Re: [Vo]:chromium and helium
Mike Carrell wrote: Unequivocal production of helium is difficult to detect because it is present in trace amounts in the atmosphere. Detection will not be cheap unless you can produce it by the baloon-full. That's to be expected. We are looking into that. Stationary aplications for the technology with a helium trap may produce enough. It's a bit hard to do on a vehicle. Still need hints and ideas. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 5:55 AM Subject: [Vo]:chromium and helium I need some advice and help. I've identified a possibility that Chromium may be important in some of the water fuel and hydrogen boosting work. Its not provn yet but we need tests to check a few variables. * I need a test for chromium (III) in solution. * I need a test for chromium (VI) a known carcinagenic form of chromium. Just to make sure the back yard experimentors are not at risk. * There is a possibility that one of these technologies is a cold fusion cell, nickel light water. We need a test for helium in the exhaust. We need to build the equivilent of a flow calorimeterfor a HHO. It all needs to be reasonably cheap because the HHO people aren't rich. I'm broke. :-( And yes I am considdering the blacklight process. This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
Jed, Another point you should consider including is that because America has failed to follow thorough on its own discovery and fund the research; other country's are also effected. Some countries have been actively discouraged from working in the field by American government employees; Huizenga on his Australian tour in the 1990's. If the technology becomes very significant but allies miss out because of the position the US government and its textbook authors took, it may prove to have very adverse effects on foreign relations. Its already tarnished the countries reputation as a scientific leader with those foreign researchers that know of its past erroneous analysis of the discovery. Jed Rothwell wrote: Okay, people, let's have a serious discussion of this. The election is just around the corner, and we should have the letter ready on day one, as the politicians say. Let's hear some suggestions -- wording, goals, people we should send it to, etc. I want to make it clear that I am not proposing this be an exclusive approach to the new administration. I hope that many other cold fusion researchers and supporters also try to make contact with the new admin. The more approaches we make, the more likely it is that one will get through. Ed Storms told me that other people are approaching Obama's people quietly. I am sure the Navy people are getting ready to make their case. That's fine. I am not proposing they stop, or combine forces with others on this letter, or that all CF researchers should agree on what is needed. But we do many things in parallel. The Navy people can contact the higher-ups in their organization while at the same time they sign a letter with other people outside the Navy. The one thing I would suggest is that we should not have two simultaneous campaigns to publish open letters by many CF researchers. That would confuse things. I propose to put it on its own HTML page at LENR-CANR. I wil keep the list of signatures current, if people start to respond. Steve Krivit and others can periodically copy the text, or just point to the HTML page, whichever they prefer. I think the letter should have the following characteristics: It should be very short. It should get right to the point, and be categorical. It should be non-technical. There is plenty of technical information available at LENR-CANR for those who want to learn more. It should make only a few points: that cold fusion is real and it may be able to solve the energy crisis. It should include nothing about the controversy, history, calorimetry, theory, present state of the art, reproducibility, or anything else. Again, such details are available for those who want them. It should make one or two specific recommendations: $5 or $10 million in government funding per year (or whatever dollar amount we agree on). No specifics about who gets the money or what they do with it. It should be signed by as many people as we can muster, especially people with impressive sounding titles. - Jed
[Vo]:chromium and helium
I need some advice and help. I've identified a possibility that Chromium may be important in some of the water fuel and hydrogen boosting work. Its not provn yet but we need tests to check a few variables. * I need a test for chromium (III) in solution. * I need a test for chromium (VI) a known carcinagenic form of chromium. Just to make sure the back yard experimentors are not at risk. * There is a possibility that one of these technologies is a cold fusion cell, nickel light water. We need a test for helium in the exhaust. We need to build the equivilent of a flow calorimeterfor a HHO. It all needs to be reasonably cheap because the HHO people aren't rich. I'm broke. :-( And yes I am considdering the blacklight process.
[Vo]:google 10^100th
Some will know that Google is running a competition where people submit ideas for world changing projects and the top ten projects get funding from them. I have 5 submissions in. http://www.project10tothe100.com/index.html * A perennial polyculture harvester for grains that are not dried on the stem. The wet green grain, seeds etc is wet processed directly into noodles, textured protein or pellets on the machine. Millions of tons of crops are lost because they don't dry for harvest. It also allows many grass species that are rich foods but not yet domestic grain to become new foods. Most can't be harvested using current technologies. Perennial polycultures protect and nurture the soil much more than annual grains. * Farming the sea with a system using floating plastic ponds with buoyant water plants growing in fresh fertilized water. Some have seen my page on that: http://www.geocities.com/vacoyecology/Bubble_ponds_fluke_boats.html * A free market way to create millions of hectares of private wilderness parks, endangered species habitat and wildlife corridors sparsely occupied cemeteries. One to ten graves per hectare instead of one grave every metre of path. The deceased would buy on a Funeral plan and some of the money would be banked so the interest could cover maintenance. * A farm scale air well that condenses water from the air using solar power, cheap materials and cheap heat pumps. Not quite water for every farm but it would drought proof some farms and provide enough water and emergency irrigated feed to keep breading stock and orchards going in a drought. * A radical idea to have all government departments, programs etc listed as tax deductible charities and to make the donations to them anonymous. This creates something like a fiscal free market. I allocate my tax as I please and the parliament goes back to being a house of review with out the pork barrel and endless fighting. Anything I have missed or ignored is covered by others or by the remaining general revenue. It's proposed as an experiment at the local government level. I have a web page covering the same concept at all levels. http://www.geocities.com/vacoyecology/PAYERDFS.html Not sure they will win but its worth a try. I believe that while there's only 10 prizes that hundreds of the projects will be taken up because the projects are so public.
Re: [Vo]:News from Japan
Jones Beene wrote: This blogster apparently is taking a comical view of it: http://icantseeyou.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/06/genepax-unveils-a-car-that-generates-electricity-with-only-water-air.html However, other sources say the output is only 300 watts, and that the power unit was shown openly at a trade show recently. A reactive metal is used to split the water - but is consumed very slowly. Very confusing... and they do NOT claim overunity, so do not get too excited. Consumable metals will not be a viable way to get hydrogen, if that is what it is. Not quite Aluminium has almost as much potential as petrol or ethanol so if they are oxidising the metal and then can swap the cell out daily with a new one regenerating the cell with a renewable energy it could in theory work. But these guys from japan aren't close if 300 wats is all they have. I can do better with store bought al foil and sodium hydroxide. Youtube has a half dozen demos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7FmrOatEEAfeature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7FmrOatEEAfeature=related Is this the only guy on youtube that thinks to ware gloves?!? A safe design under the hood and solar powered aluminum reduction would be interesting. Aluminium air batteries are on the cards and zinc air and nickel zinc are here today. http://www.evionyx.com/ That would mean that even if your let it charge for 23 hours plus out of every day, that the ~7 kW is not much to use - and you could barely get to the corner grocery store and back before draining a battery. --- Jones Beene wrote: Not to be outdone by the GMs Volt Could be a major breakthrough ...or not http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/genepax-shows-off-water-powered-fuel-cell-vehicle/
Re: [Vo]:News from Japan
Jones Beene wrote: Not to be outdone by the GMs Volt Could be a major breakthrough ...or not http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/genepax-shows-off-water-powered-fuel-cell-vehicle/ This only makes sense if the electrolysis unit is burning the metal in them. The metals oxidize and liberate hydrogen from the water. The electrolysis unit should only last a few days or weeks . The inventors public statements indicate that while they expect the unit to last about 4.5 years they have not run one for more than a few days.
Re: [Vo]:News from Japan
Jones Beene wrote: Not to be outdone by the GMs Volt Could be a major breakthrough ...or not http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/genepax-shows-off-water-powered-fuel-cell-vehicle/ Why is the driver of the jap thing wearing a hockey mask??? Which horror film rerun is he going to?
Re: [Vo]:Ethanol not all bad?
Michael Foster wrote: Ethanol from corn is a crime and people are dying from it. Sorry Michael but no-one is dieing because of ethanol production. They are dieing because the things they sell are not valuable enough to pay for the oil, fertilizer, etc that goes into modern farming and western foods. Their privative agricultural system can't feed them or half the crops are lost to vermin, etc, after harvest. Also because some key countries are in drought including Australia. War and socialist follies do not help. At the beginning of the land reform in Zimbabwe was a food exporting country even in drought. The land reform trashed their farming capital base and now half Zimbabwe is starving and half is not. It depends whose party you’re in. But even Zanu-pf is running out of supplies to bribe the voters. Darfur was not in drought or famine when the war there started; over grazing drove the Janjaweed to invade farming country to their south. Its Arabs verses blacks in a range war. The famous tortilla riots in Mexico was caused by three things: Laws that stopped the importation of grain, A hard won pay rise for the 'bakers union', and the rising price of Mexican gas. The Union blamed ethanol to avoid the mob. There was also a plan to raise pensions to match the cost of living rise but it got held up. When you make ethanol you don't destroy the protein. It becomes stillage, wet distiller’s grains or dry distiller’s grains depending on the water content. It is calorie reduced but its protein enriched and its still food. The world is not calorie short but it does have a protein shortage. The distiller’s grain sold for $80 a ton and went to livestock, pet food and in a few cases human food. The food industry in the USA and Europe could not quickly use the stuff because of red tape and the simple fact that their factories use augers to move grains and distillers grains clag up augers. For every ton of ethanol produced later this year there will be a ton of dry distiller’s grains and they have fixed the augers. When you make biodiesel from soy you make an equal quantity of soy meal (oilseed press cake) or 5 tons of soy flour per ton of biodiesel. Soy meal is processed into livestock and pet food. Soy flour is textured protein, mock meat, protein filler in foods etc. We're all eating it. The world food situation is complex and full of change. We have new foods, new crops and agricultural systems developing. Salt tolerant grains are deploying in some countries and integrated biological pest management (pesticide free) is being deployed. A hundred NGO's are teaching organic agriculture across the third world. For the first time in decades European and American surpluses aren't being dumped on third world countries at prices that bankrupt the local farmers. It would be nice if the drought broke, there wasn't a flood destroying the US crop right now on the Mississippi and the media noticed organic agricultures success stories. But we can't have everything. PS I have a degree in organic agriculture and sustainable development so I get to do my bit.
Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer
Michel Jullian wrote: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer presented by CEO Martin Roscheisen here, with a video: http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/ If they sell the panels at $1/W as announced, they are aiming at a $1B annual income, not too shabby :) Michel Note also its not just the cells their selling but their selling the machine that makes the cells. Its not the only machine they have running and there's one in germany. Did you see how much empty space the factory has? They could build a few more yet in just that factory alone. Awesome!
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
Good post Robin, I disagree on some points but a good post. We will see. I hope fusion will save the day as you do but its wise to consider the options. A few points: 1. If earth quakes could not dislodge oil and natural gas from the ground significantly why does anyone think CO2 will be as easily dislodged. 2. The wave power cables I'm talking about are true power system cables, facilitation for university and private projects, not a power link to Tasmania, same technology. The governments meager contribution to wave power. Perhaps there's a delay I'll look for the site data. 3. I should have named Ahmadinajad, the Mullah you mentioned may not be able to stand up to him and his apocalyptic view of the future. 4. The compressed air car I mentioned is now a hybrid with a multifuel biofuel burner in the design. That triples the range and produces emissions so low the design has the International fuel emissions prize won already. see the aircar web site. My somewhat sarcastic post is based on the simple idea that solutions exist, putting all our eggs in one basket is a bad idea, even cold fusion is a risk if it becomes our only solution. I agree the coal miners can work elsewhere and the coal companies can invest elsewhere. But some has them convinced that both the miners and the shareholders are too stupid to do anything but dig up dirty black stuff. The PM is also concerned about the balance of payments. Coal is the stable part of our balance of payments. Longterm contract prices don't work well for agricultural commodities and metals. It does work for coal. solve that problem and the PM world switch sides in a minute I suspect. Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:31:44 +1000: Hi, [snip] snip No, it's not even a desirable solution. The first time there's an earthquake where the CO2 is stored, the whole lot will return to the surface in one vast cloud, and being heavier than air it will settle across the surface of the ground in a layer meters deep, suffocating thousands in the process. Then it will slowly mix with the air, and we will be right back to square one. That's why there is no such thing as clean coal, and why those who seek refuge in it are delusional. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [VO]: Future energy predictions
R.C.Macaulay wrote: Howdy Vorts, With all the energy info rhetoric eminating out of D.C. and news sources do you sense the public is expecting too much from the energy industry? What is your predicted time line for the first really serious bump in the road ? Richard I'm an Aussy so D.C. is almost irrelevant and has been for some years now. We are looking at some major options including clean coal and we’re in a good position in terms of solar, etc. We have even combined the two solar coal gassification. The Capitalisation of the green energy sector only requires someone with a little brains to realise that a company that combines the emerging household energy technologies and mortgage finance beats Government subsidies hands down. In the ACT we have polititions writing legistation for green-energy buyback, running the meter backwards on solar, wind etc. We have a sugar industry that makes ethanol using no fossil fuel input at the factory and could do so at the farm level, ethanol powered tractors. We have one of the best wave power sites in the world at Bass strait and we are laying the first cables on that sea bed. If you look at Peswiki you see 3 to 5 new projects a day. Any one of which if fully developed could produce 20-30% of the worlds fuel requirments and 10% of its grid energy requirements. With 100+ projects each with the potential of meeting 10% of the demand we don’t have an energy crisis were heading for a solutions glut. We, here in Australia, have too many projects chasing the limited amount of venture capital our economy produces. Contrary to popular belief carbon taxes and carbon credits will not finance the key technologies. As government run programs they are risk averse lenders, And with many solutions here now it is a higher risk game. World wide we now have 6 ethanol technologies as well as, Butanol, methanol ~ dimethyle ether, biogas methane, Compressed air cars, a dozen new electrics a month, commercial solar cars hitting the roads. The question realy is What Energy Crisis! Govenments rarely lead but often follow when the time comes. We are in a R D boom right now. It is starting to deliver a huge crop of new energy technologies. An energy polyculture as diverse as any garden. Like the dotcom boom there are billions to be made and yes lost. Like the dotcom boom battles over compatabilty will rage (and that’s where the big buck are). Like the dotcom boom government demands for certain security measures, ie the public encryption/ clipper chip debacle, will some how kill the boom. I agree the middle-east will be a nuclear war zone soon if the hard line Mullahs in Iran get the bomb. Israel will not be the main target the Sunni cities will be. Israel may need to strike first and soon. Pakistan already has a bomb and is visibly teatering. Imagine a nuclear armed Pakistan run by President Osama Bin laden. He knows where the action is. If we see a real war in the middle-east oil will go to prices that will be spectacular but we now have hundreds of companies ready to go with solutions. If oil goes to $150 a barrel the debate about subidies would be over; the rush to clear the red tape will be on and those that stand in the way of the new green giant will be stomped on. The real battlelines will not be about oil; it will be Coal verses the hundreds of new energy technologies. The Coal miners will be a greater threat than the industry. Remember when Margaret Thatcher took them on people died. According to a news report the prime suspects for the dioxin poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko, current president of Ukraine, are coal miniers from eastern Ukraine. They had access to dioxin and Yushchenko at the time of the poisoning and his pro-europe position was seen as an anticoal position because of Europe’s strong greenhouse stand. Conspiracies aside Viktor Yanukovych his main opponent is supported by the eastern ukranian coal lobby. Clean coal is a way to avoid such comnflicts but whether it can be financially viable is debated. In Order to defuse the coal/ greenhouse problem it needs to be very cheep. That’s a huge challenge. And if the US congress does something stupid that will just drive the USA to get a real parliament. ;-) I’m Ok Jack I’m half a world away.
Re: [Vo]:*******VIDEO LINK TO THE NEW ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION
Michel Jullian wrote: You seem to be running a very nice scam, Joseph :-) You're a great showman in any case, so spectators aren't entirely robbed. Michel - Original Message - From: JNPCo. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:46 AM Subject: [Vo]:***VIDEO LINK TO THE NEW ENERGY MACHINE DEMONSTRATION The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman 5/17/07 A NEW SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE IS DEMONSTRATED IN MOBILE, ALABAMA! The video.google.com link below features a new demonstration of Joseph Newman's revolutionary energy machine technology and fulfills the promise made by Joseph Newman in April 2007. The amazing results of this new energy technology as shown in the video speak for themselves! Contact Joe Nolfe at (205) 835-9022 for further details about the energy machine technology. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6157958993884349118q=joseph+newman * * * * * * * * * * * * * * http://www.josephnewman.com It's not a scam but man can that man woffle. All Newman needs is a hair cut and a public relations spacialist with a wip to keep him on topic and people will find he has made a few interesting discoveries.
Re: [Vo]:Scum -TNBT
thomas malloy wrote: Jones Beene wrote: the next big thing? imagine these all over the parched-prairies of the southwest... http://tinyurl.com/2rskd2 Interesting URL Jones. Thanks for posting it. I think that learning how to set up and manage those plants is a big growth area. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! --- That should also work for Spirulina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirulina_%28dietary_supplement%29 and a few other food grade algae. One hectare of Spirulina makes as much RDA protein as 24 ha of soy and 80 ha of rice. Too bad Jim Sears doesn't have a e-mail address. http://www.solixbiofuels.com/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=13Itemid=27 http://www.solixbiofuels.com/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=13Itemid=27 RDA is recomended daily allowance about 60 grams. A years supply is 21.9 kg. A hectare of Spirulina is 21.400 tons per year. RDA for the whole year of for 980 people. In reality that not all that they would be eating but it shows you how many people the planet can support from even a barron desert if we put our minds to it. Before you ask we can make flower, noodles, mock rice, textured protein and probably nutrient feed stocks for lab grown meat. http://www.new-harvest.org/default.php A little known fact is that sugars, i.e. the whey form textured protein production, can be fed to planet through a special kind of graft. The growth rates that result are amazing but the work has been done once and then forgotten. There's nothing on the web I can find. If we have cheap protein and sugar and can grow specialised crops on the drip fed basis, we can feed billions more.
Re: [Vo]:They Obviously Believe in UCaps
thomas malloy wrote: Wesley Bruce wrote: snip But the structure is vitrified ceramic not the dielectric. Its a very hard brick with no voids, the dielectrics break down does not matter. Its also in a solid box that negates any easy penetration. I've corresponded with Dick Weir the principle of EEstor. Its wrapped up very well and the switching means that if one cap goes its isolated to that cap. Let's do a thought experiment here and we'll see. It would seem to me that the mechanical stresses would eventually weaken the dielectric. Correct only if the structure is not prestressed to take the cycling. Sensors in the matertial could detect an log the stress. There are als selfhealing matterials now that cycle in the reverse to the stress. If a fuel tank has the same energy does they mean its as dangerous as dynamite? IMHO, this is a nonsequetor. The energy in a Mars bar or a gas tank is potential, it lacks the other half, O2, and the flame front of a fuel O2 reaction is slow. And the electrostatic equivilent of controling O2 is controling the earth. Or controled discharge of the stressed section of the block into the load. Use the most stressed section first. No because the reaction has other variables: flame speed and oxygen supply in the case of fuels. In the case of EEstor caps its the fracture resistance of the ceramic, the percentage of the caps broken in a breach and whether there is a earth available and the temperature of any arc relative to thermal properties of adjacent materials. It would seem to me that the entire structure would degrade over time with the mechanical stresses of charging - discharging and road vibration. When a spot breaks down there will be a big stress on the surrounding structure. The big factor, IMHO, is the instantaneous release of electrical energy. 3.5 KV is some potent stuff. IMHO, It depends on whether the rest of the energy is a package will flow into this fault. Reportedly their lab samples have been cycled thousands of times. No reported Booms. The things will be subjected to a destructive testing. Yes I would like to be behind some balistic plastic while watching the test but it should be fun to see. Military people are in the Eestor loop. Their tests of field durability include shotting thing to see if the go boom. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Magnetic Viscosity
Paul Lowrance wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: Sean McCarthy dropped this term again today: http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=57711page=1#Item_17 http://snipurl.com/1jgm1 about how his technology works. Isn't this the same as hysteresis? Terry I was taught it's different than hysteresis. Magnetic viscosity is frequency related. It's simply magnetic lag. The electron spins in the material don't change instantly when the applied field changes. Example, say an applied field is saturating the core to 99.9%. Then within 1 ns the applied field is completely removed. Most magnetic cores cannot react that fast. So it might take 100 ns for the core to change from %99.9 saturation to 10% saturation. Regards, Paul Lowrance but that's the mechanism of magnetic refigeration. If it's that simple the people doing magnetic refrigeration will have a fit.
Re: [Vo]:They Obviously Believe in UCaps
thomas malloy wrote: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Wed, 2 May 2007 20:29:15 -0400: http://www.zenncars.com/home/EEStor%20equity%20investment%20April%2030%202007%20FINAL%202.pdf [snip] Inc. The negotiated investment terms also grant ZENN an additional investment option of up to US $5 million on the same terms, It isn't permittivity that's the likely problem, it's the breakdown voltage. I Searched under EEstor and found an interesting discussion of the technology. The proposed capacitor would store several KW hrs worth of energy, it would be stored at 3.5 KV. Someone calculated that the energy in the charged capacitor would be equivalent to 100 sticks of dynamite. The BaTi dielectric is brittle, and it was noted that this sort of device does not fail gracefully, which is a euphemism for destructive failure. Given the energies involved, and the mechanical forces which I would assume would be generated in charging the capacitor, I would assume it would be a matter of time before it rapidly disassembles itself, and the car. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! --- But the structure is vitrified ceramic not the dielectric. Its a very hard brick with no voids, the dielectrics break down does not matter. Its also in a solid box that negates any easy penetration. I've corresponded with Dick Weir the principle of EEstor. Its wrapped up very well and the switching means that if one cap goes its isolated to that cap. If a fuel tank has the same energy does they mean its as dangerous as dynamite? No because the reaction has other variables: flame speed and oxygen supply in the case of fuels. In the case of EEstor caps its the fracture resistance of the ceramic, the percentage of the caps broken in a breach and whether there is a earth available and the temperature of any arc relative to thermal properties of adjacent materials.
