Re: More strange comments by Correa
In a message dated 12/27/2004 4:22:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was a little surprised to find that Correa pays attention to me and my statements on this forum. For the record, I pay no attention to him.- Jed Don't put me on your "pay no attention list" Jed Frank Z
Re: Correa
Hey Chris, If you want to give me a call, I'll tell you about all the stuff I tried that didn't work. 610 582 1694 Jeff
[Vo]: Correa Patent Issued
United States Patent 7,053,576 Correa , et al. May 30, 2006 Energy conversion systems Abstract This invention relates to apparatus for the conversion of massfree energy into electrical or kinetic energy, which uses in its preferred form a transmitter and a receiver both incorporating Tesla coils, the distal ends of whose secondary windings are co-resonant and connected to plates of a chamber, preferably evacuated or filled with water, such that energy radiated by the transmitter may be picked up by the receiver, the receiver preferably further including a pulsed plasma reactor driven by the receiver coil and a split phase motor driven by the reactor. Preferably the reactor operates in pulsed abnormal gas discharge mode, and the motor is an inertially damped drag motor. The invention also extends to apparatus in which an otherwise driven plasma reactor operating in pulsed abnormal gas discharge mode in turn used to drive an inertially damped drag motor. Inventors: Correa; Paulo N. (Concord, Ontario, CA), Correa; Alexandra N. (Concord, Ontario, CA)
Correa attacks Wikipedia
Maybe Wikipedia deserves more respect after all! This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia . . . has a link to an attack by Correa et al.: http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/ Sometimes you can judge people by their enemies. I agree with Wikipedia policy that it is not the right place for a detailed article on Aetherometry. If ever there was a subject that should be presented by supporters in their own webspace, Aetherometry is it. Actually, I thought the Wiki article on Aetherometry was pretty good, and remarkably even handed. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aetherometry - Jed
More strange comments by Correa
Google Alerts alerted me to this: http://www.aetherometry.com/correa_nuclear_fusion.html Correa makes weird claims about calorimetry, especially Mizuno, and Figure 1 in the Hagelstein paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf Lastly, the Cold Fusion literature is riddled with defective experiments. The Ohmori-Mizuno Aqueous Glow Discharge is one example among all too many. If the presentations made by the six selected laboratories were of comparably poor quality, it is not hard to understand the skepticism about spurious measurements of unsustained excess heat, a problem which seems to have bedeviled the field CF researchers have claimed to have produced evidence of excess energy. This determination, however, would have to have resulted from the comparison of two time integrals - for input and output power, respectively - made for contemporary time intervals and, in particular, for time intervals which would include the actual beginning of the experiment and continue until either the temperature of the CF cell had returned to the baseline or the stimulating current had been discontinued. Rarely has such determination been made properly. Glaring failures, like that of the Ohmori-Mizuno device, occurred precisely because the selected time intervals did not extend to the completion of the experiment. Fig. 1 of the submitted review is one other example. Given such omissions, little can be ascertained about the reality of claims of excess energy, specifically in the form of excess heat. I cannot imagine what Correa has in mind here. Mizuno and Ohmori both measure every joule from the moment the power is turned on until the cell returns to room temperature. Figure 1 looks about the same to me. Correa may have a point, buried somewhere under the layers of rhetoric, but I'll be darned if I can find it. Anyway he is the last person who should be criticizing other people's calorimetry. I was a little surprised to find that Correa pays attention to me and my statements on this forum. For the record, I pay no attention to him. - Jed
Re: Correa, etc.
- Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: RE: Correa, etc. How did you handle capturing the pulses? Batteries? MC: Chris, if you are asking this question you are in no position to attempt the Correa PAGD experiments. You need to obtain the relevant patents and study them thoroughly, and then do your best to duplicate exactly what is in them. Don't try to be different, or 'improve' on what is disclosed. Jeff made a sincere effort, saw many effects, but not the key PAGD OU discharge. I wrote about this for IE some years ago. Mike Carrell From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa, etc. I have been doing PAGD experiments off and on since 1996. I saw a lot of interesting things in the tube, and captured energy pulses on diode/capacitor circuits, but over unity eludes me. Keith Nagle posted some pictures of my apparatus on his web site. They may still be there. It was a whole lot of fun working with this phenomena. I hope you try it and let us know what you find. Jeff Fink - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:31 PM Subject: Correa, etc. Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims? I got a vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???) On a separate note, I just got done reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman. It is an astounding book. I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based economic order could be killed. If you have serious free energy findings, please be careful. You could end up like Mallove , whatever his flaws.
Re: Correa, etc.
Title: Re: Correa, etc. Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims? I got a vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???) On a separate note, I just got done reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman. It is an astounding book. I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based economic order could be killed. If you have serious free energy findings, please be careful. You could end up like Mallove , whatever his flaws. A man who has not found a cause which he is willing to die for, has yet to find a reason for living. Paraphrase of Martin Luther King Jr.
Re: Correa, etc.
Jeff, I can understand one reason you never saw the OU effect. You ***must*** use the Correa circuit, including the batteries. The PAGD discharge conatains a lot of energy anda single discharge willcharge up any reasonable heap of capacitors to the pointthat the PAGD discharge is quenched. The Correas are no fools; every aspect of the device and circuit are empirically necessary. The Correa experiment does not use a plug-in power supply. It uses batteries for the source and batteries for the sink. It seems like a pain, butthe batteries are carefully chosen and carefully calibrated. The proof if the effect is either in oscillograms of individual discharges -- into the battery sink -- or careful measurement of accumulated charge in the output batteries over an extended run. It is so tempting to assume that a system like PAGD was put together without knowledge of 'real' engineering and should be easily "improved", so you do something that 'looks like' the Correa setup without actually understanding it. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: revtec To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:29 PM Subject: Re: Correa, etc. I capturedforward pulses in up to six 5600 mfd 350v caps in parallel. I kept these from over charging with a load bank of series/parallel 40 watt bulbs that I switched in and out as needed to limit maximum voltage. Reverse pulses could easily reach 700v which is well above my 600vdc supply even though there is no inductor in the circuit. I also have a clip on ammeter on the 120vac power cord. This crude arrangement could only identify massive OU performance if it was factor of two or more. Reverse pulses are much rarer. You will need two 350v caps in series to capture them. Jeff - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: RE: Correa, etc. How did you handle capturing the pulses? Batteries? From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Correa, etc. I have been doing PAGD experiments off and on since 1996. I saw a lot of interesting things in the tube, and captured energy pulses on diode/capacitor circuits, but over unity eludes me. Keith Nagle posted some pictures of my apparatus on his web site. They may still be there. It was a whole lot of fun working with this phenomena. I hope you try it and let us know what you find. Jeff Fink - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:31 PM Subject: Correa, etc. Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims? I got a vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???) On a separate note, I just got done reading "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". It is an astounding book. I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based economic order could be killed. If you have serious free energy findings, please be careful. You could end up like Mallove , whatever his flaws.
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Of course these are early days, and competitors to wikipedia may emerge as it did with browsers. Harry Jed Rothwell wrote: Maybe Wikipedia deserves more respect after all! This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia . . . has a link to an attack by Correa et al.: http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/ Sometimes you can judge people by their enemies. I agree with Wikipedia policy that it is not the right place for a detailed article on Aetherometry. If ever there was a subject that should be presented by supporters in their own webspace, Aetherometry is it. Actually, I thought the Wiki article on Aetherometry was pretty good, and remarkably even handed. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aetherometry - Jed
Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe
That is a great idea. I'm leaving too. Correa was right. The Vortex list does not live up to its ideals. Harry On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Dusty Bradshaw d_bra...@bellsouth.netwrote: unsubsribe -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux
Re: [Vo]:Maximizing NR
On Nov 10, 2007 2:30 PM, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keep this page bookmarked (if you can't view it, you may need to join the forum) for future reference, as it may be an important link to the future of alternative energy... but to make things more dramatic, I am NOT going to divulge why this board may be important. Yet. A la the Correa patent? Terry
[Vo]:Correa Replication
Maybe I've missed something but I've never read of a completely independent replication of Correa's tubes overunity. This guy AbbeRue claims he has done OU with it: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1310.45 The thread is really interesting stuff about spark gap triggered beta decay within a toroid a la Naudin's VSG.
Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux
Jed Rothwell wrote: The worst example was the Correa claim that a stationary gold leaf electroscope does work. No, it doesn't! It isn't a little guy standing with his arms out. He claimed to have electrical evidence that a stationary gold leaf electroscope does work. I assume your rejection is based on a critique of the evidence rather then just the belief that it is physical nonsense. harry
RE: [Vo]:DESCRIBING THE MANELAS Phenomenon
I dunno about equivalence between a battery and a capacitor. Correa (PAGD device) argued vigorously that he was forced to use batteries for practical reasons. He would exchange HV battery packs between input and output over and over again while rebuilding charge.
RE: Correa, etc.
I respect your opinion and have spent considerable time analysing the patents and related comments by Aspden. There is a need to make the PAGD practical - huge banks of batteries aren't going to do it. I think we need To look at pulse transformers to bring the voltages down to more useable levels. I e-mailed the Correas and received a reply that I interpret as meaning that no one has replicated their Results - at least, in any open, published fashion. A sad matter that requires some attention in regard to the Correas' work concerns their unusual state of Mind. To put it simply in a nutshell they are far too contentious about their work. I have no Doubt that they will never achieve any practical commercial application of any of their fascinating research. Like it or not, technology is a human enterprise - with all the social obstacles that entails. It's really Too bad but much the same happened to Tesla in his latter years. I wish things were different. They should Take things in stride, accept that other people make mistakes and don't 'get it', without a lot of patience and help. Maybe that's for the best - they will never meet the same suspicious fate as Mallove or Paul Brown. I say the above also because their attitude of contention becomes infectious - and that inhibits the benefit that they sincerely Wish to promulgate. One of the wisest proverbs I ever heard is this: Fashion is made by fools - but only fools defy fashion. Reich had some brilliant insights but I would never Recommend his personality to others. -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:12 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa, etc. - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: RE: Correa, etc. How did you handle capturing the pulses? Batteries? MC: Chris, if you are asking this question you are in no position to attempt the Correa PAGD experiments. You need to obtain the relevant patents and study them thoroughly, and then do your best to duplicate exactly what is in them. Don't try to be different, or 'improve' on what is disclosed. Jeff made a sincere effort, saw many effects, but not the key PAGD OU discharge. I wrote about this for IE some years ago. Mike Carrell From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa, etc. I have been doing PAGD experiments off and on since 1996. I saw a lot of interesting things in the tube, and captured energy pulses on diode/capacitor circuits, but over unity eludes me. Keith Nagle posted some pictures of my apparatus on his web site. They may still be there. It was a whole lot of fun working with this phenomena. I hope you try it and let us know what you find. Jeff Fink - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:31 PM Subject: Correa, etc. Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims? I got a vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???) On a separate note, I just got done reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman. It is an astounding book. I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based economic order could be killed. If you have serious free energy findings, please be careful. You could end up like Mallove , whatever his flaws.
Re: Correa
Chris wrote: Now we're getting somewhere! No, we are not. You are repeating the same mistake that Jeff made, changing what the Correas did before you ever see the effect. The PAGD discharge is a wideband event. Transformers are ***not*** simple devices in a wideband case, they have stray inductance which will present a complex impedance to the discharge. You are ignoring what I said about the discharge continuing with no rise in the cell voltage. You say you have studied the Correa ptents, but you have not understood the implications of what is in them. Transformers also block DC. I don't want to be harsh here, but you have to do your homework **very thoroughly**. Mike Carrell Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit.
RE: Civil Liberties, Correa attacks Wikipedia
Stephen, I heard they want to chip us all as they do to pedigree horses and dogs. I heard that on average 300 CCTV cameras will record one's image in the UK coupled that to routine number plate scanning, mobile phone tracking. Could it be that those who want this kind of power over us employ people to write viruses or commit atrocities to scare us all in to giving up more rights? I just find it all sinister. I really want to unplug from it all, buy a plot of land and live like the Amish (without the inbreeding though)! Remi. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen A. Lawrence Sent: 21 December 2005 17:46 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia Um ... wouldn't this make identity theft awfully easy? snip ETC.
Correa, etc.
Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims? I got a vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???) On a separate note, I just got done reading "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". It is an astounding book. I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based economic order could be killed. If you have serious free energy findings, please be careful. You could end up like Mallove , whatever his flaws.
Re: Correa, etc.
I capturedforward pulses in up to six 5600 mfd 350v caps in parallel. I kept these from over charging with a load bank of series/parallel 40 watt bulbs that I switched in and out as needed to limit maximum voltage. Reverse pulses could easily reach 700v which is well above my 600vdc supply even though there is no inductor in the circuit. I also have a clip on ammeter on the 120vac power cord. This crude arrangement could only identify massive OU performance if it was factor of two or more. Reverse pulses are much rarer. You will need two 350v caps in series to capture them. Jeff - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: RE: Correa, etc. How did you handle capturing the pulses? Batteries? From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Correa, etc. I have been doing PAGD experiments off and on since 1996. I saw a lot of interesting things in the tube, and captured energy pulses on diode/capacitor circuits, but over unity eludes me. Keith Nagle posted some pictures of my apparatus on his web site. They may still be there. It was a whole lot of fun working with this phenomena. I hope you try it and let us know what you find. Jeff Fink - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:31 PM Subject: Correa, etc. Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims? I got a vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???) On a separate note, I just got done reading "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". It is an astounding book. I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based economic order could be killed. If you have serious free energy findings, please be careful. You could end up like Mallove , whatever his flaws.
Re: Correa
Now we're getting somewhere! Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit.
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Yep, one hoaxster 'fessed up recently: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002677060_wiki11.html http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051211-5739.html -Original Message- From: William Beaty But Wikipedia is an experiment in *anonymous* free speech, where abusive people with mild mental problems cannot be blocked, and where all users can duck responsibility. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Others believe the Logos should be self-sustaining. Or as Mr. Grimer iterated *In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum* (bringing us back off topic ;-) -Original Message- From: Steven Krivit Bill B's got a good point. This is one of the aspects which makes Vortex such a valuable group. Most people are willing to identify themselves and stand behind their words. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: I need to point out that a solenoid with movable core which is holding a lever in position -- say, for instance, holding the little man's arms in position (the little man is a robot in that case) is also *NOT* doing work despite the fact that it's getting hot. I used that example too, in the discussion with Correa. The solenoid in the robot, and the muscles in a human, DISSIPATE ENERGY.That's for sure! That's what I meant. Anyway, the electroscope is not dissipating energy. - Jed
RE: Correa, etc.
How did you handle capturing the pulses? Batteries? From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Correa, etc. I have been doing PAGD experiments off and on since 1996. I saw a lot of interesting things in the tube, and captured energy pulses on diode/capacitor circuits, but over unity eludes me. Keith Nagle posted some pictures of my apparatus on his web site. They may still be there. It was a whole lot of fun working with this phenomena. I hope you try it and let us know what you find. Jeff Fink - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:31 PM Subject: Correa, etc. Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims? I got a vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???) On a separate note, I just got done reading "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". It is an astounding book. I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based economic order could be killed. If you have serious free energy findings, please be careful. You could end up like Mallove , whatever his flaws.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Quasi-Stable Negative Muons or Heavy Positronium-Electronium?
Well - there should lots of strong gammas then, for Correa to confirm his specualtion, no? Not to mention, it would be nice if Correa had had a single independent replication in all these years, and/or could quote from another source than his own work or Aspden ;-) Nevertheless - he has probably seen something of an anomaly but will we ever know for sure? J. Frederick Sparber wrote: P.N. Correa speaks on an anomaly. *http://web.globalserve.net/~lambdac/PwrfromAEemissions.html* * In a speculative fashion, it is indeed interesting to remark that the PAGD energies associated with emitted cathode ions are in the range needed for electron-positron pair creation. Significantly, the study of narrow, nonrelativistic positron peaks and of electron-positron coincidences in heavy ion collisions has led to the identification of low-mass photonium resonances in the 1 to 2 MeV range (lowest prediction at ~1.2 MeV (99)), which have been theorized as possible e-e+ quasi-bound continuum states of a pure electromagnetic nature (98-99), suggesting the existence of a new (ultra-nuclear and infra-atomic) scale for QED interactions (99). Lastly, it has been formally shown that pair production can be supported by a photon field in a nonstationary medium and in a threshold-free manner (ie for any electromagnetic wave frequency) (100). * On Dec 3, 2007 7:48 AM, Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jones. A bound state of e- e+ e- (about 10^ -12 % according to CRC tables) is known. With a mass about 207 times that of the electron and about 0.5 MeV they could make a burn spot on the center of your old TV CRT before they came up with the bent gun. OTOH, a 1/207 fractional hydrino orbit of 2800 eV would be a hefty energy release if they are in potassium or argon. No? Fred
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
I have stayed away from the Steorn discussion, but I have now looked a Naudin's device and looked at the presentation on YouTube. I have also spent time with the Newumann machine cotroversy, and dug deeply into the Correa PAGD device and looked at the Testatika publications, including hearing a talk by a man who saw it operate. Along the way I have read extensively the works of Harold Aspden. There is something there guys, and its whiskers, teeth, and claws occasionally peek out to tantalize and lot ob bright people. It is productive to ask qestionas about peripheral matters, looking for clues, but it is not productive to ask in a gotcha mode, thinking that one will expose a hidden trick. Dr. Aspden is a former head of IBM's patent department in th UK, now retired. He has made a lifelong study of the aether [no not zero-point] arising from some graduate-school experiments with electromagnetism which gave anomalous results. I won't recap this, one can find it in his extensive wiritings. Point here is that some simple observations point to anomalous thermal and magnetic relationships which give the hope of 'free energy' by a clever machine. In the YouTube presentation, a throwaway line disclosed that the magnetic coils in the Orb device are toroids with ferromagnetic cores; this is obvious in the Naudin setup. This is extremely unconventional in a motor. Small currents can saturate those cores, modulating the permeability of the magnetic circluit seen by the magnets in the rotors. I have seen the PAGD device in operation and what I saw was consistent with the Correa claims for the device. The energy released in the dislcharge is much greater than that required to sustain the conditions for the discharge to occur. Correa used carefully calibrated batteries to absorb the energy lieu of capactors which would have to have been enormous to operate in the experiment. Mike Carrell
Re: Correa
Jeff wrote, my comments in blue. Mike Carrell I don't know anything about electrochemistry in batteries, but I question the ability of a string cells to absorb a fast high energy pulse without impedance, and that this impedence would cause a voltage spike. Maybe the spike has a different contour than a cap has and that makes the difference. I don't know. Batteriestake charge by chemical action, which can't happed as fast as the PAGD pulse; Jeff is right. This is why the Correa circuit has a large electrolytic capacitor across the batteries, to take the peak energy and buffer it so the battery chemistry can act. What I do know is that if you run the tube with only a ballast resistor, the PAGD events are merely a random display of little sparkles on the surface of the cathode, and that a series connected diode cap combination across the the tube to capture a forward pulse will collect nothing. But, if you put a 3 mfd cap across the tube, the sparkles turn into energetic eruptions on the cathode surface causing the capture capto charge up to 800v in successive pulses. (I accidently pushed a series combination of 350v electrolytic capture caps to 800v and got away with it) The faint blue glow is one of the precursors to the PAGD discharge. When you put a 3 mfd capacitor across the cell you have made an ordinary strobe flasher and the energy comes from charging the capacitor. My tube is a pair of 3/4 inch aluminum plates separated be a 12 inch dia by 3 in pyrex tube sealed with a 12 inch dia by 3/16 O ring and vac grease. One plate is drilled for a vac connection. I also have a 9 inch dia version using an acrylic tube. It works just as well. Works is a relative term. Lots of neat visual effects: no obvious OU. The Correa patents are quite specific about the aluminum alloys used, and quite specific about the need for a low work function, which will also depend on the condition of the surfaces with respect to contamination. If you don't "get" this, you are missing essential matters. As you pull a vacuum while the tube is energized, you reach a vacuum threshold where the tube lights off. Maximum activity is not terribly far below this threshold. If you pull a much harder vacuum then the reactions get lethargic. The geometry of my tubes allows me to see a haze line in the lavender glow of the tube. This line may not be visible in a Correa style tube. Best performance of my equipmentis at a haze line height of 5/8 to 3/4 inch above the cathode plate. At light off the haze line is at 1/8 to1/4 inch above the cathode. Jeff - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: Re: Correa Now we're getting somewhere! Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit.
