbers, just blather. All this stuff about how they will
cooperate, and their corporate goals. Who cares about that!!! I felt like
saying: This is a physics conference, not a trade show. Cut the crap! Give
us data.

I would trade the entire presentation for a couple of graphs showing a
calibration and live run. With number on the axis, that is.

I have seen nothing in the stuff they posted subsequently. Frankly, I am
sick of them. Cousin Peter is still impressed with them. I guess he has his
reasons.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Obama emphasizes energy

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I do not know anything that hasn't been published. I think it has been
 published? Didn't someone upload their ICCF17 presentation?

Yes, along with a paper describing their geometry.  One thing in there
which I think has gone unnoticed by most is their use of a Ni foam as
the structure of their reactor.

Someone once asked my on this list how I would approach the design of
a NiH reactor and I spoke of a new battery which used Li foam.  I can
dig it out if you wish..

If DGT can create a Ni foam with the right bubble dimensions and load
it with atomic hydrogen, they could create a heat generating cell
which would not need the periodic replacements that Rossi describes.

Or maybe I'm just dreaming it all.

Or not.

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

That seems like a pretty good statement Terry.  I wonder if anyone has been 
able to actually run an experiment to prove it?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational


Fe, without it's electrons, is not magnetic.

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Is eddy currents the proper description to use in this case?   It would seem 
that a system that is self sustaining due to some form of feedback would be 
more of a generator instead of a loss mechanism as eddy currents are generally 
considered.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 5:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational


The magnetism in the inner core is explained in terms of Eddy currents, an 
induction effect. 
Sun has a magnetic field that is produced by plasma currents inside its core.


Giovanni


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

Fe, without it's electrons, is not magnetic.

Re: [Vo]:Obama emphasizes energy

I'm sorry, it was a Cu foam substrate:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66384.html

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I do not know anything that hasn't been published. I think it has been
 published? Didn't someone upload their ICCF17 presentation?

 Yes, along with a paper describing their geometry.  One thing in there
 which I think has gone unnoticed by most is their use of a Ni foam as
 the structure of their reactor.

 Someone once asked my on this list how I would approach the design of
 a NiH reactor and I spoke of a new battery which used Li foam.  I can
 dig it out if you wish..

 If DGT can create a Ni foam with the right bubble dimensions and load
 it with atomic hydrogen, they could create a heat generating cell
 which would not need the periodic replacements that Rossi describes.

 Or maybe I'm just dreaming it all.

 Or not.

Re: [Vo]:Obama emphasizes energy

I assume he can not be worse.  We need a solid public demonstration device 
ASAP.  This year should be the one.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 6:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Obama emphasizes energy


The only good news is that Chu is leaving. He is on record denigrating cold 
fusion, not long ago. I don't recall when.


The next guy will probably be just a bad. Sigh . . .


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Obama emphasizes energy

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'm sorry, it was a Cu foam substrate:

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66384.html

Here was the question posed to me:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66538.html

Re: [Vo]:Obama emphasizes energy

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'm sorry, it was a Cu foam substrate:

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66384.html

 Here was the question posed to me:

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66538.html

In August DGT announced that they were using foam with a micron sized
bubble.  But I think you need to shrink the bubble by a factor of 3.


But WTF do I know?

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:32 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
 That seems like a pretty good statement Terry.  I wonder if anyone has been
 able to actually run an experiment to prove it?

Well, I think that it's the spin orientation of the electrons which
make Fe magnetic.  Or possibily, I am missing something in my basic
knowledge.


Wouldn't be the first time.

Re: [Vo]:Obama emphasizes energy

2013-01-21 Thread Jouni Valkonen

Jed and Ed!

Like I have pointed out earlier, you will get plasma fusion budget for cold 
fusion research in no time using crowd-funding. It is easy to get few million 
dollars to finance initial experiments and if there is any positive or even 
suggestive results to be published, crowd funding potential will crow 
exponentially after each published paper. 