Re: [Vo]: Bad News for Steorn
Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: There is some debate about how much of these precious metals are available elsewhere in the solar system, but I do not think this matters much. Once you leave the Earth's atmosphere and go to the moon or an asteroid, you can then use raw solar energy to vaporize as much low-grade or as you like . . . I meant low-grade ore. Regarding the prospects for prospecting the solar system, see this interesting web site: http://www.permanent.com/intro.htm This web site is kind of unorganized. For lunar materials, see: http://www.permanent.com/l-overvw.htm Not many metal ores there, at least on the surface. Maybe asteroids or Mars would be a better choice. - Jed I'm in the National Space Society these guys seem to be reinventing the wheel. We've already got everything worked out in the L5 society and the other derivations. All we need is the key propulsion solutions: that's the Ares heavy lift system. And a way to pay for it: that's the space tourism angle, the space prizes and good off earth ownership laws (blocked by the socialist law of space) Some of their design work on this web site is obsolite. Why don't they call a Stanford torus a Stanford torus? These guys are verging on plagerism for no good reason.
Re: [Vo]:They Obviously Believe in UCaps
Terry Blanton wrote: A Milky Way bar contains more energy than a stick of dynamite. A tank of gas in that SUV contains about a megawatt. My grandson has more energy than a full SUV and often explodes. Terry Stop feeding you grandson the milky bars :-D I'll have them. ;-) Bravo. Thanks my point exactly its not how much energy but how fast it can discharge. The grandson probbably holds that record. On 5/4/07, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Wed, 2 May 2007 20:29:15 -0400: http://www.zenncars.com/home/EEStor%20equity%20investment%20April%2030%202007%20FINAL%202.pdf [snip] Inc. The negotiated investment terms also grant ZENN an additional investment option of up to US $5 million on the same terms, It isn't permittivity that's the likely problem, it's the breakdown voltage. I Searched under EEstor and found an interesting discussion of the technology. The proposed capacitor would store several KW hrs worth of energy, it would be stored at 3.5 KV. Someone calculated that the energy in the charged capacitor would be equivalent to 100 sticks of dynamite. The BaTi dielectric is brittle, and it was noted that this sort of device does not fail gracefully, which is a euphemism for destructive failure. Given the energies involved, and the mechanical forces which I would assume would be generated in charging the capacitor, I would assume it would be a matter of time before it rapidly disassembles itself, and the car. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Fw: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday April 27, 2007
Akira Kawasaki wrote: -Forwarded Message-from Akira Kawasaki From: What's New [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Apr 27, 2007 2:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday April 27, 2007 WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 27 Apr 07 Washington, DC 1. THE HABITABLE ZONE: THE GOOD NEWS IS THEY’RE NOT COMING HERE. Humans, fragile self-replicating chemical factories, are trapped on a tiny planet for a few dozen orbits about an undistinguished star among countless other stars in one of billions of galaxies. And yet, these insignificant specks have the audacity to imagine they can figure it all out - and maybe they can. The most compelling scientific quest is to find life to which Earthlings are not related. The first great discovery of this Century was to confirm that other stars have planets - lots of them. This week European astronomers found a planet in the habitable zone of Gliese 581, a red dwarf in the constellation Libra. The public was thrilled. We can learn a lot from here, and it’s going to be exciting. Each year I ask my class of freshman physics majors if they think humans will visit another star someday. Most say yes, so we take a few minutes of each class to plan the mission. What’s the closest star? How long are you prepared to travel? How big will the spaceship have to be? How will you pass the time? Anyway, we’ll be able to travel much faster some day, so maybe 50 years. There’s always one that insists there’s gotta be a basketball court. Near the end of the semester they calculate the kinetic energy of the spacecraft to make the trip in 50 years. Hmmm, the velocity is squared. Maybe, they conclude, we could just find a way to exchange e-mails. 2. WARHEADS: THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT NUCLEAR STOCKPILES ARE AGING. It was just five years ago that the Nuclear Posture Review, was leaked http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn031502.html . It was a Pentagon report calling for development of a new class of small nuclear weapons to blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons. Public exposure killed the plan. But Dr. Strangelove never gives up. The Bush administration is again pushing for a new generation of nuclear weapons; this time it’s the Reliable Replacement Warhead, an idea that’s been around for 30 years. In fact, having spent billions on a Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship Program, there’s no need for the RRW. U.S. warheads will retain their capability for another century. 3. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: IRAQ NO LONGER POSES A NUCLEAR THREAT.We invaded Iraq because of their weapons of mass destruction. It worked perfectly. Iraq hasn’t had a nuclear weapon since. But now we learn that there’s a nuclear threat brewing across the border in Iran. Unfortunately, our troops are sort of tied up. We need more missile defense sites like the ones we built in Alaska and California to deal with the missile threat from North Korea. Of course that missile defense is still being tested and we don’t actually turn it on, but we think we could. It worked anyway. North Korea still doesn’t have a missile, or a warhead. To take care of the Iran threat we want to install missile defenses in Eastern Europe like the one that doesn’t work in Alaska. THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the University of Maryland, but they should be. --- Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org What's New is moving to a different listserver and our subscription process has changed. To change your subscription status please visit this link: http://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=bobparks-whatsnewA=1 Bobs going all political lol. I knew all this stuff years ago. Its very banal, even the extrasolar planet and its parameters are unsurprising. The old Guy is getting predictable. I think we will be in a shooting war with Iran in 3-4 months and a mates going to the region. Ouch. Iran has the blue prints of the Pakistan nukes according to the Paki nuke maker. Its a tested bomb so they need only the fissile material. The 12th Imam legends say that the Sunni cities will burn. No mention of Israel. The targets are Baghdad, Riyadh and the Sunni triangle cities. A shot at Israel might be made to confuse things. Making the destruction of Iran’s other targets look like an Israeli retaliation. Israel is a small target and the Iranian missiles are not accurate. A shot at Israel could hit Jordan, the West bank or Gaza. The fall out will get to Palestinian territory anyway. Israelis have shelters and training the Palestinians don't. If Israel is hit it could spell the end or extinction of Palestine with no Israeli response. The population density of Israel is such that there are no more than 2 million Jews in any possible target area. Iran can’t target Jerusalem, Mecca or Medina.
Re: [Vo]:OT- the 22nd Law of Unintended Consequences
Unintended or honourable attempt. --[very OT]-- There are times in history when Generals and politicians must attempt the impossible just to prove its impossible. The Dieppe raid in WW2 comes to mind. People were demanding action and something had to be done even if it cost thousands of lives. It did but it proved the point and resulted in the long term Quadruple strategy of: 1. Hold England and Egypt while using the size of the British Empire to balance the Axis. 2. Wear the Germans down in battlefields of your choosing, North Africa and Russia. 3. Keep the Russians fighting. Stalin threatened to negotiate a separate treaty. Hence Dieppe. 4. Call in Americans. Which took too long. Iraq was the threat. A real danger. Saddam, his sons and his party were killing people in the worst possible way. * Saddam was seeking WMD. Iran was seen as a greater threat in the 1970's so America under Carter was selling. After the Halabja poison gas attack Reagan cut support. Europe and Russia continued to supply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wmd_iraq * Yes some of Saddam’s people were ripping the WMD program off for their own wealth. Swimming pools and playstations were bought or built with diverted WMD money it seems. :-D * In the last days of the first gulf war orders to use the WMD [gas] or destroy it was given. Those orders were quickly acted upon. * The orders were then contradicted when the US forces ran out of gas south of Basra. Are you going to tell the Dictator you had just burned his precious poison gas? The officers responsible filled the barrels with other stuff and tried to hide their action. * Trucks moved tons of stuff to Syria in November just before the “alliance of the willing” attacked. Was that WMD? * The tapes of Saddam’s cabinet meetings indicates that HE thought that he had a lot of WMD somewhere. * Radio intercepts indicated that the Iraqi officers thought; 'I may not have gas but the general either side does.' Radio calls were heard “ For Gods sake use the gas.” followed by the reply “I thought you had the Gas, @$*%#$” Staff cars were seen racing away from the lines minutes later. * We used Moab’s to obliterate the last line of defence around Baghdad. A Bomb that size can destroy a lot of chemical weapons and there is a good chance that the remaining chem. rounds were being kept close given the problem in the first gulf war. Moab’s don’t leave records or witnesses. Given all that I’m surprised we found what we found which was some documentation on WMD and a few scattered cashes of chem. rounds. Because the WMD could not be proven the Iraqi dissidents Iraqi opposition group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_opposition_group and Ahmed Chalabi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi , the major intelligence sources, were rejected as the ideal people to take over and run an interim government. Their advice to disarm the Iraqi army and put it to work rebuilding while they worked out who could be trusted was ingnored. We ended up with a shai religious dominated assembly and unemployed troops signing up with al-Qaeda or the Mahdi army. It was Ahmed Chalabi who thought the Iraqis would welcome the Americans and for a few weeks he was correct but with the Iraqi opposition group side lined the USA did not know how to vet intelligence officers or how to screen volunteers; interpreters, police recruits, etc. Miss handling those Iraqis that volunteered to help the Americans has cost them dearly. Note Australia has had very few casualties and we handle the Iraqis working with us differently. I’m an Aussy if you did not know. ;-) Yes Chalabi is up on Fraud charges in Jordan but you can’t run a government in exile with open books, you must conceal all transactions and if you can steal from the enemy; Go for it. We did in WW2. British Intelligence stole millions of diamonds from Antwerp as it fell to the Germans. The French resistance and others did equivalent frauds in occupied Europe. There was a time when the victor wrote the history. Today we live in an age where the vanquished continue to wage a propaganda war after defeat. Was it all doomed to fail? Perhaps, some have argued that democracy and Islam are incompatible. Arguably an attempt had to be made. Pulling out now just as we are learning how to beat the enemy would be disastrous. Are we ready for 5 million refugees, all of those that trusted us and now face death at the hands of whoever rises to the top. Are we ready for a war with Turkey and Iran as Kurdistan becomes a nation state? Arbil, capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government is the only place in Iraq you can walk free without fear of bombs or kidnappings. A Sunni-stan would be a haven for Al-Qaeda, the Shia provinces would in effect become a militant Iranian puppet state. Christians would be
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: Steorn Public Demonstration
thomas malloy wrote: Wesley Bruce wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: . . . moved to July: http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=50211page=1 and they don't know if it will be start/stop or cyclical?!? Terry Actually the launch or bust is today April 13 according to Sean in a later post. Does that mean that I'm going to be able to purchase a machine? No that means you'll see the Jury report and blue prints by tonight or tomorrow. Those with the skill and magnets, that includes my brother and I, will be able to build and test it. If the Jury report is both positive and respectable then the investment and development phase starts. Expect some interesting video, PDF files and lots of emails going out to the thousands who have signed up for the report. They have installed a lot of server capacity to handle the load. Steorn has spent about 3 million to date on this project. Its a sign that they at least believe completely in the technology. If its a scam they are making a huge loss. It will take about three months to make a toy for demonstration and fun. Home built powerplants will be 6 to 12 months away. Factory production may take 18 months. The scramble for Neodymium will begin Monday as the news soaks in across the web over the weekend. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: Steorn Public Demonstration
Esa Ruoho wrote: erm.. wesley.. how do you know this? where is the steorn forum post about this? i thought it was just going to be an update on the jury process, not a final report of all juries. if it is, then grand, but somehow i doubt you really mean what you said. I've been quietly monetoring the posts on the forum. That was my reading of Seans post and a few comments by people that I have gurssed are staff. I may be wrong but the 1st quarter ends in Ireland on sunday and they're promissing an annoncement before them. Friday is the last working day before the end of the quarter. It should not take that long to build and test the device. besides, with the 3 month toy, what about the SPDC? what are they doing - according to you? somehow seems quite hard to believe that all the SPDC members (over 250) would have finished their steorn replication already. True but that's not part of the main Jury process. It is an additional verification not tied to the first quarter date. if you are skilled with building, why didnt you apply to the SPDC and sign the NDA and get onto the SPDC forum and follow the lessons? I thought I had missed the cut some how for that process. I'm a geographer and sustainable development specialist not a mechanic, my brother was not available until last month. My application attempt bounced and I've got no NDA. It would have been nice. Steorn does have my Resume I believe. ;-) PS Why are the Re:[Vo] subject line prefixes stacking up? On 13/04/07, *Wesley Bruce * [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . . . moved to July: http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=50211page=1 http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=50211page=1 and they don't know if it will be start/stop or cyclical?!? Actually the launch or bust is today April 13 according to Sean in a later post. Does that mean that I'm going to be able to purchase a machine? No that means you'll see the Jury report and blue prints by tonight or tomorrow. Those with the skill and magnets, that includes my brother and I, will be able to build and test it. If the Jury report is both positive and respectable then the investment and development phase starts. Expect some interesting video, PDF files and lots of emails going out to the thousands who have signed up for the report. They have installed a lot of server capacity to handle the load. Steorn has spent about 3 million to date on this project. Its a sign that they at least believe completely in the technology. If its a scam they are making a huge loss. It will take about three months to make a toy for demonstration and fun. Home built powerplants will be 6 to 12 months away. Factory production may take 18 months. The scramble for Neodymium will begin Monday as the news soaks in across the web over the weekend.
[Vo]:Steorn Public Demonstration
John Berry wrote: On 4/13/07, *Wesley Bruce* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS Why are the Re:[Vo] subject line prefixes stacking up? Because it's a stupid [EMAIL PROTECTED] script and it should be nixed. (or fixed) Yep. Thats what I thought. What's the old saying about watched pots they never boils. I'm watching the Steorn website for any action but its only 10 am in Dublin so I'm a little early. An every things Ok post would not take any time at all. Anything major should be later in the day. They will need time for a morning coffee, briefing and preparation, checking the server etc, then blame or fizz depending on the situation. A launch on Friday means the shouting match happens while the stock market is closed. That way they can't be accused of playing the market. That's just a guess but that's the accusation they face.
[Vo]:Clueless
That makes more sense. Thanks Jed. Jed Rothwell wrote: Wesley Bruce wrote: W thinks we already have PHEVs obviously: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/09/bush-almost-blows-himself-up/ Terry Right, pull the other #$%^# leg. Another attempt by Ford to sabotage hybrids. This was a joke, circulated by Ford Motor Co. President and CEO Alan Mulally. It was never intended to be taken seriously, but in the Internet age these things sometimes get out of hand. See: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070411/AUTO01/704110406/1013/BIZ04 Mulally's Bush tale ignites blog mania WASHINGTON -- In the age of YouTube, the Drudge Report and the blogosphere, even a story told for laughs can spin out of control. . . . - Jed
[Vo]:Steorn Public Demonstration
OK done on the forum and I suggested a way to close the loop on the kinetica toy that we've seen in you tube. Lets see if they can clarify a little. John Berry wrote: Ok, there is only one question I need answered from Steorn. I know Free Energy exists in the form they claim, I have not the slightest doubt. However when it comes to their device I have never heard a straight answer to 'Does it run closed loop' I'd ask on the forum but I can't post yet. So maybe you could Wesley, on my behalf, simply put can Steorn or failing that one of the witnesses give a solid answer to: Has the loop been closed? Has it been run with no input power beyond an initial impulse to get it started and done useful work continuously? (or run under any other fair closed loop (no input) type conditions) If the answer to this is a yes no Jury is needed, and if the answer to that is 'No' a Jury with positive findings might even fail to utterly convince me. On 4/13/07, *Wesley Bruce* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok that's good its still useful information. I and others need that data. Nice to see that its not bad news. Several sites on the web are expecting bigger things. Maybe I should pass this to them. Thanks I know what to look for and when. I have time to do a few chores. Feb to August is still quite a long testing schedule. John Berry wrote: rosco:I can see a misconception storm gathering. By tech specs i think Sean has made it pretty clear on many occasions that he means power generation details and nothing more. (i think) Yep, rosco is right - see the Sean quote reference point thread: http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=40661page=2#Item_7 http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=40661page=2#Item_7 http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=40661page=2#Item_7 http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=40661page=2#Item_7 On 4/13/07, *John Berry* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HelixMultiverse: It's Friday 13th April 2007, 08.55 but I can't see any update yet. Anyone know where the update will appear on website (I've looked under 'News') or at what time? HM Steorn: We plan to put the update up after lunch (for the video, text update at 6pm). I will also point out that there is no 'big' news here at all, as I stated many times over the last few months. Its a quick update on what has happen since last August, primarily designed for those who do not spend hours everyday on this forum! Regular forum members will see little that is new, its pretty much all been said in here. Suomipoika:I'm not sure I'm following. Are you going to release the detailed technical specifications to the public as you promised or not? Seconded. Is there going to be a text update with these specs alongside the video update? Steorn: Yes, this will go up later in the day, around 6 PM GMT (the video update will go up around lunchtime). Suomipoika:: Excellent! Thanks for the answer! You said there's not gonna be anything new we forum members didn't already knew. Why did you say so? Now you ARE going to release detailed technical specs, and that's definitely new information (and BIG news) for everybody. Did you change your mind after my question? On 4/13/07, *Wesley Bruce* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Berry wrote: On 4/13/07, *Wesley Bruce* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS Why are the Re:[Vo] subject line prefixes stacking up? Because it's a stupid [EMAIL PROTECTED] script and it should be nixed. (or fixed) Yep. Thats what I thought. What's the old saying about watched pots they never boils. I'm watching the Steorn website for any action but its only 10 am in Dublin so I'm a little early. An every things Ok post would not take any time at all. Anything major should be later in the day. They will need time
[Vo]:Steorn Public Demonstration
Esa Ruoho wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3aaRrEIp-0 videoupdate is here theres supposed to be text incoming at around 6pm gmt. Yes got that useful data but not much I need the get an NDA from them and find out some harder numbers. The video shows me something Sean is a real believer. His body language and tone indicated a level of earnestness but not any thing that indicated a lie. Looking at the idea that its a stock market scam but can't see any evidence of the kind of trading that would indicate a scam. No plays on the Neodymium markets indicated either.
Re: [Vo]:Breathable Oxygen
Harry Veeder wrote: When hydrogen is burned in air, the oxygen in the air combines with hydrogen to form H2O. Will breathable oxygen decline if we burn too much hydrogen? I guess this would never be a problem if all the hydrogen burned comes from the decomposition of H2O into H2 and O2. But seriously, if everything was powered by burning hydrogen would the proportion of oxygen in the air gradually decline? For that matter, has burning hydrocarbons already decreased oxygen levels? Just wondering... Harry Nice question. I believe the answer is no because plants simply make more oxygen to replace what is used up. Water is cracked in the photosyntheic process so both water and CO2 is recycled. Also carbonic acid in rain reacts with some rocks to release oxygen and break down the rock. That's why some rocks turn rapidly to soil when unearthed. Organic acids also play a large part but oxygen was used up making these acids, so there's no net gain. While inorganic oxygen production is far exceeded by photosynthesis it does exist. There is also geological up take of oxygen in some minerals that are not oxidized when they come to the surface. They then rust absorbing oxygen. Some iron meteorites absorb a lot of oxygen as they burn up, high speed rusting. Chondritc meteorites actually burn they are hydrocarbon rich. There are also significant natural hydrogen releases with some kinds of volcanoes. The gas cycles on this planet are very interesting and quite complex.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Clueless
Terry Blanton wrote: W thinks we already have PHEVs obviously: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/09/bush-almost-blows-himself-up/ Terry Right, pull the other #$%^# leg. Another attempt by Ford to sabotage hybrids. Why is the CEO Alan Malally/ /so stupid? Surely the hydrogen fill cap is locked! Why would the hydrogen fill system have any live conductors in it? Bush is not that stupid. If the hydrogen cap could be lifted it would ( or should) clearly not match the plug. Mulally is only showing his bias against and ignorance of both Hybrids and George W Bush.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]: Steorn Public Demonstration
Terry Blanton wrote: . . . moved to July: http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=50211page=1 and they don't know if it will be start/stop or cyclical?!? Terry Actually the launch or bust is today April 13 according to Sean in a later post.