Re: [Vo]: Correa Patent Issued
MC: I'm reluctant to get involved in this area again, but some things need persepctive. I have seen the text of, but not studied, the new Correa patent. -- - Original Message - From: Christopher Arnold To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 9:45 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Correa Patent Issued Terry, Igor Alexeff invented the Plasma Discharge Tube that the Correas Borrowed and say they discovered it. please see this for yourself http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%%2FPTO%%2Fsearch-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50d=PALLRefSrch=yesQuery=PN%2F4291255 MC: I looked at the claims and description of the Alexeff device on the referenced link. There is no resemblance to the Correa PAGD, which is apparent if one studies the PAGD patentes, which I have done. Their thread of discovery as descrtibed to me by Paulo is utterly different from Alexeff. The Correas use of my Pulsed Plasma Drive to power their motor is the infringement. MC: The original PAGD patents and claims include driving a motor, which is also illustrated in a early video shown at a conference decades ago, The Pulsed Plasma Drive can never directly produce an abnormal glow discharge which is known of as a weak plasma, compared to the Dense Plasma Focus of my Pulsed Plasma Drive - which is an extremely powerful and energetic Plasma, capable of of D+D, D+T and even aneutronic fusion as I told Puthoff in 2000. MC: And Arnold is now making a clear distinction between his device and PAGD? The PAGD discharge releases much more energy than it takes to maintain the conditions for the effect to occur. If the Correa's PAGD Tube is so marvelous, why didn't it impress Eugene Mallove, considering Mallove flatly told me he did not believe my Spark Gap Drive (Pulsed Plasma Drive) would work at all. Jim from Sarasota attempted to get an interview with me published by Mallove, who still thought Dense Plasma Focus would never allow atomic Fusion - but it was all too much for Mallove to understand or believe. MC: Arnold is quite confused here. Mallove *was* impressed by PAGD, which as Arnold says is clearly different from his Dense Plasma Focus device. The Correa's new patent was applied after I first contacted them to explain how my device was different from the PADG tube, and did not even require containment or working gasses - which they did not believe. You can clearly see they believe me now. As for their work with Orgone boxes - please remember it is from the published works of Wilhelm Reich and the Correas only duplicated it, they did NOT discover anything new in that case, or in the case of my Plasma Drive. And yes - I believe that Reich's Orgone box works - but he had many other more obscure contraptions that worked just as well. Reich never mentioned using either AC or DC Electrical Pulses in his devices - and the Orgone device was not my machine, but a contraption that was based on Reich's Orgone theories (not electrical) - and quite strange looking when I first viewed it. MC: To my incomplete knowledge, the Correas are quite familiar with Reich's work. Their orgone box demonstrated a heat differential that was able to drive a simple Stirling engine. By the Correa's suggesting that Reich's works were connected in any way to using electrical driving power - they show themselves to have ZERO comprehension of Reich's true work or the energy involved. As I said, the Correa's are common folk. As for them using a Ouija board, dice or tarot cards for scientific insight - that is more likely than not. MC: This slam is utterly unjustified by volume of careful work represented in the Correa patents. I found the Correas quite sophisticated. Mike Carrell
RE: Correa
For those of us that read email in plain text to avoid embedded viruses please refrain from formatted replies... it is impossible to follow. Also, formattinggets stripped out in the archived messagesso the historical context of your thread is lost too. Just a suggestion. -john -Original Message-From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 8:24 AMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Correa Jeff wrote, my comments in blue. Mike Carrell I don't know anything about electrochemistry in batteries, but I question the ability of a string cells to absorb a fast high energy pulse without impedance, and that this impedence would cause a voltage spike. Maybe the spike has a different contour than a cap has and that makes the difference. I don't know. Batteriestake charge by chemical action, which can't happed as fast as the PAGD pulse; Jeff is right. This is why the Correa circuit has a large electrolytic capacitor across the batteries, to take the peak energy and buffer it so the battery chemistry can act. What I do know is that if you run the tube with only a ballast resistor, the PAGD events are merely a random display of little sparkles on the surface of the cathode, and that a series connected diode cap combination across the the tube to capture a forward pulse will collect nothing. But, if you put a 3 mfd cap across the tube, the sparkles turn into energetic eruptions on the cathode surface causing the capture capto charge up to 800v in successive pulses. (I accidently pushed a series combination of 350v electrolytic capture caps to 800v and got away with it) The faint blue glow is one of the precursors to the PAGD discharge. When you put a 3 mfd capacitor across the cell you have made an ordinary strobe flasher and the energy comes from charging the capacitor. My tube is a pair of 3/4 inch aluminum plates separated be a 12 inch dia by 3 in pyrex tube sealed with a 12 inch dia by 3/16 O ring and vac grease. One plate is drilled for a vac connection. I also have a 9 inch dia version using an acrylic tube. It works just as well. Works is a relative term. Lots of neat visual effects: no obvious OU. The Correa patents are quite specific about the aluminum alloys used, and quite specific about the need for a low work function, which will also depend on the condition of the surfaces with respect to contamination. If you don't "get" this, you are missing essential matters. As you pull a vacuum while the tube is energized, you reach a vacuum threshold where the tube lights off. Maximum activity is not terribly far below this threshold. If you pull a much harder vacuum then the reactions get lethargic. The geometry of my tubes allows me to see a haze line in the lavender glow of the tube. This line may not be visible in a Correa style tube. Best performance of my equipmentis at a haze line height of 5/8 to 3/4 inch above the cathode plate. At light off the haze line is at 1/8 to1/4 inch above the cathode. Jeff - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: Re: Correa Now we're getting somewhere! Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit.
Re: [Vo]: Correa Patent Issued
Mike,If you reread the original post where I "complimented" the Correa's and many others, you might notice it was I that was attacked by said Correa. BTW, I contacted over 4000 others not listed from all branches of the Government, NASA and Universities seeking some small assistance, to no avail because I had no credentials, etc and what I said just couldn't possibly be real - but it is.If others want to think I have a bad attitude for calling a Spade a Spade - so be it, but from here out I will work as I can without expecting anything but the SOSfrom others.Maybe some of the vorts should get off your duffs and invest in someone - and since Mike says the Correa's have an OU device - start with them.Best Regards, ChrisMike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Christopher ArnoldSubject: Re: [Vo]: Correa Patent IssuedChris, some corrections.Mike,As you said, you did not study the Correa patent yet insisted in commenting anyway - which was completely your mistake.MC: I said I did not study the new Correa patent. I did not comment on it. I did study the earlier Correa patents on the PAGD device very carefully, and wrote an article about it for IE.To begin with - they are without any doubt using the Alexeff "Plasma Discharge Tube." Look at this was - the wheel is invented and someone eventually uses that wheel on a cart. They are still USING the wheel which was not their discovery.MC: By this reasoning, any discharge device would do. What Paulo told me and is in their early patents is that the PAGD effect was discovered in the course of research on X-ray devices. The explored many electrode configurations -- Alexadra is a qualified technical glassblower. The Alexeff device in your link is not the same confirguration the Coorea used. My understanding is that the effect does not depend on electrode configurations but on the specific operating conditions and external circuitry. .Second, the Correa's are calling it an Orgone Motor, however Reich never used electricity to either create or use Orgone - therefore the Correa's are lying about it's connection to Reich.Others have clearly stated that the Correa's are extremely rude, arrogant and down right nasty people that care only about themselves - and I have provided a post from them that proves this is true.MC: I am aware of email correspondence from the Correas and an associate. I spent a weekend with them as their guest and saw different aspects of their life and personality.Forget about their theft of my discoveries - they are lying about Orgone operating their device, because it is operated by electricity as clearly stated in the patent - NOT ORGONE.Lastly - I never said that these clowns did not duplicate Reich's discovery of heat rise within the orgone box, in fact I have also duplicated this and it proves Reich was onto something big, but the Correa's are just goofy. I told them I could rebuild the Orgone motor and they assumed that I was talking about my device - however these clowns are completely mistaken because what I proposed to them was not powered by electricity at all, but after their slanderous post calling ME a liar, I decided it was best to forget about further dealings with crazies like the Correa's.The application date of the Correa's new patent is AFTER I first called them to explain how my device works, and I guess they liked it enough to steal my Plasma Drive and couple it with their copy of the Alexeff Plasma Discharge Tube.Mike - since you still think the Correa's PAGD motor of the past was OU, exactly how much did you invest in this Seminole, Earth saving technology?MC: I said that the early patents show the PAGD driving a motor. There was no evidence in the patents, or anything that I have seen, that the system was OU in driving a motor. There is evidence that the PAGD cell is strongly OU. An experiment using two PAGD cells and battery packs showed that the battery packs gained energy over time without connection to an external source of power. As for the reference to "Seminole", I don't know what you are talking about, nor have I made any investment in anything.MC: Chris, you are showing some of the attitudes and behavior of which you accuse the Correas. I have no interest in making any ajudications in this matter as I lack evidence. I present witness to what I have seen and done with respect tothe PAGD, not to the recent patent. Some of the phrasing suggests a recognition of problems in interfacing PAGD with the real world which I discussed with Paulo at one time. These may well have occurred independantly to the Correas and Harold Aspden.Mike CarrellChris Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
Re: Correa
I don't know anything about electrochemistry in batteries, but I question the ability of a string cells to absorb a fast high energy pulse without impedance, and that this impedence would cause a voltage spike. Maybe the spike has a different contour than a cap has and that makes the difference. I don't know. What I do know is that if you run the tube with only a ballast resistor, the PAGD events are merely a random display of little sparkles on the surface of the cathode, and that a series connected diode cap combination across the the tube to capture a forward pulse will collect nothing. But, if you put a 3 mfd cap across the tube, the sparkles turn into energetic eruptions on the cathode surface causing the capture capto charge up to 800v in successive pulses. (I accidently pushed a series combination of 350v electrolytic capture caps to 800v and got away with it) My tube is a pair of 3/4 inch aluminum plates separated be a 12 inch dia by 3 in pyrex tube sealed with a 12 inch dia by 3/16 O ring and vac grease. One plate is drilled for a vac connection. I also have a 9 inch dia version using an acrylic tube. It works just as well. Works is a relative term. Lots of neat visual effects: no obvious OU. As you pull a vacuum while the tube is energized, you reach a vacuum threshold where the tube lights off. Maximum activity is not terribly far below this threshold. If you pull a much harder vacuum then the reactions get lethargic. The geometry of my tubes allows me to see a haze line in the lavender glow of the tube. This line may not be visible in a Correa style tube. Best performance of my equipmentis at a haze line height of 5/8 to 3/4 inch above the cathode plate. At light off the haze line is at 1/8 to1/4 inch above the cathode. Jeff - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: Re: Correa Now we're getting somewhere! Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit.
RE: Correa
From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 9:07 AMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Correa Chris wrote: Now we're getting somewhere! No, we are not. You are repeating the same mistake that Jeff made, changing what the Correas did before you ever see the effect. The PAGD discharge is a wideband event. Transformers are ***not*** simple devices in a wideband case, they have stray inductance which will present a complex impedance to the discharge. You are ignoring what I said about the discharge continuing with no rise in the cell voltage. You say you have studied the Correa ptents, but you have not understood the implications of what is in them. Transformers also block DC. I don't want to be harsh here, but you have to do your homework **very thoroughly**. Mike Carrell Sadly, I hope you haven't been infected with the Correas' mindset. I have done a lot of 'homework' on this subject - including sending the Correas an e-mail warning them that much of their patents effect may be covered by old patents by Philo Farnsworth in the '30's and '40's in which he obtained "overunity" ( perhaps in a different context) from implinging electrons on vacuum housed aluminum plates.( multipactor tubes) As things stand, the Correas do not have anything practical to offer the public. For the sake of humanity, let's hope that changes. It is entirely reasonable to question their work - respectfully - so as to try to create something practical out of it. At least one of their patents clearly presents a transformer on the output in the printed schematic, so they've experimented with it. We should respect and try to faithfully duplicate their technical work. That said , we should utterly avoid the spirit of contentiousness, contempt and seething hatred that creates the defeat of noble enterprise. It is not enough to have a Ph.D. If we follow this ugly course, we are making ourselves the equals of darkened hearts and minds who sneer at cold fusion and other developments, regardless of evidence. Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Quasi-Stable Negative Muons or Heavy Positronium-Electronium?
Isn't it strange that Ed Storms' paper reports no gammas either, yet the radiation implies particle energies in the MeV range? Note the effect of oxygen and hydrocarbons in the Storms experiment where one would expect the quasi-stable entity to be found. (Argon in the O2 ?) A deuteron or proton impacting a heavier (higher Z) atom electron cloud containing the entity would capture the entity and effect CF, allowing the entity to be released to continue working as a catalyst. On Dec 3, 2007 7:31 PM, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well - there should lots of strong gammas then, for Correa to confirm his specualtion, no? Not to mention, it would be nice if Correa had had a single independent replication in all these years, and/or could quote from another source than his own work or Aspden ;-) Nevertheless - he has probably seen something of an anomaly but will we ever know for sure? J. Frederick Sparber wrote: P.N. Correa speaks on an anomaly. *http://web.globalserve.net/~lambdac/PwrfromAEemissions.html* * In a speculative fashion, it is indeed interesting to remark that the PAGD energies associated with emitted cathode ions are in the range needed for electron-positron pair creation. Significantly, the study of narrow, nonrelativistic positron peaks and of electron-positron coincidences in heavy ion collisions has led to the identification of low-mass photonium resonances in the 1 to 2 MeV range (lowest prediction at ~1.2 MeV (99)), which have been theorized as possible e-e+ quasi-bound continuum states of a pure electromagnetic nature (98-99), suggesting the existence of a new (ultra-nuclear and infra-atomic) scale for QED interactions (99). Lastly, it has been formally shown that pair production can be supported by a photon field in a nonstationary medium and in a threshold-free manner (ie for any electromagnetic wave frequency) (100). * On Dec 3, 2007 7:48 AM, Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jones. A bound state of e- e+ e- (about 10^ -12 % according to CRC tables) is known. With a mass about 207 times that of the electron and about 0.5 MeV they could make a burn spot on the center of your old TV CRT before they came up with the bent gun. OTOH, a 1/207 fractional hydrino orbit of 2800 eV would be a hefty energy release if they are in potassium or argon. No? Fred
RE: Correa, etc.
Mike writes: You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube. What you have built is a gas-discharge relaxation oscillator equivalent to any common strobe flash. It is ***not*** a PAGD reactor. I agree with Mike in this. Electrode capacity and geometry are important parameters for this effect; add additional capacity and you change discharge regimes from AGD to simple arc discharge. BTW, a substantial amount of industrial research has gone into AGD, do a literature and patent search and you will see. The main industrial use is for things like nitriding metal surfaces. A question for Mike: does Paulo have a current collection of refs on his website relevant to this work? K.
[Vo]:Question: Thyratrons/Glow Discharge Tubes
I was curious to know if any anomalies have been reported in regard to thyratrons or other regulator tubes. There are a number of free energy claimants - Correa, Shoulders, Chernetski, Stamenko and others - who use discharges in vacuum tubes . However, many of us lack the extensive resources to test such ideas by building the whole apparatus from scratch. Since tubes still exist that can handle large discharges ( and may be charged with hydrogen or other gases in a near vacuum), it makes sense to see if existing parts could be used to build free energy devices that others could easily duplicate. Any thoughts or observations? Thanks.
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Bill B's got a good point. This is one of the aspects which makes Vortex such a valuable group. Most people are willing to identify themselves and stand behind their words. Steve At 02:09 PM 12/16/2005, you wrote: Yep, one hoaxster 'fessed up recently: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002677060_wiki11.html http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051211-5739.html -Original Message- From: William Beaty But Wikipedia is an experiment in *anonymous* free speech, where abusive people with mild mental problems cannot be blocked, and where all users can duck responsibility. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Rhong Dhong wrote: At the moment then, requiring an email address to be confirmed may not mean that the subscriber can be traced. Where anonymity is banned (or where money is involved,) some places refuse to honor yahoo.com email addresses or other free email services for confirmations. Then you have to search for a free email service which the forum owners haven't added to their exclude list. (( ( ( ( ((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 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]: Correa Patent Issued
US 7,053,576 Abstract This invention relates to apparatus for the conversion of massfree energy into electrical or kinetic energy, which uses in its preferred form a transmitter and a receiver both incorporating Tesla coils, the distal ends of whose secondary windings are co-resonant and connected to plates of a chamber, preferably evacuated or filled with water, such that energy radiated by the transmitter may be picked up by the receiver, the receiver preferably further including a pulsed plasma reactor driven by the receiver coil and a split phase motor driven by the reactor. Preferably the reactor operates in pulsed abnormal gas discharge mode, and the motor is an inertially damped drag motor. The invention also extends to apparatus in which an otherwise driven plasma reactor operating in pulsed abnormal gas discharge mode in turn used to drive an inertially damped drag motor.
[VO]:Re: Correa Patent Issued
Chris wrote.. My comments on this are at http://zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=1993mode=threadorder=0thold=0however I will say here that the Correa's are common folk, with no imagination, foul, nastypersonalitiesand they havesticky fingers as well. My Pulsed Plasma Drive worked so well for them - they decided to say they invented it! Howdy Chris, Gosh Chris, That's plum disgusting! My sweet ole grandma Blanche Louise Townley, to whom one never attributed a "cuss word" would have understood and appreciated the " common" remark. One must be veddy British to appreciate the depth of disgust the use of this word implies. Richard
Re: Finsrud device
Mike Carrell wrote: The testatika machine has been supplying power to the Methernitha colony for years also; many have seen it a documented it and it is conveniently ignored... All the documentation of this device that I have seen proves absolutely nothing. It consists of hearsay, blurry photographs, crackpot theories and some kind of religious cult. Supposedly the colony keeps the device secret for the same reason Correa once offered: they think mankind is not worthy of their discovery. You can find any amount of this kind of information about the Methernitha gadget on the Internet, starting at their own website: http://www.methernitha.com/Mether_2/Free_energie/free_energie.html Every scrap of this information tied together is still not worth spit. That goes for all of the other magic magnetic motors and perpetual motion machines, as far as I know. - Jed
Re: Correa, etc.
