[Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone
On Mar 18, 2007, at 5:13 AM, R.C.Macaulay wrote: Last year we tested a high speed water vortex inducer that produced a near perfect cylinder shaped vortex. This shape differs from a parabolic tornado shape we are all familar with. The cylinder shape has an eyewall like a hurricane. This cylinder shape permits a better examination of free electrons and a host of rabbit holes one can travel and become mis-directed. Richard, Any interesting observations? Zak
[Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack)
No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also considered electrolysis. If by this you mean that electroplating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroplating is not electrical decomposition you are quite mistaken Ed, it is. What decomposes in electroplating is --as in any electrolysis-- the electrolyte, a metal salt solution whose metal component plates out on the cathode, by the dissolved positive metal ion acquiring one or more electrons from the power supply's negative pole to become solid metal. In one technique (but not all) electroplating also involves dissolution of the _anode_ as a way to replenish the ions in the bath. However in PF experiments such as yours palladium is the _cathode_ so this phenomenon doesn't occur, therefore it cannot be invoked to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. Controversy solved? Michel Lobbying for a proper use of the terms of electrochemistry --terms on which, which may explain my sensitivity to their misuse, I have become by chance a specialist cf my contributions to the anode and cathode articles on wikipedia-- and more generally for calling a cat a cat (sorry for being such a smug aristocratic French smart ass Terry) - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack The issue of importance on Michel's mind is whether the word electrolysis is being used correctly. I must be inhabited by Faraday's ghost ;-) He and I agree that the word describes initiation of a chemical reaction by passage of current. Yes but not any reaction, check the definition, a reaction of decomposition. Decomposition of course is separation of a composed body into the elements it is composed of, e.g. D2O - D2 + 0.5 O2 No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also considered electrolysis. Thus, H2O can be electrolyzed. In fact, palladium can also be electrolyzed because it is chemically changed by passing current trough it in an electrolytic cell, something Faraday did not know. The palladium reacts to form PdD and it dissolves in the solution. Therefore it is not decomposed. Palladium cannot be decomposed BTW, as you know it is an element, not a composed body. Palladium is converted from a metal to an ion. D2O is converted from an ion to neutral elements. The issue is only the direction of the reaction. Both reactions are consistent with chemical reactions being initiated by flowing current. Therefore, it is correct to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. It would only be correct if it was decomposed into constituting elements, which even if it was (it isn't because it can't as I said) would be of course a minor effect compared to the main decomposition that takes place, that of D2O, which would make your description about as accurate as Dissolution of a mug to describe an experiment where you dissolve sugar in your coffee. The problem with Michel's approach is that he is unwilling to see beyond the conventional and limited understanding of electrolysis while maintaining that only he is correct in how the word is used. Not just me, me and all dictionaries and textbooks which say that electrolysis is electrochemical decomposition. I suggest the dictionaries are not up to date or at least not complete. Does this put an end to the controversy? I hope so. Ed Michel Ed Terry Blanton wrote: On 3/18/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the same book he also illustrated what I was saying yesterday BTW, the fact that a good scientist always doubts :)) Yes, but this whole issue has arisen because you French are so bloody anal about language. I have a contract administrator who is French and she is excellent in what she does. She speaks perfect english and will enter into heated arguments about some fine aspect of her second language. Indeed, she is usually correct in her argument; but, in the process, she alienates herself from her coworkers. She comes off as smug and aristrocratic. Sometimes it's better to let us wallow in our ignorant bliss. Terry
Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack)
On 3/19/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (sorry for being such a smug aristocratic French smart ass Terry) (You should have placed a comma after 'smug', 'aristrocratic' and 'ass'.) I understand it is your nature. You can no more help it than a frog striking his ass every time he jumps (assuming he has his legs still). ;-) T
[Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone
On Mar 18, 2007, at 5:13 AM, R.C.Macaulay wrote: Last year we tested a high speed water vortex inducer that produced a near perfect cylinder shaped vortex. This shape differs from a parabolic tornado shape we are all familar with. The cylinder shape has an eyewall like a hurricane. This cylinder shape permits a better examination of free electrons and a host of rabbit holes one can travel and become mis-directed. Zac wrote.. Any interesting observations? Howdy Zac, Noticed when the test rig is immersed in a square tank a number of random sympathetic water vortex are generated. These form and decay over a short period. By random, I mean they may be horizontal, diagonal or parallel, however, mostly horizontal shaped hovering in the northwest quadrant of the tank. We believe they may have entirely different properties than the main cylinder. This year's plans include examining a cute trick using a pair of resonating synchronizing tuning forks for ultrasonic studies plus magnets and microwave if we can ever figure out where and how to aim. Fun stuff !! Designing a modular system of mechanical components for the next stage of the tests began late last year. Since we are a privately owned company with internal funding and make a practice of NOT patenting new designs, we can function uninhibited like a skunk works mentality. What is strange about the effort is that we spent most of the past 3 years research budget on the monster and received only indirect benefit from the work. We spent a fraction on a new combo flow metering control valve and already have it in production. Back in 1980 the businesses that were using computers wound up owning those that didn't. This decade will demonstrate the companies with active research budgets won't own firms that don't.. there won't be any other firms. Soon gone will be competitor number 3 and up. In most categories of industry there will be a sole supplier. In the auto world it will be Toyota. get the picture? The fun part is that GE Capital owns most industries worldwide now... not the stock.. just the paper, which is tantamount to ownership with out the marriage liscense. Richard
Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack)
Michel Jullian wrote: No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also considered electrolysis. If by this you mean that electroplating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroplating is not electrical decomposition you are quite mistaken Ed, it is. What decomposes in electroplating is --as in any electrolysis-- the electrolyte, a metal salt solution whose metal component plates out on the cathode, by the dissolved positive metal ion acquiring one or more electrons from the power supply's negative pole to become solid metal. In one technique (but not all) electroplating also involves dissolution of the _anode_ as a way to replenish the ions in the bath. However in PF experiments such as yours palladium is the _cathode_ so this phenomenon doesn't occur, therefore it cannot be invoked to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. Controversy solved? I now see the problem, you have not read or believe what I write. First of all, I did not say that electroplating was not decomposition. I said that electroplating is a another form of electrolysis. As to the issue regarding palladium, palladium does in fact dissolve as the cathode. The process begins by Li plating on and reacting with the Pd to form soluble alloys. These dissolve and the Pd is replated back on the cathode surface. The process is complex, but involves decomposition and electric current flowing through a solution. Rather than insisting on your interpretation being the only correct one, I suggest you expand your viewpoint. I might point out I have been studying electrochemistry for the past 18 years and do understand the subject. Ed Michel Lobbying for a proper use of the terms of electrochemistry --terms on which, which may explain my sensitivity to their misuse, I have become by chance a specialist cf my contributions to the anode and cathode articles on wikipedia-- and more generally for calling a cat a cat (sorry for being such a smug aristocratic French smart ass Terry) - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack The issue of importance on Michel's mind is whether the word electrolysis is being used correctly. I must be inhabited by Faraday's ghost ;-) He and I agree that the word describes initiation of a chemical reaction by passage of current. Yes but not any reaction, check the definition, a reaction of decomposition. Decomposition of course is separation of a composed body into the elements it is composed of, e.g. D2O - D2 + 0.5 O2 No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also considered electrolysis. Thus, H2O can be electrolyzed. In fact, palladium can also be electrolyzed because it is chemically changed by passing current trough it in an electrolytic cell, something Faraday did not know. The palladium reacts to form PdD and it dissolves in the solution. Therefore it is not decomposed. Palladium cannot be decomposed BTW, as you know it is an element, not a composed body. Palladium is converted from a metal to an ion. D2O is converted from an ion to neutral elements. The issue is only the direction of the reaction. Both reactions are consistent with chemical reactions being initiated by flowing current. Therefore, it is correct to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. It would only be correct if it was decomposed into constituting elements, which even if it was (it isn't because it can't as I said) would be of course a minor effect compared to the main decomposition that takes place, that of D2O, which would make your description about as accurate as Dissolution of a mug to describe an experiment where you dissolve sugar in your coffee. The problem with Michel's approach is that he is unwilling to see beyond the conventional and limited understanding of electrolysis while maintaining that only he is correct in how the word is used. Not just me, me and all dictionaries and textbooks which say that electrolysis is electrochemical decomposition. I suggest the dictionaries are not up to date or at least not complete. Does this put an end to the controversy? I hope so. Ed Michel Ed Terry Blanton wrote: On 3/18/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the same book he also illustrated what I was saying yesterday BTW, the fact that a good scientist always doubts :)) Yes, but this whole issue has arisen because you French are so bloody anal about language. I have a contract administrator who is French and she is excellent in what she does. She speaks perfect english and will enter into heated arguments about some fine aspect of her second
Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack)
So, this complex process you just described, whereby Li plates on and reacts with the Pd to form soluble alloys, these dissolve and the Pd is replated back on the cathode surface --- which indeed involves decomposition and electric current flowing through a solution, just like electrolysis! --- is in fact what your paper talks about principally, and that's why it says electrolysis of palladium, right? Oh dear, how unfortunate, you forgot to mention this process in the paper! I hope Profs. Fleischman and Pons did mention it in their paper, since you write in page 1 that in 1989 they too electrolyzed a platinum anode, a palladium cathode, using a LiOD + D2O electrolyte. Note they seem to have beaten you, they even managed to electrolyze platinum, will you please explain the detailed process too? Apart from that, any electrolysis of heavy water going on, accessorily? ;-) Thanks for the good laugh Ed : Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack) Michel Jullian wrote: No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also considered electrolysis. If by this you mean that electroplating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroplating is not electrical decomposition you are quite mistaken Ed, it is. What decomposes in electroplating is --as in any electrolysis-- the electrolyte, a metal salt solution whose metal component plates out on the cathode, by the dissolved positive metal ion acquiring one or more electrons from the power supply's negative pole to become solid metal. In one technique (but not all) electroplating also involves dissolution of the _anode_ as a way to replenish the ions in the bath. However in PF experiments such as yours palladium is the _cathode_ so this phenomenon doesn't occur, therefore it cannot be invoked to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. Controversy solved? I now see the problem, you have not read or believe what I write. First of all, I did not say that electroplating was not decomposition. I said that electroplating is a another form of electrolysis. As to the issue regarding palladium, palladium does in fact dissolve as the cathode. The process begins by Li plating on and reacting with the Pd to form soluble alloys. These dissolve and the Pd is replated back on the cathode surface. The process is complex, but involves decomposition and electric current flowing through a solution. Rather than insisting on your interpretation being the only correct one, I suggest you expand your viewpoint. I might point out I have been studying electrochemistry for the past 18 years and do understand the subject. Ed Michel Lobbying for a proper use of the terms of electrochemistry --terms on which, which may explain my sensitivity to their misuse, I have become by chance a specialist cf my contributions to the anode and cathode articles on wikipedia-- and more generally for calling a cat a cat (sorry for being such a smug aristocratic French smart ass Terry) - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack The issue of importance on Michel's mind is whether the word electrolysis is being used correctly. I must be inhabited by Faraday's ghost ;-) He and I agree that the word describes initiation of a chemical reaction by passage of current. Yes but not any reaction, check the definition, a reaction of decomposition. Decomposition of course is separation of a composed body into the elements it is composed of, e.g. D2O - D2 + 0.5 O2 No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also considered electrolysis. Thus, H2O can be electrolyzed. In fact, palladium can also be electrolyzed because it is chemically changed by passing current trough it in an electrolytic cell, something Faraday did not know. The palladium reacts to form PdD and it dissolves in the solution. Therefore it is not decomposed. Palladium cannot be decomposed BTW, as you know it is an element, not a composed body. Palladium is converted from a metal to an ion. D2O is converted from an ion to neutral elements. The issue is only the direction of the reaction. Both reactions are consistent with chemical reactions being initiated by flowing current. Therefore, it is correct to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. It would only be correct if it was decomposed into constituting elements, which even if it was (it isn't
[Vo]: The Randi Box
Randi owes this geek $1M: http://www.crypto.com/blog/psychic_cryptanalysis/ Terry
Re: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone
On 3/19/07, Dean McGowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I incorrect in assuming that a particle travelling at the speed of light has infinite mass ? There you go . . . trying to destroy everything that Richard Feynman did to earn his Nobel. Next, you'll be asking about the electron mass and it's dynamic spin momentum. Dicky normalized this ages ago. He simply waved his hands and the infinities went away. Please, don't remind us of how stupid we really are. ;-) Terry
Re: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone
'Nuff said :D Dean Original Message Follows From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:00:21 -0500 On 3/19/07, Dean McGowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I incorrect in assuming that a particle travelling at the speed of light has infinite mass ? There you go . . . trying to destroy everything that Richard Feynman did to earn his Nobel. Next, you'll be asking about the electron mass and it's dynamic spin momentum. Dicky normalized this ages ago. He simply waved his hands and the infinities went away. Please, don't remind us of how stupid we really are. ;-) Terry
Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack)
Michel Jullian wrote: So, this complex process you just described, whereby Li plates on and reacts with the Pd to form soluble alloys, these dissolve and the Pd is replated back on the cathode surface --- which indeed involves decomposition and electric current flowing through a solution, just like electrolysis! --- is in fact what your paper talks about principally, and that's why it says electrolysis of palladium, right? Oh dear, how unfortunate, you forgot to mention this process in the paper! I hope Profs. Fleischman and Pons did mention it in their paper, since you write in page 1 that in 1989 they too electrolyzed a platinum anode, a palladium cathode, using a LiOD + D2O electrolyte. Note they seem to have beaten you, they even managed to electrolyze platinum, will you please explain the detailed process too? Apart from that, any electrolysis of heavy water going on, accessorily? ;-) Thanks for the good laugh Ed : You many find this funny. I, on the other hand, find your approach very sad. Your primary interest has been to show that my use of a word is wrong. Apparently, the results described in the paper in which this word is used have no value at all to you. You initially asked some good questions that I accepted as honest interest. When I supplied the information you requested, the only issue was my use of a word. Am I mistaken or has Vortex ceased to be where science is discussed? Ed Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack) Michel Jullian wrote: No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also considered electrolysis. If by this you mean that electroplating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroplating is not electrical decomposition you are quite mistaken Ed, it is. What decomposes in electroplating is --as in any electrolysis-- the electrolyte, a metal salt solution whose metal component plates out on the cathode, by the dissolved positive metal ion acquiring one or more electrons from the power supply's negative pole to become solid metal. In one technique (but not all) electroplating also involves dissolution of the _anode_ as a way to replenish the ions in the bath. However in PF experiments such as yours palladium is the _cathode_ so this phenomenon doesn't occur, therefore it cannot be invoked to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. Controversy solved? I now see the problem, you have not read or believe what I write. First of all, I did not say that electroplating was not decomposition. I said that electroplating is a another form of electrolysis. As to the issue regarding palladium, palladium does in fact dissolve as the cathode. The process begins by Li plating on and reacting with the Pd to form soluble alloys. These dissolve and the Pd is replated back on the cathode surface. The process is complex, but involves decomposition and electric current flowing through a solution. Rather than insisting on your interpretation being the only correct one, I suggest you expand your viewpoint. I might point out I have been studying electrochemistry for the past 18 years and do understand the subject. Ed Michel Lobbying for a proper use of the terms of electrochemistry --terms on which, which may explain my sensitivity to their misuse, I have become by chance a specialist cf my contributions to the anode and cathode articles on wikipedia-- and more generally for calling a cat a cat (sorry for being such a smug aristocratic French smart ass Terry) - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack The issue of importance on Michel's mind is whether the word electrolysis is being used correctly. I must be inhabited by Faraday's ghost ;-) He and I agree that the word describes initiation of a chemical reaction by passage of current. Yes but not any reaction, check the definition, a reaction of decomposition. Decomposition of course is separation of a composed body into the elements it is composed of, e.g. D2O - D2 + 0.5 O2 No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also considered electrolysis. Thus, H2O can be electrolyzed. In fact, palladium can also be electrolyzed because it is chemically changed by passing current trough it in an electrolytic cell, something Faraday did not know. The palladium reacts to form PdD and it dissolves in the solution. Therefore it is not decomposed. Palladium cannot be decomposed
Re: [Vo]: Re: PQP2 was: Di-Ozone
