Re: [Vo]:New paper from B-J. Huang et al.

[Frank Grimer]

Because many thousands of negative pressure are produced within the cavity.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 at 22:14, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Huang, B.-J., et al., *Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce
> energy and isotope gases.* Scientific Reports, 2024. *14*(1): p. 214.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50824-8.epdf
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mr. Bean vs Mr. Musk

[Frank Grimer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_engine

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 00:19, Robin  wrote:

> In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Thu, 8 Jun 2023 19:15:55 -0400:
> Hi,
>
> A fuel cell + electric motor would probably also be more efficient.
> >Hi Grimer!
> >
> >Hydrogen combustion in a gasoline engine has a fraction of the horsepower,
> >not to mention the embrittlement discovered by Bob Lazar when he fueled
> his
> >Vette with H2.  Poor valves.
> [snip]
> Buy electric cars and recharge them from solar panels on your roof.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mr. Bean vs Mr. Musk

[Frank Grimer]

https://www.google.com/search?q=Gas+bags+on+cars+during+ww2=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB787GB787=Gas+bags+on+cars+during+ww2=chrome..69i57j33i10i160.21718j0j4=chrome=UTF-8

I've no doubt there are problems but I'm confident they could be overcome.
As a child I remember seeing these coal gas cars.

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 00:16, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Hi Grimer!
>
> Hydrogen combustion in a gasoline engine has a fraction of the horsepower,
> not to mention the embrittlement discovered by Bob Lazar when he fueled his
> Vette with H2.  Poor valves.
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2023, 7:08 PM Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What about the ICE running on hydrogen generated from electricity.
>>
>> On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 at 23:08, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>
>>> When we get our energy via fusion, be it natural (Sol) or man made, the
>>> ICE should be melted to make new weapons and plowshares.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2023, 5:44 PM MSF  wrote:
>>>
>>>> A little diversion for the day.
>>>> Who will win this international shoot out?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson
>>>>
>>>

Re: [Vo]:Mr. Bean vs Mr. Musk

[Frank Grimer]

What about the ICE running on hydrogen generated from electricity.

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 at 23:08, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> When we get our energy via fusion, be it natural (Sol) or man made, the
> ICE should be melted to make new weapons and plowshares.
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2023, 5:44 PM MSF  wrote:
>
>> A little diversion for the day.
>> Who will win this international shoot out?
>>
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Very low power levels are worth TONS of money

[Frank Grimer]

Thanks Jed.

On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 at 01:40, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I do not recall an experiment that produced a lot of steam. Maybe the glow
> discharge ones? They went for 15 minutes before the electrode dissolved.
> They did produce a lot of steam.
>
>>

Re: [Vo]:ICCF24 paper, How to fix global warming with cold fusion

[Frank Grimer]

Very inspiring. Well done.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 at 22:41, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Here is the first draft of my presentation at ICCF24:
>
>
> Rothwell, J. *How to fix global warming with cold fusion.* in *ICCF24
> Solid-state Energy Summit.* 2022. Mountain View, CA.
>
>
> https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhowtofixgl.pdf
>
>
> Suggestions and corrections are welcome.
>
>
>
> If anyone else here would like me to upload your ICCF24 paper before the
> proceedings are published, just send me a copy. As you know, it takes a
> long time to publish the proceedings.
>
>
>
>
> This is written in the stodgy academic style. The video talk was more fun,
> with silly comments and a nice photo of Arthur Clark with his pet dinosaur.
> Also this great quote from a magazine article by Winston Churchill:
>
>
> If the hydrogen atoms in a pound of water could be prevailed upon to combine
> together and form helium, they would suffice to drive a thousand
> horsepower engine for a whole year. . . . Schemes of cosmic magnitude would
> become feasible. Geography and climate would obey our orders. Fifty
> thousand tons of water . . ., would, if exploited as described, suffice to
> shift Ireland to the middle of the Atlantic.
>
>
> - Churchill, W., Fifty Years Hence, in Strand Magazine. 1931.
>
>
>
> Churchill was a smart cookie. In this article he also predicted *in vitro* 
> meat
> production (cultured meat).
>

Re: [Vo]:Very low power levels are worth TONS of money

[Frank Grimer]

Thanks Terry but that's not it.
I seem to remember a specimen, presumably large, in a bath - I had an image
of a domestic bath but presumably it was probably something smaller - and
vast quantities of steam being released over a long time period - vastly
more than could arise from a chemical reaction.

Maybe I dreamt it. :-)

On Wed, 3 Aug 2022 at 21:23, Terry Blanton  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 10:11 AM Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I can't remember where I read that Mizuno had demonstrated a specimen in
>> a water bath which generated impossible amounts of steam. Can anyone
>> provide a link to that experiment please?
>>
>>>
>>>
> I don't know about "impossible" but searching Jed's web site for "mizuno
> steam" returns 7 pages.  Here is the first (after the google ads).
>
> https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoThydrogenev.pdf
>
> Terry
>

Re: [Vo]:Very low power levels are worth TONS of money

[Frank Grimer]

I can't remember where I read that Mizuno had demonstrated a specimen in a
water bath which generated impossible amounts of steam. Can anyone provide
a link to that experiment please?

On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 14:16, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jonathan Berry  wrote:
>
> Wrist watches of course don't need such frequent replacement, but
>> more-over there are both kinetic and solar solutions.
>>
>
> That's true. There are probably some small devices similar to wrist
> watches that are not moved or left in sunlight that could use a long-lived
> battery. I cannot think of any examples offhand. Some kind of sensor,
> perhaps?
>
> For cardiac pacemakers, several methods have been proposed such as:
>
> Thermoelectric from small temperature differences within the body, or
> piezoelectric devices
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3146093/
>
> Itty-bitty turbines driven by blood flow!
>
>
> https://www.engadget.com/2011-05-17-blood-turbine-to-power-your-pacemaker-become-legendary-band-nam.html
>
> Extraction of chemical energy from blood glucose!!
> Russian nuclear scientists are developing a new method of generating
> electricity from human blood to allow pacemakers to work without
> replacement.
>
>
> https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/327650-russian-scientists-electricity-from-blood
>
> Creepy, eh? Just what you expect from nuclear scientists.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Frank Grimer]

This sounds like an example of the whirling of shafts

"Whirling of shafts occurs due to *rotational imbalance of a shaft*, even
in the absence of external loads, which causes resonance to occur at
certain speeds, known as critical speeds."
Large electricity generating turbines have to be taken quickly
through these critical speeds on start up.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 at 03:57, Sean Logan  wrote:

> I have a question about things that rotate:  Is it meaningful to speak of
> "resonance" when something is rotating in only one direction (Clockwise,
> for example)?  When I think of "resonance", I think of a guitar string
> vibrating back and forth, or a parallel LC circuit, with the current
> flowing back and forth.  In both cases, the stuff is moving first one way,
> then the other.  We can talk about how many "back and forths" it makes in a
> given amount of time.  But what if you are spinning a flywheel in just one
> direction?  Is there some particular angular frequency which is
> special, based upon other parameters of the system (maybe the flywheel's
> mass)?  I don't think I'd call it a "resonant frequency", but I would call
> it something.  I mean, is there a particular diameter or rate of rotation
> at which a tornado can form and be stable -- any slower or faster and it
> would fly apart?  It sounds like that is what you are getting at with the
> electron, Andrew.
>
> An old mechanic I used to live with said something to me once to this
> effect:  That there was a particular RPM of the flywheel in an engine at
> which it was "resonant".  That the engine and transmission worked best and
> were happiest when the flywheel was rotating around this particular RPM.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 5:01 AM Andrew Meulenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> I like your derivation. It appears to be another indication of the
>> resonance giving stability to the electron at a specific "size". A similar
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Test

[Frank Grimer]

Thanks Jones.
To me it is a metaphor for catalysis.
One half of component A drops down the field pressure gradient to the low
road and speeds up.
The other half dawdles along the surface.
They both meet up at B and complete their reaction.
The reaction speed for the low road is therefore much faster than the
reaction speed for the high road.
Now in this case the field is gravity.
In chemical catalysis it is Beta-atmosphere.

In my research on clays I showed that specimens compacted from clay
particle aggregations had a higher strength, ergo higher pF, for smaller
aggregations than for larger aggregations.

Now one of Mizuno's experiments involved a palladium specimen compacted
from grains of the metal. The heat generated started running away. Fearing
an explosion he stopped it.

I read somewhere that he has since had specimens which put in a bath
generate large amounts of steam, far too much to be the result of chemical
reaction.

To an unprejudiced observer he has succeeded in finding the holy grail of
Cold Fusion. It seems to me that the only way prejudice will be overcome is
to develop the system commercially. Eventually the skeptics will be forced
to overcome their cognitive dissonance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXuI2oZFwBc



On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 14:34, Jones Beene  wrote:

> This similar vid is even a bit more "fake" in terms of expectation
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvlmdPLMQM4
>
> The more general phenomenon seems to be called the Brachistochrome Problem
>
> https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Brac
>
> Jones
>
>
> Frank Grimer wrote:
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlSv_IlXmBg
>
> Two cars.
>
> Green low road car arrives first.
>
> Real or Fake.
>
> Please explain your choice.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Frank Grimer]

>
> I would be more inclined to say that electrons are eddies, rather than
> whole atoms. I think of the other particles in
> the zoo as composite eddies. (Wheels within wheels as it were.)