In all the written info from the Correas, I never saw a mention of whether they were going for a forward pulse or a reverse pulse or both. With all due respect to Mike, the Correas never proved that OU performance cannot be done with a proper capacitor circuit. Your idea of using a pulse transformer to get reasonable voltages may have merrit, but I suspect that the accompanying inductive reactance may be counterproductive. Large capacitors like 5600mfd @350vdc are $60 to $75 ea. So , get ready to spend a little money. You will also need ballast resistors ranging from 100 to 5000 ohm in order to see the full range of the phenomena. The 100 ohm will need to be 250 watt min. In general I found that the rate of PAGD events is controlled by the ballast resistor value and the intensity of the event is controlled by capacitance across the tube. This parallel capacitance cannot be electrolytic ( electrolytics burn up) and must be relatively small. I have tried values from 1 to 88 mfd. I call this capacitor the initiator. The Correas do not use this circuit element. While capturing rapid fire pulses with my caps and light bulbs did not show any sign of over unity, I did do some single pulse experiments two years ago that at first looked promising. I was set up to capture a forward pulse with a 3mfd initiator cap and a fairly high ballast resistor. I noted the voltage on the filter caps of my power supply and then switched off the 110vac. I then powered up the circuit. A moment later I would get a single PAGD event and then I would immediately shut off the circuit and read the voltage increase of the pulse capture cap, and then read the voltage loss of the power supply filter caps. I then did energy gain/loss calculations and often found the energy gain of the capture cap to be more than the energy loss of the power supply filter caps by as much as 11%. This didn't really prove anything since these results were within the capacitance tolerances of the caps. But, like I said, these positive results did not hold up during rapid fire operation. I firmly believe that Paulo Correa is a truly brilliant person. He has called me a buffoon. Perhaps he is correct in that judgement. But, I like to think that what I lack in genius I make up for in common sense. Jeff - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:42 AM Subject: RE: Correa, etc. I respect your opinion and have spent considerable time analysing the patents and related comments by Aspden. There is a need to make the PAGD practical - huge banks of batteries aren't going to do it. I think we need To look at pulse transformers to bring the voltages down to more useable levels. I e-mailed the Correas and received a reply that I interpret as meaning that no one has replicated their Results - at least, in any open, published fashion. A sad matter that requires some attention in regard to the Correas' work concerns their unusual state of Mind. To put it simply in a nutshell they are far too contentious about their work. I have no Doubt that they will never achieve any practical commercial application of any of their fascinating research. Like it or not, technology is a human enterprise - with all the social obstacles that entails. It's really Too bad but much the same happened to Tesla in his latter years. I wish things were different. They should Take things in stride, accept that other people make mistakes and don't 'get it', without a lot of patience and help. Maybe that's for the best - they will never meet the same suspicious fate as Mallove or Paul Brown. I say the above also because their attitude of contention becomes infectious - and that inhibits the benefit that they sincerely Wish to promulgate. One of the wisest proverbs I ever heard is this: Fashion is made by fools - but only fools defy fashion. Reich had some brilliant insights but I would never Recommend his personality to others. -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:12 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa, etc. - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: RE: Correa, etc. How did you handle capturing the pulses? Batteries? MC: Chris, if you are asking this question you are in no position to attempt the Correa PAGD experiments. You need to obtain the relevant patents and study them thoroughly, and then do your best to duplicate exactly what is in them. Don't try to be different, or 'improve' on what is disclosed. Jeff made a sincere effort, saw many effects, but not the key PAGD OU discharge. I wrote about this for IE some years ago. Mike Carrell From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Vo, Jed, Wikipedia is a model of free speech (not free screech) and democracy but I guess what we really mean by free speech is *informed* free speech and what we really mean by democracy is an educated populous (adult, not a-dolt), non salacious media (not power without responsibility) and trustworthy leaders. Yes, it is a good idea to consult leaders in the field before anything is placed on the site. Inaccurate writing should be viewed as defamation and clamping down on that is not censorship or crying foul when one doesn't get one's way but human decency. Incidentally you posted Schwinger's paper a few months ago with an early insight into CF and it was very interesting to see how a rational mind goes about tackling a difficult problem and putting delimiters on it. It should be more known. Regards, Remi. Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia Jed Rothwell Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:49:53 -0800 Harry Veeder wrote: Of course these are early days, and competitors to wikipedia may emerge as it did with browsers. I expect the people at Wikipedia will welcome this. They would probably agree that their model does not work for all subjects. We need a variety of different online encyclopedias, some of them completely open to the public -- that anyone can change -- and others more restricted. The one size fits all model is inadequate. We also need sites such as LENR-CANR.org where authors publish papers and represent their own points of view and no one else's. Wikipedia itself may become more sophisticated and it may implement different levels for different kinds of articles. As I said in the discussion section for the cold fusion article, if they want experts to write, they will have to promise those experts that their work will not be trashed. The work might be changed, but the expert author will be consulted, and if he objects his objections will be reviewed by other experts. - Jed ... Website http://luna.bton.ac.uk/~roc1 ...
RE: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Jed, Yes you are correct, always a fine balance between justice and progress and the forces of anarchy. Yes that was the paper I read. I believe it is stuff of that quality that is going to attract young research fellows to the subject. I'm sorry if my responses get a little patchy from now on as it is the end of the year and technically the university is meant to be closing. I just want to put my feet up for a bit anyway. Regards, Remi. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jed Rothwell Sent: 16 December 2005 15:24 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wikipedia is a model of free speech (not free screech) and democracy but I guess what we really mean by free speech is *informed* free speech . . . Why do you call it a model? In Wikipedia, anything goes. Anyone can post any comment, anonymously. This is an invitation to trolling and character assassination. The article on cold fusion is full of skeptical nonsense and unfounded opinion. At Amazon.com they used to allow anonymous reviews of books. They abolished the practice after they found out the large number of glowing reviews were written by the authors or their friends, and many attacks were written by literary rivals. They should have realized that would happen. See: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1271358,00.html I think that a serious online encyclopedia will have to be based on some compromise between unfettered unregulated open access and Encyclopaedia Britannica style the experts know best authoritarianism. Incidentally you posted Schwinger's paper a few months ago with an early insight into CF . . . Do you mean the ICCF1 paper? I uploaded it to: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJnuclearene.pdf - Jed
RE: Correa attacks Wikipedia
VO, Perhaps they need a centrally administered site across the web, some kind of extra-national thing providing bona-fides for web interactions. One would register with conventional documents such as drivers license, passport etc. and you'd log on to it (some generated bit string unique to oneself) before doing any secured site surfing to say you are currently on the net, the secured site would then quiz it to find out who you were no matter what the moniker? Just a guess without thinking things through. A sort of centralised repository of names, webs, computer serial numbers etc. If you don't sign up, you don't play. Sleepy and dozy at the moment so point the flaws out please. Might be back Tuesday. Remi. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Beaty Sent: 17 December 2005 04:11 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Rhong Dhong wrote: At the moment then, requiring an email address to be confirmed may not mean that the subscriber can be traced. Where anonymity is banned (or where money is involved,) some places refuse to honor yahoo.com email addresses or other free email services for confirmations. Then you have to search for a free email service which the forum owners haven't added to their exclude list. (( ( ( ( ((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 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]: Correa Patent Issued
Some Named Hal Ade made this comment on that site: I believe this was the Correa motor, the operation of which was witnessed by the late Eugene MAllove, D. Sc., and formerly with M.I.T. Dr. MAllove, being an electrical engineer, and wise to any means which could be used to hoax a witness, checked the device for connections to any external source of conventional energy, and found none. I worked with Mallove for a year--he was not an electrical engineer by any stretch of the imagination, nor did he claim to be. He was not an experimentalist and would not have been any better than anyone else at detecting a hoax. That doesn't mean there was a hoax, of course, but inflating Mallove's powers of observation is meaningless. Jeff Kooistra Former Associate Editor of Infinite Energy Magazine. -- Original Message -- From: Christopher Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 03:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Terry, My comments on this are at http://zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=1993mode=threadorder=0thold=0 however I will say here that the Correa's are common folk, with no imagination, foul, nasty personalities and they have sticky fingers as well. My Pulsed Plasma Drive worked so well for them - they decided to say they invented it! Running a motor with a Tesla Spark gap is something even Tesla did not do, and it is already covered by my work. So much for it not working. Chris Arnold The invention also extends to apparatus in which an otherwise driven plasma reactor operating in pulsed abnormal gas discharge mode in turn used to drive an inertially damped drag motor.
Re: [Vo]: Correa Patent Issued
- Original Message - From: Christopher Arnold Subject: Re: [Vo]: Correa Patent Issued Chris, some corrections. Mike, As you said, you did not study the Correa patent yet insisted in commenting anyway - which was completely your mistake. MC: I said I did not study the new Correa patent. I did not comment on it. I did study the earlier Correa patents on the PAGD device very carefully, and wrote an article about it for IE. To begin with - they are without any doubt using the Alexeff Plasma Discharge Tube. Look at this was - the wheel is invented and someone eventually uses that wheel on a cart. They are still USING the wheel which was not their discovery. MC: By this reasoning, any discharge device would do. What Paulo told me and is in their early patents is that the PAGD effect was discovered in the course of research on X-ray devices. The explored many electrode configurations -- Alexadra is a qualified technical glassblower. The Alexeff device in your link is not the same confirguration the Coorea used. My understanding is that the effect does not depend on electrode configurations but on the specific operating conditions and external circuitry. . Second, the Correa's are calling it an Orgone Motor, however Reich never used electricity to either create or use Orgone - therefore the Correa's are lying about it's connection to Reich. Others have clearly stated that the Correa's are extremely rude, arrogant and down right nasty people that care only about themselves - and I have provided a post from them that proves this is true. MC: I am aware of email correspondence from the Correas and an associate. I spent a weekend with them as their guest and saw different aspects of their life and personality. Forget about their theft of my discoveries - they are lying about Orgone operating their device, because it is operated by electricity as clearly stated in the patent - NOT ORGONE. Lastly - I never said that these clowns did not duplicate Reich's discovery of heat rise within the orgone box, in fact I have also duplicated this and it proves Reich was onto something big, but the Correa's are just goofy. I told them I could rebuild the Orgone motor and they assumed that I was talking about my device - however these clowns are completely mistaken because what I proposed to them was not powered by electricity at all, but after their slanderous post calling ME a liar, I decided it was best to forget about further dealings with crazies like the Correa's. The application date of the Correa's new patent is AFTER I first called them to explain how my device works, and I guess they liked it enough to steal my Plasma Drive and couple it with their copy of the Alexeff Plasma Discharge Tube. Mike - since you still think the Correa's PAGD motor of the past was OU, exactly how much did you invest in this Seminole, Earth saving technology? MC: I said that the early patents show the PAGD driving a motor. There was no evidence in the patents, or anything that I have seen, that the system was OU in driving a motor. There is evidence that the PAGD cell is strongly OU. An experiment using two PAGD cells and battery packs showed that the battery packs gained energy over time without connection to an external source of power. As for the reference to Seminole, I don't know what you are talking about, nor have I made any investment in anything. MC: Chris, you are showing some of the attitudes and behavior of which you accuse the Correas. I have no interest in making any ajudications in this matter as I lack evidence. I present witness to what I have seen and done with respect tothe PAGD, not to the recent patent. Some of the phrasing suggests a recognition of problems in interfacing PAGD with the real world which I discussed with Paulo at one time. These may well have occurred independantly to the Correas and Harold Aspden. Mike Carrell Chris
Re: [Vo]:Re: Quasi-Stable Negative Muons or Heavy Positronium-Electronium?
An extensive treatment of the interaction of water on solid surfaces (about 10 megabytes) gives insight on how a Muonic Entity could catalyze CF reactions on the cathode of an electrolysis cell. It also touches on the effect of oxygen wrt the water interaction with the surfaces. http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~wchen/Madey_page/Full_Publications/PDF/madey_SSR_1987_T.pdf On Dec 3, 2007 10:38 PM, Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't it strange that Ed Storms' paper reports no gammas either, yet the radiation implies particle energies in the MeV range? Note the effect of oxygen and hydrocarbons in the Storms experiment where one would expect the quasi-stable entity to be found. (Argon in the O2 ?) A deuteron or proton impacting a heavier (higher Z) atom electron cloud containing the entity would capture the entity and effect CF, allowing the entity to be released to continue working as a catalyst. On Dec 3, 2007 7:31 PM, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well - there should lots of strong gammas then, for Correa to confirm his specualtion, no? Not to mention, it would be nice if Correa had had a single independent replication in all these years, and/or could quote from another source than his own work or Aspden ;-) Nevertheless - he has probably seen something of an anomaly but will we ever know for sure? J. Frederick Sparber wrote: P.N. Correa speaks on an anomaly. *http://web.globalserve.net/~lambdac/PwrfromAEemissions.html* * In a speculative fashion, it is indeed interesting to remark that the PAGD energies associated with emitted cathode ions are in the range needed for electron-positron pair creation. Significantly, the study of narrow, nonrelativistic positron peaks and of electron-positron coincidences in heavy ion collisions has led to the identification of low-mass photonium resonances in the 1 to 2 MeV range (lowest prediction at ~1.2 MeV (99)), which have been theorized as possible e-e+ quasi-bound continuum states of a pure electromagnetic nature (98-99), suggesting the existence of a new (ultra-nuclear and infra-atomic) scale for QED interactions (99). Lastly, it has been formally shown that pair production can be supported by a photon field in a nonstationary medium and in a threshold-free manner (ie for any electromagnetic wave frequency) (100). * On Dec 3, 2007 7:48 AM, Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jones. A bound state of e- e+ e- (about 10^ -12 % according to CRC tables) is known. With a mass about 207 times that of the electron and about 0.5 MeV they could make a burn spot on the center of your old TV CRT before they came up with the bent gun. OTOH, a 1/207 fractional hydrino orbit of 2800 eV would be a hefty energy release if they are in potassium or argon. No? Fred
Re: [Vo]:Re: Quasi-Stable Negative Muons or Heavy Positronium-Electronium?
Instead of laboring over cathode treatment in random replication results for gas discharge or electrolysis CF reactions, why not use Muonic Altered Water: MAW, that can be obtained by bombarding an electrical discharge in Steam in front of a Muon Source, like the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility (LAMPF) that used 800 MeV protons (less than the 936 MeV rest energy of the proton) hitting a copper target? Extinct? Potassium compounds or Argon gas Etc., also? The secret ingredient in the Yusmar water that Scott Little at Earthtech wondered about in the early days? On Dec 3, 2007 11:38 PM, Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An extensive treatment of the interaction of water on solid surfaces (about 10 megabytes) gives insight on how a Muonic Entity could catalyze CF reactions on the cathode of an electrolysis cell. It also touches on the effect of oxygen wrt the water interaction with the surfaces. http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~wchen/Madey_page/Full_Publications/PDF/madey_SSR_1987_T.pdf On Dec 3, 2007 10:38 PM, Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't it strange that Ed Storms' paper reports no gammas either, yet the radiation implies particle energies in the MeV range? Note the effect of oxygen and hydrocarbons in the Storms experiment where one would expect the quasi-stable entity to be found. (Argon in the O2 ?) A deuteron or proton impacting a heavier (higher Z) atom electron cloud containing the entity would capture the entity and effect CF, allowing the entity to be released to continue working as a catalyst. On Dec 3, 2007 7:31 PM, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well - there should lots of strong gammas then, for Correa to confirm his specualtion, no? Not to mention, it would be nice if Correa had had a single independent replication in all these years, and/or could quote from another source than his own work or Aspden ;-) Nevertheless - he has probably seen something of an anomaly but will we ever know for sure? J. Frederick Sparber wrote: P.N. Correa speaks on an anomaly. *http://web.globalserve.net/~lambdac/PwrfromAEemissions.html* * In a speculative fashion, it is indeed interesting to remark that the PAGD energies associated with emitted cathode ions are in the range needed for electron-positron pair creation. Significantly, the study of narrow, nonrelativistic positron peaks and of electron-positron coincidences in heavy ion collisions has led to the identification of low-mass photonium resonances in the 1 to 2 MeV range (lowest prediction at ~1.2 MeV (99)), which have been theorized as possible e-e+ quasi-bound continuum states of a pure electromagnetic nature (98-99), suggesting the existence of a new (ultra-nuclear and infra-atomic) scale for QED interactions (99). Lastly, it has been formally shown that pair production can be supported by a photon field in a nonstationary medium and in a threshold-free manner (ie for any electromagnetic wave frequency) (100). * On Dec 3, 2007 7:48 AM, Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jones. A bound state of e- e+ e- (about 10^ -12 % according to CRC tables) is known. With a mass about 207 times that of the electron and about 0.5MeV they could make a burn spot on the center of your old TV CRT before they came up with the bent gun. OTOH, a 1/207 fractional hydrino orbit of 2800 eV would be a hefty energy release if they are in potassium or argon. No? Fred
Re: [Vo]: Correa Patent Issued
Chris, If you reread the original post where I complimented the Correa's and many others, you might notice it was I that was attacked by said Correa. MC: I can believe that, even though I haven't followed this thread from its start. A while back on Vo there were unjustified attacks from an associate of the Correas whose name I don't now recall. BTW, I contacted over 4000 others not listed from all branches of the Government, NASA and Universities seeking some small assistance, to no avail because I had no credentials, etc and what I said just couldn't possibly be real - but it is. MC: You experience is similar to the Correas, who made many attempts to interest various possible clients, without success. They have been approached by various interests which upon investigation appeard to be bogus. After all that, they have become defensive. If others want to think I have a bad attitude for calling a Spade a Spade - so be it, but from here out I will work as I can without expecting anything but the SOS from others. MC: And so you wind up in a similar position, bitter and a bit battle-weary, with a technology you believe works, unable to get support. This the fate of many in the OU field, and one reason why Gene Mallove tried to provide a receptive ear to people like you. He made serious efforts to be responsive and did put money in various devices, all of which proved to be fatally flawed. Greer at one point was making a similar effort, but I have heard no reports of success. Maybe some of the vorts should get off your duffs and invest in someone - and since Mike says the Correa's have an OU device - start with them. MC: I can cite four initiatives that I know of. 1) There is LENR/CMNS, with hundreds of papers by credentialed investigators, clear evidence of an energetic process but no device emerging from a somwhat disorganized field. 2) There is Mark Goldes, who has been maintaining a very correct position and now energes with a patent for a possible OU device. 3) There is PAGD, where there is a clear energy release from a 'aether' source [the Correa patent states that the energy source is unknown to the inventor, but eventually will be understood by the physics community]. The characteristics of PAGD are such that building a useful working device, such as a motor, powered by PAGD has been a difficult problem whose solution may be the substance of the recent patent. And, finally, 4) Mills' BlackLight Power process, which is well funded [$50+ million ], well organized, and may be close to commercial development. Items 1) and 4) require a fuel, both derivable from water. MC: The contract that the Correas one time wanted was an up-front irrevocable investment of some $15 million over a five year period, with the Correas retaining 51% control. In other words, the investor cannot control what is done or who does it. Lest this seem harsh, what the Correas wanted to do was assemble a team of their choice who would have guaranteed employment for five years to devote full time effort to the project. They could not do this with typical venture capitalists, who want control and may jerk the investment if they don't like what is going on. MC: Chris, acquiring and holding support requires much more than a good idea or device. Personality and many other factors enter in. MC: Good luck. Regards, Mike Carrell
Re: Correa, etc.