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
David Thomson wrote: Hi Wesley, There are good arguments that some of the dating is wrong for most deposits and fossils. I don't dispute the dating process may be flawed, but what does that have to do with the quantity and variety of fauna and flora? Either the fossils exist or they don't. And it is equally obvious that regardless of the actual dates, a rich biosystem did not occur at the same time as an Ice Age. The stability in that case would only be an illisionary product of massivily distorted dating. Could you provide a more detailed explanation of your reasoning? How do dating errors (not Michel's type of dating errors) cause the illusion of massive amounts of biomatter and diverse species? It is always safer to assume a system is unstable and act accordingly that to assume it's stable and die having discovered your error. More flawed reasoning. Are you telling me that if we don't understand how something works, we are charged with fixing it until we do understand? That is how problems arise, not how they are solved. This is exactly what the GW debate comes down to. There are people who distort their interpretation of the data to prove something is broken, and then seek to fix it. It is the process of fixing things that don't need fixing that actually breaks them. Nature knows what it is doing. The planet Earth does not need the arrogance of our feeble intelligence to fix the climate cycle. Even if we do succeed in altering the climate, such as seeding the oceans with iron, what happens when iron prices go through the roof and the seeding program is cancelled? The resulting huge whale population then starves to death for lack of food. Either that or the Japanese build up a huge market for whale products and drives them into extinction. There were people who played with pure sodium, and when it spontaneously caught fire, they threw water on it, which caused a major explosion. The climate change problem is serious enough without shortsighted humans trying to intervene. Even if we were successful in the short run, it is highly improbable we could keep up our efforts into the long run. The best way to survive global climate change is to adapt, which is the method preferred by all successful species. Dave Good points Dave. I can't explain the dating problems here, its a creationist debate essentually, there are other sites for that. Email me privately for those details. Suffice to say that I think the errors are large but the greenhouse effect should still be real. As for human action I think we tend to want simple answers to complex questions. Fertilizing the ocean is one such simple answer, far too simple. We need comprehesive ownership systems if we are going to farm the sea instead of just hunting it. Your correct, human arrogance is dangerous but there are times when inaction is equally arrogant and dangerous. The energy technologies discussed on vortex, peswiki, etc will help solve problems and give us the leway to fix the problems as they come. If greenhouse is not a problem then we loose nothing by going to alternative energy; assuming we are smart enough to keep the oil men and the coal miners etc from starving or rioting.
Re: [Vo]: Better way to sequester CO2- re branson
Thanks robin Your correct. Good black coal can be 80% carbon 20% hydrogen. In clean burning coal the CO2 reaction is a big part of the energy but if CO2 is chilled and sequested you loose most of that energy and all that counts is the energy output of the hydrogen. That's why the coal industry baulks at clean coal; its a large energy loss. If you make Carbon fiber from gases the bonds must be broken and reformed; another use [loss] of energy. If those bonds in coal are transformed with minimal net energy flow then the final result: carbon fiber +hydrogen + some hydrocarbons would be of an equal energetic value to the energy of clean coal with the CO2 sequested in the ground and the product value would far exceed the commodity price of the raw coal. A lot of work needs to be done and I'm hoping for a Steorn powered car first. At that point the coal market crashes, the energetics of carbon fiber changes and the huge feed stock of free carbon [all that unwanted coal] is up for grabs. ;-) Note some coals are so poor most of the energy is wasted drying the stuff. Its much worse for the dirty stuff the Chinese mine much of the carbon leaves the smokestacks unburnt ash and soot. Published energy values are often post drying. Aussy coal, being the best coal, :-P does not need drying. Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:56:42 +1100: Hi, [snip] Most of the energy in coal is in the hydrogen bonds not the carbon to carbon bonds. [snip] There is very little hydrogen in coal (much more in oil), so I think you need to prove this point Wesley. Furthermore, even in oil, more energy is derived from the formation of CO2 than from the formation of water. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
[Vo]: ocean biomass and biofuel
Back in the 1980 Jacques-Yves Cousteau championed a ocean based biofuel technology that has since been lost. The technology involved buoy based nutrient up welling pumps powered by methane. The Methane was produced from kelp plants grown on a mesh net attached below the water line. The deep sea water from a mile or two down was rich enough to fertilize the kelp; including iron. The kelp was processed, milled and dumped into a tank on the buoy. A salt tolerant strain of bacteria made methane. Some powered the buoy or the pumps and the rest was fuel for sale. By products included fish and shellfish grown around the same buoy. Sometimes these fish were penned and some were free swimming. the greatest by product is that these buoys are ideal as open ocean property markers. We need a way to mark and this Own key areas of the sea. You only husband properly the things that you own.
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Actually I have material on ocean fertilization, including iron, going back to 1978 or so. Co-evolution quarterly had a design for a green ship that delivered both fertilizer and a seed stock of algy and fish fingerling. This combination gives you much more ecological control. I'll see if I can find it; though my kid brother has just moved in and the storage situation here has become chaotic. Jones Beene wrote: Well, that sound-byte is a bit disingenuous, as Russ has borrowed the (unpatented) idea and experimental results of the late John Martin, who was less optimistic about the outcome ... JM was former director of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moss_Landing_Marine_Laboratories ... and one assumes (hopes) that George would give credit to Martin at some point in the process ... whether Martin's estate would win or share in the prize is unclear. I think some of the personnel from Martin's Moss Landing team are the same in any event. Martin's issued a caution regarding Global Warming consequences. Before getting too enamored with the implications of those successful iron fertilization experiments - which have been in the public record for 16 years - one must face several caveats. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/oceangard/overview.php#n27 Though iron fertilization may be one of several effective method of lessening the impact of global warming by increasing algae growth, and CO2 uptake, the scientific evidence is incomplete and suggests there may be unintended consequences, especially at the scale necessary for global change. Of course if the Algae were harvested as an oil substitute - then that would probably help immensely, but just growing it without harvesting as R George is proposing - is not sufficient. Methane BTW is a far more worrisome threat than CO2, being twenty times more potent as a greenhouse gas and the Arctic (vast areas of Siberia Canada, Alaska) is now releasing much more of it than anyone ever thought possible - so perhaps that gas should be addressed first - big prize or not. Jed Rothwell wrote: Russ sez he can sequester carbon. Here is a direct link to the vid, from Tom Valone: www.planktos.com/media/rg_kgo_small.wmv - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
David Thomson wrote: I don't see what need there is to take the carbon out of the air. We spent 150 years of hard work getting all that sequestered carbon back into the biosphere. Don't these people realize the climate of the Earth was most stable during the time of the dinosaurs? Our planet went for hundreds of millions of years with no ice ages and there was 1000 times more biomatter in the biosystem than there is today with 1000s more species. If people want to take the carbon back out, all they need to do is send another comet into Earth's atmosphere. If I had my way, we would double carbon production in hopes of putting a permanent end to the present Ice Age. Dave This may be true but our ecosystems are under pressure and depleted in terms of species both producer and consumers. A depleted system mich respond with massive infestation of marine weeds with impacts on both the natural ecosystem and the fishing industry. There are good arguments that some of the dating is wrong for most deposits and fossils. The stability in that case would only be an illisionary product of massivily distorted dating. It is always safer to assume a system is unstable and act accordingly that to assume it's stable and die having discovered your error.
[Vo]: Better way to sequester CO2- re branson
I'm looking at a better way to win the Branson-Gore prize and make a
profit into the bargain. If it works we'll be richer than both.
Turn the coal and lots of alga into *carbon fibre*: billions of tons of
it. The process should be profitable if we can crack the chemistry.
1. _Anaerobic coking_ strips the coal and or bulk fertilized alga or
Sargasso weed into near pure carbon and a mix of methane and H2.
2. Burn the H2 to provide power.
3. React the methane with catalysts to make ethylene and plastics.
Mainly bonding agents.
4. Process the coke into carbon fibre. That’s the bit that should be
tricky.
5. Bond the fibre into structural systems with the plastics.
6. Sequester the carbon* in plain sight* as roads, bridges, cars and
buildings.
If we can turn coal onto a material feed stock while liberating its
hydrogen to be used as a fuel we end the arguments and get rich at the
same time. If carbon composites were made as cheap as glass or concrete
it would sell for much more than coal. These materials are the key to
faster lighter cars and cheap air and space travel. We could make
bridges with amazing spans and building that look feather light. The
coal industry would survive and get richer. And the CO2 question would
be moot.
I'm looking for contacts with the necessary qualifications and skills to
have a look at this option. I also need someone with access to coal, a
lab and funding. I'm also emailing politicians and coal industry people.
The whole greenhouse debate here in Australia is about Coal. Our prime
minister Mr Howard has been blunt and honest. He does not want to kill
off Australia coal industry with Kyoto, carbon taxes or Green
socialistic economic suicide. {my words not his}. Several whole regions
in Australia and the nations balance of payments are dependant on Coal.
Thousands of jobs and 18 towns would go if we killed the industry.
Remember when Maggie Thatcher did that in Britton there was war in the
streets and people died. More governments have fallen to coal miners
riots and rebellions than to oil related political action.
Extracting the carbon as a building material seems obvious to me. The
key is to separate the carbon from the hydrogen before combusting the
either. Most of the energy in coal is in the hydrogen bonds not the
carbon to carbon bonds.
Several of the plastics steps are exothermal and can be used to generate
heat and if your creative electricity.
Re: [Vo]: Steorn Photos
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Wesley Bruce wrote: Ok so far as I can see there is only one magnet clearly visible and all the motion is the product of fingers and the tweezers poking it. Are we sure they are legit images of the Steorn thing since there is no self motion visible in those pictures? Is that really a surprise? No but they did say the opposite. Note This does not make me more sceptical in fact I'm more optimistic now. I've looked at the information on the Steorn website and have never seen anything that actually /said/ they have anything which self-runs. I know opinions here differed, and there are some ambiguous statements which one could interpret that way, but I saw nothing clear and explicit to that effect. AFAICT, all they have is something which, when driven externally, apparently produces more power on the shaft out than is applied on the shaft in. Of course, with such a device the torque varies significantly as the shaft rotates, so measuring the power in and power out can be a tad dicey. If that were true then its a simple matter to close the loop and add a linkage that drives itsself. I can see how that would work, I just can't see the linkage. If I were them I would not show that part either. Then again there's no shot of the thing from the back or sides; that may be very important. PS If Steorn has cracked it; half of the Vortex crew are out of a job and most of us will be sending them our CV's. or did I already do that ? The little arm on the right is a classic escapement that allows the magnet to push the disc its mounted on a few degrees. A spring then returns it to the start position. in effect we have a retarded cycle with two springs rocking a disc back and forth in the plane of the disc, in this case one of the springs is a magnet. All that's nothing new?! If its legitimate then these images are intentionally lacking a key component. The bit that moves the escapement up and down with no external input of energy: i.e. fingers or tweezers. 1600th century clockwork. If it is that simple the worlds scientific community will have a complete and total fit. With wood, brass and twine Leanado Davinchi could have built the thing.
Re: [Vo]: Steorn Photos
Ok so far as I can see there is only one magnet clearly visible and all the motion is the product of fingers and the tweezers poking it. Are we sure they are legit images of the Steorn thing since there is no self motion visible in those pictures? The little arm on the right is a classic escapement that allows the magnet to push the disc its mounted on a few degrees. A spring then returns it to the start position. in effect we have a retarded cycle with two springs rocking a disc back and forth in the plane of the disc, in this case one of the springs is a magnet. All that's nothing new?! If its legitimate then these images are intentionally lacking a key component. The bit that moves the escapement up and down with no external input of energy: i.e. fingers or tweezers. 1600th century clockwork. If it is that simple the worlds scientific community will have a complete and total fit. With wood, brass and twine Leanado Davinchi could have built the thing. Terry Blanton wrote: Well, the Flickr photos are still there; so, how 'bout my original request? :-) Terry On 2/11/07, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's a lot of discussion on the Steorn forum about how this really should not be made public. Maybe they killed it :-( . -Original Message- From: Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:51 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: Steorn Photos This is very odd. I tried accessing MPG video at the relativity.ca web site again, and now appears to be UserID Password protected. What's going on? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWokrs.com -Original Message- From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 3:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: Steorn Photos Try VLC . it's free :-) . -Original Message- From: Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: Steorn Photos Unfortunately, the downloaded MPG file doesn't play on my quicktime player. Any others? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnoson www.OrionWorks.com -Original Message- From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:52 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: Steorn Photos Woops, wrong one. Try this: http://relativity.ca/kineticatoy.mpg -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 1:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Steorn Photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/show/ Shows what appears to be test rig 1 and 3. Maybe someone could stream these photos together to see the motion of the devices. Terry
Re: [Vo]: Bettery on-the-way?
Jed Rothwell wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Suppose you want to recharge a dozen cars at one time, ten times per hour (six minutes each) during the peak rush hour. That's 120 I have a simple answer, you plug the car in when you shut it off. I'm talking about a garden variety, 20 Amp plug in. That's fine for short trips, but Mike Carrell is saying that on long trips over highways beyond the range of the batteries quick to recharge electric cars have a real problem. He is right. A recharge station similar to a 12 page gasoline station would require a large bank of super capacitors and also a 1 MB or 2 MB power supply -- like the kind used in a large hospital or hotel. This would surely cost far more than a conventional gas station. The problem is not insurmountable but it would be expensive. - Jed Well said Jed however there is a variable that has not been considered. The ultra-cap bank could be truck mounted allowing a power up station to be deployed at any truck stop or freeway rest area. This flying reserve could even be on-call, assuming your mobile phone is not also dead. Thus the station cost is the cost of the truck and its Ultra caps and the cost of the training for the driver electricians. It is even conceivable that they could move with demand: the highway to the coast in summer and the one to the snow in winter. I have a battery swap design with wheels on the battery pack and a ramp and winch in the cars belly. As a consequence I have been considering been considering the other part of the problem: road service for dead cars. In that case you need a medium truck with communications a dozen replacement packs and a semi-robotic crane with a 2 meter reach. The kind that drops a pallet of tiles or bricks on the lawn when your building. The other problem with battery swap is locking the batteries down solidly so they don't become a projectile. This has been one of the major reasons some governments object to retrofits and why battery swap for EV's has not been seen except in fleet vans and milk trucks.
Re: [Vo]: Bettery on-the-way?
Harry Veeder wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: I think electric cars would be easier to implement than people realize, and most of the concerns about limited operating range are either unimportant, or they could easily be fixed. If the world had run short of oil back in 1960, you can be sure we would have implemented electric cars with battery exchanges by 1975, and everyone would take it for granted. - Jed Anyone consider electric planes? Lifters? Harry We are still a long way away from electric air craft with two exceptions. Solar electric drones or airships and hybrid aircraft. If EESTOR or one of the others can deliver a bettery then it is possible to use it in either. Particularly if some smart chap with money [so I don't qualify] can figure out how to craft a bettery that is also a high strength 'structural girder'. Hint hint. Aircraft use most of their power taking off and landing. At cruising their powerplants are running at below optimal power. Energy banks would help by allowing the main engines to be built for the cruising load. This also allows fuel cell planes. Air craft would be more fuel efficient if airports included taxi way power boosters: that's a 'power truck' hooked up to the aircraft with a break a way link that powers the plane right up to the point where the pilot hits the throttle. Such vehicles are notoriously slow and fiddly. Manual connections and a hand towed trolley is still standard. Solar on the top of the fuselage and wings would also help power the air-conditioning while the plane is waiting on the ground in the cue for the runway. We will probably see both faster power trucks and solar soon. They are the two available innovations to cut aircraft fuel costs.
Re: [Vo]: Steorn question
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:00:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] Because it doesn't. It's a magnetic motor -- permanent-magnet-based engine -- and there's no mechanism for it to steal heat from the environment, nor any evidence whatsoever that it does so. It's type-1 perpetual motion: violation of the first law, which is conservation of energy. If the Steorn motor works, then a Steorn motor operating in a closed environment will warm up that environment. If it works at all, then I'd be more inclined to believe that it is deriving energy from an unexpected source, rather than creating it. One off-beat possibility is a time distortion field. I wonder if clocks in the surroundings run at a different speed? :) Time or inertia distortions are a distinct possibility if zero point energy is being tapped and Haisch, Rueda and Puttoff are right that ZPE is the energy behind inertia, gravity and thus all potential energy. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_electrodynamics [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]:
Wesley Bruce wrote: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.'s message of Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:33:32 -0700: Hi, [snip] Some half-baked ideas from memory on previous lists (somewhat jocularly): Buying cheap land under high tension power lines. Selling energy stocks ( and the many subsidiary industry stocks) short. Starting filling station remodeling companies. Buying Neodymium (The Chinese have already cornered that market :-( ). Making retrofit car engines. Inventing heat dissipation technology for portable devices. Selling road and sidewalk heaters to melt snow in north east cities. Build perpetual hot air balloons. Selling power back to the power companies (~US$60.00 per day for a residential generator unit). Desalination plants. No more concern for energy efficiency in homes, vehicles -- the end of the insulation business. No more interest in the middle east at all -- let them go their own way. Extracting gold from sea water. Making gasoline from air and water. Disinfecting drinking and pool water by boiling it. Selling scrap power plant parts. Dismantling wind farms and hydro plants. Replace broadcast antenna towers with perpetually hovering helicopters. Completely new airplane designs where no fuel has to be onboard, and efficiency doesn't matter. Self heating soup cans. Self cooling soft drink cans. Car air conditioners and heaters that are on all the time. Send your car up into the air ( hot air balloon or helicopter rotor) or around the block 'til you call it back -- no parking places needed. Buildings supported by compressed air (should be more immune to earthquakes as well as cheaper). They are worse than half-baked, they are suicidal. Let's hope that humanity has enough sense to avoid such stupidity. We currently have a global warming problem, *at least* partially driven by the greenhouse effect. While FE would solve that problem, extreme profligate waste will create a new problem of direct heat overload. It is therefore imperative that efficiency measures be continued along with the introduction of FE. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means. You folk's need to read the old fusion facts papers on cold fusion the planetary heating proble was dealt with a decade and a half ago by Hal Fox et al. oups never write at 3 am when you have dyslexia. lol That should read: You folk's need to read the old fusion facts papers on cold fusion. The planetary heating problem was dealt with a decade and a half ago by Hal Fox et al.
Re: [Vo]: Cold fusion powered rockets
Jed Rothwell wrote: See: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920005899_1992005899.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket It is interesting to think about how one might apply high temperature CF for a rocket engine. I am rewriting my book, based on the Japanese edition which I just finished writing. I am thinking about beefing up the rocket propulsion section. My problem is that I know next to nothing about rockets, so I better run this subject by the audience here, especially Ed Storms who is an expert in nuclear propulsion. I would like to know how much mass of propellant a rocket would require to launch from earth to orbit, and from earth to Mars. Based on the Wiki paper it seems fission rockets from earth to orbit did not have many advantages over conventional ones, but the transit to Mars would be a lot faster. A 50 MW engine described in Ref. 1 consumed 2.36 kg/s of hydrogen propellant (0.05 kg/MW), and a 5 GW NERVA rocket that was the planned would have consumed 121 kg/s (0.02 kg/MW). This 5 GW unit would have been remarkably small. If I do my calculations right, it would produce as much energy in one day (0.97 days) as a 100 kiloton nuclear bomb, which is astounding. For a deep space engine, people have been talking about using high ISP Ion thrusters. According to Wiki and other sources, these have about an order of magnitude better than liquid fuel rocket engines, but a very poor power/weight ratio, and a very low propellant flow. Apparently you cannot just increase the flow to any level you like. Perhaps with a CF power supply you could generate 50 MW or even gigawatts continuously for months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster#Thrust According to Wiki the best possible ion engine would be linear particle accelerator for specific impulse of 30 million seconds (!) but you cannot push much mass through one so the actual thrust is negligible. It is not clear to me whether this is a design limitation or whether it is because people do not have portable 5 GW electric power supplies. I am not sure what kind of generator would work for this. Thermoelectric generation might work; electrohydrodynamics would be great; but I was thinking perhaps one could use water to drive a steam turbine, condense and recycle some of the steam (with large cooling fins I suppose), and then reheat some of the other waste steam for propellant. Plan B might be a high temperature CF can be used to heat the propellent (hydrogen or water) to high temperature gas, and perhaps something like lasers with CF generated electricity then boosts the gas temperature far above the melting point of the CF cell, kind of like an inertial confinement hot fusion reactor. Of course converting heat to electricity and using lasers would be energy inefficient but as I said the idea would be to conserve propellant. What we want are rockets that can achieve continuous 1 G thrust with a payload of, say, 20,000 DWT (a small freight ship). Assuming the ratio of ship to payload is the same as a Boeing 747, the empty ship would weight about 30,000 tons. I have no idea how much the propellant would weigh, or how much energy it would take. 1 G carries you to the moon in ~3 hours, which is about as long as I care to be crammed into a seat. I am not sure how long it would take to get to Mars at kind of acceleration (of course it depends on how far away Mars is at the moment) . . . NASA says Mars is usually about 78,300,000 km away (http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/cirr/em/9/2.cfm) and it takes about 6 months to get there, but they figure it can be reduced to 4 months (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mars/marsprof.html). With constant 1 G acceleration I gather it would take around 3 days. That's more like it! See: http://www.cthreepo.com/cp_html/math1.htm Enter 39 million for half the trip; ignore earth's gravity. This comes out 2 days. A more sophisticated calculator: http://home.att.net/~srschmitt/script_starship.html For Mars, enter 1.5 AU (from data shown below on this page), and 1 G. It comes out 3.5 days. The longest trip in the solar system would be 17 days. Alpha Centuri is 3.5 years for the person on board, 5.9 years earth time, taking into account special relativity. 20,000 DWT is fine for Mars, but for interstellar travel you want to bring all your stuff. So let's Think Big. Even 30,000 tons is peanuts by the standards of modern container ships. For interstellar travel done right, I say take a fleet of 1,000 container ships, each with a 151,000 tons payload. Now that would take a lot of energy and a lot of propellant! - Jed Jed I know something about rockets. The key irony of the cold fusion/ plasma fusion fight is that cold fusion powered plasma rockets is always where interplanetary space propulsion was going. A plasma rocket is a plasma reactor with a controlled leak. Unfortunately plasma
Re: [Vo]: Wind turbine accident
Jed Rothwell wrote: A 60 m wind turbine in Aomori Japan fell over mysteriously. There was no strong wind at the time. See (in Japanese with photo): http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20070110i501.htm?from=main5 wind turbine accidents are more common than you might think. I doubt that any large-scale energy generation technology can be made perfectly safe. See: http://www.responsiblewind.org/docs/wind_turbine_accidents_in_pictures.pdf - Jed Looks like they used a dodgy batch of concrete. The fracture surface is very smooth and theres no fragments attached to the rebar.