*

I have recently become huge fan of wind power. Therefore I welcome Obama's 
initiative. It is very inspiring to think how drastically industrial production 
must adapt to the chaotic energy production conditions that wind power will 
provide. Factories must be redesigned from up to bottom, so that they can scale 
up the production according the electricity price. But I think that automation 
will help adapting.

Wind power is great, because it is very cheap, if and only if power hungry 
society can efficiently adapt into changing power supply conditions. If it 
cannot, then wind power is very expensive. 

There is also one often neglected detail. First generation wind turbines are 
relatively expensive and they require rare earth metals. However second 
generation wind turbines are very very cheap because the bulk of the materials, 
such as tower, rotor hub and neodymium, can be fully recycled. Therefore 
effective life span for wind turbine is something over 40 years, not 25 years. 
This means that the electricity produced is dirt cheap compared to to thermal 
electric sources such as coal and nuclear.

—Jouni

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 22, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Obama emphasized energy again in the Inauguration Address. Saying, for 
 example:
 
 We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to 
 do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny 
 the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating 
 impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The 
 path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult.
 
 As much as I support alternative energy, it galls me when I hear Obama say 
 that. I just wish there was some way we could bring cold fusion to his 
 attention. If we could have 0.01% of plasma fusion funding it would do 
 wonders. Alas we are drowned out by the noise from others, and by the 
 skeptics.
 
 Energy was a large part of his Recovery and Reinvestment act. This article is 
 somewhat political but it describes this:
 
 http://failuremag.com/feature/article/the-new-new-deal/
 
 - Jed

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Hey, I was just asking a question like a lawyer.  That is my understanding as 
well, but sometimes the theory might not be the whole story.


I was curious as to whether or not anyone had come up with an experiment to 
verify the theory.  A lot of times this happens, and it might not be too 
difficult to conduct one to prove this.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 7:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:32 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
 That seems like a pretty good statement Terry.  I wonder if anyone has been
 able to actually run an experiment to prove it?

Well, I think that it's the spin orientation of the electrons which
make Fe magnetic.  Or possibily, I am missing something in my basic
knowledge.


Wouldn't be the first time.

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

In My Model Earth Recharges its Core Battery through black hole
coalescence.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1338

Only about 3% of the entropy gets annihilated and gets shot out the auroras

In other words our weather systems are recharging our Earth's core battery
and cooling the core slightly as it takes on some additional mass.  As it
radiates it slowly heats back up.

Weird thing is that back as far as 2002 I think we were being shown
this coalescence and ring-down phase in crop circles

http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/videolibrary/group%202.html

We are part of a much larger entropic organism and are equivalent to some
bacteria growing in the 5% crust.  The streaming dark matter through the
universe are the tendrils connecting it all and transferring
electromagnetic and gravitational flux.


Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Is eddy currents the proper description to use in this case?   It would
 seem that a system that is self sustaining due to some form of feedback
 would be more of a generator instead of a loss mechanism as eddy currents
 are generally considered.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 5:41 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

  The magnetism in the inner core is explained in terms of Eddy currents,
 an induction effect.
 Sun has a magnetic field that is produced by plasma currents inside its
 core.

  Giovanni

  On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote:

 Fe, without it's electrons, is not magnetic.

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

I think also the economical crisis could be explained by black hole
coalescence of entropical annihilating forces of gravitational interstellar
currents.

Giovanni


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:24 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 In My Model Earth Recharges its Core Battery through black hole
 coalescence.

 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1338

 Only about 3% of the entropy gets annihilated and gets shot out the auroras

 In other words our weather systems are recharging our Earth's core battery
 and cooling the core slightly as it takes on some additional mass.  As it
 radiates it slowly heats back up.

 Weird thing is that back as far as 2002 I think we were being shown
 this coalescence and ring-down phase in crop circles

 http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/videolibrary/group%202.html

 We are part of a much larger entropic organism and are equivalent to some
 bacteria growing in the 5% crust.  The streaming dark matter through the
 universe are the tendrils connecting it all and transferring
 electromagnetic and gravitational flux.