With a quasi solid core where the speed of rotation exceeds the information
transmission speed of the fluid/field (FLEID).

Bit like an apple really.  :-)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 at 23:48, Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  Sean Logan's message of Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:24:06 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Ahh, so even atoms are made of this stuff?  I like your description of
> them
> >as ''eddies'' in the liquid.  When you're paddling a canoe, as you pull
> the
> >paddle out of the water, (after a stroke), there is sometimes a little
> >whirlpool flowing away.  Didn't Rene Descartes propose the idea that atoms
> >are simply vortices in the aether?
>
> I would be more inclined to say that electrons are eddies, rather than
> whole atoms. I think of the other particles in
> the zoo as composite eddies. (Wheels within wheels as it were.)
>
> If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
>
>

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Frank Grimer]

Thanks for your reply. Robin (my favorite garden bird :-)).

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a
public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the
sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection
of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at
the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish.
The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant
tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is
the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever,"
said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

I'll leave such questions to the philosophers.

As far as I'm concerned we are simply building models of material behavior.
I find my model more powerful than the conventional one. The discovery of
the three equations of state for water, for example, should have been made
by physicists or chemists, not by a retired  engineer.

It's not rocket science is it?



On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 21:51, Robin  wrote:

> In reply to  Frank Grimer's message of Fri, 8 Jul 2022 10:21:32 +0100:
> Hi Frank,
> >>
> >>  why do like charges repel, and unlike charges attract?
> >
> >
> >Because one is a source, the other is a sink at the bottom of a deep
> ocean.
>
> That's certainly one possibility. However it raises even more questions.
> E.g. what is the ocean? (made of?)
> Or delving even deeper, what is reality?
> [snip]
> If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Test

[Frank Grimer]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve

That's rightBut to less "with it " people in some forums it seems a
terrible enigma. :-)

The trouble with the maths is that it kills all vestige of the real world
and prevents one seeing the demo in a different light. For example an
analogue to Cold Fusion via catalysis.

Years ago I got into correspondence with a couple of chemists, Gankin,V,Y.
and Gankin Y.V. on the subject of catalysis. They reckoned that people
didn't really understand it and so it was pretty empirical.
They sent me a hardback copy of their latest book and asked me to review
it. As an Engineer I felt I wasn't up to the task and declined.

Now I see the trolly (chemical) as dropping dawn a pressure gravity
gamma-atmosphere,  increasing speed and coming back up to complete the
reaction. The trolley reaction on the surface proceeds more slowly.

The pressure drop can reach pF6 for water.

pF scale
> pF is a log scale for representing soil matric potential. Thus,
> (17.1)   pF =  log10(-100y)
> where y is the matric potential in metres of water. Notice that y is
> always negative under unsaturated conditions.
> For example, if your measured wilting point is -15 bar (-152.96 m water),
> then the pF value is 4.2.


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYGNoZVrsxQ
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYGNoZVrsxQ>

Catalysis is essentially speeding up a reaction by dropping down
field pressure gradients. If things remain on the surface then
the reaction is slow - like the yellow car.

I have shown that for water there is a hierarchy of three pressure
fields (see Prof, Chapin's web site).. In a material like Palladium there
must be dozens. These pressure fields can be manipulated by processing. I
have shown that for clays.

The Effect of Pulverization on the Quality of Clay-cement Influence du
> Degré de Pulvérisation de l’Argile sur la Qualité du Sol-ciment by F. J. G
> r im e r , B.Sc . and N . F. Ross, B.Sc., Road Research Laboratory,
> Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, H arm ondsw orth,
> Middlesex, England


Mizuno processed his palladium and got a runaway reaction which he had to
close down . He "tickled the dragon".

To my mind that was clearly cold fusion. No one appreciates it because they
have the wrong model of material behaviour.  The right model involves
humongous cognitive dissonance for acceptance in the chemical field - let
alone by the hot fusioneers.
As frequently happens in science, advance has to come from the outside.




On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 14:34, Jones Beene  wrote:

> This similar vid is even a bit more "fake" in terms of expectation
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvlmdPLMQM4
>
> The more general phenomenon seems to be called the Brachistochrome Problem
>
> https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Brac
>
> Jones
>
>
> Frank Grimer wrote:
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlSv_IlXmBg
>
> Two cars.
>
> Green low road car arrives first.
>
> Real or Fake.
>
> Please explain your choice.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Frank Grimer]

>
>  why do like charges repel, and unlike charges attract?


Because one is a source, the other is a sink at the bottom of a deep ocean.

Unlike charges have a Bernoulli flow between them.
One is a source - the other is a sink
This leads to their apparent attraction.

In reality they are being repelled towards each other by the surrounding
electric field.

This is a Casimir class of effect.

Like charges create a high pressure region between them  from the inflowing
field. This repels them.

Likewise with the much higher pressure field of magnetism.

If we were able to carry out an accurate field pressure test we would be
able to tell whether the "North" pole was the sink and the "South" pole the
source  -  or the other way around  -   because there must be a pressure
gradient between source and sink.

The housewife's vacuum cleaner does not suck up the dust. The
surrounding air field blows it up.

Attraction (at all scales) is simply a negation of surrounding field
pressure.


On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 07:28, Robin  wrote:

> In reply to  Vibrator !'s message of Sat, 2 Jul 2022 01:41:55 +0100:
> Hi,
> >> Every moving thing on the planet does the same thing. However the net
> effect is
> >> zero..
> >
> >Reciprocity is obviously broken for effectively-reactionless
> >accelerations however.
> >Let me try restate the conundrum more clearly:
> >
> > • gravity's a mutual attraction between masses / inertias as observed
> >from the zero momentum frame
> >
> > • from within either inertial frame it's a uniform acceleration
> >(Galileo's principle)
> >
> > • a hovering UFO exhibiting no reaction matter is nonetheless a
> >massive body in a gravity field, thus being accelerated downwards at 1
> >G like anything else
>
> This statement contains a couple of unproven assumptions.
> 1) You don't know that's is reactionless.
> 2) You don't know that it's being accelerated upward as well as being
> pulled down by gravity. It may actually be
> canceling the effect of gravity on the craft. After all, we don't really
> know anything about the actual nature of
> gravity, or any of the forces for that matter.
> We have a few constants and some nice formulae, but no real understanding
> of the actual nature of forces. E.g. why do
> like charges repel, and unlike charges attract?
> [snip]
> If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Test

[Frank Grimer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlSv_IlXmBg

Two cars.

Green low road car arrives first.

Real or Fake.

Please explain your choice.

On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 07:55, Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>

[Vo]:Test

[Frank Grimer]

[Vo]:Test of heading

[Frank Grimer]

Test of text

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Frank Grimer]

1747 words - in the middle of the night.

One can't help but applaud your enthusiasm, Vibrator.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 at 01:04, Vibrator !  wrote:

> I didn't put any on tick tok.
>
> I didn't 'put' any anywhere.
>
> Again, every day for the last few weeks i've come home from work and
> checked YouTube for the last 24 hrs' UAP uploads.
>
> I skip the dross, and categorise the rest.  So, 'this one goes under this
> header, this one belongs on that list, this is the same type from that vid
> last week', etc. etc.
>
> This very basic methodology - a simple case of 'having to start somewhere'
> with such an enormous data set available - has revealed that most
> sightings, currently, if not historically, are of these mysterious box-orbs.
>
> This is a new type of UFO, to me, anyway.  In fact, i don't see ANYONE
> else describing it as a widespread phenomenon - as i say, most only seem to
> get reported, and commented upon, as if they were unique examples - no one
> else has made the link that they're actually ubiquitous!
>
> This thus qualifies as a new scientific discovery, one that directly
> speaks to the deepest, most profound questions of natural philosophy (not
> least conservation of momentum and energy).
>
> So i'm here presenting that list - primarily drawing attention to the
> prevalence of these hitherto unheard-of 'box-orb' captures.
>
> What's so stunning is that most of the boxes / cubes are caught in broad
> daylight, or at least, twilight.
>
> This enables us to clearly identify that they're the same type of craft -
> obviously harder to do when all you can see is a glowing orb at night.
>
> If you click on the link to the list in the first post, it'll pop up a
> test file full of URL's - all you need do is copy-paste them into a
> browser.  What you'll see is DOZENS of independent video captures of flying
> fish-tanks in broad daylight.
>
> Mostly, they're cubes by day, and glowing orbs by night.  However this
> rule is not absolute - some vids show cubes by night, and orbs by day.
> Most orbs are orange or white, yet many other colours are seen;  some are
> seen changing colour.  Some behaviours seem colour-typed.
>
> So the Tik Tok link you actually clicked on - the one, single link i
> hadn't truncated (how lazy are we?) - i only referenced because it's a
> second example of two box-orbs linked by a tether.  If you complete the YT
> link of the other example, you'll see the same thing, different time and
> place.
>
> I'm well aware all of the comments on Tik Tok identify it as fire lanterns
> - social media is for numbskulls, i've never had any social media accounts
> and never will, it's a horde of mindless ignoramuses and no one else has
> seen this list of related examples;  like me when i saw what i thought were
> fire lanterns, it seems the most likely explanation if you don't know any
> better - Chinese lanterns are a thing, and UFO's are woo - precisely your
> logic too, perfectly rational response - but the whole point of this list
> is to PROVIDE that context necessary for proper analysis, ie. comparison
> with other phenomenon.
>
> Show me a type of fire lantern that looks anything like these things..  i
> mean, it's a glassy, iridescent, semi-opaque box or rectangle -  a
> hexahedron, bashically - sometimes appearing dark-metallic or titanium-like
> - often seen rotating or tumbling on all three axes, that momentarily
> disappears then reappears as it flies.  When seen in groups, this optical
> 'phasing in/out' sometimes synchronises between objects.
>
> After adding dozens of examples to the list, last week YT threw up the
> first one showing a tethered pair.  I'll repeat the full link here so you
> can just click on it (sorry if this is video-bombing the page for anyone
> else):
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZubVcEHtBlw
>
> Note how, like the others, they phase in and out in sync - again, use
> comma and period keys (< and >) for frame advance/back while paused.  These
> are categorically the same type of craft seen in many of the other links.
> The only difference is that clearly-visible tether.
>
> People see tethered flying boxes and think "fire lanterns!" by default -
> as i say, i would've too, if i didn't know any better.  Getting folks
> informed, in order to be able to analyse these things in their proper
> context, is my whole raison d'etre, here..
>
> But that was just one, perhaps freak, example of the tethering behaviour -
> maybe one had broken down and was under tow or something.  So you can
> appreciate my excitement when i found another, again on YT, this time in a
> compilation video.  That video referenced its sources, and the segment
> showing this second tethered pair happened to come from Tik Tok, so, since
> it didn't require a sign-up to view, i linked the source rather than the
> timestamped YT video segment..
>
> So, while everyone else is stuck on "what is it?" and "it's fire
> lanterns!", i'm the only person (apparently) aware of this broader 