Re: [Vo]:
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.'s message of Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:33:32 -0700: Hi, [snip] Some half-baked ideas from memory on previous lists (somewhat jocularly): Buying cheap land under high tension power lines. Selling energy stocks ( and the many subsidiary industry stocks) short. Starting filling station remodeling companies. Buying Neodymium (The Chinese have already cornered that market :-( ). Making retrofit car engines. Inventing heat dissipation technology for portable devices. Selling road and sidewalk heaters to melt snow in north east cities. Build perpetual hot air balloons. Selling power back to the power companies (~US$60.00 per day for a residential generator unit). Desalination plants. No more concern for energy efficiency in homes, vehicles -- the end of the insulation business. No more interest in the middle east at all -- let them go their own way. Extracting gold from sea water. Making gasoline from air and water. Disinfecting drinking and pool water by boiling it. Selling scrap power plant parts. Dismantling wind farms and hydro plants. Replace broadcast antenna towers with perpetually hovering helicopters. Completely new airplane designs where no fuel has to be onboard, and efficiency doesn't matter. Self heating soup cans. Self cooling soft drink cans. Car air conditioners and heaters that are on all the time. Send your car up into the air ( hot air balloon or helicopter rotor) or around the block 'til you call it back -- no parking places needed. Buildings supported by compressed air (should be more immune to earthquakes as well as cheaper). They are worse than half-baked, they are suicidal. Let's hope that humanity has enough sense to avoid such stupidity. We currently have a global warming problem, *at least* partially driven by the greenhouse effect. While FE would solve that problem, extreme profligate waste will create a new problem of direct heat overload. It is therefore imperative that efficiency measures be continued along with the introduction of FE. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means. You folk's need to read the old fusion facts papers on cold fusion the planetary heating proble was dealt with a decade and a half ago by Hal Fox et al.
Re: [Vo]: Fake nuclear test?
Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Ed sez: Jed sez: If it is a hoax, they have fooled the Chinese government, and enraged it. Since they depend on that government for survival, it seems like a stupid thing to do. Of course, this assumes the Chinese are really upset. Having NK being a nuclear power to distract attention from what the Chinese are doing would be a clever ploy. We shall have to wait to see what the Chinese actually do to NK. Ed That's a tad too conspiratorial for me, even though I would agree with the likelihood that what China says should not necessarily be linked with what they eventually do. From what I gather China is terrified of the disquieting possibility of furthering the collapse of the regime. It would cause a catastrophic increase of refugees, starving and desperate, streaming across the boarder into China. That's a not in my backyard scenario they want to avoid at all costs. That may in fact be the best thing that could happen. The world would be willing to help and unlike Darfor there are roads, rail links to ports etc to move the refugees and supplies. Chinese communisms greater fear is the millions of korean people, disausioned with communism, talking to much to the chinese. regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.Zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]: Steve Krivit NO LONGER urges participation in Wikipedia
Steven Krivit wrote: Well, some of you attempted to intervene, and I applaud you, whoever it was, but it seems the like things are a bit out of control there at the moment. I'm appalled that such destruction could occur and that it has been left to stand. Let them have their way. One day they will wake up to a very big surprise. S I gave it a go but had to get a new password and the system may have treated me as anonymus as a consequence? Did any one copy the whole site while it was up be for the luddite revision? And can we get a couple of disputed wiki pages loaded to the way back machine? Every action the luddites take dig a very deep grave for them. Some argued that Goddard and Von Braun were bogus or frauds. These scientist argued that Peenemünde need not be bombed. The chance to kill programe early was was missed. The V2 subsequently killed hundreds. After the V2 was confirmed; one of these scientists retired never returning to a University campus. Another found himself facing empty class rooms. Most were simply never consulted by government again. Ironicly a few wound up working under Von Braun in America after the war.
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
John Berry wrote: On 9/17/06, *Wesley Bruce* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ZPE saves the conservation of energy yet again. John Berry wrote: snip I'm to thick to handle this bit. ;-) Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be effected, where my Doppler effect pushing it out of resonance lowering the Q is pretty much what was stated in the article, There was no indication they used it as a way to save the conservation of energy and if they did then we can discount it as bunk anyway because that would mean they have no theoretical basis for believing in the effect. Not quite doppler effect but a good analagy. If the front plate is accelerating relative to the compound wave frount velocity the wave front will peak a few nanometers behind the plate. Hense no push if the plate is moving. My solution (though I loved your rowing idea) was to increase the microwave frequency, increase the length of the chamber coupled with a good constant rate of acceleration so it can again produce as much thrust as if it were stationary, this should still work with your view? Catch is its several frequencies building a wave formation that travels fractionally faster that the photons in the wave its self. Drifting all the frequencies up a few Herz would not work easerly. you would run into harmonics and shift beyond microwaves, etc. That why the rowing idea works the emdrive is acceleration but is also stationary because the back force you apply with your 'oar' matches the forward force on the emdrive. But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especially Podkletnov with their similar gravity beam rigs is for real then how would the conservation of energy be saved in this case? Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it went through, and there was no counter reaction on anything. I prediced the results for Podklenovs second set of experiments back in 1998. There should be no counter reaction, it is a reactionless drive. We need to get a small one to the sapce station! oops typo spetted in the 'Space'. :-D I think I know how Podkletnovs second device works, the aether moves through the donut superconductors inducing a second beam like aether flow at 90 degrees, the exact same thing can be seen to happen in the ATGroup device and Mortons device which was really Podkletnov on a budget. Close but the second device is not spinning so the beam or field is not toroidal. The ZPE hitting the Bose electron (a 20 cm cooper 'pair' of billions of electrons) is absorbed but because the wave states of the Bose electron is shared the emitted ZPE can't be random. All the ZPF wave packets must emit in the same direction at the same time. Because the Bose electron is trapped (pined) in a boundary layer between a superconducting layer and a resisting layer a few microns thick it can only recoil in one direction and it can thus only emit in the opposite direction. This makes a beam of ZPE several mega joules that is in effect lased ZPE Perpendicular to the plane of the Bose electron. The rest of the interactions with matter are basically out lined in Stochastic electrodynamics theory. See http://www.calphysics.org/research.html I know that there is a time delay between the arc and the beam which others have pointed out is consistent with an aether theory. I think the arc/ visual effects are secondry. I would be interested as to how you predicted it. I was reading a lot of work from Haich, Rueda and Puthoff on stochastic electrodynamics at the time. Puthoff stated that the point partons absorbed and emitted ZPE randomly as part of the zitterbewegung. I simply realised that that must apply for a larger bose condensate of electrons ( several billion Quarks trapped in a plane )but it cant be random. I can't do the math so the idea is going no-where. Morton had a different theory regarding beams from accelerating charges. Face it, if reactionles propulsion if real then the only way the conservation of energy could MAYBE be saved is if we just assume there is a loss (or gain) in ZPE somewhere in the universe of equal magnitude with the gain or loss in kinetic energy, even though figuring out how this could possibly occur and know it it should even be a loss is crazy but if you have to believe in the conservation of energy (why?) then that's your best bet. ZPE is the basis for all the theories, mine and Dr Modanese's and thus all the theories on Podkletnovs work are notionally conserving energy. I suspect the Emdrive will in the end also be found to be interacting with ZPE. snip The only frame of reference there is, is one that any decent sized ship drags along, yes that's my own theory not conventional although plenty of relativists are slowly coming
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
John Berry wrote: Well if Kyle and Robin are right it can't be calculated because we can't really know what our velocity relative to the machian reference frame is. If I am right then, well I'm no good at the math but I think that a superconducting chamber bouncing EM around assuming the Q is not effected by the acceleration then I think yes you could get to Mars quite comfortably assuming you have one hell of a bumper bar. But the bumperbar could be the greatest problem if you get the speeds you want. Its not a problem really. Wingtree's plama sail would work as a shield. A particle beam aimed so it charges anything in the path and then magnetic fields to drive it off at an angle will also work. I would back it up by putting a few tons of inert cargo in light containers out in front. If a dust particle hit a box of frozen food, fertilizer, copper, or cement bags little damage would result. As far as mars colonies go frozen food, fertilizer, cement or metals that you haven't found on mars yet is about all you need to ship. Gold, palladium, etc and dimonds would be economic as a back shipped cargo. Your return trip shielding might be just martian dirt and rock. In which case you need to either have something to deflect debris or make the ship less solid or go into hyperspace which sounds a bit far off. yep
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
Good work fellows however I am more inclined to look at useable interplanetary speeds, earth to Mars in a few weeks or so, say ~518041367424 km in 6 weeks [1008 hours ] This requires hideous velocities and you will need a hell of a bumperbar on you ship. How do the numbers come out? Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 6:27 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor What you should note is that this device if it works at all MUST violate the conservation of energy, there is no way round it, if you use it to accelerate or row for 10 seconds and it accelerated it to 1 meter a second using .5KWh say, then if you run it for 20 seconds you'd have used 1KWh, have 2 meters a second velocity but the energy contained in forward movement of your ship is 4 times that of running the engines for the 10 seconds. No. Assume a 1000kg spacecraft at initially velocity 0m/s. (we will ignore the relatives here for now, more on this later) Assume that this spacecraft uses its reactionless propulsion system (whatever it may be) to accelerate to approximately v=0.1c, or 29,979,246 m/s. We will ignore relativistic effects at this time. The energy require to get to this velocity will be K = 1/2 m v^2, or in this case, 4.494x10^17J. Not a small amount. But what is the energy required then to accelerate the craft to only v=0.05c? 1.123x10^17J, or 25% of that required to reach 0.1c. Now of course this makes sense, the square of velocity and all that. What it also indicates is that to go from v=0c to v=0.1c you must use increasing energy as time goes by. If you use a constant energy per unit time (I am using only basic units here to avoid confusion) you will find your acceleration tapers off rapidly as velocity is increased. So, if you use say (changing from kWh to something that is easier to follow, kW) 0.5kW for 10 seconds, on a 10,000kg object, the kinetic energy gained by the object is 5kJ, and our object is moving at a gentle 1m/s. This of course assumes that your method of converting electrical energy input to kinetic energy is 100% efficient. But...if we apply 0.5kW for 20 seconds, we have added 10kJ to our 10,000kg object, and its velocity is now...only 1.414m/sec. Can you get to 0.1c with a constant-power drive? Absolutely, but it will take much longer to get there, and efficiency will drop as speed increases, and fall rapidly the faster you try to go. If on the other hand, you use a constant-acceleration approach, you get there (to your desired speed) much faster, but you use an ever increasing amount of power. The total energy to reach 0.1c for constant-power or constant-acceleration is the same. Now here's something interesting. If drive efficiency in attaining some velocity from some given energy input decreases like this over time, as velocity builds up, it would seem to imply that an absolute velocity is important. A very big no-no when it comes to relativity as we know it. (or as we like to know it) You can have a reactionless drive which conserves energy globally, but to do this it will demonstrate some rather odd effects (at first glance) which later once you have juggled it in your mind for a while, really don't end up so confusing in the end. But it does seem to lead to one reference frame being preferred, and acting as the road for your hypothesized space car. If a reactionless drive is constructed successfully, one wonders about its uses to test relativity in a new and unique way. I'll let you think on that for a bit. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to John Berry's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:10:37 +1200: Hi, [snip] No Kyle, your mistaken. You doubt KE = 1/2mv^2? Not in anything other than reactionless propulsion. Who says it's reactionless? Personally, I think it reacts against space itself via the interaction that EM radiation has with the "substrate". This implies that it is reacting against the entire mass of the universe, and hence conservation of momentum implies that all energy expended ends up as kinetic energy of the device and heat (as opposed to being shared with kinetic energy of exhausted mass as is the case with conventional rockets). BTW I also suspect that it is real, because the measured mass change was +2 gm in one orientation, and -2 gm when turned upside down. This is not the sort of thing that results from measurement error caused by using an electronic balance. I'm not so sure that a safe assumption, robin, if there's an unknown electromagntic interaction with the power supply, or the wires on the table or the multi meter or the reinforcing bars in the concrete floor, etc, etc it could be symmetrical pushing if the machine is up right and pulling if it is upside down. They need to do an open field test away from all metalic materials with variations of the cable and power layouts. I have suggested that to them. snip
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
ZPE saves the conservation of energy yet again. John Berry wrote: snip I'm to thick to handle this bit. ;-) Plus you do not state by which mechanism the thrust would be effected, where my Doppler effect pushing it out of resonance lowering the Q is pretty much what was stated in the article, There was no indication they used it as a way to save the conservation of energy and if they did then we can discount it as bunk anyway because that would mean they have no theoretical basis for believing in the effect. Not quite doppler effect but a good analagy. If the front plate is accelerating relative to the compound wave frount velocity the wave front will peak a few nanometers behind the plate. Hense no push if the plate is moving. But if you accept that Morton and ATGroup and especially Podkletnov with their similar gravity beam rigs is for real then how would the conservation of energy be saved in this case? Podkletnov found the beam didn't weaken no matter how much matter it went through, and there was no counter reaction on anything. I prediced the results for Podklenovs second set of experiments back in 1998. There should be no counter reaction, it is a reactionless drive. We need to get a small one to the sapce station! Face it, if reactionles propulsion if real then the only way the conservation of energy could MAYBE be saved is is we just assume there is a loss (or gain) in ZPE somewhere in the universe of equal magnitude with the gain or loss in kinetic energy, even though figuring out how this could possibly occur and know it it should even be a loss is crazy but if you have to believe in the conservation of energy (why?) then that's your best bet. ZPE is the basis for all the theories, mine and Dr Modanese's and thus all the theories on Podkletnovs work are notionally conserving energy. I suspect the Emdrive will in the end also be found to be interacting with ZPE. snip The only frame of reference there is, is one that any decent sized ship drags along, yes that's my own theory not conventional although plenty of relativists are slowly coming to such a conclusion. (it allows FTL travel) cool where are the papers? Your stationary reference frame makes no freaking sense but if you choose to believe in it that's your choice. The idea behind it being unable to accelerate and I believe it is just a theory is that ACCELERATION will cause a Doppler like effect and it will no longer be in resonance hence lower Q and lower EM bouncing in the box and hence lower force. Again, I am not talking about the EMdrive thing, particularly since very little hard data is known beyond the hearsay of the media, and we know how reliable a source they are. (Shawyer used a 700W magnetron or an 850W one, depending on who is reporting) You are right that without a stationary reference frame with which to measure energy against there is no way it can keep to the conservation of energy and regardless of whether or not this device works I'm sure such devices do exist which means conservation of energy really is just a general observation and not true in all cases. Well, personally I think they (reactionless propulsion systems) probably are possible as well, but I will predict that they will be found to obey energy conservation. It would be really nice if they *didn't*, but I think we are stuck with C-of-E. You think that why? Sure conservation of energy makes sense as a general observation but that's all it is, obviously most energy transformations won't lead to anything that breaks the conservation of energy, but that doesn't mean there aren't situations where energy creation/destruction does occur. There are plenty of situations where conservation of energy is not observed (both experiments and logic/math) leading to the question, why do you believe that energy can't be created? In most cases though I believe that the conservation of energy and equal and opposite and other laws, rules or constants are broken when the aether (space time) is effected in certain ways, when you do the right things to the medium in which all matter and energy floats the rules change. The real question, as with all science, is How do you design an experiment that invalidates the key hypothisis of C - of - E. What are your assumptions and if ZPE is real and usable as energy and reaction medium does that save C - of - E. Then we start all over again asking the question but now we must exclude ZPE experimentally. I see a long and fruit full life for the consevation of energy debate.
Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
A stationary emdrive can still push a ship in a given direction. It becomes an inertial anchor. An inertial anchor resists being moved but does not move itself. You can push down or back on it and it wont move but pulling upon it and it moves freely. A craft with an inertial anchor on it can jack forward against the mass and drive force of the anchor. It can then pull the anchor forward pulling against only the mass of the drive. The result is a dynamic mechanical asymmetry. The emdrive would probably be jacked back and forth by a linear motor or a crank driving a rod. For smooth operation you need several Inertial Anchors cycling out of phase to produce uniform forward momentum. Interestingly you could put emdrive inertial anchors on the ends of a set of oars and simply "row" through outer space. A vac-suit would be advisable. Colin Quinney wrote: Hi Steven, I cannot follow it at that level, sorry. But I wonder how much information has been filtered by the article writers- the reporters. Colin - Original Message - From: OrionWorks To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:20 PM Subject: [Vo]: Hi Colin, Regarding this newfangled EM Drive, some things don't add up from my point of view. In one article it was theorized by the researchers that the "force" only works at maximum efficiency if the operating EMDrive is stationary, that is, when it isn't moving. They went on to speculate that the force emanating from the EMDrive weakens as velocity accumulates. It was therefore suggested that the EMDrive (if it could be made strong enough while in the stationary position) could only be used as a kind of anti/counter gravity field. Kind of like a hovercraft. It was suggested that would then need to employ a more prosaic, secondary force to propel the vehicle in any direction. I have a big problem with this kind of logic. It all comes down to what one understands about Einstin's theory of relativity. It's all "relative", as they say. Whose is to say that the stationary DMDRIve object is really stationary. To someone traveling at a constant speed of 2000 mph relative to the EMDrive object, from that person's POV the EM Drive craft is speeding at a constant speed of 2000 mph. Therefore, from the stationary person's perspective the DMDrive should not operate as efficiently as compared to an individual who is actually traveling at the same speed as the DMDrive object. That's what the researchers seem to be implying. Such logic clearly produces two conflicting POV's, where one individual (moving at the same speed as the object) perceives the force from the DMDrive as greater than the forced as perceived by the other individual (who is stationary). Huston, we have a problem. Something doesn't add up right here. The only way I think they could get around this seeming contradiction would be if the alleged weakening of the EMDrive force only becomes noticeable as the object approaches the speed of light, that is, from the perspective of a stationary observer. IOW, the weakening would manifest on the same grand scale as how objects are perceived to flatten (and gain mass) as they approach the speed of light, again as perceived by individuals at a stationary position. However, when one reads the article this doesn't appear to be the case. The article seems to imply that the EMDrive force weakens pretty soon after it speeds up implying that the effects of relativity play virtually no role whatsoever. This would appear to be a blatant contradiction of logic. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.Zazzle.com/orionworks Hi Steven, Coincidentally it also appeared in last week Sept.9's cover story for New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/archive.ns Regarding it's speculative nature... On the negative side: I have heard that in one of their experiments they utilized an electric balance (I'm assuming a digital scale) and that the thick power supply wires might have interfered with one of their experiments. Others have noted .. It violates (apparently) the law of momentum.There are several other possibilities of artefacts such as heat build-up causing hot gas to escape from the MW cavity? Or possible coulomb artefact due to charge build-up across the assembly? Or interaction with the earth's magnetic field? And strange that it is only patented in the UK. On the positive side: Anyone familiar with microwave cavity and waveguide work.. can inexpensively build the unit with a kitchen microwave, sheet copper, and tubing. - - - In attempting to take a particular "side" in the controversy what are your potential rewards vs. your potential risks? **IF** we are curious AND we have building experience with waveguides etc... we might decide to (quietly) attempt a replication. I
Re: [Vo]: Sincere amateurs: Steorn.net
William Beaty wrote: On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Remi Cornwall wrote: These guys are *sincere* but mistaken amateurs. *This is not how science is conducted.* If they're keeping it secret, then it's not science, instead it's business (i.e. inventors, corporate RD, etc.)As Feynman pointed out, the essence of science is bend-over-backwards honesty, nothing hidden, no holds barred truthfulness. Of cause the average Scientist is tied to a lecture hall more hours than he or she gets in a lab, or broke, or both. Public science is starved of funds and that isn't going to change any time soon. Half our science is public, Feynman stuff and half is private work behind closed doors. The latter only works for technology that is not disputed. It also works by doing black box demonstrations of the key technologies some times. The catch with the private secret stuff is that it can languish for decades with an unsolvable problem or a beautiful solution that can't find an application. Remember Xerox Parks invention of the graphical interface we all use today they couldn't figure out what to do with it. Public key encryption is an other example. If you want rich science you need to close the doors till the patents is nailed and if there is a chance that the patent will be rejected because the theory is not peer reviewable you then have to create a pool of peers that know enough to review the work. [we're that pool but Steorn did not know that did they.] Steorn's trying to push the creation of an open peer review group, the Jury and their students and friends. It might not work but its worth a try. If you want poor science go public with every thing and starve quietly like me. Beg governments for every cent they have or can get from the tax payers. Watch your best and brightest leave for greener pastures and dread every election as you hear political candidates offer up your precious research funding to pay for pensions, schools, hospitals, jails and wars. If Steorn has a genuine discovery, that's very sad. If some science amateurs got hold of it first, we'd immediately see the plans posted at makezine.com how do you pay you education loans by giving your best technology away free. We have a lot of arguments about open source but it just wont pay the bills. Makezine is paid for conspicuously with adds for PATENTED technology like I Robots floor cleaning robotic hubcaps. A few people are set up to accept donations like Wikipedia but their main donors are rich patent owners and government financed entities. Is self funding open source science possible? Yes its worth a try but no I see no working example that is not patent or tax funded somewhere in the money trail. On the same topic: as a scientist, Nikola Tesla was a real slimeball, since he apparently discovered x-rays several years before Roentgen, but didn't announce the discovery. Tesla was keeping the discovery secret while working on it. Then Tesla's lab burned down, then Roentgen discovered the same thing and spread the discovery worldwide almost overnight. Roentgen kept his work secret for six months. He had secret correspondence with many in the field; his Jury included Curie. He had something concrete to show the media and at that time the idea of fake photos was new and rare. He went around peer review via a Newspaper and demonstrations. As you say he refused to go down the Patent path but as a consequence he did not die rich and had to be financed by others who had filed patents for their work including Nobel. Tesla had excellent ideas about "open source energy" broadcast power, the Wardenclyffe Tower, but as his backer turned critic J.P Morgan noted. "Where can I put the meter?" . Tesla was a brilliant scientist but a lousy economist. We must be both to crack the energy conundrum. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]: Re: Excess hydrogen without much excess heat
Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: JR As far as I know he does. He has not described the O2 in detail. It is not stochiometric; there is extra H2 because the O2 from electrolysis at the anode is separated out by the inverted funnel. If it is not stochiometric then we can conclude that peroxides are being created in addition to the hydrogen evolved. No, I mean it is not stochiometric because the oxygen from the anode is diverted out of the cell via another tube. During ordinary electrolysis, only hydrogen is captured. During pyrolysis a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen evolves from the cathode, under the funnel, and this is all captured. But if you ignite this effluent gas there will be some left-over hydrogen. (Mizuno does not ignite it or recombine it.) - Jed Interesting read. Mizuno has not controlled for a cold plasma. If some of the hydrogen is ionized to a proton plasma and some of the oxygen is ionized to O2+ or O3+ the result is a cold plasma of monoatomic gases. This was already discussed by William A. Rhodes http://www.keelynet.com/energy/oxyhyd1.htm [Note the Email address, he is still around ]. Yull Brown, who never acknowledged Mr Rhodes prior work, and others in the water fuel area discussed this discovery extensively for years but no one ever got peer reviewed because of Rhodes prior rights. If the plasma is kept from contact with an electron source it will remain a plasma. This depends on the geometry of the cell and the bubble size alot. Its lack of valence electrons prevents the formation of H2 and O2 or H2O, some OH formation is possible if water vapor is available. Because the plasma is monoatomic it will have 2 moles, to H+, of gas not 1 mole of H2. It will have double the volume. The same goes for the Oxygen. It will give volumes of 2190 cc not 1144 cc for the same absolute mass of hydrogen. Note 2190 cc is approximately double the expected volume. A charged plasma will occupy a greater volume than an uncharged H2 gas because of repulsion. This is why the measurements for the times when only the plasma was on is almost 3 times the expected volume. If a cold plasma is present it will be cold relative to other hot plasmas but will hold other energy; the enthalpy difference between two H+ and H2 and the enthalpy difference between a plasma of H+ and O3+ and H2O. H+ and O3+ as plasmas can also disrupt solid materials, bonds and latices causing them to SEEM to burn at strangely low temperatures. Or seeming to give the gas an incredible energy density. Rhodes gas/plasma is used by jewelers because it cuts and welds metals with out cooking adjacent gems. I could design a test cell to detect the plasma. A mass spectrometer will be totally confused by a cold plasma. No valence electrons, no spectrum. In some experiments two decades ago the gas killed the expensive spectrometers. I need to send this stuff to Dr Mizuno does anyone have an email address? The volume of good stuff on Vortex is getting huge; its becoming overwhelming. And I only work three days a week! :-P
Re: [Vo]: The Doctor is in
thomas malloy wrote: Vortexians; Merlin is a computer program which predicts future events with an 80% accuracy. One of the developers is George Hart, PhD physics. To get the full story, truncate the URL at Merlin. Now if I can just figure out how to listen to his sound file on Iran. I'm posting this to call your attention to this page, particularly the Epistemology of the Occult. The rest of the page has some other interesting comments too. http://www.accessbest.com/merlin/doctor_george.htm --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! --- Astrology by computer. 80% accuracy is easy if you refuse to mention the predictions that failed or if your predictions are so vague that they could mean any thing. As for Iran I predict a war within three years, It takes that long to make plutonium and a little more uranium. If you have them you have a nuke. The rest is easy. If you have suicide bombers and a little lead you don't even need an explosive casing. We need to take out the nukes before they end up in the islamofascists hands. If not cities will die, loudly! Thats my first prediction. Prediction 2 An Indian or Eurasian city will be hit first. Prediction 3 A new class of Iranian sub with a conventional power plant but very advanced batteries and good sensors will make things very interesting in the Persian gulf and Indian ocean. Conventional subs are quieter than nuclear subs. Prediction 4 expect robots to figure large on any future battlefield.