 Stewart
 Darkmattersalot.com


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 Is eddy currents the proper description to use in this case?   It would
 seem that a system that is self sustaining due to some form of feedback
 would be more of a generator instead of a loss mechanism as eddy currents
 are generally considered.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 5:41 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

  The magnetism in the inner core is explained in terms of Eddy currents,
 an induction effect.
 Sun has a magnetic field that is produced by plasma currents inside its
 core.

  Giovanni

  On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote:

 Fe, without it's electrons, is not magnetic.

[Vo]: COE and Magnetic Field Question

Recently I have been exploring magnetic concepts.  I have been seeing so many 
references to magnetic motors that I believe are not possible, but they keep 
coming so I decided to perform some thought experiments.  Let me present one 
that is somewhat associated with the motor concepts.


All I ask is that you give it some serious consideration and post what you 
think the results should be.


Take an iron rod and wrap a coil around it.  The rod is initially not 
magnetized.


Apply a voltage to the wire for a short period of time that allows enough 
current to flow to result in a permanent magnetization of the iron rod.


Now, if you are very good at measuring energy, you would be capable of directly 
measuring the input energy supplied by the voltage source.  Record this energy 
for later reference.


At this point in time, the rod maintains a magnetic field that contains a 
certain amount of field energy and heat has been given off due to losses within 
the wire and due to mechanical effects within the rod, etc.


I would assume that we would now have a direct measurement of the energy stored 
within the field so it is time to make it do some work.


Take a large collection of iron pellets that are not magnetized and work with 
them one at a time.  Attach a scale to the first one that records the 
attraction force between the magnet and the iron pellet.  Allow the pellet to 
slowly approach the magnet while you record the force applied.  Integrate the 
force times distance to arrive at the work performed by the action of the field 
upon the pellet.


Now, continue to add pellets one at a time while your record the work performed 
upon each one.  Continue this operation until either one of two things happen.  
The first is that there is no more force available to do work on additional 
pellets.  The second is that you run out of pellets after a large pile of them 
is attached to the magnet.


The question becomes:  Does the external field become zero just as all of the 
energy applied to generate it by the voltage source less losses is exactly 
equal to the work done on the pellets?  Or, does the net energy supplied by the 
pellet motion end up as some fraction of the initial field stored energy while 
leaving some if not most of the field energy intact but contained within the 
pile of iron?  Or, would you suspect that the field would never cease to supply 
energy to additional pellets since it expands due to the extra iron?  Any other 
possibilities?


My bet is placed upon the second condition.  I would expect the 
COE(conservation of energy) to limit any work that can be taken from the rod to 
a value that is less than the initial field energy, but that much of the field 
would be left contained within the iron pile.  


What do you others think will happen?  Can we obtain infinite energy with such 
a system?


Dave

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Cool, you are coming around then

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 I think also the economical crisis could be explained by black hole
 coalescence of entropical annihilating forces of gravitational interstellar
 currents.

 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:24 PM, ChemE Stewart 
 cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'cheme...@gmail.com');
  wrote:

 In My Model Earth Recharges its Core Battery through black hole
 coalescence.

 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1338

 Only about 3% of the entropy gets annihilated and gets shot out the
 auroras

 In other words our weather systems are recharging our Earth's core
 battery and cooling the core slightly as it takes on some additional mass.
  As it radiates it slowly heats back up.

 Weird thing is that back as far as 2002 I think we were being shown
 this coalescence and ring-down phase in crop circles

 http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/videolibrary/group%202.html

 We are part of a much larger entropic organism and are equivalent to some
 bacteria growing in the 5% crust.  The streaming dark matter through the
 universe are the tendrils connecting it all and transferring
 electromagnetic and gravitational flux.


 Stewart
 Darkmattersalot.com


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:36 PM, David Roberson 
 dlrober...@aol.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'dlrober...@aol.com');
  wrote:

 Is eddy currents the proper description to use in this case?   It would
 seem that a system that is self sustaining due to some form of feedback
 would be more of a generator instead of a loss mechanism as eddy currents
 are generally considered.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com javascript:_e({},
 'cvml', 'gsantost...@gmail.com');
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
 Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 5:41 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

  The magnetism in the inner core is explained in terms of Eddy currents,
 an induction effect.
 Sun has a magnetic field that is produced by plasma currents inside its
 core.