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Frank Grimer]

I did look at some, not all, of the ones you put on tick tock.

As for this one - blue skies - flashing like a semaphore - ergo - a
firelantern with reflecting panels tumbling around in the wind.

 Not rocket science is it.



On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 at 11:13, Vibrator !  wrote:

> > If you want to believe in little green men, be my guest.
>
> ..so you haven't looked at any of the evidence?  Just wanted to say hello eh..
>
> Well on the off-chance you ever get bored, or really want answers to these big
> questions, maybe take a look in your own time..  I don't see anyone else 
> making
> these connections..  The links won't last forever tho (none of them are 
> mine)..
>
> I suspect you only clicked that one link with a complete URL, showing two 
> tethered
> cubes, every comment below exclaiming it was fire lanterns..  that was your 
> perusal
> of the evidence, and the basis for your conclusion..
>
> ..if i may insist however, this thing below is not a fire lantern:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiowRwpwVAQ=6s
>
> I didn't want to bomb-post embedded videos, hence the truncated links.  Check 
> 'em out,
>
> tho, they'll tickle you i promise..
>
> > But don't look up to the sky while riding that motorbike.
> > You might finish up like the astronomer in Aesop's fable.
>
> Thing is, criss-crossing the country all day and night for three decades,
> i've seen Chinese lanterns
> many times.. always assuming this was the most prosaic explanation for
> orange orbs.  No matter
> how far out in the sticks or how late at night, basically presuming that
> most fire lanterns were released
> by farmers.. for reasons..  because they're a thing, and LGM aren't.
>
> But what the evidence above shows is that a)  some actually ARE aliens -
> these flying orbs DO exist -
> and b)  that they're the same phenomenon as the flying cubes.  They're
> squares by day, disco lights
> by night.
>
> As such, this is much bigger news than LENR, OU or reactionless propulsion
> - likely encompassing
> all these things, but certainly more besides - here's copious, visual
> evidence of new physics, beyond
> the SM, in action.
>
> We don't understand anything of these visitors' technology - what they're
> doing, how or why.  Their
> evident presence however prioritises these questions.  It's the
> alternative - wilful ignorance - that's dumb.
>
> It's much like discovering that Bessler's wheel was actually a genuine
> case of mechanical OU, now
> forgotten and entirely dismissed..  evidence of physics BTSM, right under
> our noses, if not low-hanging
> fruit;  a tantalising tease on what's possible, outside the box of today's
> paradigm.. there in the offing..
>
> How many times have YOU seen and ignored orange orbs on the assumption
> fire lanterns were the
> most-likely explanation?  Because in retrospect, given the evidence here..
> maybe they've seen you too..?
>
> :P
>
>

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Frank Grimer]

, flying freely in all skies, everywhere..
>>  there's other consistent types of UFO and locales etc., but this is a
>> consistent thing unto itself, and seemingly more common that all
>> 'traditional' UFO types (saucers, cigars etc.) combined.  They're all but
>> ubiquitous, yet until a few weeks ago i'd never heard of them..
>>
>> As far as anyone else reporting on them; each are presented, and
>> commented on, as individual examples.. no one else seems to be linking all
>> these examples together and saying '*look, it's the same thing!*'.
>>
>> If it was saucers, cigars or tic-tacs etc. i wouldn't be bothering Vorts
>> with 'known unknowns'.
>>
>> But here's an *unknown* unknown..  and ain't it a beaut?  Having
>> identified it as 'a thing' - ie. as some kind of unitary phenomenon - i'm
>> now learning more things about it - this tethering feature the latest
>> discovery - and it seems genuinely exciting stuff, worthy of serious
>> consideration..  beyond-SM physics, in-your-face aliens, IMHO;  obviously
>> technological, and obviously not us.  Obviously far ahead of us, if not
>> ancient.
>>
>> Obvioushly *not* drones, meteorological anomalies or
>> Chinese-bleedin'-lanterns..  (or swamp gas, Mars, Venus *or* Saturn,
>> mass hysteria or hoax etc. etc.)
>>
>> If i haven't made a hard-hitting case for these things here, with this
>> weight of corroborating video.. then i'm done - that's all i've got.. for
>> my part though, i'm reeling from the revelation..  it looks unequivocal to
>> me.
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 8:24 AM Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Chinese fire lanterns. Which explains why they are seen all around the
>>> world. It wouldn't surprise me if you even have a small Chinese community
>>> in W3.
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 at 01:59, Vibrator !  wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you check the 'box-orbs' list, i now have at least two that clearly
>>>> show tethered pairs:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZubVcEHtBlw
>>>>
>>>> https://www.tiktok.com/@draw_my_town/video/7104013293471304965?lang=en
>>>>
>>>> Same flight config too.. as if the lower one were perhaps siphoning
>>>> some fluid from the upper one..?  JK, no idea what these things are, what
>>>> they're doing, or why.
>>>>
>>>> Bloody exciting time to be alive tho eh?  To be able to cross-reference
>>>> UAP corroborations from independent encounters the world over, updating on
>>>> a daily basis like this..  All i'm doing is LOOKING at available evidence.
>>>> And categorising what i see.  Little else. Ain't spent a dime on it, yet
>>>> within weeks i've achieved a level of certainty NASA and SETI could only
>>>> dream of:  this is definitely real, technological, and not us..
>>>>
>>>> Just like that, the greatest mysteries answered..  i'm reeling, dazed,
>>>> in a slight state of shock here..  awake to a new reality..
>>>>
>>>> What it means, and what to make of it, pffft..  where to start?  Best
>>>> not think about it and carry on?  The further questions though - not least
>>>> the potential for communication - is too alluring..   seeing these things
>>>> is literally paradigm-shifting..
>>>>
>>>

Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..

[Frank Grimer]

Chinese fire lanterns. Which explains why they are seen all around the
world. It wouldn't surprise me if you even have a small Chinese community
in W3.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 at 01:59, Vibrator !  wrote:

> If you check the 'box-orbs' list, i now have at least two that clearly
> show tethered pairs:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZubVcEHtBlw
>
> https://www.tiktok.com/@draw_my_town/video/7104013293471304965?lang=en
>
> Same flight config too.. as if the lower one were perhaps siphoning some
> fluid from the upper one..?  JK, no idea what these things are, what
> they're doing, or why.
>
> Bloody exciting time to be alive tho eh?  To be able to cross-reference
> UAP corroborations from independent encounters the world over, updating on
> a daily basis like this..  All i'm doing is LOOKING at available evidence.
> And categorising what i see.  Little else. Ain't spent a dime on it, yet
> within weeks i've achieved a level of certainty NASA and SETI could only
> dream of:  this is definitely real, technological, and not us..
>
> Just like that, the greatest mysteries answered..  i'm reeling, dazed, in
> a slight state of shock here..  awake to a new reality..
>
> What it means, and what to make of it, pffft..  where to start?  Best not
> think about it and carry on?  The further questions though - not least the
> potential for communication - is too alluring..   seeing these things is
> literally paradigm-shifting..
>

Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone

[Frank Grimer]

I'm not sure how to start a new thread in Vortex-l but since this most
concerns you Jed I'm posting to you in this thread.

In your book on Mizuno (which I seem to have mislaid - probably lent it to
someone who didn't return it) you describe at experiment with specimen of
finely divided metal (palladium?) which he stopped because it was heating
up rapidly and he was afraid it was going to go critical.

I've now realised what was going on.

Clays have an analogous functionality to metals. With clays the fluid
(FLEID) phase is water, With metals the fluid phase is electrons (FIELD).

As the aggregations of clay particles become finer the negative pressure or
suction (pF- analogous to pH) becomes greater.

A similar process must be taking place in the metal. Metals like
palladium must have deeper negative pressure wells than metals further down
the table which gives more opportunity for nuclear catalysis to take effect.