Re: [Vo]: Steorm- corrected post
Your overlooking the problem of patents. The patent will not be allowed if the theory is disputed and it gets worse if there is no theory at all.Steorm wants the patents on this. Peer reviews wont help the reviewers must have hands on contact. They simply wont believe a paper. There are several ways to do what needs to be done. Publish a peer review paper and a patent at the same time. The publicize both. That was what Fleischmann and Pons tried and it did not work. The Steorm jury, This is the process used in the past with several disputed discoveries. Including the latitude contest, some early discoveries in medicine including immunization and safe blood donations. It is common in classified work where public papers etc would kill the projects secrecy. Build a car or boat and dive or sail it past large audiences. The first submarine, the first steam train contests and of cause the Wright brothers. Publish the design outside peer review and have hundreds duplicate the work. Paul C.W. Chu and his colleagues, the discoverers of high temperature Yittirium based superconductors followed this path in part. As far as I know they had to forgo the possibility of patents but got major awards and posts which is a compensation. [if I have this bit wrong tell me please.] Each has its challenges and it risks. A test requires several things: The starting impulse, if required, must be filly controlled and measured. I.e. do you start it with a shove or not? It must run a load. All wires,etc must be visible labeled and reasonably tamper proof. If placed in an air tight box filled will it still run. This will get submarine designers interested. If it still runs if it is turned upside down it will get a lot of Nasa attention. The best test of a scam is to ask the two key questions. How do they intend to make a buck from the scam? How do they intend to escape prosecution if it is a scam. Can they run and hide somehow? Steorm is not asking for money in any way and I can't see how they could be pulling a scam. Where's the money in it if their not telling the truth? There is too much data on the people involved for them to up and run if it is a scam. A good conman never gets his photo all over the web. These guys seem to be real. There may be an error that they can't see but there does not seem to be scam. I doubt that the laws of thermodynamics are under any threat. Any demonstration of free energy is in effect simply a demonstration that we have not yet measured and named all of the energy fluxes in the the universe. Once we have a powerplant running in we can measure its out put from place to place,or over time or in proximity to other things. Any slight variations in output will allow us to map and then define the underlying energy flow. If it is 500 mW / cc [0.5 kilowatts/ litre] then I have about a hundred applications for it. One key question is whether it generates gyroscopic forces; that could make it hard to use on a vehicle. William Beaty wrote: On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Mark Goldes wrote: That is great news! I have not listened to the interview. All the more likely they have done what they claim. If they just published detailed plans and construction info on their website, (and if the device is relatively easy to get working,) there'd be no need for this "jury" stuff. It looks like a publicity stunt, not a legit tactic. On the other hand, their device could be like SMOT, and be extremely difficult to work with. That would be a good reason *not* to just post the plans and let everyone try building it. (The Pons-Fleichman problem also involved a large number of failed replications.) But if secrecy wasn't their philosophy, they could just *say* that they'd otherwise just release everything ...but that their device is finicky. Where FE is concerned, secrecy has always been the major evil in the past. The secrecy keeps onlookers from knowing whether it's a scam. The secrecy sets up a catch-22 for selling OU products or even finding legit investors. And I suspect that if any groups want to suppress the discovery, inventor's secrecy is absolutly critical to successful suppression. Watch closely. We'll see if I'm right again. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]: Steorm
Thanks Robin, I thought I had typed kW but missed the mistake. Well spotted. Damn Dyslexia. Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:10:22 +1000: Hi, [snip] If it is 500 mW / cc [0.5 watts/ litre] then I have about a hundred Actually 0.5 kW / L. (A mW is a milli-Watt, not a microwatt). Clearly there are millions of applications for it (i.e. just about everything that uses power). applications for it. One key question is whether it generates gyroscopic forces; that could make it hard to use on a vehicle. Not at all, just use them in pairs that compensate for one another. Besides cars already contain fly-wheels, and they don't cause any problems. The new Tesla electric car has a single electric motor which also rotates, and that doesn't cause a problem. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Steorm - a great post!
Fix the typo in it it says 0.5 W should be 0.5 kW, Sorry about that. Mark Goldes wrote: Wes, You have hit the nail directly on the head. This is the best summary I've seen of Steorn's reasoning before they decided to follow the path they have taken. Hope you don't mind, but I've copied it to another venue... Excellent analysis! Mark From: Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Steorm Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:10:22 +1000 Your overlooking the problem of patents. The patent will not be allowed if the theory is disputed and it gets worse if there is no theory at all.Steorm wants the patents on this. Peer reviews wont help the reviewers must have hands on contact. They simply wont believe a paper. There are several ways to do what needs to be done. * Publish a peer review paper and a patent at the same time. The publicize both. That was what Fleischmann and Pons tried and it did not work. * The Steorm jury, This is the process used in the past with several disputed discoveries. Including the latitude contest, some early discoveries in medicine including immunization and safe blood donations. It is common in classified work where public papers etc would kill the projects secrecy. * Build a car or boat and dive or sail it past large audiences. The first submarine, the first steam train contests and of cause the Wright brothers. * Publish the design outside peer review and have hundreds duplicate the work. Paul C.W. Chu and his colleagues, the discoverers of high temperature Yittirium based superconductors followed this path in part. As far as I know they had to forgo the possibility of patents but got major awards and posts which is a compensation. [if I have this bit wrong tell me please.] Each has its challenges and it risks. A test requires several things: * The starting impulse, if required, must be filly controlled and measured. I.e. do you start it with a shove or not? * It must run a load. * All wires,etc must be visible labeled and reasonably tamper proof. If placed in an air tight box filled will it still run. This will get submarine designers interested. If it still runs if it is turned upside down it will get a lot of Nasa attention. The best test of a scam is to ask the two key questions. 1. How do they intend to make a buck from the scam? 2. How do they intend to escape prosecution if it is a scam. Can they run and hide somehow? Steorm is not asking for money in any way and I can't see how they could be pulling a scam. Where's the money in it if their not telling the truth? There is too much data on the people involved for them to up and run if it is a scam. A good conman never gets his photo all over the web. These guys seem to be real. There may be an error that they can't see but there does not seem to be scam. I doubt that the laws of thermodynamics are under any threat. Any demonstration of free energy is in effect simply a demonstration that we have not yet measured and named all of the energy fluxes in the the universe. Once we have a powerplant running in we can measure its out put from place to place,or over time or in proximity to other things. Any slight variations in output will allow us to map and then define the underlying energy flow. If it is 500 mW / cc [0.5 watts/ litre] then I have about a hundred applications for it. One key question is whether it generates gyroscopic forces; that could make it hard to use on a vehicle. William Beaty wrote: On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Mark Goldes wrote: That is great news! I have not listened to the interview. All the more likely they have done what they claim. If they just published detailed plans and construction info on their website, (and if the device is relatively easy to get working,) there'd be no need for this jury stuff. It looks like a publicity stunt, not a legit tactic. On the other hand, their device could be like SMOT, and be extremely difficult to work with. That would be a good reason *not* to just post the plans and let everyone try building it. (The Pons-Fleichman problem also involved a large number of failed replications.) But if secrecy wasn't their philosophy, they could just *say* that they'd otherwise just release everything ...but that their device is finicky. Where FE is concerned, secrecy has always been the major evil in the past. The secrecy keeps onlookers from knowing whether it's a scam. The secrecy sets up a catch-22 for selling OU products or even finding legit investors. And I suspect that if any groups want to suppress the discovery, inventor's secrecy is absolutly critical to successful suppression. Watch closely. We'll see if I'm right again. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beaty
Re: [Vo]: Steorm
Your overlooking the problem of patents. The patent will not be allowed if the theory is disputed and it gets worse if there is no theory at all.Steorm wants the patents on this. Peer reviews wont help the reviewers must have hands on contact. They simply wont believe a paper. There are several ways to do what needs to be done. Publish a peer review paper and a patent at the same time. The publicize both. That was what Fleischmann and Pons tried and it did not work. The Steorm jury, This is the process used in the past with several disputed discoveries. Including the latitude contest, some early discoveries in medicine including immunization and safe blood donations. It is common in classified work where public papers etc would kill the projects secrecy. Build a car or boat and dive or sail it past large audiences. The first submarine, the first steam train contests and of cause the Wright brothers. Publish the design outside peer review and have hundreds duplicate the work. Paul C.W. Chu and his colleagues, the discoverers of high temperature Yittirium based superconductors followed this path in part. As far as I know they had to forgo the possibility of patents but got major awards and posts which is a compensation. [if I have this bit wrong tell me please.] Each has its challenges and it risks. A test requires several things: The starting impulse, if required, must be filly controlled and measured. I.e. do you start it with a shove or not? It must run a load. All wires,etc must be visible labeled and reasonably tamper proof. If placed in an air tight box filled will it still run. This will get submarine designers interested. If it still runs if it is turned upside down it will get a lot of Nasa attention. The best test of a scam is to ask the two key questions. How do they intend to make a buck from the scam? How do they intend to escape prosecution if it is a scam. Can they run and hide somehow? Steorm is not asking for money in any way and I can't see how they could be pulling a scam. Where's the money in it if their not telling the truth? There is too much data on the people involved for them to up and run if it is a scam. A good conman never gets his photo all over the web. These guys seem to be real. There may be an error that they can't see but there does not seem to be scam. I doubt that the laws of thermodynamics are under any threat. Any demonstration of free energy is in effect simply a demonstration that we have not yet measured and named all of the energy fluxes in the the universe. Once we have a powerplant running in we can measure its out put from place to place,or over time or in proximity to other things. Any slight variations in output will allow us to map and then define the underlying energy flow. If it is 500 mW / cc [0.5 watts/ litre] then I have about a hundred applications for it. One key question is whether it generates gyroscopic forces; that could make it hard to use on a vehicle. William Beaty wrote: On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Mark Goldes wrote: That is great news! I have not listened to the interview. All the more likely they have done what they claim. If they just published detailed plans and construction info on their website, (and if the device is relatively easy to get working,) there'd be no need for this "jury" stuff. It looks like a publicity stunt, not a legit tactic. On the other hand, their device could be like SMOT, and be extremely difficult to work with. That would be a good reason *not* to just post the plans and let everyone try building it. (The Pons-Fleichman problem also involved a large number of failed replications.) But if secrecy wasn't their philosophy, they could just *say* that they'd otherwise just release everything ...but that their device is finicky. Where FE is concerned, secrecy has always been the major evil in the past. The secrecy keeps onlookers from knowing whether it's a scam. The secrecy sets up a catch-22 for selling OU products or even finding legit investors. And I suspect that if any groups want to suppress the discovery, inventor's secrecy is absolutly critical to successful suppression. Watch closely. We'll see if I'm right again. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 425-222-5066unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]: Joe Cell Running
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Trying again. It bounced on gmail: Well here's the setup: http://www.geocities.com/terry1094/JC_Setup_small.JPG It's being fired by a wall wart rated at 6VDC which is actually putting out 9VDC with considerable ripple. Probably just a xfmr and a rect. Only the end plates are energized. The one facing the camera is the anode. The container is a teflon coated bread pan confirmed to be fully electrically insulated. It holds roughly 1/2 gal of water with the cell. Whats the metal under the Teflon. If there are field effects involved then induced currents in any metal can cause the effect to fail. Insulator on metal is not the same as a non metallic container. Also take a volt meter and check for charge and charge leakage in the unused wires. The plates are uncharged but will gain charge. If they do they become positive or negative capacitors. Are the ends of the unused wires from adjacent plates segregated? There was no current flow in the cell until I poured in the distilled water and I immediately saw it rise to 0.8 mA. After 5 min. it was up to 1.5 mA and seemed fairly steady. I'm keeping a log. I plan to charge the water for 1 week if I can keep the cats out of it. There will be plenty available if Vorts want a sample. Terry PS Interesting note: After about 10 min., the only bubble formation was on the anode near the base at the teflon. Aggregrated microbubbles?
[Vo]: joe cell water fuel pumps
A key experiment that has to be done is to take nickel sheet formed into Joe cell cylinders chrome them and build a cell. What happens if there is no iron at all? Is chromium the key. No-one has checked chromium for Fleischmann/ Pons effect. Cold fusion could be driving thermal dissolution of water, occurs at ~2000oC. If the ions produced are stripped of their electrons then we have O+3 and +H. A non combustible cold plasma with interesting properties. It should be hard to compress, it should hold more energy than hydrogen and oxygen. It may be a superconducting fluid. The assumption is that we get O2 and H2 or hydroxides. However if we get huge temperatures and very large arcs then we get electron stripping and the geometry of concentric unearthed plates, capacitors, prevents the plasmas coming into contact with electrons so they can't react chemically. When they reach the carburetor or the spark plug they acquire electrons and they then react powerfully. The key accusation on these machines is that they are burning lubricants. To control for this a simple test is to build a humphrey pump engine. http://www.steamengine.com.au/ic/history/humphrey_pumps/ This replaces the piston and gear box and lubricated components with water. The explosion of the fuel/air mix pushes the the water out trough a one way valve. The catch is that humphrey pumps engines are low compression power plants. However if we are dealing with an implosive fuel then the working stroke of the power plant would be the up to top dead center not the 'pushing' down stroke. The joe/ humphrey unit will have no lubricants so can't be burning it. It's an all water system. Please don't try both experiments; a chrome cell and a humphrey system, together; you multiply the complexity and if it does not work you wont know which bit failed. The real irritation is that this the "joe cell" is clearly a power plant best suited for stationary application. It needs to be in a controlled environment and the engine bay of a car is far from that. We need to build cells and run stationary "emergency" generators from them to power portable equipment. This can be taken to people instead of asking them to come out to see the car in the car park.
Re: Transubstantiation
thomas malloy wrote: Grimer wrote: At 09:03 pm 19/05/2006 -0700, you wrote: Forward from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Akira Kawasaki) [Original Message] From: What's New [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1. DA VINCI CODE: CARDINALS COMPLAIN THAT THE NOVEL IS FICTION. Aren't they always? Cardinal Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, expressed shock this week at the Da Vinci Code promotion: It had nothing to do with the truth. Like transubstantiation is the truth? ... That's right Porkie. Transubstantiation is the Truth. 8-) Excellent post Frank! I've been watching Fr. John Corappi on EWTN, I just ignore my differences with Catholicism and focus on what we agree on, the inerrorancy of the Bible. Porkie, eh, I thought Parksie was humorous, but you've done me one better. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! --- The best on da Vinci is this link; its a lark. http://www.ericmetaxas.com/audio/PlayAudio.html Screwtape is a very funny Demon. Screwtape was created by C S Lewis of Nania fame but this is a modern reworking by Eric on Da Vinci. http://www.ericmetaxas.com/
Re: A Nuclear future for Australia?
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Prime Minister, As well as having Uranium resources among the largest in the World, Australia has about a million square kilometers of desert admirably suited to the collection of solar energy, and pretty much useless for anything else. In fact we could more than supply the entire planet with solar based energy, giving us a new export industry greater than any we currently have. Using dirt cheap paper thin plastic cylindrical Fresnel lenses, with the actual plumbing lying on the surface, and hence requiring no supporting structure, combined with "selective surface" technology, solar could be 10-100 times cheaper than it currently is (guesstimate). That would not just make it competitive with all existing technologies, it would make it cheaper than anything else. Furthermore modular construction can be used for a solar installation, with small segments being brought "on line" as they are completed, whereas a nuclear plant doesn't start producing power until the whole thing is completed. The expertise already exists in Australian universities, particularly UNSW. To top it off, it would vastly improve Australia's "green" image in the World. R. van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Upper Ferntree Gully Vic. The problem that needs to be dealt with is not cheep generation of energy. We have that in spades, wave power could power the planet twice over, wind could power half the world. Roof top solar could power the average city if solar cells replaced tiles on the sunward side of the roof. We don't have a shortage of energy technologies we have a delivery problem. Wind, waves, solar, etc are not continuous but key market driving demands are continuous. So you need to get the energy to market when and where it is needed. That means energy transport and storage! Central Australia, the wild wave battered coasts of Tasmania, or the tidal power resources of the Kimberly coast are all abundant energy sources but their all in the wrong place. We need energy where we live; where our cities stand high. We need to be able to store and ship the stuff. Superconductors where the dream answer of the 1990's but the power density has failed to emerge. Yes superconductors are loss free in theory but to commercialize a 5 thousand mile line from the outback to Asia you must have a system that is cheap relative to the power density and requires little or no refrigeration. The energy of the refrigeration becomes a significant loss if your doing large superconductor systems. Thus in reality its not loss free. The great irony is that we have had a solution to both large scale shipping and storage of energy since the 1800's its compressed air. Modern studies have not been made but a compressed air line across Australia would be possible. Compressors are over 90% efficient. 2 meter diameter steel lined concrete Pipes can be made largely leak free. Workable pressures would be 50 atmospheres. A gale in a pile. Pipelines under the sea are not impossible particularly if your crossing shallow seas [ The Arafura and Banda sea are not that deep. The sea bed from Bali to Malaysia is only a few tens of meters deep and in places a path only 50 meters deep can be mapped.] You must ballast the pipe properly. Yes pneumatic systems have frictional losses but at a few percent per hundred kilometres its better than the losses in high voltage and superconductors. Its also a storage system. The air in the line goes in by day and may be drawn out at night with only a small drop in pressure. Large volumes of air can be diverted into former gas baring strata and just as the gas was retained in the past at several atmospheres the air will be today. One power storage plant using compressed air pushed down an old gas well already exists and is commercial. For some strange reason the world has chosen to ignore the relatively simple physics of pneumatic solutions in favour of other more exotic and expensive system that may promise solutions on some distant day. Plasma fusion, superconductors and magnetic levitation trains are all dreams that have blocked simpler solutions. The electric tracked hovercraft [also called airfilm trains] is a transport solution that would and could deliver 400 kph trains in the 1970's. It was thought that magnetic systems would be silent and hovercraft aren't, so research stopped on the latter but with refrigeration and sonic booms the 'mag levs' are just as loud as airfilm.Yet we still await more expensive magnetic levitation trains.