Jed wrote: Mike Carrell wrote: joules to 17,800 volts. To prevent the terminal voltage from rising to, say 100 volts, 100 farads of capactors would be needed, or 17,857 capcitors. By comparison, batteries look pretty good. . . . You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube. What you have built is a gas-discharge relaxation oscillator equivalent to any common strobe flash. It is ***not*** a PAGD reactor. If this is the case, then Jeff has taken a serious wrong turn, and he has been wasting his time. That has often happened with cold fusion over the years. It is a terrible shame. Message to Mike: Why can't you Jeff get together and iron this out? Message to Jeff: Would you be willing to try again? Keith Nagel is probably right when he says, practically speaking a replication is impossible unless Paulo participates in an active way, which he will not. That is the worst shame of all. A patent is supposed to disclose how to practice a new discovery to those skilled in the art. The Correa patents are the most densly technical I have seen, they are virtual theses. There is lots and lots of information tucked into the text and references. I even went to the NY public library to check up on an earl;y reference given in one of the Correa patents. As with CF there are lots of things to go wrong. Alexandra Correa is a technical glassblower who made many of the cells that were tested. The one that appears in videos and some illustrations is rather straightforward, apparently, but there are stipulations on the materials to be used by alloy number. Nothing I saw in there was trivial and I read and re-read and dug and asked questions. If Keith's practically speaking means the Correas instructing one in all the necessary arts --perhaps like how to clean electrode surfaces -- then the casual 'replicator' is asking too much unless a license fee is paid. Even with all that, there are certain conditions of voltage and pressure that have to exist, which are indicated in the patents, which the experimenter has to discover for himself once he has done the rest of the work. Just producing the effect does not carry one into product development. There is lots of work to be done, once one realizes that this is new physics, that PAGD is an aether energy transducer. Evidently, cold fusion was much easier to reproduce than the pagd (assuming the pagd is real). In 1989, knowledge of electrochemistry was widespread, so even though Fleischmann and Pons were not available to go around holding other people's hands, many researchers such as Bockris, Oriani, Huggins and Miles were able to reproduce it on their own. If the necessary skills and knowledge have been as obscure as those required for the pagd, it probably would have been lost. Note that Bockris, Oriani, Huggins and Miles are accomplished experimental scientists who did not need much more than knowledge of what FP found to do likewise. Many did not realize the importance of the Pd cathode metallurgy, or adequate calorimetry, etc. and etc. Similarly, to do PAGD one has be knowledgeable about glow discharge phenomena and related matters that may not converge in the head of someone without adequate study. The notion that PAGD is obscure is primarily a matter of not taking it seriously enough to devote adequate study, or dismissing the notion that it is an aether energy transducer and must be really something else. Same deal with CF, as we all painfully know. Replication is a slippery standard. When an effect is successfully replicated, you know the it is real -- simple enough. But when it is *not* replicated, it can be very difficult to judge what happened. Perhaps the effect does not exist after all. Or the people trying to replicate are making honest mistakes. Or they are only making a desultory effort. They may even be deliberately trying to prove that the effect does not exist. You would have to be a mind reader to sort out events. A replication is a clear signal from Mother Nature. A non-replication is a complicated human event, colored by understanding, knowledge, politics, emotion, and so on. This is very well stated by Jed, a guy who has been in the trenches for years. Scott Little at Earth Tech has made attempts to verify various OU claims through the years. I've seen his shop, talked to him, he's an honest man. When some effect is defined well enough that he can produce it, it is perhaps ready for prime time, but with his facilities he could not make a transistor from scratch. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Maximizing NR
Terry Blanton wrote: A la the Correa patent? Dunno. Maybe a similar principle insofar as the NR part goes, but IMHO you must have a *series circuit* of many of these thing going, and tuned to the particular inductor, and not a single unit. Why? Quien sabe? You have read the Pavel Imris patent, no? Getting all of the interlocking parameters correct is as much art as science, and it requires a tinkerer with wide experience (and lots of parts) who can try dozens of different combinations and variations on the theme, per day (or per hour). And did I mention lots of patience and determination, against unwarranted criticism? Too bad for the Correas that they did not did not take the path (strategy) of encouraging a massive level of open experimentation by others, but instead remained secretive and committed to super sizing their device. They may have seen glimpses of the same effect but should have read the Imris patent and delved into limited open-sourcing. I agree that this has not been fully open sourced as Sterling Allan would have defined that term, but nevertheless, getting a wide variety of different experimenters in on the act, on four continents, is what has taken this over the top so very quickly. Perhaps there is a controlled level of open sourcing which is preferable to letting any and all nut-cases into the party... Jones
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Harry Veeder wrote: Of course these are early days, and competitors to wikipedia may emerge as it did with browsers. I expect the people at Wikipedia will welcome this. They would probably agree that their model does not work for all subjects. We need a variety of different online encyclopedias, some of them completely open to the public -- that anyone can change -- and others more restricted. The one size fits all model is inadequate. We also need sites such as LENR-CANR.org where authors publish papers and represent their own points of view and no one else's. Wikipedia itself may become more sophisticated and it may implement different levels for different kinds of articles. As I said in the discussion section for the cold fusion article, if they want experts to write, they will have to promise those experts that their work will not be trashed. The work might be changed, but the expert author will be consulted, and if he objects his objections will be reviewed by other experts. - Jed
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wikipedia is a model of free speech (not free screech) and democracy but I guess what we really mean by free speech is *informed* free speech . . . Why do you call it a model? In Wikipedia, anything goes. Anyone can post any comment, anonymously. This is an invitation to trolling and character assassination. The article on cold fusion is full of skeptical nonsense and unfounded opinion. At Amazon.com they used to allow anonymous reviews of books. They abolished the practice after they found out the large number of glowing reviews were written by the authors or their friends, and many attacks were written by literary rivals. They should have realized that would happen. See: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1271358,00.html I think that a serious online encyclopedia will have to be based on some compromise between unfettered unregulated open access and Encyclopaedia Britannica style the experts know best authoritarianism. Incidentally you posted Schwinger's paper a few months ago with an early insight into CF . . . Do you mean the ICCF1 paper? I uploaded it to: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJnuclearene.pdf - Jed
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vo, Jed, Wikipedia is a model of free speech (not free screech) and democracy but I guess what we really mean by free speech is *informed* free speech and what we really mean by democracy is an educated populous (adult, not a-dolt), non salacious media (not power without responsibility) and trustworthy leaders. But Wikipedia is an experiment in *anonymous* free speech, where abusive people with mild mental problems cannot be blocked, and where all users can duck responsibility. It's ike Usenet, or like a call-in radio show where the callers have no names and they all disguise their voices. That type of setup has major consequences (e.g. the difference between sci.physics.fusion versus vortex-L.) If Wikipedia started out using the simple email-verified registration which nearly all WWW forums use to exclude trolls/flamers/spammers, it would be a very different resource today. (( ( ( ( ((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 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
--- William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Wikipedia started out using the simple email-verified registration which nearly all WWW forums use to exclude trolls/flamers/spammers, it would be a very different resource today. There are two anonymizing utilities, Tor and Privoxy, which can be used together for anonymous surfing with a web browser. that includes signing up to webmail sites like yahoo.com and then subscribing to a list such as Wikipedia, or even Vortex. Since you have a real email address, you can confirm a subscription if required to do so, but neither the webmail site nor the list you are subscribing to knows your real IP. At the moment then, requiring an email address to be confirmed may not mean that the subscriber can be traced. I have the feeling that won't last, because more of the webmail sites are requiring that Java or Javascript be turned on in the browser before allowing you to sign up. Doing that lets the site to get past the protection of Tor and Privoxy and find out your real IP. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [Vo]: Correa Patent Issued
Christopher Arnold wrote: Terry, My comments on this are at http://zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=1993mode=threadorder=0thold=0 http://zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=1993mode=threadorder=0thold=0 however I will say here that the Correa's are common folk, with no imagination, foul, nasty personalities and they have sticky fingers as well. I take it that you don't care for Paulo and Alexandra, eh, Chris? My Pulsed Plasma Drive worked so well for them - Your PAGD? they decided to say they invented it! And now you are saying that you developed it? Can you prove that? Running a motor with a Tesla Spark gap is something even Tesla did not do, and it is already covered by my work. So much for it not working. I've heard that the PAGD worked. Apparently it doesn't work all that well. I'm still looking for a FE device to heat my house, winter is coming! What do you think about the Correa's theory about extracting energy from Orgone Boxes? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [VO]:Re: Correa Patent Issued
Richard,Tonight has been consistent, as someone just informed me that Stanford has hooked up with Chevron to study "their" new discovery of nanodiamond for broad scale industrial applications and something to do with Silicon Vally. The looming question is why I ever thought anyone at Stanford (or any other University that I contacted) would bother to fund my discovery of a never before known, Semiconductive Non DetonationNanodiamond powder?Quite the "common" thing to do.Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris wrote.. My comments on this are at http://zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=1993mode=threadorder=0thold=0however I will say here that the Correa's are common folk, with no imagination, foul, nastypersonalitiesand they havesticky fingers as well.My Pulsed Plasma Drive worked so well for them - they decided to say they invented it! Howdy Chris,Gosh Chris, That's plum disgusting! My sweet ole grandma Blanche Louise Townley, to whom one never attributed a "cuss word" would have understood and appreciated the " common" remark. One must be veddy British to appreciate the depth of disgust the use of this word implies. Richard __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[VO]:Re: Correa Patent Issued
Chris wrote.. Tonight has been consistent, as someone just informed me that Stanford has hooked up with Chevron to study "their" new discovery of nanodiamond for broad scale industrial applications and something to do with Silicon Vally. The looming question is why I ever thought anyone at Stanford (or any other University that I contacted) would bother to fund my discovery of a never before known, Semiconductive Non DetonationNanodiamond powder? Quite the "common" thing to do. Howdy Chris, You read my post on patent themes. Didn't your grandmother ever tell you that people cheat at cards? Hollywood has made a fortunefostering the fable thatgood guys wear white hats. What is to keep bad guys from wearing white hats to fool the gullible? A border cantina ( University) is no place to look for a " friendly " game of cards. The crossed bandeleers and the knife in the boot is a sure sign you are in mixed company. Ah! Stanford .. where all the hopes and aspirations of the simple and pure in heart clash with "silicon valley and US DOE". If you want to make a fortune, move to New Mexico, raise long red peppers and sell the strings to the rich tourists. All the patents have expired. Richard
Re: Finsrud device
Jed wrote: Mike Carrell wrote: The testatika machine has been supplying power to the Methernitha colony for years also; many have seen it a documented it and it is conveniently ignored... All the documentation of this device that I have seen proves absolutely nothing. It consists of hearsay, blurry photographs, crackpot theories and some kind of religious cult. Supposedly the colony keeps the device secret for the same reason Correa once offered: they think mankind is not worthy of their discovery. You can find any amount of this kind of information about the Methernitha gadget on the Internet, starting at their own website: http://www.methernitha.com/Mether_2/Free_energie/free_energie.html Every scrap of this information tied together is still not worth spit. That goes for all of the other magic magnetic motors and perpetual motion machines, as far as I know. Jed's usual disclaimer. I can say that I attended a lecture by a person with physicist credentials at Temple University some years ago who had video and pictures of the device, and stated that he has personally witnessed a demonstration. I cna agree with Jed that the videos, etc., are worthless documentation, as the web site image of the Finsrud ball rolling around. It's a very pretty and interesting mobile structure, but in itself 'proves' nothing. Mike Carrell - Jed
Re: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
Jed wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Of course, if it really is a perpetual motion machine, then this'll be the biggest thing since Relativity, It'll be the biggest thing since Principia Mathematica. It's much bigger than relativity. PM of the first kind using static magnets goes down to the bedrock of all physics for the last couple centuries and dynamites it. Exactly right. What is it strange is that many of the people making these claims, including some well-educated ones, do not seem to realize this. I have never bought this notion that extraordinary claims call for blah blah blah . . . But people should at least be cognizant of the fact that they are making extraordinary claims! And they should expect disbelief, and be ready to deal with it. They should offer rock solid evidence even if it is not extraordinary. Ditto claims by Mills and Correa. As far as I know, the only anomalous energy claim that has claimed any scientific basis in conventional theory is cold fusion. Of course many people disagree, but Hagelstein and others believe it can be explained with textbook physics. Jed's brush is too wide. Mills does not claim 'anomalous energy', there is a measureable fuel consumption, many documentated and detailes experiments, and confirmation by other observers. He needs to do his homework more carefully. Mike Carrell
[Vo]:Stimulated Decay
While some patents are complete BS, there are a few that assert revolutionary ideas together with lengthy specifics that add to their credibility such as Barker, also Shoulders and Correa. There have been some folks experimenting with Tesla coils and claiming to stimulate radioactive decay but some of them are Creationists seeking to dethrone radioactive dating methods, so they are ignored. I recall an obscure paper from the American University in which a physicist stimulated beta decay using a high voltage antenna feed but that was only 10 -5 power stuff, so small potatoes. Nucell folks made big claims, years ago, about using radioactive materials as a stimulated power source but I never could figure out if this was complete fraud or if they truly stumbled onto something big. These days nobody can experiment with stuff like that on their own because of fear of automatically being called a 'terrorist', You can't do chemistry on your own either because it's automatically a meth lab. I hear laboratory glassware is flat out illegal in some parts of the US now.
RE: Correa
Not really sure why the reply to does that. The message is technically being sent from the mail server, not from me per se. The reply to address should update accordingly... there is nothing I can do from my end. It's a mail server thing. My lazy work around to that problem (and it only really happens with a small minority, had no idea I was one of them) is to hit reply to all and simply click on and delete the offending address. That might save you a few mouse picks. 8^) -john -Original Message- From: Grimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 1:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Correa At 09:38 am 05-03-05 -0600, you wrote: For those of us that read email in plain text to avoid embedded viruses please refrain from formatted replies... it is impossible to follow. Also, formatting gets stripped out in the archived messages so the historical context of your thread is lost too. Just a suggestion. -john And a jolly good one too! I always understood that Vortex post should have no HTML and no attachments. It's very irritating for people who are reading in plain text to have to delete wodges of HTML before being able to reply. And while I'm having a moan I would like to point out, John Steck, that your e-mail address appears where the Vortex address normally appears. This means that I have to delete your address, click on my nicknames window and substitute the Vortex address or my reply will go to you rather than Vortex. Quite a few posts come through like this. I don't know why but I wish people would sort it, out of consideration for those of us who keep our Lord Beaty's commandments. ;-) As for attachments, if posters want to refer to photos, diagrams, etc. they can use a URL to their own website or a Yahoo group site. Moan over, ;-) Frank Grimer -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 05/03/04
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: VO, Perhaps they need a centrally administered site across the web, some kind of extra-national thing providing bona-fides for web interactions. One would register with conventional documents such as drivers license, passport etc. and you'd log on to it (some generated bit string unique to oneself) before doing any secured site surfing to say you are currently on the net, the secured site would then quiz it to find out who you were no matter what the moniker? Just a guess without thinking things through. A sort of centralised repository of names, webs, computer serial numbers etc. If you don't sign up, you don't play. Um ... wouldn't this make identity theft awfully easy? How would you feed it the generated bit string? If it's secure, it's too long to type by hand, and a program would have to do it for you. Now suppose your system picks up a Trojan horse that just knows how to sniff for those bit strings ... oops. Even worse, assume for a moment that the central system's security isn't perfect, and somebody makes off with a snapshot of the database... Also keep in mind that every real-world financial database which requires an ID of some sort also has a back door, because losing the key could be a disaster otherwise. Mother's maiden name plus last four digits of your SS number is the most common one. So, if someone got a copy of the central database, they could get into all the accounts using the back doors, whether or not there was a whizzbang public/private key supposedly keeping it all buttoned up. Central identity databases of any sort are scary. That's one reason states and colleges don't (or can't) generally force you to use your SS number as your driver or student ID number. Sleepy and dozy at the moment so point the flaws out please. Might be back Tuesday. Remi. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Beaty Sent: 17 December 2005 04:11 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Rhong Dhong wrote: At the moment then, requiring an email address to be confirmed may not mean that the subscriber can be traced. Where anonymity is banned (or where money is involved,) some places refuse to honor yahoo.com email addresses or other free email services for confirmations. Then you have to search for a free email service which the forum owners haven't added to their exclude list. Sometimes they ban fee-for-service email addresses like PObox, as well. And then I ban them and take my money elsewhere.
Re: [Vo]: Correa Patent Issued
Mike,As you said, you did not study the Correa patent yet insisted in commenting anyway - which was completely your mistake. To begin with - they are without any doubt using the Alexeff "Plasma Discharge Tube." Look at this was - the wheel is invented and someone eventually uses that wheel on a cart. They are still USING the wheel which was not their discovery.Second, the Correa's are calling it an Orgone Motor, however Reich never used electricity to either create or use Orgone - therefore the Correa's are lying about it's connection to Reich.Others have clearly stated that the Correa's are extremely rude, arrogant and down right nasty people that care only about themselves - and I have provided a post from them that provesthis is true.Forget about their theft of my discoveries - they are lying about Orgone operating their device, because it is operated by electricity as clearly stated in the patent - NOT ORGONE.Lastly - I never said that these clowns did not duplicate Reich's discovery of heat rise within the orgone box, in fact I have also duplicated this and it proves Reich was onto something big, but the Correa's are just goofy. I told them I could rebuild the Orgone motor and they assumed that I was talking about my device - however these clowns are completelymistaken because what I proposed to them was not powered by electricity at all, but after their slanderous post calling ME a liar, I decided it was best to forget about further dealings with crazies like the Correa's.The application date ofthe Correa'snewpatent is AFTER I first called them to explain how my device works, and I guess they liked it enough to steal my Plasma Drive and couple it with their copy of the Alexeff Plasma Discharge Tube. Mike - since you still think the Correa's PAGD motor of the past was OU, exactly how much did you invest in this Seminole, Earth saving technology?ChrisMike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MC: I'm reluctant to get involved in this area again, but some things need persepctive. I have seen the text of, but not studied, the new Correa patent.-- - Original Message - From: Christopher ArnoldTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 9:45 AMSubject: Re: [Vo]: Correa Patent IssuedTerry,Igor Alexeff invented the Plasma Discharge Tube that the Correas Borrowed and say they discovered it. please see this for yourself http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%%2FPTO%%2Fsearch-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50d=PALLRefSrch=yesQuery=PN%2F4291255MC: I looked at the claims and description of the Alexeff device on the referenced link. There is no resemblance to the Correa PAGD, which is apparent if one studies the PAGD patentes, which I have done. Their thread of discovery as descrtibed to me by Paulo is utterly different from Alexeff.The Correas use of my Pulsed Plasma Drive to power their motor is the infringement.MC: The original PAGD patents and claims include driving a motor, which is also illustrated in a early video shown at a conference decades ago,The Pulsed Plasma Drive can never directly produce an abnormal glow discharge which is known of as a weak plasma, compared to the Dense Plasma Focus of my Pulsed Plasma Drive - which is an extremely powerful and energetic Plasma, capable of of D+D, D+T and even aneutronic fusion as I told Puthoff in 2000.MC: And Arnold is now making a clear distinction between his device and PAGD? The PAGD discharge releases much more energy than it takes to maintain the conditions for the effect to occur.If the Correa's PAGD Tube is so marvelous, why didn't it impress Eugene Mallove, considering Mallove flatly told me he did "not" believe my Spark Gap Drive (Pulsed Plasma Drive) would work at all. Jim from Sarasota attempted to get an interview with me published by Mallove, who still thought Dense Plasma Focus would never allow atomic Fusion - but it was all too much for Mallove to understand or believe.MC: Arnold is quite confused here. Mallove *was* impressed by PAGD, which as Arnold says is clearly different from his Dense Plasma Focus device.The Correa's new patent was applied after I first contacted them to explain how my device was different from the PADG tube, and did not even require containment or working gasses - which they did not believe. You can clearly see they believe me now.As for their work with Orgone boxes - please remember it is from the published works of Wilhelm Reich and the Correas only duplicated it, they did NOT discover anything new in that case, or in the case of my Plasma Drive. And yes - I believe that Reich's Orgone box works - but he had many other more obscure contraptions that worked just as well. Reich never mentioned using either AC or DC Electrical Pulses in his devices - and the Orgone device was not my machine, but a contraption that was based on Reich's Orgone theories (not electrical) - and quite strange
Re: Correa, etc.