Many years ago Ross and I wrote a paper for an International Conference
describing the effect.
The thing I found surprising was that the strength (a measure of pF)
of aggregations of
different sizes all having the same moisture content, increased with
decrease in aggregation size.

https://www.issmge.org/uploads/publications/1/41/1957_02_0021.pdf

I fear that once this works its way through, it will be much easier to make
nuclear fusion artillery shells and no doubt you and I, and a few others on
the forum will find ourselves in Guantanamo Bay. 



On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 at 18:18, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:
>
>
>> Jed:No one in his right mind would set to sea with a massive coal bunker
>> fire.
>>
>>
>> Exactly hence conspiracy
>>
>
> Nope. You are confused. There was no massive fire. If there had been, the
> whole ship would have been filled with smoke, as I said. Also carbon
> monoxide, which is what you get from spontaneous combustion deep in a pile
> of coal. That is what reports of other bunker fires say. If there was a
> fire, it was small.
>
>
>
>> It was massive but not that massive.
>>
>
> Massive enough to detect or cause damage would have been obvious to the
> crew and passengers, who would have refused to board.
>
>
>
>> Jed: The people running Fukushima were also first class. Japanese
>> engineering is some of the best in the world.
>>
>>
>> And they didn't think about building a bigger sea wall?
>>
> They did think of it, and it was recommended, but they did not do it. As
> one engineer in Japan said: After a disaster, you can always find a
> document on file recommending an improvement that would have prevented the
> disaster. The problem is that if we did all recommended improvements, no
> project would ever be finished and no power reactor would go online. The
> tsunami was a once per thousand years event. Not the sort of thing you
> would normally make a priority.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cavitation (sonofusion) reactor from B-J. Huang et al.

[Frank Grimer]

I have now realised that the equations of state for water vapour published
on Dr Chaplin's properties of water website provide evidence for nested
Casimir pressures.

This combined with the explanation of Beta-atmosphere pressure given in the
article Aether Vacua and Cold Fusion provide a significant argument for the
reality of sono-fusion . providing of course one can overcome the huge
cognitive dissonance in recognising that materials at every scale are held
together from without and not from within - a big ask, even for the members
of Vortex-l. ...8-)

For years I felt that only a catastrophe such as failure of a prestressed
concrete AGR pressure vessel is needed to provide the necessary *Gestalt*
switch.  However, as AGRs are now  being decommissioned this possibility is
slowly disappearing.

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 00:37, Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A good example of harnessing the power of the Beta-atmosphere.
> They will cotton on eventually. :-)
>
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 22:30, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
>> This discussion group began long ago with discussions of vortex-induced
>> cavitation, also known as sonofusion. Examples include the work of Roger
>> Stringham and the hydrodynamics gadget (https://www.hydrodynamics.com/).
>> (Look up Stringham in the LENR-CANR.org index,
>> https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1081)
>>
>> I would like to draw your attention to an ICCF23 presentation about this
>> approach. The title does not indicate that's what it is about:
>>
>> Excess Energy from Heat-Exchange Systems
>>
>> Abstract:
>>
>> http://ikkem.com/iccf23/orppt/ICCF23-IA-21%20Huang.pdf
>>
>> In ICCF22, we presented a vapor compression machine (VCS-1) using a
>> 2.75RT freon compressor (Figure 1) which can produce excess energy [1]. The
>> hot refrigerant vapor from the compressor (around 150°C) is used to heat
>> the water flowing through a tiny passage of a triple-pipe heat exchanger.
>> This may cause a violent cavitation of water. The machine was modified
>> furthermore and tested for two years since then. The calorimetric method
>> for COP measurement was improved. The COP inside the steam generator is
>> defined as the heat carried away by water (Qwnet) divided by the net heat
>> input (Wt - QL), denoted as COPx . This is used as the criterion to
>> determine the possibility of excess energy generation. If the measured COPx
>> was greater than 1, then the cavitation-induced low-energy nuclear reaction
>> (LENR) might occur. The test shows that the maximum COPx reaches 1.97
>> (Figure 1) and COPx increases with decreasing inlet water temperature. . . .
>>
>> Video:
>>
>> http://ikkem.com/iccf23/MP4/3b-IN22.mp4
>>
>> In the video lecture, the COP is shown as high as 1.97 (minute 10).
>> Excess heat, when present, ranges from 2.15 to 4.18 kW (minute 16:30). With
>> one reactor, there were 4 months with no heat, which can be taken as a
>> baseline calibration, followed by 2 months of excess heat (minute 16).
>>
>> An upcoming JCMNS paper has more details.
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:What would it take?

[Frank Grimer]

This is the kind of toy that is needed. People have made attempts to
emulate but as yet no one has succeeded. They need to try harder.
I believe it worked.


> "Bruce Welsh is an electronics engineer with* the o*pen spirit which has
> been devoted to alternative energies for twenty years. It is convinced that
> one can build machines with on-unit.

He had an uncle who liked to arrange, to invent. One day, old Bruce of
seven or eight years, returned visit to the uncle who showed to the
grandfather the new play that it had made for his children (it had six of
them).

The play made in the sixty centimetres height for a base of thirty
centimetres square. It consisted of a slope in spiral of three turns and
half. At the bottom of the slope a paddle wheel, connected by some gears to
an elevator was placed going up to the top of the play where a hopper
furnished with ten balls was. An opening to rocker in the hopper made it
possible to let pass, one by one the balls which went down the slope into
three to five seconds.

The ball touched the paddle wheel what gave a small upswing which released
another ball whereas the first was on the elevator and went towards the
hopper. And so on.

There were five balls at the same time on the elevator and the once
launched play did not stop any more. To begin, all the balls were to be in
the hopper and Bruce remembers to be thundered by the uncle because it had
touched the paddle wheel, thus stopping the play started again soon by the
uncle. And, several hours after, the play always functioned.

Did the uncle know that it had violated the laws of physics?

Its descendants do not know any more what became this play, it is probable
that the uncle in recovered the parts as it was its practice to rebuild
another thing, unless it does not sleep yet in an old farm, in dust… They
do not remember either to have seen other apparatuses functioning in an
autonomous way, nor of engine on the play, but know that the play had
stopped afterwards weeks and simply set out again after being cleaned.

Foot-note: the slope in spiral is indeed a vortex and it seems that in a
certain way the vortices add energy, one unceasingly finds them in many
ideas related to on-unit.

(KeelyNet source of the 14/12/97)"

On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 at 23:00, Jonathan Berry 
wrote:

> Interesting idea.
>
> And while I don't think there are many things that could be introduced as
> a toy (Otis T. Carr's patent aside) ...
> Or maybe a perpetual motion toy, albeit if that was cheap enough to be for
> kids it would be a toy adults would want even more (executive toys).
>
> I think that images that manifested a tangible energy-like phenomena that
> kids could feel could appeal to at least some parents.
>
> Of course the designs will have to be less controversial that the top
> image which is a swastika (happily not just a Nazi thing and in no way
> resembles the Nazi version).
>
> Of course not all kids can feel the phenomena any more than all adults,
> but perhaps the percentage is higher as kids haven't been so heavily
> indoctrinated against such ideas yet.
>
> Maybe at any rate a book for kids and one for adults could be a way to go.
>
> Maybe a colouring book.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 at 09:08, Robin 
> wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Jonathan Berry's message of Wed, 13 Apr 2022 01:11:30 +1200:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >What would it take for a breakthrough in science?
>>
>> Most people are instinctively afraid of what they don't understand, so
>> they ignore it, and hope it will just go away.
>> This is especially true if acceptance implies upsetting their entire
>> world view.
>> Suggestion: Introduce it as a toy. Toys are something harmless given to
>> children to help them become accustomed to life
>> in the real world, so people automatically accept toys as harmless,
>> because that's what they have experienced all their
>> lives.
>> As long as the toy works, and is novel, everyone will want one, and
>> eventually mainstream science will get around to
>> investigating.
>>
>> >
>> >When I run through the scenarios it is pretty depressing!
>> >
>> >There are people who move manifest "Chi" type energy either with their
>> body
>> >or with technology (pyramids, orgone accumulators, orgonite).
>> >This cannot be discounted by science, but it can be ignored.
>> >My own coils and image designs have been felt by people who have had no
>> >knowledge (not placebo) but no one cares.
>> >And I have found which cup of 10 cups has the coil placed under it, but
>> no
>> >one cares.  Cannot be explained away but most on even this list won't
>> even
>> >give it a moment.
>> >
>> >So demonstration of a sensation that many (but not everyone) will feel
>> >isn't going to cut it, maybe if it was compellingly strong for 99%, but
>> not
>> >much less than that.
>> >
>> >So we also have many people who have demonstrated Free Energy,
>> Antigravity,
>> >"Cold fusion", and in the whole these cannot be fully debunked.
>> >However replication is 

Re: [Vo]:What would it take?