  Giovanni

  On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Terry Blanton 
 hohlr...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'hohlr...@gmail.com');
  wrote:

 Fe, without it's electrons, is not magnetic.

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Yes, I'm seeing the light that made it out of the event horizon...


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:32 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Cool, you are coming around then


 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 I think also the economical crisis could be explained by black hole
 coalescence of entropical annihilating forces of gravitational interstellar
 currents.

 Giovanni


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:24 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 In My Model Earth Recharges its Core Battery through black hole
 coalescence.

 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1338

 Only about 3% of the entropy gets annihilated and gets shot out the
 auroras

 In other words our weather systems are recharging our Earth's core
 battery and cooling the core slightly as it takes on some additional mass.
  As it radiates it slowly heats back up.

 Weird thing is that back as far as 2002 I think we were being shown
 this coalescence and ring-down phase in crop circles

 http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/videolibrary/group%202.html

 We are part of a much larger entropic organism and are equivalent to
 some bacteria growing in the 5% crust.  The streaming dark matter through
 the universe are the tendrils connecting it all and transferring
 electromagnetic and gravitational flux.


 Stewart
 Darkmattersalot.com


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 Is eddy currents the proper description to use in this case?   It would
 seem that a system that is self sustaining due to some form of feedback
 would be more of a generator instead of a loss mechanism as eddy currents
 are generally considered.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 5:41 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

  The magnetism in the inner core is explained in terms of Eddy
 currents, an induction effect.
 Sun has a magnetic field that is produced by plasma currents inside its
 core.

  Giovanni

  On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote:

 Fe, without it's electrons, is not magnetic.

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Cheme, one day you will be drawn into one of those black holes and become a 
surface feature. 

-Original Message-
From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 8:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Cool, you are coming around then

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:

I think also the economical crisis could be explained by black hole coalescence 
of entropical annihilating forces of gravitational interstellar currents. 

Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:24 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

In My Model Earth Recharges its Core Battery through black hole coalescence. 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1338

Only about 3% of the entropy gets annihilated and gets shot out the auroras

In other words our weather systems are recharging our Earth's core battery and 
cooling the core slightly as it takes on some additional mass.  As it radiates 
it slowly heats back up.  

Weird thing is that back as far as 2002 I think we were being shown this 
coalescence and ring-down phase in crop circles

http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/videolibrary/group%202.html

We are part of a much larger entropic organism and are equivalent to some 
bacteria growing in the 5% crust.  The streaming dark matter through the 
universe are the tendrils connecting it all and transferring electromagnetic 
and gravitational flux.

Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Is eddy currents the proper description to use in this case?   It would seem 
that a system that is self sustaining due to some form of feedback would be 
more of a generator instead of a loss mechanism as eddy currents are generally 
considered.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 5:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

The magnetism in the inner core is explained in terms of Eddy currents, an 
induction effect. 
Sun has a magnetic field that is produced by plasma currents inside its core.

Giovanni

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

Fe, without it's electrons, is not magnetic.

Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

Close, we are all just holographic projections on the surface of black
holes, see Verlinde's entropic theory of gravity

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Verlinde

:)

On Monday, January 21, 2013, David Roberson wrote:

 Cheme, one day you will be drawn into one of those black holes and become
 a surface feature. [image: :-)]


 -Original Message-
 From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'cheme...@gmail.com');
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
 Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 8:32 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

  Cool, you are coming around then

 On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 I think also the economical crisis could be explained by black hole
 coalescence of entropical annihilating forces of gravitational interstellar
 currents.

  Giovanni


  On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:24 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote:

 In My Model Earth Recharges its Core Battery through black hole
 coalescence.

  http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1338

  Only about 3% of the entropy gets annihilated and gets shot out the
 auroras

 In other words our weather systems are recharging our Earth's core
 battery and cooling the core slightly as it takes on some additional mass.
  As it radiates it slowly heats back up.