Jeff Fink wrote: In all the written info from the Correas, I never saw a mention of whether they were going for a forward pulse or a reverse pulse or both. With all due respect to Mike, the Correas never proved that OU performance cannot be done with a proper capacitor circuit. In the Correa circuit, the energy generated in the cell is full wave rectified and dumped into a capacitor shunted by a battery pack. A PAGD pulse may contain 100 joules at several hundred volts. What *must not happen* is that the terminal voltage of the cell rise during the PAGD pulse, for that will quench it. Nor can you trigger it. It is not that a capacitor bank won't work, it just has to be ***very large***. Much larger than Jeff tried. Your idea of using a pulse transformer to get reasonable voltages may have merrit, but I suspect that the accompanying inductive reactance may be counterproductive. Large capacitors like 5600mfd @350vdc are $60 to $75 ea. So , get ready to spend a little money. That's 0.0056 farad. Q = CV, 1 joule will charge it to 178 volts and 100 joules to 17,800 volts. To prevent the terminal voltage from rising to, say 100 volts, 100 farads of capactors would be needed, or 17,857 capcitors. By comparison, batteries look pretty good. You will also need ballast resistors ranging from 100 to 5000 ohm in order to see the full range of the phenomena. The 100 ohm will need to be 250 watt min. In general I found that the rate of PAGD events is controlled by the ballast resistor value and the intensity of the event is controlled by capacitance across the tube. You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube. What you have built is a gas-discharge relaxation oscillator equivalent to any common strobe flash. It is ***not*** a PAGD reactor. This parallel capacitance cannot be electrolytic ( electrolytics burn up) and must be relatively small. I have tried values from 1 to 88 mfd. I call this capacitor the initiator. The Correas do not use this circuit element. For very good reason. Jeff has known better and not duplicated what the Correas used. While capturing rapid fire pulses with my caps and light bulbs did not show any sign of over unity, I did do some single pulse experiments two years ago that at first looked promising. You have not duplicated what the Correas did on several important points. The circuit looks 'odd' but that is what they say works. I was set up to capture a forward pulse with a 3mfd initiator cap and a fairly high ballast resistor. I noted the voltage on the filter caps of my power supply and then switched off the 110vac. I then powered up the circuit. A moment later I would get a single PAGD event and then I would immediately shut off the circuit and read the voltage increase of the pulse capture cap, and then read the voltage loss of the power supply filter caps. I then did energy gain/loss calculations and often found the energy gain of the capture cap to be more than the energy loss of the power supply filter caps by as much as 11%. This didn't really prove anything since these results were within the capacitance tolerances of the caps. But, like I said, these positive results did not hold up during rapid fire operation. I firmly believe that Paulo Correa is a truly brilliant person. He has called me a buffoon. Perhaps he is correct in that judgement. But, I like to think that what I lack in genius I make up for in common sense. Jeff, common sense can be misleading when dealing with something new. When I approached the Correas to write about PAGD, I did so as a student, without preconceptions as to what is or is not common sense. I assumed they had discovered a truly new phenomenon that did not necessarily obey any ordinary rules, and that they had empirically worked out how to evoke it and control it. After all, here is a simple tube in which 100 joule flashes of energy appear spontaneously when the proper conditions are provided. Where in all of conventional science and common sense is there precedence for this? Mike Carrell
Re: Correa
Chris Zell wrote: Chris wrote: Now we're getting somewhere! No, we are not. You are repeating the same mistake that Jeff made, changing what the Correas did before you ever see the effect. The PAGD discharge is a wideband event. Transformers are ***not*** simple devices in a wideband case, they have stray inductance which will present a complex impedance to the discharge. You are ignoring what I said about the discharge continuing with no rise in the cell voltage. You say you have studied the Correa ptents, but you have not understood the implications of what is in them. Transformers also block DC. I don't want to be harsh here, but you have to do your homework **very thoroughly**. Mike Carrell CZ: Sadly, I hope you haven't been infected with the Correas' mindset. MC: No. I want to make the point that one should start from what the Correas did and published before changing it. CZ: I have done a lot of 'homework' on this subject - including sending the Correas an e-mail warning them that much of their patents effect may be covered by old patents by Philo Farnsworth in the '30's and '40's in which he obtained overunity ( perhaps in a different context) from implinging electrons on vacuum housed aluminum plates. ( multipactor tubes) MC: No problem. I have not said, or intended to say, that the PAGD phenomenon appears only in the Correa parallel plate configuration. In fact the patents state that they have seen it various electrode configurations [built by Alexandra], even in flurorescent lamps. Another person has alerted me to reports of unexplained explosions in plasma experiments in Russia. CZ:As things stand, the Correas do not have anything practical to offer the public. For the sake of humanity, let's hope that changes. It is entirely reasonable to question their work - respectfully - so as to try to create something practical out of it. At least one of their patents clearly presents a transformer on the output in the printed schematic, so they've experimented with it. MC: You are correct on that, I had forgotten it. In your text you had mentioned first pulse transformers, then audio transformers, any old transformer. I pointed out that an essential feature is that the voltage across the tube must not rise during the discharge, which will quench it, limiting the energy output. This is the problem with simple capacitors. A transformer, unless carefully terminated and designed, will have leakage reactance which will generate back emf to the discharge current spike, which may quench it. Thus some depth of knowledge is needed in the selction and use of reactive devices such as transformers and motors. MC: Recently, the Correas have collaborated with Harold Aspden to produce a motor. Information is available on the aetherometry website. MC: The Correas had first seen the PAGD effect and learned how to produce it before they used transformers and motors as loads. My caution is to do simple things first and produce the PAGD effect before you add improvements. As I have mentioned in another post, the test circuit contains a full wave rectifier. It is quite likely that the PAGD discharge itself is oscillatory and may contain videband components. We should respect and try to faithfully duplicate their technical work. That said , we should utterly avoid the spirit of contentiousness, contempt and seething hatred that creates the defeat of noble enterprise. It is not enough to have a Ph.D. If we follow this ugly course, we are making ourselves the equals of darkened hearts and minds who sneer at cold fusion and other developments, regardless of evidence. MC: Quite so. I have no dislike of the Correas, who were hospitable toward me. Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. MC: That's part of it, and actually no mystery at all if you have studied well enough to understand that the GD of PAGD means glow discharge and are familiar with that phenomenon. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit. MC: The ultracaps are chemical devices; check their wideband performance. I have in another post suggested that experimental work could be done with a resistance load of suitable value, and a battery operated two channel oscilloscope to measure the output pulse and the input pulse together. Tektronix makes a suitable unit, selling for about $2,000. You could capture and measure individual pulses, but not do
Re: Correa, etc.
Edmund Storms wrote: and Miles were able to reproduce it on their own. If the necessary skills and knowledge have been as obscure as those required for the pagd, it probably would have been lost. While I agree with Jed about the basic point he is making, success in replicating the cold fusion claims is not based on skill, or at least not the kind of skill Jed is noting. Success has been based on chance creation of the nuclear active environment. No one, even today, knows what this environment looks like or how to create it on purpose. Naturally, I agree that this kind of luck also played an important role. >From Mike's description such luck cannot happen with the PAGD. Making a PAGD is more like cloning a sheep -- you have to be an expert at every stage. Luck does not enter into it. Still, there is a great deal of skill to doing CF, much of it perhaps unconscious. This skill helped set the stage for success by people like Bockris. They knew how to avoid many dumb mistakes that tripped up non-electrochemists before the chance creation of the nuclear active environment could even get underway. The point is that if the PAGD effect is like cold fusion, it probably can be initiated several different ways, some of which can be found by the same kind of trial and error used by the Correas. Unfortunately, it appears that is not the case, and the PAGD effect is more like cloning a sheep -- there are very narrow set of procedures, and they must all be done correctly. The cloning success rate, by the way, still runs from 0.1% to 3%, even today after tens or maybe hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on cloning research.. (See http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/cloning/cloningrisks/). If cloning had provoked the same visceral opposition from scientists that cold fusion did, there is no chance it would have been replicated. Replication is most impressive when the same effect can be produced several different ways, each of which show that the same variables are having the same effect on the outcome. Cold fusion has passed this test. The PAGD effect has not. Perhaps that is not the fault of the PAGD effect, but rather a technical limitation. Perhaps there is only one reliable way to do it. If the effect is real and the technology is developed, additional methods are likely to be discovered. I believe there was only one proven method of making transistors in 1952 -- germanium junction devices, I think they were. It took weeks of intense hands-on training to teach that method to experts. Groups of engineers from outside companies who paid the patent fee attended classes at Bell Labs. By the mid-50s there were half a dozen other commercialized methods, some of them quite different from the original one. Perhaps the PAGD demands the same kind of development path the transistor did, with a relatively tight set of technical specifications and a long list of dos and don'ts (which were published in a famous book known as Mother Bell's Cookbook). If so, that is most unfortunate, because Correa is the last person on earth who is qualified or likely to carry out the kind of program needed to ensure the success of this technology. His personality utterly precludes it. He has said he has no intention, in any case, because humanity does not deserve his invention -- or his genius. He seems to have put the PAGD aside now, and he is working on other projects that are based on what I would say are very peculiar notions about physics. If the PAGD as difficult to replicate as Mike indicates, we might as well write the whole thing off now. If I were religious, and also inclined to believe claims such as the PAGD, I might wonder why God keeps putting such wonderful discoveries into the hands of such incorrigible people. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E Mallove: LENR/Cold Fusion and Modern Physics: A Crisis Within a Crisis ???
To Alan sepeda and Vortex who may be interested: For several years I was a close associate of Gene Mallove and for a while on his board of directors. I wrote a number of articles for Infinite Energy,, on Joseph Newman, Paulo Correa and PAGD, and Arata. Gene pointed me to Randell Mills and Blacklight Power, which I have closely followed for decades. BLP is now scaling up a water-fuel energy cell which produces electricity directly, which no LENR device has done. BLP's goal is a 1.5 kW power module for domestic use, with an estimated installed cost of $100/kW. BLP is privately financed, with representatives of major financial houses on its board of directors. Details are available on the website, www.blacklightpower.com. I have visited the Correa's home/lab and seen a demonstration of the PAGD cell working as described in my article. If any reader here wishes to correspond with me, I will be happy to reciprocate. Mike Carrell From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alain Sepeda Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 10:45 AM To: Vortex List Subject: [Vo]:E Mallove: LENR/Cold Fusion and Modern Physics: A Crisis Within a Crisis ??? Reading the latest article of ruby carra and the science.or research on LENR http://coldfusionnow.org/science-gov-cold-fusion-lenr-science-power-and-engi neering/ I've found that article of Eugene mallove http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004APS..MARA15006M just the abstract. no reference to it on internet beside that site, and believe me if you dare, not even on lenr-canr.org it is not of the greatest importance, but it might be interesting. does anyone have a copy (maybe the name changed) Title: LENR/Cold Fusion and Modern Physics: A Crisis Within a Crisis Authors: Mallove, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/author_form?author=Mallove,+Efullauthor= Mallove,%20Eugene%20F.%20E.charset=UTF-8db_key=PHY Eugene F. E. Affiliation: AA(New Energy Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH 03302-2816, USA) Publication: American Physical Society, March Meeting 2004, March 22-26, 2004, Palais des Congres de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, MEETING ID: MAR04, abstract #A15.006 Publication Date: 03/2004 Origin: APS http://www.aps.org Bibliographic Code: 2004APS..MARA15006M http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004APS..MARA15006M Abstract The primary theorists in the field of Cold Fusion/LENR have generally assumed that the excess heat phenomena is commensurate with nuclear ash (such as helium), whether already identified or presumed to be present but not yet found, and moreover that it can be explained by hydrided metal lattice structures acting coherently. Though this was an excellent initial hypothesis, the commensurate nuclear ash hypothesis has not been proved, and appears to be approximately correct in only a few experiments. At the same time, compelling evidence has also emerged for other microphysical sources of energy that were unexpected by accepted physics. The exemplars have been the work Dr. Randell Mills and his colleagues at BlackLight Power Corporation and Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa in Canada.This has led to a crisis within a crisis: Neither cold fusion nor Modern Physics will be able to explain the full range of experimental data now available---not even the data within mainstream cold fusion/LENR per se--- by insisting that the fundamental paradigms of Modern Physics are without significant flaw. The present crisis is of magnitude comparable to the Copernican Revolution. Neither Modern Physics nor Cold Fusion/LENR will survive in their present forms when this long delayed revolution has run its course. This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
RE: Correa, etc.
Chris writes: A sad matter that requires some attention in regard to the Correas' work concerns their unusual state of Mind. We have discussed Correas' work before on Vo. You can look in the archive for the details. Paulo follows the list very closely, but only posts under pseudonyms if at all. I was very interested in the work when I first came across the patents, but subsequent discussions with his alternate persona's made me question his ability to objectively judge the experiments he conducts. I have been told that this is a strategy to discourage competitors; you can make of that what you will. While I can agree with Mike on the value of an accurate reproduction of the tech disclosed in the patents, practically speaking that cannot happen unless Paulo participates in an active way, which he will not. So we have independent workers like Jeff, who I think can contribute to the general understanding even if they fail to reproduce the effects claimed. For that reason I posted some of Jeffs' pictures to my corporate site a year ago or so. I just completely updated the site and the links are now no doubt dead. Jeff has his own website, and is quite capable of posting them there. Why he does not do that you must ask of him directly. K.
Re: Correa, etc.
Mike Carrell wrote: joules to 17,800 volts. To prevent the terminal voltage from rising to, say 100 volts, 100 farads of capactors would be needed, or 17,857 capcitors. By comparison, batteries look pretty good. . . . You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube. What you have built is a gas-discharge relaxation oscillator equivalent to any common strobe flash. It is ***not*** a PAGD reactor. If this is the case, then Jeff has taken a serious wrong turn, and he has been wasting his time. That has often happened with cold fusion over the years. It is a terrible shame. Message to Mike: Why can't you Jeff get together and iron this out? Message to Jeff: Would you be willing to try again? Keith Nagel is probably right when he says, practically speaking a replication is impossible unless Paulo participates in an active way, which he will not. That is the worst shame of all. Evidently, cold fusion was much easier to reproduce than the pagd (assuming the pagd is real). In 1989, knowledge of electrochemistry was widespread, so even though Fleischmann and Pons were not available to go around holding other people's hands, many researchers such as Bockris, Oriani, Huggins and Miles were able to reproduce it on their own. If the necessary skills and knowledge have been as obscure as those required for the pagd, it probably would have been lost. Replication is a slippery standard. When an effect is successfully replicated, you know the it is real -- simple enough. But when it is *not* replicated, it can be very difficult to judge what happened. Perhaps the effect does not exist after all. Or the people trying to replicate are making honest mistakes. Or they are only making a desultory effort. They may even be deliberately trying to prove that the effect does not exist. You would have to be a mind reader to sort out events. A replication is a clear signal from Mother Nature. A non-replication is a complicated human event, colored by understanding, knowledge, politics, emotion, and so on. - Jed
Re: Correa
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911 On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 04:25:55PM -0600, Zell, Chris wrote: Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. If this is about a choice between a battery and a capacitor, better results might be obtained by using a capacitor (chosen for low internal series inductance) _and_ a battery, connected in parallel. (The combination should be connected with short, straight wires to whatever is producing the pulses, to reduce inductance). The capacitor will begin absorbing the incoming charge immediately, and by the time its voltage begins to rise the battery will (hopefully) begin taking the rest of the charge, preventing any substantial voltage rise across the parallel combination, and thus across whatever it's connected to (PAGD tube, presumably). While the capacitance can be increased by adding multiple capacitors of the same type to the parallel combination, one may also parallel different _types_ of capacitors -- one (or more) with large capacitance but unavoidable internal series inductance, and one (or more) with smaller capacitance but designed to have much less internal series inductance (these are called bypass capacitors). The small, low-inductance bypass capacitor will absorb the very beginning of the incoming charge, while the rest of the initial charge makes its way through the series inductance of the larger capacitor. After that, the remainder of the charge will go into the battery (which may be even slower to respond). Connecting two different capacitors in parallel in this way is frequently done in electronic circuits. For example, a computer plug-in card (e.g., a video card) will likely have a slow electrolytic capacitor and a fast ceramic bypass capacitor connected in parallel between its ground and +5 volt power input. The electrolytic reduces low-frequency AC across the +5 power line to the chips in the card, while the bypass cap will reduce high-frequency AC.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Quasi-Stable Negative Muons or Heavy Positronium-Electronium?
P.N. Correa speaks on an anomaly. *http://web.globalserve.net/~lambdac/PwrfromAEemissions.html*http://web.globalserve.net/~lambdac/PwrfromAEemissions.html * In a speculative fashion, it is indeed interesting to remark that the PAGD energies associated with emitted cathode ions are in the range needed for electron-positron pair creation. Significantly, the study of narrow, nonrelativistic positron peaks and of electron-positron coincidences in heavy ion collisions has led to the identification of low-mass photonium resonances in the 1 to 2 MeV range (lowest prediction at ~1.2 MeV (99)), which have been theorized as possible e-e+ quasi-bound continuum states of a pure electromagnetic nature (98-99), suggesting the existence of a new (ultra-nuclear and infra-atomic) scale for QED interactions (99). Lastly, it has been formally shown that pair production can be supported by a photon field in a nonstationary medium and in a threshold-free manner (ie for any electromagnetic wave frequency) (100). * On Dec 3, 2007 7:48 AM, Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jones. A bound state of e- e+ e- (about 10^ -12 % according to CRC tables) is known. With a mass about 207 times that of the electron and about 0.5 MeV they could make a burn spot on the center of your old TV CRT before they came up with the bent gun. OTOH, a 1/207 fractional hydrino orbit of 2800 eV would be a hefty energy release if they are in potassium or argon. No? Fred
[Vo]:Is Cold Fusion a Secondary Phenomena?