Re: Running on water?- what the???
Good call Mark but every thing known about the bonds and bond energies and chemistry tells us that this kind of thing is impossible with only one exception a cold plasma. Hydrogen stripped of its electron and oxygen + stripped of one of its 6 outer electrons can mix without burning and holds extra energy because of the missing electron. Such a plasma would have all the properties of browns gas etc including a tendency to implode on contact with a conductive surface that is not positive, i.e. anything that is earthed. Being a plasma it should have significantly more energy pro mole the H2 and O2. The Gas, plasma, being all positively charged should be almost incompressible, non-combustible if contained properly, and may have some of the exotic properties of both cooper pairs or a bose condensate. I.e. any field that causes the plasma to move at one point should be relayed instantly without loss to any other point in the plasma. The plasma may also have the effect of lensing ZPF with significant force anomalies possible as a result. More work must be done there. However if your focusing ZPF then you could get very big differences in apparent energy output relative to measured energy input. Without, mind you, doing any violence to the laws of thermodynamics. The other application of browns gas and its sisters such as HHO is its cutting ability. Being a positive plasma it can be propelled by field effects deep into rock, metal or brick. There it steals electrons smashing the bonds, both chemical and ionic. Then it reacts with the available atoms in the normal chemical manner. The heat and steam produced melts and shatters even refractory brick. I have handled the Iranian-Australia version of browns invention and it cut refractory bricks like butter.The mining implications are huge yet totally unexploited. There are twice as many browns gas inventors in the world than the 'books' show. I know of a man, [the Iranian-Australia] here in Canberra that is stranded for want of a theory. Oh what I could do with a laboratory. My kingdom for a lab bench! Mark Goldes wrote: From ZPEnergy.com 100 miles on 4 ounces of water? Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 @ 23:09:41 PDT by rob Science Anonymous writes: From KeelyNet news; 05/13/06 - 1994 Ford Escort gets 100 miles from 4 oz water Denny Klein just patented his process of converting H2O to HHO, producing a gas that combines the atomic power of hydrogen with the chemical stability of water. it turns right back to water. In fact, you can see the h20 running off the sheet metal. Klein originally designed his water-burning engine for cutting metal. He thought his invention could replace acetylene in welding factories. Then one day as he drove to his laboratory in Clearwater, he thought of another way to burn his HHO gas. On a 100 mile trip, we use about four ounces of water. Klein says his prototype 1994 Ford Escort can travel exclusively on water, though he currently has it rigged to run as a water and gasoline hybrid. 2005 Article - Working in a small, two-room shop at the Airport Business Center, Klein, 63, said he has developed a gas that speeds welding and fusing times and improves automobile fuel efficiency 30 percent. Flipping a switch on his H2O 1500, Klein picks up a hose with a metal tip, creates a spark, and instantly a blue and white glowing stream shoots out of the metal tip. He holds the tip with his fingers to prove how cool it is to the touch, unlike such a tip when oxy-acetylene is burned for welding. But the instant he sets the flame on a charcoal briquette, it glows bright orange. Then, within seconds, he burns a hole through a brick, cuts steel and melts Tungsten. The temperature of the flame is 259 degrees Fahrenheit. But it instantaneously rises to the melting temperature of whatever it touches, Klein said. Those temperatures can exceed 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit. You can't do this with any other gas, he said. Klein also has outfitted a 1994 Ford Escort station wagon with a smaller electrolyzer that injects his HHO into the gasoline in the car's engine. He said he has increased his mileage per gallon by 30 percent. / He doesn't yet have a patent, only this 40 page application and it is, I think, bustable by several 'prior art' (Rhodes) patents and Yull Brown public claims/demos for many years before - Patent Application - 20060075683 - April 13, 2006 - An electrolyzer which decomposes distilled water into a new fuel composed of hydrogen, oxygen and their molecular and magnecular bonds, called HHO. The electrolyzer can be used to provide the new combustible gas as an additive to combustion engine fuels or in flame or other generating equipment such as torches and welders. It will be soon evident that, despite a number of similarities, the HHO gas is dramatically different than the Brown gas or other gases produced by pre-existing electrolyzers. In fact, the latter is a
Re: Joe Cell Variant?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Ryan's water fuel. What is it about being downunder? http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individualvideoid=7009 13288n=2 Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com Ryans url http://www.biosmeanslife.com/benefits.html
Re: Joe Cell Variant?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Ryan's water fuel. What is it about being downunder? http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individualvideoid=7009 13288n=2 Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com Its defiantly not joecell the fuel in a joecell is a cold plasma not liquids. the extra energy in a joecell is because the plasma is H+ and O+, no outer electrons so it wont burn until the plasma can steal electrons from some thing in the carbuater. Ryans fuel could be methanol: tasteless, colorless and looks like water. If his device is a chemical cell producing hydrogen then reacting that hydrogen with the correct catalyst and carbon source in the cell will produce methanol. An Electrolytic driven converter would amount to the tapping of a corrosion process to drive the conversion of carbon and water into methanol. Did anyone spot Steve Ryans web address when his web site was flashed up on the screen?
Re: Shooting fish in a barrel at Wikipedia
Harry Veeder wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: The cold fusion article at Wikipedia has grown too large, so it must be split up. Someone asked me to assist with the sub-article cold fusion controversy. I should not waste my time on this sort of thing, but I did. The skeptics will soon trash this and erase it, but I had a lot of fun writing it. Have a look before it is gone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion_controversy Here is a passage from Jed's article in the Wikipedia. Calorimetry is based upon the laws of thermodynamics. Since most skeptics agree that autoradiographs, the laws of thermodynamics and so on are valid, cold fusion researchers feel the skeptics should should agree that cold fusion experiments are valid, and that the burden of proof is on those who claim these techniques and laws are inoperative. It got me thinking... Suppose the excess heat is evidence that the second law of thermodynamics is some how violated. In other words the various apparatus that CF researches employ are able to produce usable heat (i.e. excess heat) without an effective temperature difference. Harry The thermodynamics laws are safe they are based on our understanding of entropy and times arrow and can't be wrong. Whether we have counted all the available energy is another matter. All the thermodynamics laws can be correct yet seem wrong if we have missed an energy flux. ZPE is the best example there; if it is really a radiation and not an illusion of probability then we do have potential energy. If it is not totally isotropic and isothermal or can be made locally non isotropic then we have energy to burn. I happen to believe that Dr Eugene Podkletnov has. Still the ballance of probabilities and Occam's razer both imply that we have a 'simple' case of electron screened fusion; not anything else. KISS Keep it simple stupid. **
Re: BP
Steven Krivit wrote: Anybody ever think about British Petroleum's name change to BP? Hmm ... s It's been BP for decades here in Australia. Some have re defined it as meaning British Power; as in energy not empire. BP Australia has a big chunk of our solar market. Solar hot water and solar cells. It runs the Asian arm of the multinational and oil is now only a small percent of its profit margin. The same is now true of Shell. Both are now making larger profits from renewables than from oil.
Re: Science exposes Hot Fusion weaknesses: March 11, 2006
Steven Krivit wrote: Who has ever seen a major science journal expose the flaws of hot fusion in such a straightforward and raw manner? Is this as new as it appears to me? If you are interested, I'll send you the article. Steve Send it to me. I've got an interest in that question.
Re: iESi Photoshop miracles
Steven Krivit wrote: http://iesiusa.com/images/Image_photogallery.gif Maybe I'm just a suspicious rat-ba_tard, but I checked this with a New Energy Times reader / graphics artist and we notice the following things: -The sign appears to be tilting out from the top - never seen such signs. -There are shadows on the top surface of the characters as well as on the lower and right wall surface. -The vertical shadow to the right of the i should not be parallel to the i as it appears, if the sign truly is tilted out. -The shadows on the lower and right wall surface are soft, as you'd get on a cloudy day, other shadows are hard. -The green portion of the i is off-axis from the base of the character. This would be stupid to intentionally do. Comments V? I could do a better job than that. Heck give me some foam plastic, some paint and some rope and I could make the real thing and hang it from my local mall. Nice building though. Any one spot that the two i's are mirrored. One has been used to make the other. We need to end the messing about and get a proper cell up an running.
Re: Heim Theory: A Real Warp Drive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I came across this while searching for six dimensional theories: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200.html excerpt: Claims of the possibility of gravity reduction or anti-gravity induced by magnetic fields have been investigated by NASA before (New Scientist, 12 January 2002, p 24). But this one, Dröscher insists, is different. Our theory is not about anti-gravity. It's about completely new fields with new properties, he says. And he and Häuser have suggested an experiment to prove it. This will require a huge rotating ring placed above a superconducting coil to create an intense magnetic field. With a large enough current in the coil, and a large enough magnetic field, Dröscher claims the electromagnetic force can reduce the gravitational pull on the ring to the point where it floats free. Dröscher and Häuser say that to completely counter Earth's pull on a 150-tonne spacecraft a magnetic field of around 25 tesla would be needed. While that's 500,000 times the strength of Earth's magnetic field, pulsed magnets briefly reach field strengths up to 80 tesla. And Dröscher and Häuser go further. With a faster-spinning ring and an even stronger magnetic field, gravitophotons would interact with conventional gravity to produce a repulsive anti-gravity force, they suggest. end There's more here; but, this is harder to understand than Beta-atmosphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com Nice one! This guys just reinvented John Searls seg. The seg self cools to extremely low temperature and has spinning rollers on spinning rings. If only we could convert Johns theory into equations we would be on our way. The field strengths are about right. Dröscher and Häuser may have done the equations that we need. Wont it be cool to have a true space drive finally. Wont it be even cooler to discover that we had a prototype in the 1960's! That will give the skeptics a migraine. I wonder how the equations fit with Dr Podkletnov's work?
your book-Books available for science VIPs
Jed you said no-one was buying your book. I've just done so. I just put in a order for two good ones with some padding to cover postage. I hope its enough. Actually my order would have gone in before or at the same time as your vortex post. Hang on to some of the miss prints, I've mentioned them to a few people and they believe the things will be very valuable after the cold fusion boom starts. If we can ever get the *%*#@ boom to start. Like rare stamps the first server to ever carry an email sold for several million in the dot com boom. And it was broken! Does everyone remember where they put their used cold fusion junk?
Re: First Publicly Traded Cold Fusion Company
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: Does anyone know of any other publicly-traded company or subsidiary besides D2Fusion that exists which is exclusively geared toward RD or commercialization of cold fusion? No, but I have another question for anyone who can answer it. On the front page to D2Fusion, http://www.d2fusion.com/ I noticed that they say of cold fusion that it was: First discovered in the 1930s then re-discovered and announced in 1989, Furthermore, in a paper Jed posted a few days back, http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArataYdevelopmenb.pdf there was a reference to a thermonuclear fusion experiment in Japan in 1933 which apparently wasn't pursued because they couldn't buy deuterium. Jed said he had no idea what this was in reference to; could it have been connected in some way to whatever the D2Fusion page is referring to? What, exactly, happened with fusion research, cold or hot, in the 1930's? As far as I knew, fusion research didn't start until much later than that, but these two references seem to suggest that the groundwork for cold fusion was laid at that time. (Has this been discussed on Vortex before? I did a quick lookup on Google for fusion and 1933 without turning up anything interesting, and scanned back over the last couple years of Vortex looking for subjects containing d2fusion and didn't find anything more.) Fission reactor work started in the 1930's, of course, and the Nazis started working on a nuclear bomb some time in the late 1930's or early 1940's, but aside from the references in that paper and website, I've never heard anything about any kind of actual fusion experiments in the 1930's. Jed posted an Thank you, Steve OK there was a report in Fusion Facts some time back that the japs may have had a muon fusion program mid war. Muons occur naturally at high altitude and a magnet can be used to focus the muons on deuterium. But you have to do every thing in a high altitude air craft. At the end of the war every thing was ordered destroyed but some parts were buried. The result would be a sustained muon catalyses fusion but we don't know what they planned to do with it. I'll look for the article. Any one want to go on an archaeological expedition looking for a fusion reactor? We live in strange times. I have heard that there were fusion papers published during the second world war that were specifically written to throw the Germans off the track. At the end of the war the western allies were told it was phoney but no-one told the Spanish or the Argentineans. By the 1970's having spent millons on a dead end fusion program Peron found out. He was furious!
Re: ZPE, and UFOs
revtec wrote: I think it highly unlikely that we have in this world aliens coexisting with angels. We either have aliens masquerading as angels, or fallen angels masquerading as aliens. I personally suspect the latter. Then, there is also option three for those who prefer it, that both angels and aliens are imaginary. It seems that one of these three choices must be true. Is there somebody out there able to pull enough facts together to prove the truth in this matter? Jeff I think Gary Bates has put it together quite nicely. There is an obvious lack of good data. This implies that if their aliens or angles they don't like us to know the full truth. That in itself implies that they are not friendly. The greatest challenge in any field of science or pseudoscience is to know what all the assumptions are and be able to discern their validity. We all attempt this in vortex. We're so diverse because we see the differences in our assumptions. Many out there in academia or the established Paradigm fail to do so and lock themselves into a framework of untested assumptions and false conclusions. Many of them either can't articulate their own assumptions or assume that all share their world view. A Heart seeking the truth asks first if it is ready to ask the question. Note: There is an explanation for some UFO sightings that is still to be explored. Scientists studying bats in north America recently discovered that the eat tons of moths per night. Radar confirmed that there were swarms of moths estimated in the kilotons. If these huge swarms are slightly bioluminescent or reflective then they would appear as balls of light that move, dissolve and divide in ways that a material craft can't. Insects pixles in a three dimentional dance. They could also appear to move abnormally fast if a diffuse swam over a large area converged on a fast moving stimuli like a light change or aircrafts sonic boom. The swarm would converge and then diverge but adjacent sections might lag creating the illusion of a fast moving object in the air. Both bioluminescents and glint are weak light sources but with a million insects in a small relative volume the brightness can become significant. No one that I know of has explored this theory. The related idea that UFO's are just an unknown species of fauna, electrostatic aerial plankton, is also a more radical possiblity.
Re: ZPE, Naked Women and UFOs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess the axiom of any publicity is good pubicity applies in this Hustler interview of Dr. Steven Greer: http://www.disclosureproject.org/bassiorinterview.htm ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com What naked ladies, I've been ripped off. Just kidding. A mate of mine wrote a book on UFO's that is a good read. See: Alien Intrusion by Gary Bates. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890514356/qid=1134951746/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8901916-1580103?n=507846s=booksv=glance
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
I think Ed Storms and Jed Rothwell make good point the one flesh thing but the one flesh reference misses the point. Leviticus is were the action is and it includes things like quarantine, antiseptics (Hyssop and cedar oil) both known antibacterial agents that have never produced immune strains of bugs. I need to focus on the fusion work for a while but if your interested in the subject read R. J. Rushdoony's books on the subject he is quite good. http://www.chalcedonstore.com/xcart/home.php More below, I couldn't resist. : Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: We are, as Hamlet put it, noble in reason, infinite in faculties, the paragon of animals. We have done nothing wrong and we have nothing to be ashamed of. Here one must ask, does this grand and supremely innocent We... include the young George Bush feeding firecrackers to frogs to watch them blow up? Hey, we're predators. What would you expect? Besides, I don't believe in collective guilt. George was not a Christian in his child hood he's a recent convert. Many in the western world are what we in the church call nominal Christians, people who are born into the history and traditions without knowing God or understanding any doctrine. World Christianity is divided into what we call the visible church: with a mix of denominations and creeds, with people who are well meaning but very nominal Christians, a few saints, and a lot of others that are a waste of a good pew. There's a few that are truly dangerous. The church invisible is the body of true believers inside all the various denominations. They have sound doctrine and work hard to win souls. There often too busy to try to run the show, sometimes that is a mistake, allowing others to rise to the top. The church invisible includes a few outside the formal church who for one reason or another have found God but still can't find a church that is worth attending. There are many hidden in communist countries and the moslem arc who can't go public with their faith because of persecution. PS I'm not a Roman Catholic and you might guess I think the Vatican has a lot more of the visible [very] church in it and a lot less of the church invisible church than it thinks ;-) . One might, with some effort, come up with a few other things for which the human species has been responsible which some might view as worthy of some small amount of shame, I think... Sure, but most us had nothing to do with these atrocities. Look, every healthy person feels some degree of existential guilt. You look around, you see people suffering, and you can't help but blame yourself partly. That's natural. It is okay -- even beneficial. Empathy is bred into us; group hunting predators take care of helpless pack members. What I object to is people who exploit that feeling. They enslave other people's minds with fear, based on hocus-pocus superstition and balderdash. They compound the problem by making people feel guilty about feeling guilty. They make life even more miserable than it is already. They rob people of dignity, hope and self-respect. They frighten little children. They incite the public to hate and fear science, which is our only hope for a decent, humane future. And for what? Only to empower themselves, or make a profit, or to spread their own warped, defeatist, guilt-ridden, irrational traditions to the next generation. Of course I know that many religious people never engage in this sort of behavior. Many are wonderful people, and for that matter many scientists are heartless wretches. I have no use for religion myself, but in most people it is a harmless eccentricity, no worse than a passion for Contract Bridge. By the way, there is an interesting article in the New York Times Magazine about antipathy toward science: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/11wwln_lead.html It's interesting that antipathy towards science was lowest when the church was stronger in the 1950's and antipathy is strong now that the church is weak and the new age stuff is pushing into the mainstream. There's a whole other debate to be had there but I have a few dozen ICCF12 papers to find and read. Not to mention a letter to a politician on live embryo transplant ectogenesis as an alternative to abortion. Wish me luck I'll really need it on that one. bye from wesley.
Re: polonium halos
thomas malloy wrote: Vortexians; I assume that the halos are caused by the decay of the radioneuclide in the zirconium crystal. I assume that there are multiple decays. Is the intensity of the halo determined by the number of decays? Is there some way to determine the number of decay events by it's intensity? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! --- The sequece and the intensity are related and predicted by equations. Each step of the decay sequence leaves a destinct halo. It's like a mass spectrometer read out, each peak, halo, is a trasition in the decay sequence. I just remembered who's got my copy of Gentries book, Dad borrowed it, so I'll see if I can get it back and check it for you.