[Frank Grimer]

A Bessler Wheel in the form of a toy.
Interestingly, Laithwaite came close to solving this with his gyro
demonstration at the RI.
May the strain be with you.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 at 23:00, Jonathan Berry 
wrote:

> Interesting idea.
>
> And while I don't think there are many things that could be introduced as
> a toy (Otis T. Carr's patent aside) ...
> Or maybe a perpetual motion toy, albeit if that was cheap enough to be for
> kids it would be a toy adults would want even more (executive toys).
>
> I think that images that manifested a tangible energy-like phenomena that
> kids could feel could appeal to at least some parents.
>
> Of course the designs will have to be less controversial that the top
> image which is a swastika (happily not just a Nazi thing and in no way
> resembles the Nazi version).
>
> Of course not all kids can feel the phenomena any more than all adults,
> but perhaps the percentage is higher as kids haven't been so heavily
> indoctrinated against such ideas yet.
>
> Maybe at any rate a book for kids and one for adults could be a way to go.
>
> Maybe a colouring book.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 at 09:08, Robin 
> wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Jonathan Berry's message of Wed, 13 Apr 2022 01:11:30 +1200:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >What would it take for a breakthrough in science?
>>
>> Most people are instinctively afraid of what they don't understand, so
>> they ignore it, and hope it will just go away.
>> This is especially true if acceptance implies upsetting their entire
>> world view.
>> Suggestion: Introduce it as a toy. Toys are something harmless given to
>> children to help them become accustomed to life
>> in the real world, so people automatically accept toys as harmless,
>> because that's what they have experienced all their
>> lives.
>> As long as the toy works, and is novel, everyone will want one, and
>> eventually mainstream science will get around to
>> investigating.
>>
>> >
>> >When I run through the scenarios it is pretty depressing!
>> >
>> >There are people who move manifest "Chi" type energy either with their
>> body
>> >or with technology (pyramids, orgone accumulators, orgonite).
>> >This cannot be discounted by science, but it can be ignored.
>> >My own coils and image designs have been felt by people who have had no
>> >knowledge (not placebo) but no one cares.
>> >And I have found which cup of 10 cups has the coil placed under it, but
>> no
>> >one cares.  Cannot be explained away but most on even this list won't
>> even
>> >give it a moment.
>> >
>> >So demonstration of a sensation that many (but not everyone) will feel
>> >isn't going to cut it, maybe if it was compellingly strong for 99%, but
>> not
>> >much less than that.
>> >
>> >So we also have many people who have demonstrated Free Energy,
>> Antigravity,
>> >"Cold fusion", and in the whole these cannot be fully debunked.
>> >However replication is spott at best (often it seems like winning lottery
>> >odds) and the true mechanisms aren't really understood (these two facts
>> are
>> >related of course).
>> >
>> >So bleeding edge indeed, technology mankind can reach to the stars with
>> is
>> >left to languish.
>> >
>> >These technologies aren't fitting in with the prefered models of science,
>> >they aren't favored by those with the money, they are at odds with
>> politics
>> >and are at odds almost philosophically with much of the world.
>> >
>> >So what will it take?
>> >
>> >If a device that produces an effect is expensive or difficult to
>> reproduce,
>> >too few will, even if those who do reproduce it are successful so what?
>> >And one or two poor effort reproductions that fail will throw cold water
>> on
>> >others who otherwise might.
>> >
>> >If a device provides an anomaly and needs exotic meters or such, again
>> that
>> >is going to lead to too few who verify it.
>> >
>> >Maybe if a device is really cheap and simple to reproduce and provides a
>> >readily observed clearly anomalous effect it could do something...
>> >But to be honest as long as there is neither a mass of interested people
>> >not interested people with money and or the right positions within
>> >physics...
>> >
>> >I am not really sure how humanity is going to advance!
>> >
>> >This doesn't just relate to my research, this relates to every possible
>> >technology Vortex was created to discuss or further.
>> >
>> >I am not trying to push my designs here, but if anyone wants to fight off
>> >incredulity (or is someone who has felt energy from my previous designs)
>> >then:
>> >
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/Aetheric_Engineering/comments/ty1j4f/latest_poll/
>> >Generally it is about 50% feel something, and again no one has been able
>> to
>> >explain away the multiple events that utterly disprove any conventional
>> >explanation.
>> >
>> >But be it my research or anything else, there is a massive barrier that
>> >except for making something useful obvious and cheap and easy to make. or
>> >some angel investor or lottery win...
>> >I 

Re: [Vo]:Cavitation (sonofusion) reactor from B-J. Huang et al.

[Frank Grimer]

A good example of harnessing the power of the Beta-atmosphere.
They will cotton on eventually. :-)

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 22:30, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> This discussion group began long ago with discussions of vortex-induced
> cavitation, also known as sonofusion. Examples include the work of Roger
> Stringham and the hydrodynamics gadget (https://www.hydrodynamics.com/).
> (Look up Stringham in the LENR-CANR.org index,
> https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1081)
>
> I would like to draw your attention to an ICCF23 presentation about this
> approach. The title does not indicate that's what it is about:
>
> Excess Energy from Heat-Exchange Systems
>
> Abstract:
>
> http://ikkem.com/iccf23/orppt/ICCF23-IA-21%20Huang.pdf
>
> In ICCF22, we presented a vapor compression machine (VCS-1) using a 2.75RT
> freon compressor (Figure 1) which can produce excess energy [1]. The hot
> refrigerant vapor from the compressor (around 150°C) is used to heat the
> water flowing through a tiny passage of a triple-pipe heat exchanger. This
> may cause a violent cavitation of water. The machine was modified
> furthermore and tested for two years since then. The calorimetric method
> for COP measurement was improved. The COP inside the steam generator is
> defined as the heat carried away by water (Qwnet) divided by the net heat
> input (Wt - QL), denoted as COPx . This is used as the criterion to
> determine the possibility of excess energy generation. If the measured COPx
> was greater than 1, then the cavitation-induced low-energy nuclear reaction
> (LENR) might occur. The test shows that the maximum COPx reaches 1.97
> (Figure 1) and COPx increases with decreasing inlet water temperature. . . .
>
> Video:
>
> http://ikkem.com/iccf23/MP4/3b-IN22.mp4
>
> In the video lecture, the COP is shown as high as 1.97 (minute 10). Excess
> heat, when present, ranges from 2.15 to 4.18 kW (minute 16:30). With one
> reactor, there were 4 months with no heat, which can be taken as a baseline
> calibration, followed by 2 months of excess heat (minute 16).
>
> An upcoming JCMNS paper has more details.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:the uninhibited mind

[Frank Grimer]

IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN










On Sat, 9 Oct 2021 at 14:15, Don  wrote:

>
>
> "When we understand the structure of matter then we may devise
> confirmatory experiments using whatever instrumentation we please, but
> until that understanding is attained, the proper tool is the uninhibited
> mind." --Wilbert Smith, *New Science
> (http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/newsci.htm
> )*
>
>

Re: Aha, there's a video Re: [Vo]:FE device quietly published

[Frank Grimer]

No surprise to me.

As I've shown. It makes more sense to view concrete, etc., and held
together  from without by Beta-atmosphere pressure - and not from within by
inconceivable tensions.

It's very annoying to be born before one's time.

Let's hope he pulls his finger out and builds a large scale prototype.


On Fri, 3 Sept 2021 at 04:10, William Beaty  wrote:

>
>
> Here's earlier Garret Moddel talks from SSE conferences
>
>Believing FE claims?   28min
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FPf3PiqiZY=556s
>
>"Energy from the Vacuum" gas thru Casmir cavity  ?2009? Conf Boulder CO
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7CX89cTvFw  PART I   talk
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU_ZHMba5-Q  PART II  talk
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz8BOlj6clA  PART III questions
>
>interview
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oco54HUAyuM  90min
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021, William Beaty wrote:
> > Newly discovered nanolayer fabbed micro-volt "rectifiers" used for
> tapping
> > Casmir oscillations, Garret Moddel.  The "free energy" version was just
> > presented at the August SSE conference, scientificexploration.org, but
> their
> > vimeo video is private.  Here's a youtube version, August 1 2021
> >
> >  Unlocking zero-point energy  45min
> >  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tGRhTXKh8A
> >
>
>  ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) 
> William J. Beatyhttp://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
> beaty, chem washington edu  Research Engineer
> billb, amasci com   UW Chem Dept,  Bagley Hall RM74
> x3-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
>
>

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Frank Grimer]

By removing the oscillation he removed the very thing
that was causing the Steorn effect I seem to remember.

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 19:52, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> We called it the "Little Effect".  Devices never worked around Scott
> Little (or his daughter?)
>
> Kinda the opposite of the "Hutchison Effect".  :)
>

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Frank Grimer]

I wouldn't worry too much about Puthoff

Puthoff took an interest in the Church of Scientology
 in the late 1960s and
reached what was then the top OT VII
 level by 1971.[3]
 Puthoff
wrote up his "wins" for a Scientology publication, claiming to have
achieved "remote viewing "
abilities.[4]  In
1974, Puthoff also wrote a piece for Scientology's *Celebrity* magazine,
stating that Scientology had given him "a feeling of absolute fearlessness".
[5]  Puthoff
severed all connection with Scientology in the late 1970s.[6]


On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 16:30, Bob Higgins  wrote:

> Hi Jones,
>
> I now have Earthtech's MOAC (calorimeter) in my lab and I am refurbishing
> and re-commissioning it.  Earthtech is now closed and they are emptying
> their building.
>
> The Griggs device was not tested in the MOAC calorimeter.  I spoke with
> the engineers who built MOAC and who also tested the Griggs device.  They
> measured the actual torque and RPM going into the cavitator (hence they
> measured the mechanical input power).  I didn't ask how they measured the
> heat output.  Their conclusion was no excess heat.  That's about all I know
> about the experiment.
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> 
> <#m_5220694793293478513_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 7:41 AM Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Bob Higgins wrote:
>>
>> BTW, I was told that Earthtech testing of the Griggs device did NOT show
>> excess heat.  The testing process was described to me.
>>
>>
>> Hey Bob - that null result does not surprise me but is it really
>> meaningful?
>>
>> Earthtech has a precision calorimeter which can accommodate small
>> cavitation devices but as Rothwell has stated in the past, the Griggs
>> machine is about 1000 times too large to be tested by them. He says that Ga
>> Tech did test the device and found net thermal gain but, sadly, those
>> results are not to be found on the WWW for unknown reasons ... so... it
>> looks like an open issue.
>>
>> I wish someone would do the definitive testing of the large machine and
>> have the courage to defend positive results if found.
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Frank Grimer]

I believe it does. See the following article in
Infinite Energy magazine.
Grimer, Frank J. Aether Vacua and Cold Fusion, 2002, 8, 46, 28

I also think that Cold Fusion and the Griggs effect are connected
as will be clear from the article.