  Weird thing is that back as far as 2002 I think we were being shown
 this coalescence and ring-down phase in crop circles

  http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/videolibrary/group%202.html

  We are part of a much larger entropic organism and are equivalent to
 some bacteria growing in the 5% crust.  The streaming dark matter through
 the universe are the tendrils connecting it all and transferring
 electromagnetic and gravitational flux.


  Stewart
 Darkmattersalot.com


 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:

 Is eddy currents the proper description to use in this case?   It would
 seem that a system that is self sustaining due to some form of feedback
 would be more of a generator instead of a loss mechanism as eddy currents
 are generally considered.

  Dave


  -Original Message-
 From: Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 5:41 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational

   The magnetism in the inner core is explained in terms of Eddy
 currents, an induction effect.
 Sun has a magnetic field that is produced by plasma currents inside its
 core.

  Giovanni

  On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote:

 Fe, without it's electrons, is not magnetic.

RE: [Vo]:Obama emphasizes energy

2013-01-21 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

From Ed Storms,

 

 I agree, but we have been hoping for 23 years and counting.

 But as you say, hope is all we have left, and Rossi. :-)  

 

I realize this was said somewhat in jest. However, considering the recent
Pop Sci article on Mr. Rossi... particularly the part where NASA invited
Rossi to show his stuff to them... Jeepers! What a train wreck that was! At
present I think the last thing I would suggest DoE might want to look into
is Andrea Rossi. I would not trust that any of them would be capable of
looking past Rossi's flamboyant persona...  A loose cannon extraordinaire.

 

...and this, of course, assumes that Rossi actually HAS stumbled across the
ability to occasionally generate a startling amount of unexplainable heat,
which to the best of my knowledge has yet to have been independently
verified.

 

 We need a wealthy person who is wise and smart to donate

 enough money to a study of the subject that is designed 

 to answer the critical questions. Unfortunately, people in

 the field can not even agree on the critical questions.

 

Sadly, why gamble investment capital on a still unproven technology when
another energy bonanza that involves completely proven technology is about
to dramatically change the surface of the planet.

 

It is ironic to say this but the United States is on the verge of becoming
the next Saudi Arabia within 5 - 15 years due to the wonders (aka horrors)
of fracking, and other advanced technologies that will now allow us to
extract huge vast reservoirs of fossil fuels in ways that had been
impossible to do not all that long ago. No wonder Mitt Romney desperately
wanted to win the election. He knew what was coming down the pipe line. What
interesting coattails he would have been able to ride all the way to 2016
and beyond, and he wouldn't have to have done a damn thing to get reelected.
Of course, Obama knew about the coming fossil fuel bonanza too. As such,
Obama can afford to play lip service to all sorts of AE concerns while
knowing full well the fact that he has secured a guaranteed way of making
the United States independent of foreign/Arabian oil in just a few years.
He's got to be feeling pretty chipper about that.

 

Of course we are probably going to lose the state of Florida to the fishes,
and Oklahoma and Nebraska may soon hosts the next American deserts that
curious tourists will visit on their vacation. Sure. those things might
concern some republicans (and perhaps even a few democrats too) particularly
when it comes to voting time again. but what the hey! If it happens, it
happens. It wuzn't our fault. No! Really!

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Obama emphasizes energy

2013-01-21 Thread Edmund Storms



On Jan 21, 2013, at 6:44 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:


From Ed Storms,

 I agree, but we have been hoping for 23 years and counting.
 But as you say, hope is all we have left, and Rossi. :-)

I realize this was said somewhat in jest. However, considering the  
recent Pop Sci article on Mr. Rossi... particularly the part where  
NASA invited Rossi to show his stuff to them... Jeepers! What a  
train wreck that was! At present I think the last thing I would  
suggest DoE might want to look into is Andrea Rossi. I would not  
trust that any of them would be capable of looking past Rossi's  
flamboyant persona...  A loose cannon extraordinaire.


Yes, but he is what we have. As with life in general, we have to play  
the hand we were dealt.


...and this, of course, assumes that Rossi actually HAS stumbled  
across the ability to occasionally generate a startling amount of  
unexplainable heat, which to the best of my knowledge has yet to  
have been independently verified.