There are a wide number of inventions or independent observations related to 'free energy' that appear to be derived from a single phenomena: charge clusters or other anomalous concentrations of charge. The fundamental work appears to be from Ken Shoulders (patent 5018180). His patent suggests an enormous amount of personal effort. Basically, he created intense bundles of charge using a sort of traveling wave tube. Because the charge is so concentrated, nuclear effects arise easily. There is other similar work: Nelson - patent 6465965 using a space charge in a vacuum tube. There is a claim of replication ( Ken Rauen) JLN Labs VSG 4.1 which produces excess energy from a spark Stanislav Adamenko plasma diode with transmutation The Chernetski plasma arc device The (very old) French patent 651272 using an arcing relay to increase power The underwater transmutation of carbon into iron using arcs Possible Bedini-like devices that use a spark Overunity observations in multipaction tubes by Philo Farnsworth All the Correa patents that use a sudden discharge in a vacuum tube The Spence device (patent 4772816) which claims overunity from a space charge There are also a number of reported anomalous observations of sudden bursts of extreme energy in various plasma tube experiments by Russian and US academics Are Shoulders observations of abnormal transient concentrations of charge correct? If so, then Cold Fusion may be a secondary phenomena, a subset of something more fundamental and powerful. If atttention was shifted in the direction of charge clusters, could we encounter a revolutionary new power source of electricity - rather than excess heat? Is something very profound being overlooked here?
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
William Beaty wrote: But Wikipedia is an experiment in *anonymous* free speech, where abusive people with mild mental problems cannot be blocked . . . Actually, the editors can block people, and they have done so occasionally. I suppose the offenders can simply register a new name. If Wikipedia started out using the simple email-verified registration which nearly all WWW forums use to exclude trolls/flamers/spammers, it would be a very different resource today. Well, they might change to that model. They seem like smart people, who are willing to try new things. After the recent scandal they reduced the editing capabilities of anonymous contributors. I think they said that anonymous contributors can no longer initiate articles or sections. Against my better judgment, I added some stuff to the cold fusion article today, including three links to introductions to the subject in different languages. Some anonymous person promptly chopped them out. I wrote to him/her/it: Dear Anonymous Person: Why were these [links] moved? Did you move them to the other versions of Wikipedia? Is there there some kind of policy at Wikipedia banning non-English articles? If there is such a policy, kindly point it out to me. If not, let us put the links back. Also, I would appreciate it if you would sign your work in future. . . . - Jed
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
Gosh Bill, Now I feel bad for using a free email and online handle. What's in a name? Is a long-used handle any more or less informative than the name your parents gave you? A family name tells where you came from. A nickname tells what your friends think about you. A Nom de Cyber tells what you feel about yourself. I go by Merlyn because thats simply the way I think of myself. My real name (for those interested) is Adam Thomas Cox, and I'm from Wichita, Ks. Since anyone can claim to be anything online, the answer is not to demand a proven identity, but perhaps to demand an identity with some history behind it. BTW Bill, thanks for not requiring a verified email addy instead of the pay ones, it would complicate thinks greatly. Adam --- William Beaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Steven Krivit wrote: Bill B's got a good point. This is one of the aspects which makes Vortex such a valuable group. Most people are willing to identify themselves and stand behind their words. In observing (or fighting with) flamer types over the years, I noticed that one of the major characteristics that reliably defines flamer is... anonymity! Serious people give their real names (and often provide a message sig with personal website, city, etc.) Immature or abusive people use handles. snip (( ( ( ( ((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 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci Merlyn Magickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [Vo]: Correa Patent Issued
Terry,My comments on this are at http://zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=1993mode=threadorder=0thold=0however I will say here that the Correa's are common folk, with no imagination, foul, nastypersonalitiesand they havesticky fingers as well.My Pulsed Plasma Drive worked so well for them - they decided to say they invented it! Running a motor with a Tesla Spark gap is something even Tesla did not do,and it is already covered by my work. So much for it not working.Chris Arnold"The invention also extends to apparatus in which an otherwise drivenplasma reactor operating in pulsed abnormal gas discharge mode in turnused to drive an inertially damped drag motor."Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: US 7,053,576"AbstractThis invention relates to apparatus for the conversion of massfreeenergy into electrical or kinetic energy, which uses in its preferredform a transmitter and a receiver both incorporating Tesla coils, thedistal ends of whose secondary windings are co-resonant and connectedto plates of a chamber, preferably evacuated or filled with water,such that energy radiated by the transmitter may be picked up by thereceiver, the receiver preferably further including a pulsed plasmareactor driven by the receiver coil and a split phase motor driven bythe reactor. Preferably the reactor operates in pulsed abnormal gasdischarge mode, and the motor is an inertially damped drag motor. The invention also extends to apparatus in which an otherwise driven plasma reactor operating in pulsed abnormal gas discharge mode in turn used to drive an inertially damped drag motor." Groups are talking. Were listening. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.
Re: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Of course, if it really is a perpetual motion machine, then this'll be the biggest thing since Relativity, It'll be the biggest thing since Principia Mathematica. It's much bigger than relativity. PM of the first kind using static magnets goes down to the bedrock of all physics for the last couple centuries and dynamites it. Exactly right. What is it strange is that many of the people making these claims, including some well-educated ones, do not seem to realize this. I have never bought this notion that extraordinary claims call for blah blah blah . . . But people should at least be cognizant of the fact that they are making extraordinary claims! And they should expect disbelief, and be ready to deal with it. They should offer rock solid evidence even if it is not extraordinary. Ditto claims by Mills and Correa. As far as I know, the only anomalous energy claim that has claimed any scientific basis in conventional theory is cold fusion. Of course many people disagree, but Hagelstein and others believe it can be explained with textbook physics. As for Greg Watson, not only has he failed to offer solid evidence, he has failed to offer *any* evidence for his fantasies. He gives us only bloviation, fraud and empty promises. His tag line tells you what game he is in: Now it's just engineering effort, time and money . . . Translation 1: My hobby is to just sit at home and engineer ways to waste your time and separate you from your money. Translation 2: Send more money, sucker. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux
Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: He claimed to have electrical evidence that a stationary gold leaf electroscope does work. For the audience: this means it performs work. (The English it does work is confusing, as it could mean it does what it is supposed to do.) I assume your rejection is based on a critique of the evidence rather then just the belief that it is physical nonsense. Actually, it was mostly a discussion between Storms and Correa. I was mainly agreeing with Ed. As far as Ed and I could make out, the assertion was that work is performed by the gold leaf in the act of staying up, against the force of gravity. We pointed out a couple of problems, theoretical and experimental: The physics of this system are well known (better known to Ed than me!) and they do not include it doing work. Granted this boils down to the assertion that conventional theory is right and Correa's is wrong, but the point is, there does not seem to be a hole in the conventional theory. If it was producing energy, the gold leaf device would have to produce heat or an electric current or some other detectable source of expended energy, and there does not seem to be one. (In the example of the guy holding out his arms, he does do work, contracting muscles, and that produces heat. The electroscope is analogous to someone with his arms held up with ropes, or with a beach ball under each arm.) In other words, there does not seem to be experimental evidence of work. The electroscope performs work as the arms rise or descend. But not when they are stationary. That's our take on it, anyway. (Regarding an object suspended with a rope: it does, actually perform work, at extremely low power. It stretches out the rope, moving slightly, until eventually the rope breaks. It happens so slowly you could not detect the heat from molecules moving around or fibers breaking. It resembles the work done as a crack forms in stressed automobile glass. At a given temperature without rain or high wind, the crack forms and spreads at a remarkably even rate, very slowly, with some fixed number of molecules participating every day.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux
On 02/27/2011 08:55 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Jed and Stephen, - Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, February 26, 2011 1:08:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux On 02/25/2011 09:19 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: The worst example was the Correa claim that a stationary gold leaf electroscope does work. No, it doesn't! It isn't a little guy standing with his arms out. He claimed to have electrical evidence that a stationary gold leaf electroscope does work. I assume your rejection is based on a critique of the evidence rather then just the belief that it is physical nonsense. Actually, the problem is deeper and simpler than that. The *fact* that the Correas were off in la-la land on that one is based directly on semantics and pure logic, not on anything else, and that is why it's a fact rather than an opinion. If the premises of the other side not understood or recognised then it may seem illogical. Premises? No, just simple definitions. They're using well accepted and understood terms, and the definitions of those well understood terms simply rule out what they're saying -- it's as though they said, Black is really white. It's false, by definition. If they've redefined common words and terms, they should bloody well say so -- that's not premises which are in question, it's plain old communication. What they were claiming was silly. If they actually meant something else, which wasn't silly, they should have claimed that, instead. If they said something other than what they meant, is it the fault of the listeners that they weren't understood?
RE: [Vo]:Regarding what BOB COOK THINKS ABOUT THE NAE
That is sad. I recall that what you are describing sounds exactly the same as the situation with the Correa device. The best he do was to swap battery packs again and again to show gain – but it seems that as soon as you introduce a battery pack into any such claim, disbelief arises. From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 1:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Regarding what BOB COOK THINKS ABOUT THE NAE Unfortunately, the bullet-proof case for net energy gain was not made at the time. There is apparent gain, but not proved gain. Brian Ahern ran the test for many days using a very high capacity battery array. At the end of the test, the battery pack appeared to be fully charged, but there's the rub "appeared to be". LIPO batteries are well-known to present a pseudo voltage which is higher than the average voltage, especially in a case where HV BMEF is present ... and thus a large pack which seems fully charged could in fact have lost a great deal of charge. That is because measuring the voltage is the easy way to determine state of charge, and when it is known that pseudo-voltage happens, the results cannot be relied on. Bottom line. Although we want want to think the battery pack was fully charged, the deal was not closed and doubt remains.
Re: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
Mike Carrell wrote: But people should at least be cognizant of the fact that they are making extraordinary claims! And they should expect disbelief, and be ready to deal with it. They should offer rock solid evidence even if it is not extraordinary. Ditto claims by Mills and Correa. As far as I know, the only anomalous energy claim that has claimed any scientific basis in conventional theory is cold fusion. Of course many people disagree, but Hagelstein and others believe it can be explained with textbook physics. Jed's brush is too wide. Mills does not claim 'anomalous energy' . . . I classify both cold fusion and the Mills claims as anomalous energy. Anomalous is not synonymous with unbelievable -- it just means there is no explanation. Mills, unlike CF, does not have a textbook physics explanation. He proposes to rewrite the textbooks. That does not mean he is wrong, but it does mean he must be cognizant of the fact that most scientists will find his claims very difficult to swallow. I am sure he knows that! Mills is much, much better and far more credible than people like the Methernitha crowd, Greg Watson, or for that matter Correa. But he still has a wide credibility gap, and he still has not made a real effort to convince people. The last thing he told me, years ago, is that he does not want to convince people, and that he likes things the way they are. (That was also the last thing I heard from the late James Reding while he was diligently shredding Patterson's prospects. Several CF researchers have also told me they like being big fish in a small pond.) Many years ago Mills supposedly had energy producing devices which would have convinced any reasonable engineer, such as the devices he and Thermacore developed, described by Donald Ernst in 1992. Assuming those claims were not a horrible mistake, or for some reason they could not be replicated, Mills could have easily used those devices to convince the entire world that his claims are valid. I do not know what to make of the fact that he failed to do that. I am forced to conclude that: 1. Either the claims fell through for some reason I never heard about, or 2. Mills is stark-staring crazy, like most other people in over-unity energy biz. I have heard many times that it is actually: 3. Mills is working on some ultra clever secret business scheme. But I do not believe this, because I simply cannot imagine any business strategy that would have worked better than revealing the whole thing back in 1992, and letting events take their natural course. It is hard to imagine any scenario that would have eventually worked out with Mills being less than a dozen times richer than Bill Gates by now, and him being the most famous and respected person on earth. After 14 years millions of people would have seen the effect, and I think there is simply no question Mills would have been given the full credit for it, and objections would have been swept aside by now, by the force of public opinion. . . . there is a measureable fuel consumption, many documentated and detailed experiments, and confirmation by other observers. Oh come now. Yes, we all agree that Mills has done some interesting experiments, but the confirmations by other observers hardly compares to the confirmations available for CF. Most of the confirming evidence he cited years ago was only distantly related to his claims. All this would be forgivable -- indeed it would be the only viable path forward -- if Mills had not held in his hands devices that would have convinced millions of engineers worldwide back in 1992. If you can convince engineers you do not need to worry what the physicists think. You can ignore them along with the patent office, Scientific American, and the rest of the peanut gallery. Engineers far outnumber physicists, and they have much greater access to capital and the real-world levers of power. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E Mallove: LENR/Cold Fusion and Modern Physics: A Crisis Within a Crisis ???
if confirmed, great news. I've computed that with reactors similar to Hyperion and E-cat, the greatest cost is in heat to mechanic conversion, where best cost is very big turbines (500$/kW at 100MWe, to compare to 2000$/MW at 10kWe)... If there is no conversion to do, keeping the low cost of LENR... thats a festival. 8) I'm curious about the principle of that direct conversion, since it does not look like the other numerous LENR experiments (other electrolytic cells produce heat, not electricity)... The principle seems described here http://www.blacklightpower.com/technology/ciht-cell/ , yet I don't catch all... It is claimed non nuclear, and if I read well the produced hydrinos are the ashes of the reaction... so more like a super chemical than a LENR ? 2012/11/26 Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To Alan sepeda and Vortex who may be interested: ** ** For several years I was a close associate of Gene Mallove and for a while on his board of directors. I wrote a number of articles for Infinite Energy,, on Joseph Newman, Paulo Correa and PAGD, and Arata. Gene pointed me to Randell Mills and Blacklight Power, which I have closely followed for decades. BLP is now scaling up a water-fuel energy cell which produces electricity directly, which no LENR device has done. BLP’s goal is a 1.5 kW power module for domestic use, with an estimated installed cost of $100/kW. BLP is privately financed, with representatives of major financial houses on its board of directors. Details are available on the website, www.blacklightpower.com. I have visited the Correa’s home/lab and seen a demonstration of the PAGD cell working as described in my article. ** ** If any reader here wishes to correspond with me, I will be happy to reciprocate. Mike Carrell ** ** *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Alain Sepeda *Sent:* Thursday, November 22, 2012 10:45 AM *To:* Vortex List *Subject:* [Vo]:E Mallove: LENR/Cold Fusion and Modern Physics: A Crisis Within a Crisis ??? ** ** Reading the latest article of ruby carra and the science.or research on LENR http://coldfusionnow.org/science-gov-cold-fusion-lenr-science-power-and-engineering/ I've found that article of Eugene mallove http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004APS..MARA15006M just the abstract. no reference to it on internet beside that site, and believe me if you dare, not even on lenr-canr.org it is not of the greatest importance, but it might be interesting. does anyone have a copy (maybe the name changed) *Title:* LENR/Cold Fusion and Modern Physics: A Crisis Within a Crisis *Authors:* Mallove, Eugene F. E.http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/author_form?author=Mallove,+Efullauthor=Mallove,%20Eugene%20F.%20E.charset=UTF-8db_key=PHY *Affiliation:* AA(New Energy Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH 03302-2816, USA) *Publication:* American Physical Society, March Meeting 2004, March 22-26, 2004, Palais des Congres de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, MEETING ID: MAR04, abstract #A15.006 *Publication Date:* 03/2004 *Origin:* APS http://www.aps.org *Bibliographic Code:* 2004APS..MARA15006M http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004APS..MARA15006M*** * Abstract The primary theorists in the field of Cold Fusion/LENR have generally assumed that the excess heat phenomena is commensurate with nuclear ash (such as helium), whether already identified or presumed to be present but not yet found, and moreover that it can be explained by hydrided metal lattice structures acting coherently. Though this was an excellent initial hypothesis, the commensurate nuclear ash hypothesis has not been proved, and appears to be approximately correct in only a few experiments. At the same time, compelling evidence has also emerged for other microphysical sources of energy that were unexpected by accepted physics. The exemplars have been the work Dr. Randell Mills and his colleagues at BlackLight Power Corporation and Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa in Canada.This has led to a crisis within a crisis: Neither cold fusion nor Modern Physics will be able to explain the full range of experimental data now available---not even the data within mainstream cold fusion/LENR per se--- by insisting that the fundamental paradigms of Modern Physics are without significant flaw. The present crisis is of magnitude comparable to the Copernican Revolution. Neither Modern Physics nor Cold Fusion/LENR will survive in their present forms when this long delayed revolution has run its course. This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: ****NEWS CONFERENCE AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
I assume these quotes from scientists at UNISYS and NASA are genuine. I have to admit it is impressive that Newman has convinced such people. It is even more impressive knowing the sort of person he is. I have had one phone conversation with him. He seemed about as unconvincing as anyone could be. If these scientists are convinced despite his personality, he must have compelling evidence. There is just enough seemingly real substance to Newman's claims to put them in the regrettable category. This category is for claims which may just be real, but we will never know because the inventor is a lunatic, or dead, or both. There are many categories of over unity machines. Here are some of the common ones, from bad to good: Preposterous. There are hundreds of these claims. Extremely unlikely with no evidence as far as anyone knows. Hundreds more. It is best to ignore them. Extremely unlikely with anecdotal evidence only. There is no point to investigating or pursuing these claims. Extremely unlikely with anecdotal evidence and lousy experiments only, that were never independently confirmed or replicated. Somewhat regrettable but mainly a farce. Correa fall in this category, in my opinion. Extremely unlikely but for some reason a few apparently legitimate experts are convinced. Regrettable. Newman is the best example. Unlikely with anecdotal evidence. A few experiments are reported that would be interesting if anyone had any good documentation for them. Unlikely but interesting. A few good experiments but not enough widespread replications to be convincing. Mills fits in this category in my opinion. Unlikely, yet reportedly replicated but not within the last 10 years. Fading away because all the people who replicated are dead or out of contact. The Griggs gadget is approaching this status. As far as I know it is real but I have no way to prove that conclusively. Unless something is done to rescue cold fusion, it will eventually enter this condition, as the researchers become incapacitated and die off. Ed Storms and some others are optimistic that it will be rescued, but I am not. Dead certain. Only CF is in this category as far as I know. I am certain of it, but if I and all the others who know about it grow old and die, it will be lost. A person who has met with the cold fusion researchers and who understands actuarial tables will not feel confident about the outcome. People have a tendency to act as if they will live forever, but I am acutely aware that 'art is long and life is short.' - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion or Cosmic Ray Muon Catalyzed Fusion?