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:37:50 -0700 (PDT): Hi Jones, [snip] Robin Prediction: intrinsic angular momentum is itself related to charge somehow, and also to the LST quasi-particle, and all will be resolved once these three issues are integrated [the three are intrinsic angular momentum, charge, and the quasi-particle and the resolution will explain an apparently chargeless component of the solar wind which has mass near 1GeV, and looks more like a stable neutron than anything else. That particle is the solar-derived non-Millsian hydrino-hydride. RvS: Hydrino-hydride carries a negative charge. Hello. Did you get caught in the Oz vortex? or was the wording not sufficiently lucid (the likely problem) g This particle - the solar-derived non-Millsian hydrino-hydride is neutral. I have no objection to you inventing new particles, but please don't reuse names that others have already given to something else, it leads to confusion. ;) The particle in question (revised particle from Mills' erroneous assumption) is the PQP2 (proton-quasi-particle sub2) which is a solar-derived non-Millsian hydrino-hydride in this hypothesis. It is hypothetical, like the (erroneous) Hydrino hydride, and consists of a proton strongly bound to two quasi-particle-electrons, of the L.S.T. variety, and has zero overall charge, since the fractional negative (expressed) charges of the two QPs are balanced by the proton's positive. That is what makes it a non-Millsian hydrino-hydride. It is neutral. What I am saying (hypothesizing), in effect, is that Mills got it wrong - at least insofar as the solar (natural) variety of this species is concerned. Perhaps he knows of an earthly manifestation which is charged negatively, but there is no evidence of that in any published experiment AFIK. More than evidence on paper, Mills has bottles of the stuff (literally). See http://www.blacklightpower.com/images/Chemicals.jpg Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack)
Ed - I've been following this saga only sketchily, and it only reinforces my observation that there's an enormous number of people who regard this world as a gigantic court of law; that everything (every word) has to be legally justifiable. What a bore The world is NOT like that, and I for one don't tolerate being cross-examined on every word or statement I make. And neither should you. If people don't have (or are *above* having) an intuitive grasp of an idea or statement, that's just too bad. Neither you nor I, nor anyone else, should have to suffer an inquisition; even a so-called scientific inquisition. P. At 08:17 PM 3/19/2007, you wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: So, this complex process you just described, whereby Li plates on and reacts with the Pd to form soluble alloys, these dissolve and the Pd is replated back on the cathode surface --- which indeed involves decomposition and electric current flowing through a solution, just like electrolysis! --- is in fact what your paper talks about principally, and that's why it says electrolysis of palladium, right? Oh dear, how unfortunate, you forgot to mention this process in the paper! I hope Profs. Fleischman and Pons did mention it in their paper, since you write in page 1 that in 1989 they too electrolyzed a platinum anode, a palladium cathode, using a LiOD + D2O electrolyte. Note they seem to have beaten you, they even managed to electrolyze platinum, will you please explain the detailed process too? Apart from that, any electrolysis of heavy water going on, accessorily? ;-) Thanks for the good laugh Ed : You many find this funny. I, on the other hand, find your approach very sad. Your primary interest has been to show that my use of a word is wrong. Apparently, the results described in the paper in which this word is used have no value at all to you. You initially asked some good questions that I accepted as honest interest. When I supplied the information you requested, the only issue was my use of a word. Am I mistaken or has Vortex ceased to be where science is discussed? Ed Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack) Michel Jullian wrote: No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also considered electrolysis. If by this you mean that electroplating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroplating is not electrical decomposition you are quite mistaken Ed, it is. What decomposes in electroplating is --as in any electrolysis-- the electrolyte, a metal salt solution whose metal component plates out on the cathode, by the dissolved positive metal ion acquiring one or more electrons from the power supply's negative pole to become solid metal. In one technique (but not all) electroplating also involves dissolution of the _anode_ as a way to replenish the ions in the bath. However in PF experiments such as yours palladium is the _cathode_ so this phenomenon doesn't occur, therefore it cannot be invoked to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. Controversy solved? I now see the problem, you have not read or believe what I write. First of all, I did not say that electroplating was not decomposition. I said that electroplating is a another form of electrolysis. As to the issue regarding palladium, palladium does in fact dissolve as the cathode. The process begins by Li plating on and reacting with the Pd to form soluble alloys. These dissolve and the Pd is replated back on the cathode surface. The process is complex, but involves decomposition and electric current flowing through a solution. Rather than insisting on your interpretation being the only correct one, I suggest you expand your viewpoint. I might point out I have been studying electrochemistry for the past 18 years and do understand the subject. Ed Michel Lobbying for a proper use of the terms of electrochemistry --terms on which, which may explain my sensitivity to their misuse, I have become by chance a specialist cf my contributions to the anode and cathode articles on wikipedia-- and more generally for calling a cat a cat (sorry for being such a smug aristocratic French smart ass Terry) - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack The issue of importance on Michel's mind is whether the word electrolysis is being used correctly. I must be inhabited by Faraday's ghost ;-) He and I agree that the word describes initiation of