No, it is not obvious to everyone. That will only happen if he  
succeeds in creating a commercial generator that everyone can buy and  
test.


 We need a wealthy person who is wise and smart to donate
 enough money to a study of the subject that is designed
 to answer the critical questions. Unfortunately, people in
 the field can not even agree on the critical questions.

Sadly, why gamble investment capital on a still unproven technology  
when another energy bonanza that involves completely proven  
technology is about to dramatically change the surface of the planet.


That is my point. It takes a very courageous and wealthy person to do  
this and these people are very rare.


It is ironic to say this but the United States is on the verge of  
becoming the next Saudi Arabia within 5 - 15 years due to the  
wonders (aka horrors) of fracking, and other advanced technologies  
that will now allow us to extract huge vast reservoirs of fossil  
fuels in ways that had been impossible to do not all that long ago.  
No wonder Mitt Romney desperately wanted to win the election. He  
knew what was coming down the pipe line. What interesting coattails  
he would have been able to ride all the way to 2016 and beyond, and  
he wouldn't have to have done a damn thing to get reelected. Of  
course, Obama knew about the coming fossil fuel bonanza too. As  
such, Obama can afford to play lip service to all sorts of AE  
concerns while knowing full well the fact that he has secured a  
guaranteed way of making the United States independent of foreign/ 
Arabian oil in just a few years. He’s got to be feeling pretty  
chipper about that.


Yes, Nature has given a gift that will eventually destroy civilization  
as we know it. But Nature is like that. We all are tested by Nature.  
If we fail, we die, as you so vividly describe below.


Ed


Of course we are probably going to lose the state of Florida to the  
fishes, and Oklahoma and Nebraska may soon hosts the next American  
deserts that curious tourists will visit on their vacation. Sure…  
those things might concern some republicans (and perhaps even a few  
democrats too) particularly when it comes to voting time again. but  
what the hey! If it happens, it happens. It wuzn't our fault. No!  
Really!


Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Obama emphasizes energy - fracking next big scam/collapse

2013-01-21 Thread David L Babcock

The Peak Oil crowd has carefully analyzed the oil industry data, and 
fracking is going nowhere in the long run.  Short run? Sure we'll have a 
few years of lower natgas prices -getting them right now- but the 
prognosis is bleak.


Basically, the wells are very expensive, and the depletion rate of each 
well is /very/ fast.  As well the speculation factor is way over-stating 
the size of the possible fields.


I strongly encourage a look at the un-fevered data; Google Resiliance, 
peak oil.


Ol' Bab



On 1/21/2013 8:44 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:


Sadly, why gamble investment capital on a still unproven technology 
when another energy bonanza that involves completely proven technology 
is about to dramatically change the surface of the planet.


It is ironic to say this but the United States is on the verge of 
becoming the next Saudi Arabia within 5 - 15 years due to the wonders 
(aka horrors) of fracking, and other advanced technologies that will 
now allow us to extract huge vast reservoirs of fossil fuels in ways 
that had been impossible to do not all that long ago. No wonder Mitt 
Romney desperately wanted to win the election. He knew what was coming 
down the pipe line. What interesting coattails he would have been able 
to ride all the way to 2016 and beyond, and he wouldn't have to have 
done a damn thing to get reelected. Of course, Obama knew about the 
coming fossil fuel bonanza too. As such, Obama can afford to play lip 
service to all sorts of AE concerns while knowing full well the fact 
that he has secured a guaranteed way of making the United States 
independent of foreign/Arabian oil in just a few years. He's got to be 
feeling pretty chipper about that.


Of course we are probably going to lose the state of Florida to the 
fishes, and Oklahoma and Nebraska may soon hosts the next American 
deserts that curious tourists will visit on their vacation. Sure... 
those things might concern some republicans (and perhaps even a few 
democrats too) particularly when it comes to voting time again. but 
what the hey! If it happens, it happens. It wuzn't our fault. No! Really!


Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent

2013-01-21 Thread Eric Walker

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:09 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

I understand energy release of this nature as being due to an isomer
 transition within the nucleus.  Is that what is being proposed?