Hi Michel. The role of the Muon and the energy it can produce cited by Wikipedia applies to those experimental conditions. Mills' catalysts (Potassium, Argon Etc?), Correa PAGD, Electrolysis Etc, depend on how a Muon might catalyze reactions indefinitely Storms Electrolysis: Storms Anomalous Emissions in D2 Etc. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEanomalousha.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEradiationp.pdf Fred On Dec 3, 2007 12:58 AM, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Fred, I had been missing your posts! I don't know about the other effects, but regarding your suggestion that the 200 muons m^-2 s^-1 cosmic muon rain might explain CF in D2O electrolysis cells, the wikipedia article you mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion says: each muon catalyzing d-d muon-catalyzed fusion reactions in pure deuterium is only able to catalyze about one-tenth of the number of d-t muon-catalyzed fusion reactions that each muon is able to catalyze in a mixture of equal amounts of deuterium and tritium and further down: More recent measurements seem to point to more encouraging values for the ?-sticking probability, finding the ?-sticking probability to be about 0.5% (or perhaps even about 0.4% or 0.3%), which could mean as many as about 200 (or perhaps even about 250 or about 333) muon-catalyzed d-t fusions per muon from which we can infer that each muon can catalyze at most 33 D-D fusions, so the energy release per second (power) at ~20MeV (= ~4pJ) per D-D fusion would be only 200*33*4e-12 =~ 26e-9 W/m^2 if I am not mistaken, which would be quite undetectable. If CF exists there must be another explanation (such as DIESECF ;-) Michel - Original Message - From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:27 AM Subject: [Vo]:Re: Cold Fusion or Cosmic Ray Muon Catalyzed Fusion? Wikipedia has a lucid article on Muon Catalyzed Fusion and www.cosmicrays.org shows how to build a detector and claims 200 Muons per square meter strike the earth every second. The negatively charged Muon (with a charge the same as that of an electron) but with a mass 207 times that of an electron might explain CF in electrolysis cells, Mills' fractional orbit hydrino, the Correas Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge PAGD, and Ed Storms' recent anomalous particle beam results using D2 (and H2?) in a glow discharge. Fred
Re: [Vo]:Question: Thyratrons/Glow Discharge Tubes
On Apr 19, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Chris Zell wrote: I was curious to know if any anomalies have been reported in regard to thyratrons or other regulator tubes. There are a number of free energy claimants - Correa, Shoulders, Chernetski, Stamenko and others - who use discharges in vacuum tubes . However, many of us lack the extensive resources to test such ideas by building the whole apparatus from scratch. Since tubes still exist that can handle large discharges ( and may be charged with hydrogen or other gases in a near vacuum), it makes sense to see if existing parts could be used to build free energy devices that others could easily duplicate. Any thoughts or observations? Thanks. This brings to mind Don Borghi's experiment: http://www.google.com/search?client=safarirls=enq=Don+Borghi's +experimentie=UTF-8oe=UTF-8 http://tinyurl.com/cdpe9k wherein a hydrogen filled klystron was used to neutron activate materials surrounding it. It was said to prove that the p + e - n reaction was feasible, despite problems with angular momentum (spin) conservation. It strikes me as more likely that a brief half-life neutral particle or particle assemblage can be formed from p + e. The extraordinary energy available to the electron in close proximity to a nucleus enables a wide variety of weak reactions, including W particle formation, strange quark formation or interaction, and others, that can delay the electron's nucleus traverse and even provide a modest half-life for a fairly heavy and comparatively slow particle capable of entering and modifying nearby nuclei. Clearly this kind of experimentation might provide insights into cold fusion, but may not be sufficient to prove cold fusion and may not even be essentially related to it. Neutrons could, for example, be due to spallation neutrons from D in the hydrogen. Related p + e - n experiments have been carried out by Elio Conte (formerly a vort, and reported in Infinite Energy vol 4, No. 67), Santilli, and others. It may be of use to check out the direct effect of hydrogen loaded klystrons (or other hydrogen loaded tubes) on CR-39 particle detectors, or other types of particle detectors. It is notable that Conte reported melting of hydrogen loaded aluminum cathodes when they were exposed to energetic beta sources. Though energetic beta emitters are not available to amateurs, a high energy electron beam (like a 200 keV beam emitted through a thin window, e.g. a gold backed cathode back side in vacuo, might be achievable and provide an effective catalyst). All not easy, and definitely not safe, but still doable for those experienced in such things. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: Correa attacks Wikipedia
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Steven Krivit wrote: Bill B's got a good point. This is one of the aspects which makes Vortex such a valuable group. Most people are willing to identify themselves and stand behind their words. In observing (or fighting with) flamer types over the years, I noticed that one of the major characteristics that reliably defines flamer is... anonymity! Serious people give their real names (and often provide a message sig with personal website, city, etc.) Immature or abusive people use handles. I've seen a number of forums which harness this effect to improve their online community: requiring the use of real names, or at the very least requiring that users have a real email address (not free mail such as yahoo, etc.) In the online world, if your real name is like your face, then a handle is like wearing a mask. In realworld society if you're out shopping or walking down the street (or waiting in a bank,) how do you respond to people who walk in wearing masks? What would you think of a person who spent all their time wearing a mask? How about an entire town where the residents traditionally wear masks all the time? Online handles are really very weird. We got used to them, and they were a novelty at first. But whenever a community arises where mask-wearing is perfectly acceptable, then personal responsibility for our actions is disrupted, and that community seems to automatically attract all the bad parts of Marti Gras. With Wikipedia, if the point is to prevent famous experts with recognizable names from being taken more seriously than others, then they need to do the anonymity thing differently. Let people wear masks, but connect them permanently to the SAME masks, perhaps by requiring real names/addresses/emails during registration, but allowing other users to only see the online username/handle. That way the playing field is leveled, yet also you *are* your mask, so you're not really anonymous. (( ( ( ( ((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 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
RE: Sprain Mag Motor
The oldest question: If it's real, you should be able to make it self running, with an output of excess power. If this seems possible, I would try to design something using a bunch of ultracapacitors to hold the juice - and thereby avoid any questions about batteries being a circuit element, as has happened in the Correa device, etc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 3:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Sprain Mag Motor -Original Message- From: Grimer Let's hope so. I'll be interested to read your impression of the demo. I saw convincing evidence of 6 Newton-meters produced by 3.2 Watt-seconds. The electrical energy was displayed on a good digital oscope. The inventor used the conservative values for V and I in his Ws calculation. We actually ran several tests. He filters out high frequency components on his electrical input which actually makes the Ws calculation more conservative. He uses a custom made torque measurement device from Lorentz something from Germany. I was a bit concerned to learn that it used a Hall effect device until they agreed to hold a neodymium magnet near the transducer with no apparent effect. We got into a brief discussion on theory. They have their opinion; but, we disagreed. I cut that discussion short; although, one concrete-head's ideas did get injected. I have no doubts that he has spent the near $1M he claims on the development. He showed me several prototypes. He went public Wednesday with the prototype. I was person number 5 to request a viewing. They asked me lots of trick questions. I got most of them right. g Paul Sprain, the inventor, is from Birmingham (there not here). Can't seem to shake you Brits. Anyone have any questions? I believe I can get others in to see the device if there are any takers. It is magnificent. Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: [VO]:Re: Correa Patent Issued
Richard,You might remember that I once sought investors in hydrogen, fusion and nanodiamond from the highly intelligent members of this forum - except nobody believed anything I said. Nanodiamond is a Trillion Dollar business that I will not be seeking investors for anymore - as I will attempt to finish what I started myself. My posting of Stanford/Chevron simply proves that "they" are not asresistant to changeas many of the self righteous members of this group would appear to be. Stanford/Chevron finally realized how tremendously valuable my discovery is, and invested - just not with the inventor and all that refused to assist me have lost a great opportunity.Please don't take that the wrong way, but it is as plain as the nose on your face and as simple as a fact can be.ChrisRC Macaulay wrote: Chris wrote.. Tonight has been consistent, as someone just informed me that Stanford has hooked up with Chevron to study "their" new discovery of nanodiamond for broad scale industrial applications and something to do with Silicon Vally. The looming question is why I ever thought anyone at Stanford (or any other University that I contacted) would bother to fund my discovery of a never before known, Semiconductive Non DetonationNanodiamond powder?Quite the "common" thing to do. Howdy Chris, You read my post on patent themes. Didn't your grandmother ever tell you that people cheat at cards? Hollywood has made a fortunefostering the fable thatgood guys wear white hats. What is to keep bad guys from wearing white hats to fool the gullible?A border cantina ( University) is no place to look for a " friendly " game of cards. The crossed bandeleers and the knife in the boot is a sure sign you are in mixed company. Ah! Stanford .. where all the hopes and aspirations of the simple and pure in heart clash with "silicon valley and US DOE".If you want to make a fortune, move to New Mexico, raise long red peppers and sell the strings to the rich tourists. All the patents have expired.Richard Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
[Vo]: pseudoscience website
Vortexians; A friend sent me this URL, www.tinaja.com/scweb01.html . On reading it I sent the author the following: Dear Mr. Lancaster; A friend forwarded your article on pseudoscience to me. I'm on Bill Beaty's discussion group, Vortex-L. There are some very interesting evidence associated with UFO's. Cattle mutilations come to mind. Then there are the reports of trained observers, police and military personal. Robert Bigelow funded a project on a ranch, which produced some interesting video footage. I've never seen one, but I've read that they don't appear to Christians. The researcher Dale Pond of www.svpvril.com , doesn't think that Keeley was a fraud, he has replicated one of his machines, which he believes utilizes the Strong Force. Keeley's drawings look like string theory to me. There are also some interesting experimental evidence of energy production. One is Black Light Power, if it doesn't work, why do the investors continue to fund it? Another is low energy nuclear reactions, formerly known as cold fusion, two of the Vortexians run the website, www.lenr-canr.org . Another Vortexian runs Magnetic Power, Inc. They just filed a patent on a magnetic power generator. Physicists have concluded that torroidial plasma vortexes, AKA ball lightening, exhibit more energy than can be accounted for. The researcher Cyrl Chukanov believes that he can produce energy from them. The physicist Paulo Correa believes that he can produce energy from a similar phenomena, he calls his device the pulsed anomalous glow discharge, PAGD reactor. Perhaps these men are using the patent office as a vanity press. On the other hand. the theoretical physicist Hal Puthoff, www.earthtech.org has coauthered a series of articles which speculate how the Zero Point Energy, ZPE, interacts with matter. As for skeptics like the Amazing Randi, they dismiss everything spiritual. Mr. Randi said that he would give a prize for a demonstration of LENR. When some of the Vortexians attempted to pin him down on details like proof and payment, he changed his tune. People like Randi and Michael Schermer of Skeptic magazine dismiss things like energy medicine, that I know from personal experience work. Dr. Puthoff supervised the development of remote viewing for the NSA, if you read the books on the subject, there is no question that they produced some remarkably accurate intelligence. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
Terry Blanton wrote: Somehow Steorn must measure the torque or have the motor perform work, eg lift a weight, pump water, etc. But they seem to have a basic lack of understanding of this fact. Or, they understand it perfectly well but they don't want to do that because they are in the business of obfuscation. Let's call that the Abd hypothesis, in honor of its most verbose advocate here. In politics, business and consulting, many people make a good living by obfuscation and sewing confusion. It is less common in science and technology, but not unheard of. Academic rivals opposed to cold fusion have made a fine art of it. Many people fail to perform definitive tests. I cannot be sure, but in most cases I get the impression this is because they are inept, not devious. Mike Carrell mentioned Newman and the Correas. Newman strikes me as inept. The Correas are a strange mixture. Carrell describe their PAGD tests which impressed many people, and which are legitimate as far as I can tell: The energy released in the discharge is much greater than that required to sustain the conditions for the discharge to occur. Correa used carefully calibrated batteries to absorb the energy lieu of capacitors which would have to have been enormous to operate in the experiment. That's fine as far as it goes, but when I last heard from the Correas they were working with Gene Mallove on two experiments that struck me as absolutely looney, to the n'th degree. One was with a gold leaf electroscope which they claimed was producing energy when the leaf was extended out, like a person holding up his arms. A person does, in fact, expend energy to do this, but an electroscope emphatically does not. The second was with a device they claimed runs on energy from the sun that comes right through the earth, like neutrinos. That is at least plausible, but the method they chose to test it is perhaps the worst imaginable one. I would put the gadget in a sub-basement or a mine shaft to exclude other possible sources of energy. As I recall, they put it in bright sunlight outdoors and combined it with a Crookes radiometer or some other solar powered device (I don't recall). That's like trying to tune a piano in a boiler factory. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Stimulated Decay
Effects of Vacuum Fluctuation Suppression on Atomic Decay Rates”. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1638v1.pdf This theory when put in simple terms connects negative vacuum energy with radioactive decay rates. When an imbalance is produced in the vacuum energy by increasing vacuum energy in one spot in the vacuum, a corresponding reduction must apply to another spot of the vacuum. The increase in EMF photons produce this imbalance and that imbalance produces changes in the nuclear decay rates. I reference nanoplasmonic based experiments here to show how the confinement of polaritons on the surface of gold nanoparticles: a nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission without neutrons. This shows that strong EMF concentration is a cental part of the LENR reaction. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t=j==s=1=web=1=rja=2=0CC4QFjAA=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUA=bv.46471029,d.dmQ On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com> wrote: > While some patents are complete BS, there are a few that assert > revolutionary ideas together with lengthy specifics that add to their > credibility such as Barker, also Shoulders and Correa. > > > > There have been some folks experimenting with Tesla coils and claiming to > stimulate radioactive decay but some of them are Creationists seeking to > dethrone radioactive dating methods, so they are ignored. > > > > I recall an obscure paper from the American University in which a > physicist stimulated beta decay using a high voltage antenna feed but that > was only 10 -5 power stuff, so small potatoes. > > > > Nucell folks made big claims, years ago, about using radioactive materials > as a stimulated power source but I never could figure out if this was > complete fraud or if they truly stumbled onto something big. > > > > These days nobody can experiment with stuff like that on their own because > of fear of automatically being called a ‘terrorist’, You can’t do > chemistry on your own either because it’s automatically a meth lab. > > I hear laboratory glassware is flat out illegal in some parts of the US > now. > > >
Re: Jed about Mills
Jed wrote: snip Ditto claims by Mills and Correa. As far as I know, the only anomalous energy claim that has claimed any scientific basis in conventional theory is cold fusion. Of course many people disagree, but Hagelstein and others believe it can be explained with textbook physics. Jed's brush is too wide. Mills does not claim 'anomalous energy' . . . I classify both cold fusion and the Mills claims as anomalous energy. Anomalous is not synonymous with unbelievable -- it just means there is no explanation. Mills, unlike CF, does not have a textbook physics explanation. He proposes to rewrite the textbooks. That does not mean he is wrong, but it does mean he must be cognizant of the fact that most scientists will find his claims very difficult to swallow. I am sure he knows that! CQM is audacious. There is no accepted explanation for LENR, despite Haglestein's efforts. So far as I know, it does not have predictive value, in the sense of what to do next to get energy yield. Mills is not the first to propose a 'sub-quantum' state for the hydrogen atom, nor is he the first to observe exothermic reactions between hydrogen and ionized argon. However, he is the first to formulate a specification for a catalytic reaction to induce the sub-quantum state, and to conduct experiments to demonstrate substantial energy yield, which predicitons have been verified by other investigator. Flowing from his theory are simple equations which yield significant parameters of the first 20 elements of the periodic table with high precision, which are laid out in spreadsheets anyone can examine. Mills is much, much better and far more credible than people like the Methernitha crowd, Greg Watson, or for that matter Correa. But he still has a wide credibility gap, and he still has not made a real effort to convince people. The last thing he told me, years ago, is that he does not want to convince people, and that he likes things the way they are. (That was also the last thing I heard from the late James Reding while he was diligently shredding Patterson's prospects. Several CF researchers have also told me they like being big fish in a small pond.) Mills has pursued his research, systematically posting reports on his website for all to see, as well as updating his book, to be downloaded for free. The only people he has needed to convince are those who have funded him to the tune of some $50 million, and the executives of corporations doing due diligence toward serious development pratnerships. Public acclaim is irrelevant at the moment. Reding's fatal error was rejecting the buyout offer by Motorola, who has the deep pockets to pursue the technology, and perhaps the discipline to do process control, which apparently Patterson lacked. Many years ago Mills supposedly had energy producing devices which would have convinced any reasonable engineer, such as the devices he and Thermacore developed, described by Donald Ernst in 1992. Assuming those claims were not a horrible mistake, or for some reason they could not be replicated, Mills could have easily used those devices to convince the entire world that his claims are valid. I do not know what to make of the fact that he failed to do that. I am forced to conclude that: He did and still does. Jed is well versed in calorimetry. All he has to do is follow the thread in my earlier post on BLP future to look up the water bath calorimetry which shows an energy yield from hydrogen which is 100 X that of burning it, and that in a catalytic reaction with a noble gas! 1. Either the claims fell through for some reason I never heard about, or Jed was not paying close enough attention then or now. Mills abandoned electrolytic cells because he could not get a high enough energy density. His target then was utility boilers. The electrolytic cell has resurfaced as a source of hydrogen for his proposed automotive hydrogen filling station. The gas phase reactions have demosntrated high energy density, but scaling up to industrial levels takes lots of money and other skills. Same for LENR, in which *really active* cells are irreproduceable accidents. BLP cells just sit there and cook as long as you want. 2. Mills is stark-staring crazy, like most other people in over-unity energy biz. He has never claimed to be in the 'over-unity' energy business. His posture is that of a responsible scientist-businessman courting major industrial partners in the development of energy resources. I have heard many times that it is actually: 3. Mills is working on some ultra clever secret business scheme. Jed is again not paying attention, but jumping to conclusions, as the business plans have been posted on the BLP website for years and updated periodically. What is not publicized is *who* he is neogtiating with. But I do not believe this, because I simply cannot imagine any business strategy that would have worked better than revealing the whole thing back
RE: Jed about Mills
Are you saying that Jeff Fink ( or anybody) has replicated the PAGD claims? Has he -or anyone- obtained results that might be overunity? Thanks -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 9:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Jed about Mills Jed wrote: snip Ditto claims by Mills and Correa. As far as I know, the only anomalous energy claim that has claimed any scientific basis in conventional theory is cold fusion. Of course many people disagree, but Hagelstein and others believe it can be explained with textbook physics. Jed's brush is too wide. Mills does not claim 'anomalous energy' . . . I classify both cold fusion and the Mills claims as anomalous energy. Anomalous is not synonymous with unbelievable -- it just means there is no explanation. Mills, unlike CF, does not have a textbook physics explanation. He proposes to rewrite the textbooks. That does not mean he is wrong, but it does mean he must be cognizant of the fact that most scientists will find his claims very difficult to swallow. I am sure he knows that! CQM is audacious. There is no accepted explanation for LENR, despite Haglestein's efforts. So far as I know, it does not have predictive value, in the sense of what to do next to get energy yield. Mills is not the first to propose a 'sub-quantum' state for the hydrogen atom, nor is he the first to observe exothermic reactions between hydrogen and ionized argon. However, he is the first to formulate a specification for a catalytic reaction to induce the sub-quantum state, and to conduct experiments to demonstrate substantial energy yield, which predicitons have been verified by other investigator. Flowing from his theory are simple equations which yield significant parameters of the first 20 elements of the periodic table with high precision, which are laid out in spreadsheets anyone can examine. Mills is much, much better and far more credible than people like the Methernitha crowd, Greg Watson, or for that matter Correa. But he still has a wide credibility gap, and he still has not made a real effort to convince people. The last thing he told me, years ago, is that he does not want to convince people, and that he likes things the way they are. (That was also the last thing I heard from the late James Reding while he was diligently shredding Patterson's prospects. Several CF researchers have also told me they like being big fish in a small pond.) Mills has pursued his research, systematically posting reports on his website for all to see, as well as updating his book, to be downloaded for free. The only people he has needed to convince are those who have funded him to the tune of some $50 million, and the executives of corporations doing due diligence toward serious development pratnerships. Public acclaim is irrelevant at the moment. Reding's fatal error was rejecting the buyout offer by Motorola, who has the deep pockets to pursue the technology, and perhaps the discipline to do process control, which apparently Patterson lacked. Many years ago Mills supposedly had energy producing devices which would have convinced any reasonable engineer, such as the devices he and Thermacore developed, described by Donald Ernst in 1992. Assuming those claims were not a horrible mistake, or for some reason they could not be replicated, Mills could have easily used those devices to convince the entire world that his claims are valid. I do not know what to make of the fact that he failed to do that. I am forced to conclude that: He did and still does. Jed is well versed in calorimetry. All he has to do is follow the thread in my earlier post on BLP future to look up the water bath calorimetry which shows an energy yield from hydrogen which is 100 X that of burning it, and that in a catalytic reaction with a noble gas! 1. Either the claims fell through for some reason I never heard about, or Jed was not paying close enough attention then or now. Mills abandoned electrolytic cells because he could not get a high enough energy density. His target then was utility boilers. The electrolytic cell has resurfaced as a source of hydrogen for his proposed automotive hydrogen filling station. The gas phase reactions have demosntrated high energy density, but scaling up to industrial levels takes lots of money and other skills. Same for LENR, in which *really active* cells are irreproduceable accidents. BLP cells just sit there and cook as long as you want. 2. Mills is stark-staring crazy, like most other people in over-unity energy biz. He has never claimed to be in the 'over-unity' energy business. His posture is that of a responsible scientist-businessman courting major industrial partners in the development of energy resources. I have heard many times that it is actually: 3. Mills is working on some ultra clever secret business scheme. Jed is again