Mind you. I can well understand poor Griggs not wanting to venture
so far away from the engineering scale.
To do that you have to be as insane as I am. :-)

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 13:54, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Hi Frank,
>
> I had not seen your Russian reference about the Potapov device. (which
> needs a bit of editing, probably due to poor translation)
>
> This brings ti mind one curious detail in the Griggs/Potapov results - as
> well as some Casimir force, magnetic motor, Maxwell's demon, and even a few
> LENR experiments - is that the upper range of thermal gain (output over
> input) seems to be limited to something like 1.25 or so.
>
> Which is to say that there is some real gain (overunity) - but not much.
>
> Does you beta atmosphere theory address this point?
>
> Jones
>
>
> Frank Grimer wrote:
>
>
> https://remontideas.ru/en/warm-floor/vechnyi-dvigatel-potapova-generator-svobodnoi-energii-s-samozapitkoi.html
>
> A bit of history.
>

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Frank Grimer]

https://remontideas.ru/en/warm-floor/vechnyi-dvigatel-potapova-generator-svobodnoi-energii-s-samozapitkoi.html

A bit of history.

On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 14:16, Jones Beene  wrote:

> David Jonsson wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> The concept vortex seems to be used in different ways.
>
> How is it used on this list?
>
>
> > As Bill B sez: Vortex-L was created for discussions of research into
> vortex or cavitation devices like that of Griggs which exhibit apparent
> anomalous energy it evolved into a discussion into all kinds of "taboo"
> physics like cold fusion.
>
> For instance, I joined out of interest in the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube
> which still may harbor a few mysteries despite not being efficient as a
> cooling device ...
>
>

Re: [Vo]:What is meant by vortex here?

[Frank Grimer]

A good example of getting energy from the Beta-atmosphere.
Beene knows what I'm talking about.

https://assets.markallengroup.com//article-images/1085/f-hydro.htm

"Hydro Sonic’s unit has been the subject of three tests by a leading US
technical university. The university apparently demonstrated a coefficient
of performance of 1.28:1 meaning there was a case for over unity. Kelly
Hudson, of Hydro Sonics, says, *"Unfortunately Einstein has more
credibility than me." *Which is why the company are actively pursuing its
commercial potential before the over unity question comes into play."

And shed loads more than me. :-)


On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 14:16, Jones Beene  wrote:

> David Jonsson wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> The concept vortex seems to be used in different ways.
>
> How is it used on this list?
>
>
> > As Bill B sez: Vortex-L was created for discussions of research into
> vortex or cavitation devices like that of Griggs which exhibit apparent
> anomalous energy it evolved into a discussion into all kinds of "taboo"
> physics like cold fusion.
>
> For instance, I joined out of interest in the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube
> which still may harbor a few mysteries despite not being efficient as a
> cooling device ...
>
>

Re: Dave Beaty Re: [Vo]:ufo report to be coming out in a month

[Frank Grimer]

They are taking the piss. :-)

On Thu, 20 May 2021 at 23:59, Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Thu, 20 May 2021 18:53:24 -0400:
> Hi Terry,
> [snip]
> >I hope you are right; however, my research tells me that they are taking
> >something from us.  And I really don't think they give a hoot about the
> >Prime Directive.
>
> What research, and what do you think they are taking?
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk 
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Verification of Mizuno experiment

[Frank Grimer]

 I'm not surprised he is being successful. If I'd been him I would have let
the experiment (he describes in his book) that was running away continue
and blow up the lab.

It would have been confirmation of the P experiment where they blew
a hole in the lab bench. 

On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 23:13, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Here is a short paper describing a verification of Mizuno's experiment at
> the Hokkaido University of Science. This document includes an English
> version and the original Japanese version.
>
> https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IgarashiJdevelopmen.pdf
>

Re: [Vo]:Verification of Mizuno experiment

[Frank Grimer]

I'm not surprised he is being successful. If I'd been him I would have let
the experiment (he describes in his book) that was running away continue
and blow up the lab.

It would have been confirmation of the P experiment where they blew
a hole in the lab bench. 


On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 23:13, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Here is a short paper describing a verification of Mizuno's experiment at
> the Hokkaido University of Science. This document includes an English
> version and the original Japanese version.
>
> https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IgarashiJdevelopmen.pdf
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[Frank Grimer]

I like it. Makes sense to me. 

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 23:27, Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Good to know some more physicists start to think about time. One of them
> cited I did know personally.
>
> The real problem is the missing education in computation theory. I did
> spend 2 net years working on the theme, which the article tries to
> illuminate. I developed a new computer architecture that can deal with such
> problems and delivers fail safe proven results on wide area parallel
> machines.
>
> A wide area parallel machine is exactly what physics is about. Each
> particle is a "program" that communicates with an other programs over a
> given finite set of messages. Physics defines these messages as equations
> what defines a set of of possible tokens = interactions - nothing else.
>
> Now if you know the basic laws of communication theory then it is obvious
> = given that there is no global time. We only do have a partial order over
> communications. We can refine the order digit by digits until we meet the
> border-line of information stability in measurement.
>
> The article is full of nonsense and classical bullshit knowledge like two
> Uranium-239 are equal but one decays earlier. SM knows nothing about
> particle structure except some basic Lego like partitions. All unstable
> nuclei contain a time like structure with a slightly different excess
> energy. Further who tells these guys all these nuclei did start at the same
> timestamp?
>
> Also neither QM nor general relativity are fundamental models. This is a
> religious claim. QM just describes a small subset of the reality and
> general relativity fails for all *space filled with matter* as it cannot
> handle matter... As all other simplistic SM models GER just works for point
> masses in empty space. Any perturbation of "space-time" by mass producing
> an other space time cannot be handled without simplistic approximations.
>
> If a point source emits two photons at an angle of 180 degrees then any
> measurement will show that the gap between the two increases with 2*c the
> speed of light. Thus we can easily measure relative speed > c. If these two
> photons enter a spherical orbit then they will return to the place of
> origin. This is the situation in SO(4) in much smaller space dimensions.
> According GER the photons should never interact again. Thus this just shows
> that the notion of an universal time in curved space is mathematical
> nonsense. Time is just the measurement interval or the frequency what ever
> you like more.
>
> Most current physicists do have the wrong education to tackle the real
> basic problems of physics. Even worse theses physicists day for day repeat
> religious claims about models that luckily for us work well under some
> restricted conditions.
>
> Current physics especially nuclear & particle physics is still on day one
> in playground of Kindergarden. These folks soon will have their mental
> corona event, when the have to notice that the perturbation of a proton at
> 10 TeV (CERN) is absolutely irrelevant for understanding today's real
> problems like aneutronic fusion in Holmlids case or LENR as we measure it -
> just to name two big ones.
>
> J.W.
>
>
> Am 10.04.20 um 22:42 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:
>
>
>
> The following link contains two or 3 differing concepts of time.
>
>
>
> *https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clues-come-from-a-century-old-approach-to-math-20200407/
> *
>
>
>
> The SO(4) physics model of nucleons is a model including a temporal time
> scale associated with a magnetic rotating flux at a specific frequency.
> This “temporal time” reflects space parameters and the observed phenomena
> of  EM photon propagation in space controlled by those parameters ,
> magnetic permeability and electric permittivity.
>
>
>
> A good model for space and its “intrinsic” parameters is warranted IMHO.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr.22
> 8910 Affoltern a.A.
> 044 760 14 18
> 079 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Corona Virus

[Frank Grimer]

I watched it to the end and found it most interesting. Thanks Ron.

On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 17:02, Ron Wormus  wrote:

> I don't have anything but the link. I think it is worth taking the time to
> listen to it. Michael Osterholm is a expert who has thought a lot about
> this situation.
>
>
>
> *- Original Message -*
> *From:* Esa Ruoho 
> *Reply-To:* 
> *To:* 
> *Sent:* 3/12/2020 10:00:37 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Corona Virus
> --
> d'you have a TL;DW synopsis for us, Ron?
> it is 1 hour 34 minutes of two guys talkin. surely there's a tl;dw
> available for it?
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 17:54, Ron Wormus  wrote:
>
>> This is pretty informative:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3URhJx0NSw
>>
>
>
> --
> http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho //
> http://lackluster.bandcamp.com //
> +358403703659 // http://lackluster.org // skype:esajuhaniruoho //
> iMessage esaru...@gmail.com //
> http://esaruoho.tumblr.com // http://deposit4se.tumblr.com //
> http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial //
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Magic Roundabout

[Frank Grimer]

Ride carefully. 