That is the term I was looking for -- isomeric transitions.  There are
metastable isomers of, for example, isotopes of nickel.  But if I have
understood what Piantelli is saying, in order for the reaction to be
gainful, these metastable isomers are too short-lived to be what he needs.
 I believe he needs the normal isomers to be very long-lived metastable
ones, and then the action of hydrogen brings them down to a heretofore
unknown ground state.  This would need to apply to most or all transition
metals, and not just nickel, since the patent covers the transition metals
generally and not just nickel.

Eric

Re: [Vo]: COE and Magnetic Field Question

2013-01-21 Thread pagnucco

David,

The following paper presents (literally) a toy example of extracting
energy from a static magnetic field:

A Magnetic Linear Accelerator
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/lin_accel.pdf

It provides a simple formula illustrating conversion of magnetic field
energy to kinetic energy.  While it does not completely answer your
excellent question, it's a starting point.

-- Lou Pagnucco


David Roberson wrote:
 Recently I have been exploring magnetic concepts.  I have been seeing so
 many references to magnetic motors that I believe are not possible, but
 they keep coming so I decided to perform some thought experiments.  Let me
 present one that is somewhat associated with the motor concepts.


 All I ask is that you give it some serious consideration and post what you
 think the results should be.


 Take an iron rod and wrap a coil around it.  The rod is initially not
 magnetized.


 Apply a voltage to the wire for a short period of time that allows enough
 current to flow to result in a permanent magnetization of the iron rod.


 Now, if you are very good at measuring energy, you would be capable of
 directly measuring the input energy supplied by the voltage source.
 Record this energy for later reference.


 At this point in time, the rod maintains a magnetic field that contains a
 certain amount of field energy and heat has been given off due to losses
 within the wire and due to mechanical effects within the rod, etc.


 I would assume that we would now have a direct measurement of the energy
 stored within the field so it is time to make it do some work.


 Take a large collection of iron pellets that are not magnetized and work
 with them one at a time.  Attach a scale to the first one that records the
 attraction force between the magnet and the iron pellet.  Allow the pellet
 to slowly approach the magnet while you record the force applied.
 Integrate the force times distance to arrive at the work performed by the
 action of the field upon the pellet.


 Now, continue to add pellets one at a time while your record the work
 performed upon each one.  Continue this operation until either one of two
 things happen.  The first is that there is no more force available to do
 work on additional pellets.  The second is that you run out of pellets
 after a large pile of them is attached to the magnet.


 The question becomes:  Does the external field become zero just as all of
 the energy applied to generate it by the voltage source less losses is
 exactly equal to the work done on the pellets?  Or, does the net energy
 supplied by the pellet motion end up as some fraction of the initial field
 stored energy while leaving some if not most of the field energy intact
 but contained within the pile of iron?  Or, would you suspect that the
 field would never cease to supply energy to additional pellets since it
 expands due to the extra iron?  Any other possibilities?


 My bet is placed upon the second condition.  I would expect the
 COE(conservation of energy) to limit any work that can be taken from the
 rod to a value that is less than the initial field energy, but that much
 of the field would be left contained within the iron pile.


 What do you others think will happen?  Can we obtain infinite energy with
 such a system?


 Dave

Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent

I would be surprised if such a group of isomers were available but not 
discovered until the present.  It is possible, but some of the nickel isotopes 
are known to exhibit them and it would be strange for the researchers to have 
overlooked ones associated with other isotopes.  Obviously, the energy would 
have to already be stored there before Piantelli could release it.  Any action 
that merely stores energy in one of these to be reclaimed later would result in 
an overall energy gain of zero.  How confident are you that this is the 
reaction that he considers valid for his patent?


There is an outside probability that isomers of this nature do exist and have 
remained undetected.  If the mechanism required to achieve the energy release 
is extremely unlikely to occur and is not produced by the typical known drive 
mechanisms, then perhaps so.  The way you described the release process would 
most definitely fall into the category of unlikely!   It would be exciting to 
find out that he is correct.



Dave



-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 10:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:09 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


I understand energy release of this nature as being due to an isomer transition 
within the nucleus.  Is that what is being proposed?