Re: OffTopic: Lust and the bible
Good site you've found Harry but way way off topic I'll take hours to check it out. The excerpt page below while technically correct it still needs work. The ‘who are we’ page of the site worries me a little. They've never been on a good theological collage campus it seems. I can answer the first 7 questions but as it notes a quick answer may not be a correct one. Remember the words have changed meaning over time and its unwise to ascribe modern meanings to biblical words. The Hebrew in genesis indicates desire without greed. With Sin entering the picture harmless desire became potentially selfish and thus harmful lusts. That's why God made cloths for them. The authors of this site aren't making the case why sex with strangers is bad. They just say its bad and I think thats hazardous in this age. VD and family conflict is the reason for the rules. A good book to read is: None of these diseases The Bible’s health secrets for the 21st century by S.I. McMillen, MD David E Stern, MD. Morality is not arbitrary it is precautionary. Harry Veeder wrote: from http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/covet.html To Covet and Lust can be Good, not Evil Let¹s begin with a quiz of the following questions: 1. Can a Christian lust and still be qualified to enter into the Kingdom of God? 2. Can a man or a woman lust for their mate, yet without sin? 3. Is lusting a sin? 4. Do you really know the difference between lust and desire? 5. If you lust for something, would your Maker grant it to you? 6. If you caught yourself lusting should you repent of it? 7. Does God, Christ, and all the holy angels ever lust? Those who are spirit beings, those who are Holy, perfect, and righteous? Don¹t be too quick to answer. Remember, all of our background came from our parents, culture, and our society. God condemns the use of any thing, any thought, and any attitude that is harmful to you or your neighbor. But he will never condemn the right use of any good thing that he himself has created. Remember what God said about all those things he created? It was very good (Genesis 1:31). He didn¹t say it was bad, not a mixture of truth and error, but very good. Covet and Lust are Neutral Words The adversary has deceived men into believing that sex, lust, coveting, pleasure, sensuality, and feeling good is evil; yet, when God created all things he said it was very good (Genesis 1:31 ). Who are you going to believe? Christians desire, lust for, and covet after the Knowledge and Wisdom of God, which is good. Sensuality, like lust, is purely neutral. What you do with it determines whether you sin or not. Sex with strangers is not good, but sex with your spouse is. There is nothing wrong with lusting. Do you lust for your wife, or do you lust for somebody else¹s wife? This is the point. The Law does not say, Do not covet, it says do not covet anything that belongs to somebody else (Exodus 20:17). Your arch enemy would always like you to blur the difference and remove the boundaries between the holy and the profane, between the light and darkness. That¹s why the Creator told Adam and Eve to eat of every tree that is in the garden, except of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil! You see, if someone gives you a glass of pure crystal clear sweet water, that¹s good. But if you put a few drops of poison into it, that¹s bad. And the bad makes the whole thing bad. And therefore the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is all bad, because poison will kill you, it takes time. Good and evil is not good, it is sinful. And therefore, to have a morality that is a mixture of good and evil is a sinful morality. That¹s why we are studying the Word of God, because we are admitting that we are not clean, pure, righteous, perfect, but we want to be. And so we should not be offended at the words of God when they simply be contrary to what we think. Positive examples in Scripture In the Hebrew, lust (#08378 ta'avah #0183 'avah) is defined as to desire eagerly, to long for, to wish, to crave, to covet, to yearn, to be eager to, to have an appetite for. Lust could be used rightly or wrongly. By itself it is neutral. Whether lust is good or bad should be determined only by your Maker, and not by mere, fallible, mortal man, who doesn¹t even have a clean mind! Positive examples of lust in the Bible are: * Deuteronomy 14:26 (lusteth) where God commanded the Israelites to turn the tithes into money and spend it on whatever their soul lusts for; * Psalm 21:2 (desire) where God satisfies your lusts if they are good and right for you; * Psalm 132:13 (desired) where the Lord himself lusted Zion for his habitation; * Proverbs 10:24 (desire) where the lust of the righteous shall be granted; * Proverbs 11:23 (desire) where the lust of the righteous is good, and this is in contrast to the lust of the wicked; * Proverbs 13:12 (desire) where lust will earn
Re: Notes on ICCF12 from T. J. Dolan
Jed Rothwell wrote: OrionWorks wrote: This post is primarily directed to both Jed, Steven Krivit, Jed, in the past you have lamented the fact that you feared CF research may be dieing a slow death, particularly due to what you have perceived is a lack of necessary infusion of young scientists into this risky controversial field. IOW, at present dabbling in CF may be considered, professionally speaking, too risky a step for most career oriented scientists to seriously consider. Never the less, the latest posts (and supplied links) by Jed and Steve seem to indicate a number of interesting results derived from ICCF12. There has been progress and there are promising new results. On the other hand, I did not see any young people at the conference. All the presenters have attended previous conferences and presented similar results. Over the past year, several more researchers retired or died. The field still seems be drifting inexorably toward extinction, simply because people grow old and die. From the beginning, cold fusion supporters have been older than those who attack the field. The 2000 dollar air fair on top of the conferrence fees stopped me. And I'm nearly a younger CF researcher. I have about a dozen younger people in my network that are listening but they to don't know how to go from being a CF watcher to being a CF doer. We need entry level CF experiments and some way to link newer people up to the older teams to train up the pool of understudies. There has been no change in the political situation. Journals such as Nature and Scientific American still attack cold fusion as viciously as ever. The 2004 Department of Energy review had no effect. As far as I know cold fusion is still too risky for a career oriented scientist, or indeed any any scientist or businessman who is not retired or independently wealthy. Perhaps something is happening behind the scenes, but I would not know about that. Frankly, all of the secret research projects that have come to light so far have been unimpressive. I do not think this research can thrive in secret, but only in an open academic environment in which results are shared and experiments subject to open criticism and peer review. Australia is having a big fight about nuclear waste disposal sites and power reactors. I think I might put in a submission about the Lenr nuclear waste disposal option. I've just got a reply from two ministers, or their advisors, on my previous enquries indicating complete ignorance on lenr. That's not opposition! It seems they haven't even heard the argument againts CF. In such ignorance glows a glimmer of hope. If they don't know there's a fight they may listen long enough to hear the truth. I need to be able to hand them copies of the papers not references. And I need a proof read submission. I also need a new suit I suspect. Wish me luck. Which Papers would you suggest? - Jed
Re: Response to some questions
RC Macaulay wrote: Hi Anon, No at all, Vorts are by nature , looking for trouble.. err, make that answers that may trouble.. or ,, may provoke troubling doubts.. or.. may trouble provokitoors.. or may provoke thought and discovery.. ah! the quest., the quest.. Imagine the posts regarding UFO's and alien invasions mentioned recently.. What if the aliens are all FEMALE just searching for a male ??? hehe.. they came, they looked, they saw men 40-80 lbs overweight and decided they weren't up to it..errr.. poor choice of words.. but the threat of invasion and conquest may have been averted.. not by NASA and our military.. but by the big Mac. Richard - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 7:52 PM Subject: Re: Response to some questions Attitude, mon ami. I will no longer trouble you. -Original Message- From: Steven Krivit ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com Just think of us as two parts energy myth busters [as per the TV show], one part enwergy quiz master, one part new energy coordination, with a side order of energy jokes. I still haven't figgured out whats OT on Vort yet. But its fun.
Re: OFF TOPIC Pascal's false argument
Jed Rothwell wrote: Wesley Bruce wrote: In other words * If I believe in God and I am right what do I gain? All the pleasures of eternity. * If I am wrong what do I loose? A few passing pleasures and then oblivion. * If I disbelieve in God and there is life after death and some judgement. Pascal's argument is based on the notion that belief is voluntary; i.e., we can choose what we believe, and what we do not believe. This is false. To take a dramatic example, consider a person in her 40s who is dying of an incurable disease. She may want to believe she will survive by some miracle, but if she is educated and understands disease and probability, she will believe with as much certainty as a person can muster that she is doomed. No amount of wishful thinking or desire on her part will affect this belief, or impair her judgement. I have seen many people in this situation, both theists and atheists, including a friend who died last month. They can no more choose to believe one way or the other than I can choose to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. (In some cases the disease, drugs or extreme fear will impair the patient's judgement, but I have never seen this happen.) Not only is Pascal's argument false, it is contrary to everyday experience, since we all know that we cannot make ourselves think that 2 + 2 = 5, or night is day, or up is down. In my opinion this argument is also preposterous and cruel, since it tries to impose a guilt trip on people who cannot bring themselves to believe in fairy tales. - Jed You have a good point but I suspect your immune to the guilt trip bit. You don’t strike me as the type and I don't see you doing anything wrong anyway. Your argument assumes an absolute truth but not my absolute truth. I have seen people cured of the incurable. It may be random chance or an act of God but either way faith is involved. One has faith in probability and naturalism the other has faith in God thanks to experience and witnessed events. We have lived in an age where Atheism used guns to attempt to enforce its will. Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. It's the ones that try to out law belief or kill it by force or guile that are the big problem. 2 + 2 does not equal 5 but 2 +3 does. If you only see the 2's where I see a 3 then we have a minor problem. As for fairy tales; is the big bang any more or less of a tale that any of its alternatives? Starting assumptions are the difference between a good theory and a bad one. Starting assumptions often go unstated or even unknown, sub-conscious, to the user. Our fusion opponents assume that all nuclear reactions should have the same branching ratio. It is an assumption they don't question. Its is to them as real as your dieing friends beliefs in the incurability of the disease. But in their case that belief, while strongly held by many, does not change the truth of cold fusion one bit. Absolute truth must be the bigger of the two tales.
Re: OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
Good point Steven, I'm willing to plead arrogance as a defence. :-D I was thinking about communism which slaughtered millions for their faith in the soviet union and still does in some places. But your correct to identify Nazism. OrionWorks wrote: Recent exchanges between Mr. Rothwell and Mr. Wesley concerning the topic of Absolute Truth brings to mind a terrible trap I believe we all must be careful not to fall into: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods. Mr. Wesley reminds us that we have recently lived in an age where Atheism used guns to attempt to enforce its will. (Germany, WWII and Nazism, of course, comes to mind.) However, Mr. Wesley goes on to state that Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. ...and I'm not going to let such an arrogant conjecture stand unchallenged. The sword that yields the Knowledge of the Gods is a double-edged one. It's easy to substitute the philosophy of Atheism with any god-fearing brand of religion and, going back through history, find EXACTLY the same despicable carnage performed on others. One of the best PBS TV programs I ever saw that dealt with this issue was authored by the late Jacob Browonski. I'm referring to the The Ascent of Man mini-series, first aired back in the 1970s. The particular installment that comes to mind is titled Knowledge or Certainty. For reference see: http://ronrecord.com/Quotes/bronowski.html From the Knowledge or Certainty, an episode from the 1973 BBC series The Ascent of Man, transcribed by Evan Hunt: Quoting Jacob Bronowski: Snip you all have a copy. Interesting stuff. While Bronowski's essay was directed in the most immediate sense at the atrocities of Nazism his words accurately reflect the misdeeds any philosophy that subscribes to the Knowledge of the Gods, whether it is based on atheism or theism, can do to mankind. I agree but I've seen fewer arrogant Christians than arrogant antichristians lately. No one we know on vort I might point out. Arrogance is an equal opportunity employer. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
leaking pen wrote: Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. missed that one... really now. pay any attention to people like Bush, who stated that athiests cant be considered patriots, and are a danger to the country? hows about pat robertson, who prays for the death of athiests daily, and wants a national religion imposed with penalties for those who dont proscribe. Haven't seen the quote from Bush. Remember George Bush is a new convert. I know people who firmily believe the statement. The context is everything in such a statement. I wonder if he's quoting someone? Pat Robinson should not talk on foreign policy. I understand what he meant when he said what he said about Hugo Chávez. It was stupid. Chavez is not a dictator but may go that way. Some in defence ask the question about pre-empting dictatorship. We have the technology they say. We should save lives by acting now. I believe they are wrong. I'm not a fan of tele evanglists. christians like YOU, perhaps, i dont know what kind of christian you are. christians like ME, definately. but most christians... no. they are quite harmful and hatefull towards others. atheist or non. You must have run into some very sad churches. I guess I've been lucky. I'm a Salvo by the way. On 12/6/05, *OrionWorks* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Recent exchanges between Mr. Rothwell and Mr. Wesley concerning the topic of Absolute Truth brings to mind a terrible trap I believe we all must be careful not to fall into: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods. Mr. Wesley reminds us that we have recently lived in an age where Atheism used guns to attempt to enforce its will. (Germany, WWII and Nazism, of course, comes to mind.) However, Mr. Wesley goes on to state that Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. ...and I'm not going to let such an arrogant conjecture stand unchallenged. The sword that yields the Knowledge of the Gods is a double-edged one. It's easy to substitute the philosophy of Atheism with any god-fearing brand of religion and, going back through history, find EXACTLY the same despicable carnage performed on others. One of the best PBS TV programs I ever saw that dealt with this issue was authored by the late Jacob Browonski. I'm referring to the The Ascent of Man mini-series, first aired back in the 1970s. The particular installment that comes to mind is titled Knowledge or Certainty. For reference see: http://ronrecord.com/Quotes/bronowski.html From the Knowledge or Certainty, an episode from the 1973 BBC series The Ascent of Man, transcribed by Evan Hunt: Quoting Jacob Bronowski: -- The Principle of Uncertainty is a bad name. In science--or outside of it--we are not uncertain; our knowledge is merely confined, within a certain tolerance. We should call it the Principle of Tolerance. And I propose that name in two senses: First, in the engineering sense--science has progressed, step by step, the most successful enterprise in the ascent of man, because it has understood that the exchange of information between man and nature, and man and man, can only take place with a certain tolerance. But second, I also use the word, passionately, about the real world. All knowledge--all information between human beings--can only be exchanged within a play of tolerance. And that is true whether the exchange is in science, or in literature, or in religion, or in politics, or in *any* form of thought that aspires to dogma. It's a major tragedy of my lifetime and yours that scientists were refining, to the most exquisite precision, the Principle of Tolerance--and turning their backs on the fact that all around them, tolerance was crashing to the ground beyond repair. The Principle of Uncertainty or, in my phrase, the Principle of Tolerance, fixed once for all the realization that all knowledge is limited. It is an irony of history that at the very time when this was being worked out there should rise, under Hitler in Germany and other tyrants elsewhere, a counter-conception: a principle of monstrous certainty. When the future looks back on the 1930s it will think of them as a crucial confrontation of culture as I have been expounding it, the ascent of man, against the throwback to the despots' belief that they have absolute certainty. It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false: tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. [The viewer sees Bronowsky walk directly into the marshlands near Auschwitz where millions of Jews were cremated.] *This* is where people were turned into numbers. Into this
Re: OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
OrionWorks wrote: From: leaking pen Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. missed that one... really now. pay any attention to people like Bush, who stated that athiests cant be considered patriots, and are a danger to the country? hows about pat robertson, who prays for the death of athiests daily, and wants a national religion imposed with penalties for those who dont proscribe. christians like YOU, perhaps, i dont know what kind of christian you are. christians like ME, definately. but most christians... no. they are quite harmful and hatefull towards others. atheist or non. Well, Mr. Leak, You still missed it. In fact I think you completely missed the entire context of my post. You imply that I personally stated Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. If you have an issue with the above statement I suggest you take it up with Mr. Wesley as he was responsible for saying it, not me. I really would recommend that you read posts attributed to me more carefully before, figuratively speaking, pointing your accusing finger at me and labeling me as some kind of [a] Christian and lumping my alleged religious predilections with the likes of Bush Jr. and Pat Robertson. You're right about one thing, however. You don't know what kind of a Christian I might be, as I have never stated that I am one. I've also never stated I'm an atheist either. Please read my posts more carefully before labeling me. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com Calm down everyone. I think your all making reasonable and polite statements. Unless I missed one.
Re: OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
OrionWorks wrote: From: leaking pen Pardon, but i was responding to Mr. Wesley, as I had missed the thread in which he had made the statement, and was quite sure he would read THIS thread as well. I was not responding to you. Perhaps YOU should read posts more carefully before assuming that something is aimed at you that isn't. You seemed rather eager to take the finger that wasn't pointed at you. Greetings again, Mr. Leak, Mr. Lawrence has already spoken rather eloquently on this point. However, tell you what. I'll work on my over eager fickle finger of accusation if you try working on your addressing skills. That's a problem I have too, sorry folks. You will note that I often address whom I'm responding to very clearly, usually at the beginning of any post I make. It helps avoid potential confusions as to whom my comments are actually being addressed to. I think you may have missed the fact that I created a brand new subject thread where I quoted a statement from Mr. Wesley. In my brand new subject thread Mr. Wesley has NEVER MADE a direct contribution to it, so how can you assume that everyone would naturally understand that your comments were actually addressed to him? Quite frankly, I would have offered up a sincere public apology had you received both Mr. Wesley's post and mine, AND that both posts were made in the same subject thread. However, as you have stated, at the time of your post you had ONLY received MY follow-up post, and not Mr. Wesley's. That's because Mr. Wesley has, so far, not made any follow-up posts to my new subject thread. Again, how do you assume that everyone would naturally take your comments as directed at Mr. Wesley? I therefore feel justified in repeating: Please read my posts more carefully, and respond accordingly As Mr. Lawrence as already suggested, simply addressing whom your comments were meant for would have alleviated a lot of confusion you are directly responsible for creating. Goodness gracious me! Did I just start a flame war? I missed the whole show. I'm on the other side of the planet so a few hours of flame war goes unnoticed as I sleep. Sorry if I have caused any friction but I can't see that much excess heat in the war. ;-) Gag me with a spoon! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: OFF TOPIC Pascal's false argument
Thank's Jed I'll follow this up. Its nice to have a true scholar on the other side of a debate. Jed Rothwell wrote: I forgot to mention that Pascal's argument is also a logical fallacy: appeal to the consequences of a belief. This was defined thousands of years before Pascal was born. All in all it was a sloppy analysis, and Pascal -- who was a sharp thinker -- should have been ashamed of himself. I wish that people would learn basic logic in grade school. They should be drilled on a dozen or so common logical fallacies that have been known for thousands of years. The subject is no harder than addition and subtraction, and armed with this knowledge you can avoid innumerable stupid errors. The world would be a better place for it. A lot of political rhetoric, for example, boils down to one fallacy or another. You can take a refresher course here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ Wesley Bruce wrote: I have seen people cured of the incurable. This assertion makes no sense. If they were cured it was not incurable, q.e.d. I think you mean that you have seen people cured when the odds were against them. No doubt this is true, but it proves nothing about faith because most people who are seriously ill and who pray die anyway, and some atheists survive. Causality has long been searched for but never found. Even the so-called placebo affect has now been shown to be pure moonshine. Regarding the applicablity of this to science, I suggest you read Francis Bacon, who wrote in Novum Organum (1620): The human understanding, when any preposition has been once laid down, (either from general admission and belief, or from the pleasure it affords,) forces every thing else to add fresh support and confirmation; and although more cogent and abundant instances may exist to the contrary, yet either does not observe or despises them, or gets rid of and rejects them by some distinction, with violent and injurious prejudice, rather than sacrifice the authority of its first conclusions. It was well answered by him [Diagoras] who was shown in a temple the votive tablets suspended by such as had escaped the peril of shipwreck, and was pressed as to whether he would then recognise the power of the gods, by an inquiry; But where are the portraits of those who have perished in spite of their vows? All superstition is much the same, whether it be that of astrology, dreams, omens, retributive judgment, or the like; in all of which the deluded believers observe events which are fulfilled, but neglect and pass over their failure, though it be much more common. But this evil insinuates itself still more craftily in philosophy and the sciences; in which a settled maxim vitiates and governs every other circumstance, though the latter be much more worthy of confidence. Besides, even in the absence of that eagerness and want of thought, (which we have mentioned,) it is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives, whereas it ought duly and regularly to be impartial; nay, in establishing any true axiom, the negative instance is the most powerful. - Jed
Re: polonium halos
Harry Veeder wrote: Wesley Bruce wrote: Is you world view big enough for God? His is big enough for you. An atheist would interpret this as a personal request. Based on his beliefs you are asking him if his world is big enough for you. If the atheist has a big heart he would say yes. Harry Well said Harry. If an atheist doesn't try to kill my rights to my faith or ban me from speaking then he or she is OK and free to have their choice of faith. Yet on their dieing the true test begins and the question of absolute truth or absolute oblivion is faced. The scientist Pascal was asked of his faith. He answered with a wager. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ I'll pluck a table from the site. Following McClennen 1994, Pascal's argument seems to be best captured as presenting the following decision matrix: /*God exists*/ /*God does not exist*/ /*Wager for God*/ Gain all Status quo /*Wager against God*/ Misery Status quo In other words * If I believe in God and I am right what do I gain? All the pleasures of eternity. * If I am wrong what do I loose? A few passing pleasures and then oblivion. * If I disbelieve in God and there is life after death and some judgement. What do I loose. Everything when I discover that I will be held responsible for my actions up to the extent of my knowledge. God honours my demand for his absence, and creates a place where he is not found and I then discover that the simple absence of God is hell itself and it is awful indeed for he is the source of unselfish goodness. * If I disbelieve in God and there is no life after death, what do I gain. Nothing of great value. A fleeting sense of freedom and then oblivion.
Re: polonium halos -Now OT
Very good question! What alternatives are consistant with Atheism? Send to my home address if you choose not to clutter Vortex. PS sorry the table did not come out right. Harry Veeder wrote: Must an Atheist believe in oblivion after death if he doesn't believe in God? Harry Wesley Bruce wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Wesley Bruce wrote: Is you world view big enough for God? His is big enough for you. An atheist would interpret this as a personal request. Based on his beliefs you are asking him if his world is big enough for you. If the atheist has a big heart he would say yes. Harry Well said Harry. If an atheist doesn't try to kill my rights to my faith or ban me from speaking then he or she is OK and free to have their choice of faith. Yet on their dieing the true test begins and the question of absolute truth or absolute oblivion is faced. The scientist Pascal was asked of his faith. He answered with a wager. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ I'll pluck a table from the site. Following McClennen 1994, Pascal's argument seems to be best captured as presenting the following decision matrix: /*God exists*/ /*God does not exist*/ /*Wager for God*/ Gain all Status quo /*Wager against God*/ Misery Status quo In other words * If I believe in God and I am right what do I gain? All the pleasures of eternity. * If I am wrong what do I loose? A few passing pleasures and then oblivion. * If I disbelieve in God and there is life after death and some judgement. What do I loose. Everything when I discover that I will be held responsible for my actions up to the extent of my knowledge. God honours my demand for his absence, and creates a place where he is not found and I then discover that the simple absence of God is hell itself and it is awful indeed for he is the source of unselfish goodness. * If I disbelieve in God and there is no life after death, what do I gain. Nothing of great value. A fleeting sense of freedom and then oblivion.