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 06:58, Vibrator !  wrote:

> " a 50% accumulator?  So 2-cycs to unity, 3 to 133%."
>
> eek i meant "3 to 150%", duh, need slepp..
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 6:55 AM Vibrator !  wrote:
>
>> ..on 2nd thoughts, isn't it a 50% accumulator?  So 2-cycs to unity, 3 to
>> 133%..
>>
>> And MoI's obviously supposed to be kg/m² (kg-m²-rad/s is momentum).
>>
>> Whatevs.
>>
>> The same input workload buys the same amount of momentum for the same
>> energy each cycle, in spite of rising RPM's, so plotting that flat trace
>> across RPM's, the rotKE is inevitably going to intersect it after n cycles,
>> and keep on climbing..
>>
>> The no. of cycles to unity appears to be a function of the sum of the MoI
>> ratio, so for 1:1 = 2 cycs, with a 50% per-cycle efficiency accumulator,
>> for 2:1 = 3 cycs @ 33%, 3:1 = 4 cycs @ 25% etc.
>>
>> Suffice to say if real, it ain't dolphin-friendly..  but does it even
>> work?
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 6:12 AM Vibrator !  wrote:
>>
>>> Magic Roundabout
>>>
>>>
>>> You're standing on the edge of a turntable, holding a heavy flywheel in
>>> your hands.
>>>
>>> Beginning with both axes parallel, spin that baby up..
>>>
>>> ..then rotate its axis 90° into the perpendicular plane.  This exerts a
>>> precessional torque, which is earthed through the turntable's rigid axis,
>>> having no effect upon its current balance of momentum..
>>>
>>> ..now brake away that counter-momentum in your hands, earthing the lot..
>>>
>>> ..you're now stood on the edge of a rotating turntable, holding a
>>> stationary flywheel..
>>>
>>> ..flip it back to parallel and repeat the cycle..
>>>
>>>
>>> Simplifying, assume equal MoI's for both axes (ie. 1 kg-m²-rad/s each).
>>>
>>> Both the per-cycle input torque * angle and the resulting momentum yield
>>> appear to be RPM-invariant; that is, the input energy cost of momentum
>>> appears to be constant / invariant to system speed, whereas its rotational
>>> KE is obviously squaring up..
>>>
>>> For example, 10 purchases of 1 kg-m²-rad/s at 1 J each costs a total of
>>> 10 J (this includes dissipating half the input energy per cycle). Yet 10
>>> kg-m²-rad/s divided by two 1 kg-m² MoI's gives them 5 rad/s each, and so
>>> 12.5 J each, 25 J total.
>>>
>>> Using two equal MoI's, we find a 75% net loss after the first cycle, 50%
>>> following the second cycle, 25% at the third.. we hit unity at the fourth
>>> cycle, and 125% of unity at the fifth..  and efficiency keep rising by that
>>> same 25% per cycle as we accumulate ever-more 'unilateral' momentum, at
>>> fixed cost, its KE value squaring with rising velocity..
>>>
>>>
>>> Only thought this up 24 hrs ago but barely slept since..  where am i
>>> going wrong?  It's too simple!
>>>
>>>

Re: [Vo]:Math Scholar paper on LENR

[Frank Grimer]

Yes, fusion requires enormous temperatures at ambient pressure.
not if the pressure is reduced by orders of pF magnitude.

However, until it is recognised that there is no such thing as an
attractive force and all materials are held together from without
and not from within, held together by a hierarchy of "atmospheres",
little progress will be made in understanding cold fusion.

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 14:30, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> See:
>
> https://mathscholar.org/2019/03/lenr-energy-science-or-pseudoscience/
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity

[Frank Grimer]

On my 80th birth my children has some packs of cards made with the pictures
of my 54 grandchildren. I don't bother to keep track of the number of great
grandchildren because it keeps changing. 

The 88 relates to Rommel's anti-aircraft gun. which was so effective in the
western desert.

Re: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity

[Frank Grimer]

Wrong. I fear I could never understand Vibrator.
You are right about Not the Steorn Forum. Cynics all, apart from Tim

I wonder how Shawn (the real spelling on his birth certificate
according to the Alesbury registrar) is getting on.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 13:37, Terry Blanton  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:06 AM Vibrator !  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sorry to bump my own thread, bad form..
>>
>
> Some suggestions:
>
> Look up Frank Grimer.  He hangs out at the Besseler Wheel forum:
> https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/  and will be delighted to hear of
> your discovery.
>
> and
>
> Contact the manufacturer of your sim software and have his engineers
> explain why his program gives such a clearly impossible result.
>
> Warm Regards.
>
> Terry
>
> PS You'll get nowhere in the "not the Steorn" forum.  They're devout
> septics.
>

Re: [Vo]:Old news: Conversion of hydrogen into helium in palladium

[Frank Grimer]

How interesting. One wonders what prompted them to look for helium in the
first place.
Was it ordinary hydrogen or heavy hydrogen?



On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 15:28, Nigel Dyer  wrote:

> While looking for an article in a a copy of Nature from 1926 (as you do) I
> came across the following article describing how small quantities of helium
> had been seen when hydrogen was absorbed into palladium at room
> temperature. There is nothing new under the sun.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/118526a0?fbclid=IwAR3cI0_tWhMXny-_5VwiIZBr-OmiXLocmzd7gWgBCC1LKNtPHOShckdpUD4
>
> The article I was really looking for was one of the early Klein papers on
> there being a fifth dimension, following up an idea that this might be part
> of the explanation of how hydrogen gets converted to helium.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The potential weaponization of LENR

[Frank Grimer]

I seem to remember something about a quarter inch cube of  palladium
blowing a hole in a
lab bench. What would a one inch cube have done!

On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 at 05:15, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> There have been at least two deaths which could be attributed to CF
> experiments, one at SRI in 1992 and one in Japan.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 12:01 AM Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> If an explosion in a LENR system were possible, it would have happen in
>> the 30 some years that LENR experiments have been going on all over the
>> world. No explosions of note have occurred in all that time and in all
>> those places.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion
>>
>> We need to analyze the LENR reaction against the various types of
>> explosive reactions to determine what could possibly occur. I suppose a
>> LENR water based system can be confined in a boiler were pressure is
>> allowed to build to an explosive level.
>>
>

-- 
*quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora **consurgens *
*pulchra ut luna electa ut sol terribilis ut acies ordinata *

Re: [Vo]:The potential weaponization of LENR

[Frank Grimer]

Very interesting.

People have got it the wrong way around though. Its not because the
positive pressure has gone up. It is because the negative pressure has gone
up, the pF has gone up.

This relates to the first paper I published on the strength of clay-cements
and how it is affected by the degree of pulverization. I'm not breaking the
official secrets act because the info is in the public domain. :-)

What was happening is the the water menisci get smaller and smaller and so
the pF steadily increases. Mizuno achieved a similar effect electron
"water" menisci when he compacted powder into coin sized specimens (page 73
and 74 of his book).

The telling bit is:

"One day when I performed this test an extraordinary thing happend. ,The
sample colour
suddenly changed from dark red, to red, to yellow--a clear indication that
the temperature was shooting up. The heat increased, the sample glowed
white, and after 10 or twenty seconds it began to melt.

In a  panic I ran the vacuum pump to remove the deuterium gas ... I could
no longer ignore the fact that this research was potentially hazardous."

And potentially of great interest to the military. Have they weaponized it?
I wouldn't be at all surprised.




On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 17:37, hogana913  wrote:

> Z zerottc bcc can knb k BBMml  .
>
> Xgvyb
>
> Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S® 6.
>
>  Original message 
> From: JonesBeene 
> Date: 8/16/18 12:39 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:The potential weaponization of LENR
>
>
>
> Periodically, new public information comes along which hints at the
> possibility that LENR/cold fusion has military application. This could be
> of interest to a few countries which do not yet have facilities for the
> enrichment of U. Keeping LENR in the category of pathological science also
> explains the motivation of “official neglect” of the field by DoE and DoD.
>
>
>
> Most LENR researchers doubt this weaponization possibility on its
> technical merits, and try to stay clear of any discussion related to the
> subject.
>
>
>
> Yet the ultimate threat -  the worst possible “killer app”… so to speak…
> would be the CF- bomb – an explosive device which does not depend on
> enriched uranium or plutonium. Such a weapon  could be the size of an ink
> pen. Even if the yield is much weaker than a typical fission weapon (a few
> tons) – as it is fueled by only a few grams of titanium deuteride,  it
> would nevertheless  be formidable and more powerful, pound for pound than
> any alternative (and can be drone-mounted).
>
>
>
> Here is an older report containing a detail overlooked in previous efforts
> ( to find information pointing to such weapons). There is provocative
> information in official documents about densification, some of which has
> inadvertent mention of LENR materials but not by name.
>
>
>
>
> http://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/questions-and-answers-regarding-iranian-document/
>
>
>
> If you scan down the document - there appears to be a mystery wrt the
> appearance of titanium deuteride in the Iranian effort – which derives from
> the earlier Pakistan effort.
>
>
>
> For some years there had been rumor that either a trigger or a complete
> device had been developed in that part of the world which amounted to a new
> kind of explosive. This goes along with the similar but different  “red
> mercury” which may have had some validity despite official denials.  It
> would be highly beneficial to the Iranians, for instance, to have weapons
> which avoided detection under the treaties which are in place. LENR would
> be perfect for their needs since it could be completely NON-radioactive.
> Red mercury is supposedly radioactive and easily detected.
>
>
>
> Why titanium? …one might ask, since it has not received that much
> attention in LENR studies compared to other host metals and does not appear
> to be especially energetic. Well, as it turns out in retrospect, one reason
> (not mentioned before) is the phenomenon of titanium hydride
> “densification.” There are a few papers which are unrelated to LENR or to
> military devices which indicate that titanium-deuteride, either as TiD2 or
> TiD3 can be mechanically pressed into a dense molecular form which is
> higher density than the metal itself. Imagine that.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10426914.2016.1244833?journalCode=lmmp20
>
>
>
> IOW the end result is that deuterium has completely lodged within the
> electron orbital of the titanium atom - which is most astounding given that
> Ti is the strongest metal to begin with - and has very low thermal
> expansion, in addition… both of which properties argue against such
> complete absorption. It is unprecedented. But apparently this extreme
> densification does happen and yet the application and end use for this is
> not obvious. Except to the Pentagon.
>
>
>
> In the end, this anomaly means that deuterium is absorbed under intense
> pseudo-pressure, 

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Frank Grimer]

No, no, no.