Re: [Vo]: Cheap Lauch or Free Lunch was: Di-Ozone
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:55:05 -0700: Hi, [snip] The key add-on would be an inline reactor subsystem, which would use high pressure O2 which has already been used to cool the rocket motor and then after polymerization - vent the diozone back into the motor. This reactor would, of necessity, contain an intense UV source in the critical spectrum of 254 nm. It would likely need to be a coherent source of UV light. [snip] Most of the fuel mass carried aloft is O2, so any improvement in the energy derived from it would be valuable. However doing so implies adding energy to the O2 molecules. If this is done on the ground, then you are taking extra energy along with you. If you have to do this while in flight, then the extra energy has to come from somewhere else. Where? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
[Vo]: Re: PQP2 was: Di-Ozone
Robin More than evidence on paper, Mills has bottles of the stuff (literally). See http://www.blacklightpower.com/images/Chemicals.jpg ... old news, and largely meaningless for this discussion. What is in those vials, no one but Mills has a clue; and he is likely just guessing or he would publish more detail. So far, everything which Mills is even remotely sure of, gets published. Over and over, actually. He sent that material out many years ago for analysis (7-8 yrs.?) and the fact that no independent lab wants to stick their neck out on significant details (other than to say it is odd) should tell you something. Agreed - there are very likely to be hydrino compounds in there, compounded with alkali metals, which is the limit of what Mills is claiming anyway. I can pretty much guarantee one thing. There is near ZERO residual negative charge on any vial, as there would have to be if there were really such an entity as Hy- in existence: that being the stable, uncompounded but charged hydride, which had been captured as a pure species. There could be some slight static charge, as is seen with an electret, but even picograms of a charged stable hydride could not be contained. Needless to say, even for those who accept his experimental evidence, there is a totally different focus when one is looking of a natural solar-derived hydrogen species, which CANNOT be negatively charged, really -- compared to the situation of an alkali hydride in which the hydrogen is substituted.
Re: [Vo]: Cheap Lauch or Free Lunch was: Di-Ozone
Hi Robin At least we are not arguing over what is the meaning of is ... Most of the fuel mass carried aloft is O2, so any improvement in the energy derived from it would be valuable. However doing so implies adding energy to the O2 molecules. If this is done on the ground, then you are taking extra energy along with you. If you have to do this while in flight, then the extra energy has to come from somewhere else. Where? The O2 is first used to cool the rocket motor before entering the reactor. This helps keep the motor from melting from the intense heat. In so doing lots of heat and pressure are added. The change in structure to di-ozone (if there is such a thing) at that point, and before combustion, may be endothermic, and the required UV radiation would be more catalytic than parasitic. Still you would need lots of electricity. Who knows - an induction coil placed around the motor to extract some of the moving plasma charge ?? Hey if NASA wants to give me a consulting contract, I'll work on it g
Re: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone
Thats just crazy momentum is an attribute of a particle with mass and electrons have no wait a minute .. your just playing around with me right ? Dean Original Message Follows From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:00:21 -0500 On 3/19/07, Dean McGowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I incorrect in assuming that a particle travelling at the speed of light has infinite mass ? There you go . . . trying to destroy everything that Richard Feynman did to earn his Nobel. Next, you'll be asking about the electron mass and it's dynamic spin momentum. Dicky normalized this ages ago. He simply waved his hands and the infinities went away. Please, don't remind us of how stupid we really are. ;-) Terry
[Vo]: MODERATOR: Michel Jullian, cease your attack on Ed Storms
I've received complaints about your behavior. In reading the recent threads, it's clear that several Vortex members have objected to your behavior, yet you ignored them. Are you new to Vortex-L? On this forum, dismissing complaints from other users is a major mistake. And perhaps you haven't read the rules. Ad hominem attacks are banned here. Vortex-L is a continuing experiment in online community. It has few rules, lightly enforced. Normally members respond to each other's minor lapses, and the community is self-correcting. But if problems rise to the level where an offending member starts ignoring others' multiple complaints, I will step in. Enforcement usually involves weeks-long or permanent removal of the offending member to vortexB-L, where there are no rules at all. I see that ad hominem is not the only problem here. Let me make my opinion clear. Over the last decade I've entered into discussion with large number people on Newsgroups and even on Vortex who see nothing wrong with ad hominem. The common name for such people is Trolls or Flamers. I've learned by repeated experience that one typical troll ploy involves dishonestly distorting a common word, then endlessly arguing about it. (Narrow exclusive