Re: Rheumatoid Arthritis, etc., Caused By Bacteria; Also Vitamin C Info -was: ... Nobel Prize
Ulcers were also cured by high dose vitamin C. A friend of mine was the person that launched black current juice back during world war two. They had scurvy in the British ranks at Tabrook. Acid vitamin C sources like oranges and lemons rotted quickly and made you sick in the heat and it burned ulcerated lips. Dr Travers Harrison OBE was an agricultural chemist at the British department of agriculture. With the Germans sinking ships no-one wanted to take boat loads of crops to America and the colonies so the department of Agriculture was stuck with millions of tons of surplus crops. Black currents by the boat load were piling up so Dr Harrison was tasked to check them to find out what was in a black current so a new use could be made for them. He found Vitamin C in a non acidic form. Just what the troops needed in north Africa. The troops were saved from scurvy and the war was won. A few years later a medical friend mentioned that he had a problem. Patients with severe ulcers were suffering from scurvy because they could not eat acidic food. Dr Harrison supplied some black current juice and saved the day. Then mysteriously the patients started getting cured. Hundreds of them improved with the ulcers disappearing faster than the scurvy. Today thanks to the Nobel prize winning research linking Helicobacter pylori with ulcers; we can see why the cure was working but in the 1950’s it seemed very strange. Huge doses of black current juice were used; litres of the stuff. Pure vitamin C had less of an effect. Black current juice its self was required. A certain associated sugar changed form in the processing. Thousands were cured but only now we are understanding what happened. Attempts to get the cure accepted though the 50’s and 60’s failed; scientists, doctors and pharmacists ignored or opposed the cure. Yet half a century ago Dr Harrison always believed he and his colleagues had found a cure for Ulcers that the world of medicine simply chose to ignore. Dr Harrison tale was my first childhood introduction to the idea that science often ignores a cure even though it would save millions from suffering. It taught me that scientists were capable of great things and at the same time great folly. Mark S Bilk wrote: Chris Zell pointed out that the research linking Helicobacter pylori with ulcers was ignored and resisted by the medical establishment, and that its discoverers have just been awarded a Nobel Prize. Also that the usage of Vitamin C against viral infections has met with similar dismissal and resistance. I've used it on cats and young children (with dosage proportional to body weight), who were not subject to a placebo effect, and it was very successful (against upper respiratory infections, and measles with severe rash and fever). According to the research cited here (about 100 journal articles): http://rheumatic.org rheumatic diseases -- rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, scleroderma, etc. -- are caused by infections by certain mycoplasmas -- bacteria that lack cell walls (but of course still have cell membranes). These diseases can be cured by the proper antibiotic therapy! Here are some sources of information about Vitamin C: http://www.orthomed.com/ http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/ http://www.google.com/search?as_q=klenner+%22vitamin+C%22num=100hl=en This year I was getting frequent colds (or never quite getting rid of the same cold) and at least stopping the symptoms with 12-18 grams/day of Vitamin C as ascorbic acid. Dissolve, with constant stirring, 6 grams of ascorbic acid -- 1.5 teaspoon -- in a cup of water, drink it, then rinse your teeth with baking soda solution, as the acid attacks the enamel. The solution is pretty irritating; it tastes much better with 5 saccharin tablets in it. To avoid any possibility of getting it down your larynx, fill your lungs with air and pressurize it a bit while swallowing the solution. My local healthfood store proprietor suggested that excessive acidity in my body caused by the ascorbic acid was congenial to the infections, so I switched to magnesium calcium ascorbate: Dissolve 6 grams ascorbic acid, 1 teaspoon milk of magnesia -- Mg(OH)2 (shake well), and 1/4 to 1/2 teaspoon of powdered chalk -- CaCO3, in a cup of water, with constant stirring. Add the CaCO3 last after the C and Mg(OH)2 have dissolved, and titrate to taste -- it should be neither sour nor bitter, or a little of each. He also suggested Vitamin A (preformed, i.e. from fish oil, not carotene), 50-100,000 IU/day with a small oily meal for a few days only; this is also very helpful for bacterial sinus infections. Also powdered astragalus root (Nature's Herbs brand, actually Twinlab); the bottle says 6 of the 400mg capsules/day; I take 1/2 capsule/day, although it has no side effects -- I'm timid about herbs. The recurrent colds stopped after about a week of this treatment with a dosage of 6 grams (vit. C
Re: challenging papers
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Sat, 26 Nov 2005 14:25:14 +1100: Hi, [snip] Thanks Ed the Students guide is my main resource and I've read it. I was just being thorough and careful before diving in to a room full of politicians, scientists and others. Better me than you hey. I have this vision of John Huizinga or someone stubbornly driving to the mall in the worlds last internal combustion powered car and facing a car park filled with fusion cars. [snip] ...or pushing his car (now with empty gas tank) along the freeway, looking for the last gas station. ;) No My dad has a bullnose Morris vintage car so when I'm rich and famous I'll have to put together a mail order petrol service for his vintage car club. If I don't dad will kill me. :-D Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
challenging papers
I've said to a friend that most critics of cold fusion can't quote or cite a single paper critical of cold fusion. It's certainly correct in Australia. but is it correct in all cases. What are the papers critical of cold fusion and have we debunked them all in turn? We need a list and counter list on Jeds web site or ISCMNS or some where.
Re: BLP's patent
There's only one way to turn a lone superpower into an exSuperpower and Dr Bob Parks applying the weapon skillfully. He'll destroy America's future in his blind effort to protect His idea of Science. The Unibomber, Ted Kaczynski, killed a few people in his letter bombs in the name of preventing scientific change and modernity; yet Dr Park in a few short years has fought the future more professionally than any I have seen. I think Boris Volfson does have an interesting drive but the patent indicated that he has an incomplete understanding of Dr Podkletnov's work. In my opinion it is a usable space drive but Boris will find that when he puts his drive into first gear it will go backwards and reverse makes it go forwards. He'll also discover that thrust is proportional to the mass of the matter forward of the plate. The vector component of the field that goes out to the sides of the curved superconductor will be wasted. In other words he has found a good design for energizing the superconductor but needs to look at the later papers Dr Podkletnov published. In my opinion. It is not gravity screening. Its a ZPF lens/ laser. The energy density of ZPF is 10^93 j/cc [Wheeler in Gravity][10 to the 93 power]. Focus just a fraction and you can push matter around. Dr Park is, as usual, assuming he's accounted for every joule in the universe when in reality he's only counting the ripples on the surface of an ocean of energy. There's also a striking similarity in Boris Volfson's design to John Searl's claimed drive effects. But John Searl's rings, ~read superconductors when chilled~ are pointing out not up??? thomas malloy wrote: Vortexians; Pat Bailey has brought this most regrettable turn of events to my attention. The evil Dr. Park has succeeded in damming up the river of human progress, let us hope that this is just temporary. I just noticed that the old devil has seen to shoot off his mouth on anti gravity machines too. If canceling gravity required more energy than was released by the fall of the object back to the earth, than it wouldn't be free energy. Black Light Power has had it’s granted US Patent revoked And all of their other applications blocked Because Their explanation is different than the 1930’s view of the atomic model of the hydrogen atom. To me, it all just means that “It is impossible” and “You can’t do it” So I can in another country And get the business before you… Naw naw… [Should’a used a Trade Secret, like Coca Cola… US Patent Applications get CLASSIFIED.] PB. http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Sciencearticle=UPI-1-20051109-13140400-bc-us-antigravity.xml Patent issued for anti-gravity device WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 (UPI) -- The U.S. patent office has reportedly granted a patent for an anti-gravity device -- breaking its rule to reject inventions that defy the laws of physics. The journal Nature said patent 6,960,975 was granted Nov. 1 to Boris Volfson of Huntington, Ind., for a space vehicle propelled by a superconducting shield that alters the curvature of space-time outside the craft in a way that counteracts gravity. One of the main theoretical arguments against anti-gravity is that it implies the availability of unlimited energy. If you design an anti-gravity machine, you've got a perpetual-motion machine, Robert Park of the American Physical Society told Nature. Park said the action shows patent examiners are being duped by false science. Copyright 2005 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved. --- USFamily.Net http://www.usfamily.net/dialup.html - *$8.25/mo!* -- Highspeed http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - *$19.99/mo!* ---
Re: ISS OT
Well said Jed. Jed Rothwell wrote: Wesley Bruce wrote: We can't rule out a collapse of communism in China or a shattering of the peoples republic, both would be messy, very messy. Not necessarily. The collapse of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe was calm and orderly, with practically no casualties. Of course Russia still has a long way to go before it achieves Western European standards, but it is improving and it is far better than it was under communism. I expect that China will gradually evolve away from communism, until the government is overthrown in a velvet revolution. Doomsday scenarios seldom come true, because most people are sane, and they want to live in peace. In the 1950s, many people assumed that the US and the Soviet Union would eventually launch a nuclear Armageddon, but it never happened. It turned out we could live with them and they could live with us. I am 110% confident that we can reach the same kind of accommodation with China and also with Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia. See Kennedy's speech at American University, June 1963: http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/speeches/rhetoric/jfkuniv.htm QUOTE Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament - and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude - as individuals and as a Nation - for our attitude is as essential as theirs. . . . First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable - that mankind is doomed - that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade - therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again. Remember that! If you have any doubts, look around and see what we have accomplished already. Read history, and try to realize how difficult it was to build civilization. You will see that our present problems are small in comparison. Also, the notion that France is going to be taken over by Muslim civilization is nonsense. No trend lasts forever. If anything, over the next few hundred years I expect Western values and science will permeate Muslim nations even more than it has already, despite their opposition. Science and democracy, which are two sides of the same coin, are the most powerful ideas in human history. They outweigh even religion, nationalism, capitalism and communism. I think they will continue to move mountains and change civilizations for many centuries to come. Long after capitalism has been replaced by a system in which we will produce all the goods we want for free, and people do no work, and long after nation states have withered away and international borders no longer exist, science will still be progressing. Today's news offers hope. Science and rationality have triumphed in Dover, PA: All eight members of the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office Tuesday by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent-design policy. - Jed
Re: RTG equipped spacecraft
Jed Rothwell wrote: I researched plutonium powered radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG) for the book chapter 2. As far as I know, there have only been ~24 US spacecraft equipped with RTG, and telecom satellites are not among them. See, for example this document, written in 1984: http://science.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=question136.htmurl=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/messenger/oldmess/RTGs.html And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generators As noted here, the Apollo 13 RTG was supposed to be left on the moon, but the vehicle reentered and burned up over Fiji. The RTG remained intact and ended up in the Tonga trench in the Pacific Ocean. (How they found it I cannot imagine.) Ed Storms is an expert on this subject. - Jed Each RTG is impact armoured to survive impact with the water and stay sealed. They have a radio transmitter and a sonar beacon that will probablely still be gowing beep decades from now given the power source. I believe they may have a dye release system that marks the splashdown point. Given the trenches depth I suspect it will only be a few years before someone retreaves the RTG with an ROV. It would be quite safe if you put it in a lead glass box and keep oxygen away from anything that might rust. Any bit of an apollo mission would be worth its weight in gold.
Re: ISS OT
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Standing Bear's message of Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:52:00 -0500: Hi, [snip] Hasn't Iraq provided the military industrial complex with enough profit yet? They need a war with China as well? I assure you, after any such war, there would be no military industrial complex left (or much of anything else either for that matter). China is no little middle eastern country with a weakened army and no WMD. So China plays the same game internationally as the US. Tough, get used to it. Mind you, I am no supporter of the Chinese regime per se. But disposing of them is a job for their own people, not the World Policeman. I agree; both of you make very good points. Its the enemy you don't see that will kill you. Yet my point still stands the communist party in China is bleeding members in huge numbers. We can't rule out a collapse of communism in China or a shattering of the peoples republic, both would be messy, very messy. Hopefully cool heads may prevail, a lot of old party bosses have gotten rich lately and the newly rich tend to see war or civil war as a great threat to the shiny new cities they have built. Poorer provences further west and farm boys from the countryside may be the only people rushing into the millitary. We are already in a military space race with China. Agreed. If China get to the moon next it wont do much harm. It will consolidate the possition of space as the long term fronteer it is. The carrying capacity of earth is about 8-10 billion, we are aproaching 6.5. The carrying capacity of outerspace is 30 to 50 billion with conventional technology. 70 billion if we invent self propergating technologies: Dyson trees on mars and self assembling space stations elsewhere. If China gets the moon I can sell them my one g artificial gravity system. I really do have an artificial gravity system for the moon and mars. It's amazingly simple. This warning about the most odious threat to our people and culture and values in the history of man is plainly evident to those who would open their eyes to see. And who also wrote: None are so blind as those who would not see. Maybe Anton Checkov was right. He is now probably weeping in his grave to see what is in store for his nation. At this stage China can afford to buy what it wants in Russia and there are towns in the Russian far east that are staving for capital. They'll take anyone’s money. These's some suspicion that a lot of the illegal porn on the web comes from near bankrupt communities in the Russian far east that are too poor to fight off the mafia kiddie porn crews that swing from town to town. Standing Bears warning is valid for some in China but watch out for india also. The Indian Hindu fundimentalists, BJP etc may return to power and they are just as dangerous to non hindus in India and places where indians are a large minority: the pacific, south east asia and the carrabian. The risk of a show down bettween india and china over world resources can't be ruled out. With the new energy resources described by many Vorts we could defuse the global resource shortages and head off any fight. We need cold fusion, hyperconductors, cheap maintinance free solar and anything else that will work. Give me energy and I'll give you clean water from the air, steel from dust, and Car bodies from sewerage. If you can figgure out how those three work you win a prize. Got to go. I just remembered its my birthday. Party time.
Re: Nanotech Breakthrough - Organic Solar Cells at 6%
OrionWorks wrote: Vorts, Not sure if this is a rehash of old news but here's an interesting article on a recent Nanotech breakthrough pertaining to organic solar cells. Researchers at Wake Forest and New Mexico State University have reached 6 percent efficiency. The ultimate goal is to reach 10 percent efficiency (hopefully by October 2006) which they claim should make organic solar cell technology economically viable. See: http://www.physorg.com/news7967.html Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com I'll settle for 6% if the cheap and robust. Plastic solar cells need to be sealed against the air or they regrade faster than silicon so making them cheap, robust and 10% may be a tall order.
iss Then why would you need a hell of a bumper bar?
A continuous acceleration flight at one g, a tenth of a g or 0.01g; results in a maximum speed at the mid-point that is very fast so the relative velocity is huge even if you hit a tiny piece of matter, a micro-meteorite or a flake of paint from another ship. Micrometeorites are fast enough they could punch through multiple space station bulkheads. A conveniual rocket ship going to Mars is moving far faster yet both are almost stationary compared to a craft doing a continuous acceleration flight to anywhere. By bumper bar I meant a tank like armoured unpressurised hull on the out side of the craft so that if it is hit the hull itself is not punctured. However if the ship is carrying dead cargo: containers of food; water; fertilizer; building materials; tons of ore or a bulldozer; they can be loaded in such a way that they take the hit and save the ship. You need a way to check them for damage on arrival. In all cases advanced radar and good manoeuvring thrusters are needed to detect and dodge anything bigger than a pea. We would need to detect the pea at 50-100 km range and would need to dodge it by several ship diameters. A tall order. Any craft doing a run through space needs to look both ahead and off to the side in the direction that objects orbiting the sun will be coming from. Its amazing that we have successfully sent as many probes out into interplanetary space. Any one of them could have been killed by a single hit from a sand grain sized micrometeorite. If the Podkletnov device works out as a drive or John Searl’s device is confirmed then fast interplanetary flight is possible without the shield problem because both produce field effects that would push the smaller meteorites aside. The force beam Podkletnov describes would apply force out in front of the craft during acceleration. The beam would accelerate obstacles up to a high velocity in a few minutes or hours. If there is any tangential component to the particles movement the beam will push the pebble or sand grain aside. The catch is it would not put the beam out a head of its self while deceleration.That braking beam would be facing the wrong way. Likewise the high charge on the Searl saucer would first emit a bolt of lightening like electrostatic force that charged the pebble at a long range and then because like charges deflect, push them aside. The magnetic field waves he describes are interesting and might also push obstacles away. We would still want to dodge the pea. Particularly if it is coming in from an angle.
Re: ISS
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Fri, 04 Nov 2005 19:14:02 +1100: Hi, [snip] About the same. The time frame is not acceleration limited. Its limited by orbital windows. Some have proposed making a cycler using ISS modules. The minimum fuel option is a cycler. A cycler is a craft that orbits the sun in such a way that it takes a crew to Mars in three months and then swings around the sun unmanned to pick up a new crew. A Wouldn't this be going pretty fast as it passes the Earth, and would that make it hard to catch up with it? Yes quite a delta t but your transfering only crew, baggage and some cargo not the mass of living quarters, power systems etc. I favor faster craft. second cycler going in the opposite direction would take three months to drop someone home from mars and then spend a year going around the sun. Ion engines are too slow for manned flight we want to go faster than three months for manned missions. That gives us three options. Avoiding solar flares, we have more than three months warning but less than six I believe. Some say we have more than a year but we've only looked at a years data from the new sats in close to the sun. Ion engines are OK for dead cargoes but solar sails can match ion engines and plasma sails beat them. The best sail design is at: http://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/propulsion.html 2nPa is good thrust, better than Ion and you are not burning fuel. Also you can combine robotic craft with manned craft in a way they accumulates momentum in six unmanned craft. And then bounce them off the manned crafts fields. This takes a months acceleration from the solar wind and packs it into a few minutes of field interaction. This is my reusable reaction mass drive. Not yet published. If you could run a drive at one g continously Mars is 3 to 5 _days_ away but you'd need a hell of a bumper bar. How long would it take if you accelerated then decelerated? That is the time if you accelerated for half the time and decel for half the time. no coasting. Is there an online trip calculator? Not to my knowlage. Nuclear salt water rocket 0.1 g ~ 3 -5 weeks, a good plasma drive 0.01 g ~4 to 7 weeks, The best sail 0.005 ~6 to 9 weeks. Reactionless drives rule. Too bad about newtons laws. ;-) [snip] Lab racks with power and cooling. Their not much use on mars because there systems are optimized for zero g. On mars you want your lab on the ground or better still in the rover. I should think that a space station orbiting Mars would be quite useful. It could function as a planetary observatory, and as a relay station for both information and supplies. A.o. it could provide regular weather updates for ground crews. The Mars mission, should not be seen as a one shot, but rather as the beginning of an ongoing program. Viewed in that light, a space station in orbit makes a lot of sense. It could also function as a staging post. Multiple shuttle trips between Mars and the orbiting station could be then be made using fuel manufactured on the surface. [snip] You don't need to resupply and crew swap a Mars net robot sat. The russian are concidering a base on phobos. The delta t equations make phobos easyer than the moon. You dont have to land you just dock woth the big rock. That said the Japs are trying to dick a rover/hopper with an asteroid and it's prooving tricky. What's the lifting capacity of the Russian's largest rocket? You missed this one. Sorry I don't really know. There are two or more Russian programs, all semiprivate now, the numbers change regularly and I'm not up to date. Energia is retired. The medium sized craft are their strenght. [snip] How many satellites are already in Mars orbit, and is there any [snip] There's at least three and one on the way but there are incompatibilities and other problems in the current constellation. Doesn't sound like a lot of forward thinking went into that little lot. Yep and they prang half the stuff they send into the planet or in on case the moon. Mars Net is store and forward email, much bigger data streams and the sats can talk to each other in the same language so you can send 'live' video. If you have a constant real time link, then you don't need store and forward capability, just a transfer capability. The storage capability can exist on the main orbital vessel. It's a back up option. It means that if all but one breaks down then you've still got comms. Also their clocks are optimized for limited gps type navigation. Not so critical. Inertial navigation is currently pretty advanced, so there is no real need for anyone to get lost. True for a rover but a good system for a man on foot with limited life support is required. [snip] BTW I don't think the Hafnium reactor is for real. You think it was a misinformation program
Re: Podkletnov's Disks
RC Macaulay wrote: Wes and Fred, Force field reaction may be closer to describing the event. Yep but what lies at the heart of and defines the field, if not zpe then it must be something very new. Generally when we get a directional beam we get a flow of something. Photons, electrons, etc. Is it impossible to think in terms of a beam of zpe. Can I send pictures to vortex or do they get blocked or deleted? I have a crude jpeg diagram. Richard
Re: A low cost alternative to the space elevator
Hey folks, there is another site that may relate to this debate see: J. Slough Louis Giersch http://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/PlasmaMag/ They are thinking a drive in the vacuum of space but it could be bagged to operate in the atmosphere. Mark If the fields so big it will have real or imaginary environmental effect to deal with. Indiced effects in matter near the launch site. By imaginary I mean screeming greenies at the launch site. I have a degree in the relevant fields, sustainable development and human ecology [ a very green degree you might say] if I can help check about environmental effects email me. Jed Rothwell wrote: Mark Goldes wrote: Geomagnetic propulsion is based on the use of the earth's magnetic field as a force field analogous to the stator of an electric motor. I understand that. You might compare it to a linear motor railroad. In effect, it is as through the small artificial field source expands itself into a huge magnetic balloon, because of the low density of the earth's magnetic field. Instead of using a physical plate you are making a huge virtual magnetic plate. How huge? It would have to hundreds of square kilometers, wouldn't it? How much energy does it take to make such a gigantic field? Cohering the seemingly insignificant forces that act upon every point on the surface of the balloon, yields a considerable resultant force. The forces that act on the balloon appear to be orders of magnitude stronger than those you propose to harness. Helium balloons can be very small, and I have made functional toy hot air balloons around 2 m tall, out of paper. What is the smallest magnetic field you can harness to launch a toy lifter of this design? You (or the inventor) would have a great deal more credibility if you can demonstrate the principle in a toy. - Jed