That is the term I was looking for -- isomeric transitions.  There are 
metastable isomers of, for example, isotopes of nickel.  But if I have 
understood what Piantelli is saying, in order for the reaction to be gainful, 
these metastable isomers are too short-lived to be what he needs.  I believe he 
needs the normal isomers to be very long-lived metastable ones, and then the 
action of hydrogen brings them down to a heretofore unknown ground state.  This 
would need to apply to most or all transition metals, and not just nickel, 
since the patent covers the transition metals generally and not just nickel.


Eric

Re: [Vo]: COE and Magnetic Field Question

Thanks Lou, that is a fascinating toy.  It supports my thoughts that the energy 
of the initial field is reduced when more iron is brought into contact with a 
permanent magnet.  Until I realized that the COE would force the external field 
to eventually go away, I was actually considering that the extra iron would 
extend the field due to the increase in size of the net device.


Now I will apply this knowledge in an effort to understand some of the magnetic 
motors that keep showing up.  My current beliefs are that they are not well 
understood and not over unity.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 10:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: COE and Magnetic Field Question


David,

The following paper presents (literally) a toy example of extracting
energy from a static magnetic field:

A Magnetic Linear Accelerator
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/lin_accel.pdf

It provides a simple formula illustrating conversion of magnetic field
energy to kinetic energy.  While it does not completely answer your
excellent question, it's a starting point.

-- Lou Pagnucco


David Roberson wrote:
 Recently I have been exploring magnetic concepts.  I have been seeing so
 many references to magnetic motors that I believe are not possible, but
 they keep coming so I decided to perform some thought experiments.  Let me
 present one that is somewhat associated with the motor concepts.


 All I ask is that you give it some serious consideration and post what you
 think the results should be.


 Take an iron rod and wrap a coil around it.  The rod is initially not
 magnetized.


 Apply a voltage to the wire for a short period of time that allows enough
 current to flow to result in a permanent magnetization of the iron rod.


 Now, if you are very good at measuring energy, you would be capable of
 directly measuring the input energy supplied by the voltage source.
 Record this energy for later reference.


 At this point in time, the rod maintains a magnetic field that contains a
 certain amount of field energy and heat has been given off due to losses
 within the wire and due to mechanical effects within the rod, etc.


 I would assume that we would now have a direct measurement of the energy
 stored within the field so it is time to make it do some work.


 Take a large collection of iron pellets that are not magnetized and work
 with them one at a time.  Attach a scale to the first one that records the
 attraction force between the magnet and the iron pellet.  Allow the pellet
 to slowly approach the magnet while you record the force applied.
 Integrate the force times distance to arrive at the work performed by the
 action of the field upon the pellet.


 Now, continue to add pellets one at a time while your record the work
 performed upon each one.  Continue this operation until either one of two
 things happen.  The first is that there is no more force available to do
 work on additional pellets.  The second is that you run out of pellets
 after a large pile of them is attached to the magnet.


 The question becomes:  Does the external field become zero just as all of
 the energy applied to generate it by the voltage source less losses is
 exactly equal to the work done on the pellets?  Or, does the net energy
 supplied by the pellet motion end up as some fraction of the initial field
 stored energy while leaving some if not most of the field energy intact
 but contained within the pile of iron?  Or, would you suspect that the
 field would never cease to supply energy to additional pellets since it
 expands due to the extra iron?  Any other possibilities?


 My bet is placed upon the second condition.  I would expect the
 COE(conservation of energy) to limit any work that can be taken from the
 rod to a value that is less than the initial field energy, but that much
 of the field would be left contained within the iron pile.


 What do you others think will happen?  Can we obtain infinite energy with
 such a system?


 Dave

Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent

2013-01-21 Thread Eric Walker

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

How confident are you that this is the reaction that he considers valid for
 his patent?


Not confident at all.  It could be something entirely different.

One question I have is about patent law.  If you file a patent and create a
device that someone knowledgeable in the art can reproduce, but your theory
about how it worked was incorrect, can the patent still be defended?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:understanding Piantelli et al.'s 2013 EP2368252B1 patent