Re: [Vo]:The gas CO2 is patented by Dr. Mills and BLP as a hydrino catalyst
On Nov 19, 2011, at 1:24 AM, David ledin wrote: From Randell Mills yahoo group The gas CO2 is patented by Dr. Mills and BLP as a hydrino catalyst. Nickel has an affinity to bind to CO. At temperatures below 700 degrees Celsius heating nickel first releases CO and around 400 degrees Celsius a dominant reaction causes 2CO to form C and CO2 on an abradided nickel surface. At the same time, hydrogen is split at the nickel surface, creating one hopes a population of atomic H and a population of CO2 in close proximity which can undergo hydrino transitions at the nickel surface. Interestingly, above 700 degrees C, the dominant exothermic 2CO - C + CO2 reaction stops and is reversed such that endothermic formation of CO dominates - a nifty self regulating physical mechanism that could be used to create a self regulating reactor. The variable factors are what ratio and pressures of H2 and CO would work best to create an observable reaction? Reaction rates of resonant energy transfers appear particularly dependent on exact conditions for each type of catalyst and the manner in which H and the catalyst are brought close together to trigger transitions. antony Nickel may not be necessary at all, nor even hydrino formation, for free energy generation in this regime. A carbon arc in water vapor may be sufficient, or more to the point any form of arc (including induced electrodeless discharge) in a CO2 plus water vapor environment, may be sufficient for energy generation. There was excess energy observed from aquafuel (water gas) creation via pyrolysis of carbon (or carbon bearing materials) via underwater arc. It seemed to me logical in 1996 that a direct CO2 recycling mechanism, without additional carbon input, might work. See: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/aquafuel.pdf I mentioned the possible use of Correa's PAGD discharge range, a low pressure discharge regime, which is described here http://www.globalserve.net/~lambdac/PwrfromAEemissions.html The low pressure CO2 + H2O gas should cycle to water gas and back within the arc, with chemically enhanced negative resistance pressure waves increasing the electrical AC feedback output (and thus the free energy) from such a tube. The Correas supposedly obtained a COP of 7 from the PAGD regime without any added chemical means. The newly available nickel barium alloys, which have very good thermionic emission characteristics, and avoid the need for barium oxide thermionic emission filament coatings entirely, may be of use in producing greatly improved PAGD regime devices. I wonder what happened to both the aqaufuel and the Correa endeavors. At least the Correa's web information is still up. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The gas CO2 is patented by Dr. Mills and BLP as a hydrino catalyst
Nickel may not be necessary at all' No : Nickel or similar metal with high lattice enthalpy like Alkali metal halides is necessary. See these papers from Rowan university http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/RowanChemSummer2009Report.pdf http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/RowanHydrinoReport2009.pdf On 11/19/11, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Nov 19, 2011, at 1:24 AM, David ledin wrote: From Randell Mills yahoo group The gas CO2 is patented by Dr. Mills and BLP as a hydrino catalyst. Nickel has an affinity to bind to CO. At temperatures below 700 degrees Celsius heating nickel first releases CO and around 400 degrees Celsius a dominant reaction causes 2CO to form C and CO2 on an abradided nickel surface. At the same time, hydrogen is split at the nickel surface, creating one hopes a population of atomic H and a population of CO2 in close proximity which can undergo hydrino transitions at the nickel surface. Interestingly, above 700 degrees C, the dominant exothermic 2CO - C + CO2 reaction stops and is reversed such that endothermic formation of CO dominates - a nifty self regulating physical mechanism that could be used to create a self regulating reactor. The variable factors are what ratio and pressures of H2 and CO would work best to create an observable reaction? Reaction rates of resonant energy transfers appear particularly dependent on exact conditions for each type of catalyst and the manner in which H and the catalyst are brought close together to trigger transitions. antony Nickel may not be necessary at all, nor even hydrino formation, for free energy generation in this regime. A carbon arc in water vapor may be sufficient, or more to the point any form of arc (including induced electrodeless discharge) in a CO2 plus water vapor environment, may be sufficient for energy generation. There was excess energy observed from aquafuel (water gas) creation via pyrolysis of carbon (or carbon bearing materials) via underwater arc. It seemed to me logical in 1996 that a direct CO2 recycling mechanism, without additional carbon input, might work. See: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/aquafuel.pdf I mentioned the possible use of Correa's PAGD discharge range, a low pressure discharge regime, which is described here http://www.globalserve.net/~lambdac/PwrfromAEemissions.html The low pressure CO2 + H2O gas should cycle to water gas and back within the arc, with chemically enhanced negative resistance pressure waves increasing the electrical AC feedback output (and thus the free energy) from such a tube. The Correas supposedly obtained a COP of 7 from the PAGD regime without any added chemical means. The newly available nickel barium alloys, which have very good thermionic emission characteristics, and avoid the need for barium oxide thermionic emission filament coatings entirely, may be of use in producing greatly improved PAGD regime devices. I wonder what happened to both the aqaufuel and the Correa endeavors. At least the Correa's web information is still up. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The gas CO2 is patented by Dr. Mills and BLP as a hydrino catalyst
You have missed the point entirely. The *experimental* results using carbon arcs in water produced a COP of 7. No half baked theory was involved. No metals were involved. Hydrinos were possibly not even involved. Of course the results could have been bogus. That is why I used the word may instead of is. On Nov 19, 2011, at 3:31 AM, David ledin wrote: Nickel may not be necessary at all' No : Nickel or similar metal with high lattice enthalpy like Alkali metal halides is necessary. See these papers from Rowan university http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/RowanChemSummer2009Report.pdf http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/RowanHydrinoReport2009.pdf On 11/19/11, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Nov 19, 2011, at 1:24 AM, David ledin wrote: From Randell Mills yahoo group The gas CO2 is patented by Dr. Mills and BLP as a hydrino catalyst. Nickel has an affinity to bind to CO. At temperatures below 700 degrees Celsius heating nickel first releases CO and around 400 degrees Celsius a dominant reaction causes 2CO to form C and CO2 on an abradided nickel surface. At the same time, hydrogen is split at the nickel surface, creating one hopes a population of atomic H and a population of CO2 in close proximity which can undergo hydrino transitions at the nickel surface. Interestingly, above 700 degrees C, the dominant exothermic 2CO - C + CO2 reaction stops and is reversed such that endothermic formation of CO dominates - a nifty self regulating physical mechanism that could be used to create a self regulating reactor. The variable factors are what ratio and pressures of H2 and CO would work best to create an observable reaction? Reaction rates of resonant energy transfers appear particularly dependent on exact conditions for each type of catalyst and the manner in which H and the catalyst are brought close together to trigger transitions. antony Nickel may not be necessary at all, nor even hydrino formation, for free energy generation in this regime. A carbon arc in water vapor may be sufficient, or more to the point any form of arc (including induced electrodeless discharge) in a CO2 plus water vapor environment, may be sufficient for energy generation. There was excess energy observed from aquafuel (water gas) creation via pyrolysis of carbon (or carbon bearing materials) via underwater arc. It seemed to me logical in 1996 that a direct CO2 recycling mechanism, without additional carbon input, might work. See: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/aquafuel.pdf I mentioned the possible use of Correa's PAGD discharge range, a low pressure discharge regime, which is described here http://www.globalserve.net/~lambdac/PwrfromAEemissions.html The low pressure CO2 + H2O gas should cycle to water gas and back within the arc, with chemically enhanced negative resistance pressure waves increasing the electrical AC feedback output (and thus the free energy) from such a tube. The Correas supposedly obtained a COP of 7 from the PAGD regime without any added chemical means. The newly available nickel barium alloys, which have very good thermionic emission characteristics, and avoid the need for barium oxide thermionic emission filament coatings entirely, may be of use in producing greatly improved PAGD regime devices. I wonder what happened to both the aqaufuel and the Correa endeavors. At least the Correa's web information is still up. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: Correa, etc.
Jed Rothwell wrote: Mike Carrell wrote: joules to 17,800 volts. To prevent the terminal voltage from rising to, say 100 volts, 100 farads of capactors would be needed, or 17,857 capcitors. By comparison, batteries look pretty good. . . . You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube. What you have built is a gas-discharge relaxation oscillator equivalent to any common strobe flash. It is ***not*** a PAGD reactor. If this is the case, then Jeff has taken a serious wrong turn, and he has been wasting his time. That has often happened with cold fusion over the years. It is a terrible shame. Message to Mike: Why can't you Jeff get together and iron this out? Message to Jeff: Would you be willing to try again? Keith Nagel is probably right when he says, practically speaking a replication is impossible unless Paulo participates in an active way, which he will not. That is the worst shame of all. Evidently, cold fusion was much easier to reproduce than the pagd (assuming the pagd is real). In 1989, knowledge of electrochemistry was widespread, so even though Fleischmann and Pons were not available to go around holding other people's hands, many researchers such as Bockris, Oriani, Huggins and Miles were able to reproduce it on their own. If the necessary skills and knowledge have been as obscure as those required for the pagd, it probably would have been lost. While I agree with Jed about the basic point he is making, success in replicating the cold fusion claims is not based on skill, or at least not the kind of skill Jed is noting. Success has been based on chance creation of the nuclear active environment. No one, even today, knows what this environment looks like or how to create it on purpose. Repeated success is based on having a chance success that the researcher was able to duplicate by holding the conditions constant. Naturally, because many variables are involved, not all of them can be held constant. Consequently, success is frequently marred by many failures, even for the more successful researchers. Only gradually, have some of the variables been identified. This has happened only because a few people kept trying and failing. Initially, the effect was thought to occur in bulk palladium. Consequently, great effort was devoted to obtaining palladium that could load to high D/Pd ratios. Now we know that this approach is not important. A variety of materials work and these can be applied as thin layers to inert materials. The point is that if the PAGD effect is like cold fusion, it probably can be initiated several different ways, some of which can be found by the same kind of trial and error used by the Correas. Replication is a slippery standard. When an effect is successfully replicated, you know the it is real -- simple enough. But when it is *not* replicated, it can be very difficult to judge what happened. Perhaps the effect does not exist after all. Or the people trying to replicate are making honest mistakes. Or they are only making a desultory effort. They may even be deliberately trying to prove that the effect does not exist. You would have to be a mind reader to sort out events. A replication is a clear signal from Mother Nature. A non-replication is a complicated human event, colored by understanding, knowledge, politics, emotion, and so on. l would also like to point out that a strict duplication is not replication. It is possible for both studies to make the same mistakes. Replication is most impressive when the same effect can be produced several different ways, each of which show that the same variables are having the same effect on the outcome. Cold fusion has passed this test. The PAGD effect has not. Regards, Ed - Jed
RE: Correa
Chris, it would be helpful if you would turn off the HTML option when posting here. It would reduce your post size by about 2/3. Thanks. At 10:05 AM 3/6/5, Zell, Chris wrote: From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 9:07 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Correa Chris wrote: Now we're getting somewhere! No, we are not. You are repeating the same mistake that Jeff made, changing what the Correas did before you ever see the effect. The PAGD discharge is a wideband event. Transformers are ***not*** simple devices in a wideband case, they have stray inductance which will present a complex impedance to the discharge. You are ignoring what I said about the discharge continuing with no rise in the cell voltage. You say you have studied the Correa ptents, but you have not understood the implications of what is in them. Transformers also block DC. I don't want to be harsh here, but you have to do your homework **very thoroughly**. Mike Carrell Sadly, I hope you haven't been infected with the Correas' mindset. I have done a lot of 'homework' on this subject - including sending the Correas an e-mail warning them that much of their patents effect may be covered by old patents by Philo Farnsworth in the '30's and '40's in which he obtained overunity ( perhaps in a different context) from implinging electrons on vacuum housed aluminum plates. ( multipactor tubes) As things stand, the Correas do not have anything practical to offer the public. For the sake of humanity, let's hope that changes. It is entirely reasonable to question their work - respectfully - so as to try to create something practical out of it. At least one of their patents clearly presents a transformer on the output in the printed schematic, so they've experimented with it. We should respect and try to faithfully duplicate their technical work. That said , we should utterly avoid the spirit of contentiousness, contempt and seething hatred that creates the defeat of noble enterprise. It is not enough to have a Ph.D. If we follow this ugly course, we are making ourselves the equals of darkened hearts and minds who sneer at cold fusion and other developments, regardless of evidence. Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit. !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN HTMLHEAD META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=us-ascii META content=MSHTML 6.00.2800.1491 name=GENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY bgColor=#ff DIV dir=ltr align=leftSPAN class=578304515-06032005FONT face=Arial color=#ff size=2/FONT/SPANnbsp;/DIVBR DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left HR tabIndex=-1 FONT face=Tahoma size=2BFrom:/B Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] BRBSent:/B Saturday, March 05, 2005 9:07 AMBRBTo:/B vortex-l@eskimo.comBRBSubject:/B Re: CorreaBR/FONTBR/DIV DIV/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2Chris wrote: /FONT/DIV BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style=PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #00 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONTBR/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2SPAN class=359301422-04032005nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;n bsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; Now we're getting somewhere!/SPAN/FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2SPAN class=359301422-04032005/SPAN/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial color=#ff size=2SPAN class=359301422-04032005No, we are not. You are repeating the same mistake that Jeff made, changing what the Correas did before you ever see the effect. The PAGD discharge is a wideband event. Transformers are ***not*** simple devices in a wideband case, they have stray inductance which will present a complex impedance to the discharge. You are ignoring what I said about the discharge continuing with no rise in the cell voltage. You say you have studied the Correa ptents, but you have not understood the implications of what is in them. Transformers also block DC. /SPAN/FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial color=#ff size=2SPAN class=359301422-04032005/SPAN/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial color=#ff size=2SPAN class=359301422
Re: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
Jed Rothwell wrote: [ ... ] Mills is much, much better and far more credible than people like the Methernitha crowd, Greg Watson, or for that matter Correa. But he still has a wide credibility gap, and he still has not made a real effort to convince people. The last thing he told me, years ago, is that he does not want to convince people, and that he likes things the way they are. [ ... ] Many years ago Mills supposedly had energy producing devices which would have convinced any reasonable engineer, such as the devices he and Thermacore developed, described by Donald Ernst in 1992. Assuming those claims were not a horrible mistake, or for some reason they could not be replicated, Mills could have easily used those devices to convince the entire world that his claims are valid. I do not know what to make of the fact that he failed to do that. I am forced to conclude that: 1. Either the claims fell through for some reason I never heard about, or 2. Mills is stark-staring crazy, like most other people in over-unity energy biz. Most perpetual motion machine salesmen are not crazy. Why credit Mills with less sanity than them? I have heard many times that it is actually: 3. Mills is working on some ultra clever secret business scheme. But I do not believe this, because I simply cannot imagine any business strategy... It's not so hard, really, to imagine that there's a sensible strategy here. Mills has investors, right? Those are people who've given him money for this. So he _is_ getting funds for it. He has lots of interesting results but if he has anything absolutely airtight in the way of a public demonstration of something really new I must have overlooked mention of it. He has a theory which requires throwing out QM (well tested, used every day) and starting over with a clean slate. He has secrets which (he says) are revolutionary but which still aren't quite ready yet. He has produced mysterious chemicals which should be revolutionary but which somehow don't seem to have revolutionized anything, or even gotten any mention anywhere outside of Vortex. And he's been in this state for how many years? Money in, nothing out. With a theory that is very very hard to swallow, which is needed to explain results that aren't ever quite visible just yet. Is it so hard to think of a fourth possibility? Is the emporer really wearing anything at all? Hmmm. CF has reports of anomalous results from labs scattered all over the world, and it has hints of a plausible theory to give us a glimmer of what might be going on. BLP has tantalizing results reported by _one_ lab and an outlandish theory to explain these results which nobody else has ever achieved AFAIK. (Sorry, I'm crabby tonight.)
Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux
On 02/25/2011 09:19 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: The worst example was the Correa claim that a stationary gold leaf electroscope does work. No, it doesn't! It isn't a little guy standing with his arms out. He claimed to have electrical evidence that a stationary gold leaf electroscope does work. I assume your rejection is based on a critique of the evidence rather then just the belief that it is physical nonsense. Actually, the problem is deeper and simpler than that. The *fact* that the Correas were off in la-la land on that one is based directly on semantics and pure logic, not on anything else, and that is why it's a fact rather than an opinion. Does work means something specific in physics: Work is force times distance. When distance moved is zero, work done is zero. work = force * distance(says Newton) The little man with his arms sticking out is also not doing work, no matter what you or the little man may think. Once again, it's the definition of work that tells us this. Now, before you say, Steve's full of it here, the little man's breaking a sweat I need to point out that a solenoid with movable core which is holding a lever in position -- say, for instance, holding the little man's arms in position (the little man is a robot in that case) is also *NOT* doing work despite the fact that it's getting hot. The solenoid in the robot, and the muscles in a human, DISSIPATE ENERGY.That's for sure! But they don't do work in the process; they just produce heat. Doing work produces kinetic energy; generating heat in a solenoid, or in a muscle, does no more work than dissipating heat in a resistor. Of course, whether something is doing work is also somewhat dependent on the point of view. At the smallest scale, the electric field in the resistor does work on the electrons. But in the macroscopic view, we get no work out of a resistor; we just get heat. You could, of course, argue that producing heat is doing work in that particles are being accelerated, which means force*distance is nonzero on those particles, which means, in turn, that work is being done. And that's fine, too, it's semantics and semantics are just whatever we agree on; this new, more complex definition of work looks something like this: work = force * distance + generated heat And once again, by definition, it's nonsense to say the electroscope is doing work, because not only is it just sitting there, it's just sitting there at *constant* temperature -- it's not getting hot. Electrical evidence is not relevant in this case; only if they can show that fixed-geometry systems with an electrostatic charge spontaneously warm up can they claim that something is doing work. Now, it is quite possible that the Correas have REDEFINED work to mean something other than force times distance, or force times distance plus waste heat. In that case, they are just being unclear and obfuscatory rather than totally muddleheaded. But in the absence of some stated definition for the term work which includes stationary systems with fixed geometry, the simplest conclusion is that they're clueless.