On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Grimes, Damn autocorrect.
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>> Crimes?
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator !  wrote:
>>>
 @Chris - Weird, reminiscent of some kind of frame-dragging effect, or
 'remanence' of the Higgs field?  Sounds pretty whack either way, but hey
 who am i to talk..

>>>
>>> Frank Crimes, is that you inside the Vibrator?
>>>
>>


-- 
*quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora **consurgens *
*pulchra ut luna electa ut sol terribilis ut acies ordinata *

Re: [Vo]:Have Cavitation Energy Systems stumbled on a novel form of LENR?

[Frank Grimer]

I think they are cavitation pits where the high pF inside cavitation
bubbles has "sucked" the plastic out.

On 26 September 2017 at 18:56, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

>
> Not an expert in either .. but a lot of those look more like dendritic
> crystal growth than particle tracks.
> --
> *From: *"Axil Axil" 
> *To: *"vortex-l" 
> *Sent: *Monday, September 25, 2017 2:25:35 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Have Cavitation Energy Systems stumbled on a novel
> form of LENR?
>
> https://steemit.com/science/@mfmp/ecco-macro-photography-
> of-strange-radiation-tracks-in-fuel-container
>
>
> ECCO fuel preparation uses a cavitation based fuel preparation process
> that produces some sort of LENR active reaction activator. This activation
> seems to interact with plastic in a slow but relentless process until the
> plastic container is reduced to dust.
>
>
> Is anybody aware of a chemical reaction that can produce plastic
> disintegration, impact marks, and scratches on plastic as pictured in this
> deteriorating ECCO LENR reactor plastic fuel container?
>
>
> Those impact marks sure look like they are produced by high speed
> particles.
>

Re: [Vo]:Have Cavitation Energy Systems stumbled on a novel form of LENR?

[Frank Grimer]

This doesn't surprise me. With cavitation you are getting negative
pressures up to pF6.
Think Hutchison effect and Dr Judy Woods dustification.

On 25 September 2017 at 22:25, Axil Axil  wrote:

> https://steemit.com/science/@mfmp/ecco-macro-photography-
> of-strange-radiation-tracks-in-fuel-container
>
>
> ECCO fuel preparation uses a cavitation based fuel preparation process
> that produces some sort of LENR active reaction activator. This activation
> seems to interact with plastic in a slow but relentless process until the
> plastic container is reduced to dust.
>
>
> Is anybody aware of a chemical reaction that can produce plastic
> disintegration, impact marks, and scratches on plastic as pictured in this
> deteriorating ECCO LENR reactor plastic fuel container?
>
>
> Those impact marks sure look like they are produced by high speed
> particles.
>
>
> https://steemit.com/science/@mfmp/ecco-looking-for-
> tachyons-with-laser-microscopy
>
>
> A second level of plastic containment a few inches removed from the
> primary containment also shows similar marks and there is no chemical
> contact with the primary level plastic container.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:
>
>> For some months I have been working with Cavitation Energy Systems (
>> http://cavitationenergysystems.com/) who have been developing an
>> efficient steam generator based on cavitation.  What is not obvious until
>> you start going through the details of what they say on the website is that
>> there appears to be five times more energy in the steam they produce than
>> the electrical energy they use to produce it.
>> I have met up with them in Florida and gone through the details of the
>> system and it does appear to be as they claim.   The question is how does
>> it manage to do this?  By combining knowledge of their system with other
>> 'excess energy' systems that I am aware of and had dealings with I think
>> the mechanism is as follows:
>>
>>- As they intended, they use a diesel injector to create a pulse of
>>water that is full of cavitation bubbles.
>>- When the pulse hits a nearby surface a shock wave travels back
>>through the water initiating an almost synchronous  collapse of all the
>>bubbles.
>>- The potential differences within the collapsing bubbles accelerate
>>some free protons such that they have an energy of the order of 10kV,
>>enough to overcome the coulomb barrier and initiate fusion.
>>- The fusion energy is carried away by a virtual neutrino, and there
>>is a cascade of virtual neutrinos which distribute the energy as kinetic
>>energy among nearby protons and electrons.  Some of the protons have
>>sufficient energy to initiate a secondary fusion event starting a short
>>duration chain reaction.  With others the kinetic energy they gain is
>>transferred to the water molecule and consequently the water is heated up
>>until it boils.
>>
>> The way that the bubbles collapse directs the energy away from the
>> surface, avoiding the normal problems of cavitation systems where the
>> cavitation causes damage to surfaces. The way that the shock wave causes
>> all the bubbles to collapse and initiate fusion at close to the same time
>> means that the energy from the proton-proton fusion is able to heat all of
>> the water, converting it to steam, at which point the chain reaction stops.
>>
>> Not only do they appear to have significant energy gain but it is
>> available in a highly usable form, as high temperature steam.  I have put
>> together some more detailed notes.
>>
>> http://thedyers.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CES_LENR.pdf
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Li batteries

[Frank Grimer]

Thanks for that. Most interesting. Especially the video contrasting the
effect of brutality on the liquid lithium and the solid lithium batteries.
:-)

On 14 February 2017 at 07:41, Axil Axil  wrote:

> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/tech/new-damage-proof-
> battery-has-higher-energy-density-wont-explode/
>
> A safe battery.
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 9:16 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I recently saw a sticker on an envelope that said "road transport only,
>> do not
>> send by air", and it occurred to me that the item in question probably
>> contained
>> Li batteries. I wonder why it's safe to transport Li batteries by road,
>> but not
>> by air?
>> Also most of the Li battery failures I have heard of have been in
>> aircraft. If
>> that's the case, then perhaps the higher level of cosmic radiation at
>> altitude
>> is the immediate cause of failure of Li batteries transported by air??
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Frank Grimer]

"Jones Beene must be a lawyer..." He was - and possibly still is. ;-)

On 4 June 2016 at 05:06, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Jones Beene: "Their opinions are* de minimis..." *
>
> Jones Beene must be a lawyer of at least work with them alot.
>
> My lawyer oftentimes describes aspects of my case as *de minimis*
>
>
> *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis
> *
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> *From:* Peter Gluck
>>
>> Do you think you are convincing many people here?
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> Duh! Your question about JR convincing the important technologists in
>> the field is almost silly, IMO. Because of his extended reputation in
>> LERN over many years, his International connections, his dedication to
>> the field and to maintaining an incredible library - and high skill level
>> in many fields -- Jed has steered many, if not the great majority of
>> scientists to his perspective. There is no other as well-respected in
>> the entire field, including Storms and McKubre.
>>
>> He’s had less success with Rossi’s hard-core minions, but many now
>> suspect that the emperor has no cloths … yet are too idealistic to give
>> up easily. Their opinions are* de minimis* at best in terms of the
>> technology itself. Sure, if Jed is wrong, his reputation will suffer
>> badly but the same holds true for you (or any of us).
>>
>> There is a third possibility - that Jed will be mostly right, but not
>> totally. It is pretty clear from everything which has transpired in the
>> last month, that AR cannot live up to the specifics of the contract. However,
>> it is difficult to believe that he has nothing to show for many years of
>> effort and millions spent, in a field where there has been prior success
>> by others. That would mean that Rossi is totally incompetent and probably
>> mentally ill… and at best, a Svengali of sorts. He seems to totally
>> captivate the Swedish mind-set, for whatever reason.
>>
>> Certainly Rossi can still manage to salvage his sinking ship if he honestly
>> and openly demonstrates a substantial thermal anomaly with his latest
>> effort, if only for a few days duration, and low COP. He would lose the
>> battle with IH, but could win the war, many years down the road when
>> things are better understood … unless he is mad.
>>
>> What he cannot do is facilitate another sham like Lugano and expect to
>> maintain his loyal following, with instant creds or future investment. This
>> looks like a last chance opportunity. Can he pull it off?
>>
>> Rossi is surely deluded in this recurrent vision of upcoming mass
>> production, or even having a real customer. As to the point (as several
>> have noted) – that he did manage to arouse new interest in the field and
>> deserves recognition for that….well… DGT also raised interest in LENR,
>> and in fact, cross-validated Rossi for a while. Several here thought DGT
>> was real and had leap-frogged Rossi. Without the both of them in 2003,
>> neither would have looked good.
>>
>> But the DGT legacy is negative. If Rossi joins them in ignominy, LENR
>> will survive, but it would greatly shorten the timetable if he has
>> something left in his magic box.
>>
>>
>