dictionary definitions of words having multiple definitions in practice certainly qualify as dishonest distortion.) Your behavior in this thread very much resembles a classic Troll Ploy. I'm well aware that Electrolysis has a definition broader than the non-tech dictionary definition to electrically lyse. Ed Storms and others know the same. Most probably the researchers reading his paper's title are aware of the wider definition. Yet you honestly believe that Electrolysis has just a single narrow definition? I suspect otherwise. To me it appears that you're not trying to help Ed Storms at all, but using help as a dishonest masquerade while you strive to embarass him in public. But Ed Storms has no need to be embarassed, since his usage is not an error. A second problem. I note that initially you mentioned that Ed Storms' had made a serious error ...but then you refused to tell him what the error was. This is a tactic of dishonest debate I've seen more than once, a form of Troll grandstanding, though one less common than the longrunning arguments based on intentional word-distortion. This tactic has a clear purpose: to focus public attention on the one who employs it. It's appropriate to a political forum where dishonest manipulative tactics are the norm. It has no place in a scientific debate. That you used it sets off my alarm bells. A third problem. An honorable person with a legit correction would consciously attempt to AVOID embarrassment by communicating in a very brief message, or better yet, via private email. Doing it very noisily in public, over several days, in a thread BTW where you also used a number of small put-downs, adds up to a very serious ad-hominem attack. Those who objected to your behavior were in the right. Ed Storms deserves a major apology from you. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beatyhttp://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED]UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74 206-543-6195Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
Re: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone
Yes, but I would put it this way: an infinite force is required to accelerate a non-light particle to the speed light. Harry Dean McGowan wrote: Am I incorrect in assuming that a particle travelling at the speed of light has infinite mass ? Dean Original Message Follows From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:09:43 +0100 Sure it is quantized, but this doesn't make it apparent. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone If light was literally a projectile, then it should be literally subject to the laws of mechanics and momentum changes should vary continuously. However, we know empirically that light of a particular wavelength can only bring about discrete changes of momentum. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: Well, it does bounce back from the object (e.g. solar sail) it imparted momentum to, with total momentum being conserved and all. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone In my natural philosophy, light has an _apparent_ momentum, because the nature of light is such that it refuses to be subjected to a mechanical force. (I do mean refuses and not simply resists). Harry Michel Jullian wrote: For a projectile what matters is momentum, and light does have momentum, that's what pushes solar sails. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure Michel - Original Message - From: R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:03 PM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone Howdy Jones, You amaze me with your ability to stretch the elastic of the mind. One must eat a heartly breakfast and tighten the safety belt before launching into one of your posts grin that can range from rail guns to Ormus... and that is a stretch. Now that light has been accepted as having particle or weight, it can be taken to the next step and think of light having projectile force qualities. A rail gun projectile would not necessarily require a socalled mass ( I have always been abhorred by the term mass). A better constructed railgun would fire a projectile of light... hmmm.. a strange beasty indeed.. Why so ? Because the projectile could be tuned to either/or focus or impact. Strange account of a battle predicted centuries ago where the flesh,eyes and tongue will rot while they are still standing ( bones remain) Zec: 14. This description seeems to indicate a type of a ray gun, however, the projectile does not knock the person off their feet.. only dissolves the flesh. You referred to Barry Carter's Subtleenergy website that mentions a new method of producing O3 and O6 but does not describe the process. He does describe the healing qualities of vortex induced ormus water. Reminds me of the account of the angel that would stir or trouble the waters in the pool. Whoever would be the first sick person to enter the pool thereafter would be healed. If the stirring means inducing a water vortex and only the first person would be healed, could this mean the vortex was destroyed by entering the pool and the residual remains of the vortex properties dissappear? Out in the wildwood behind the Dime Box Saloon lurks an old whisky still left over from the old days. The tale goes that sippin some that thinkin drinkin stuff could make a person believe the earth was flat. Richard
Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack)
No Ed, I didn't find it interesting to show that the words electrolysis and electrolyzed were misused, the painful exchange on this very unininteresting point should have lasted no more than a handful of lines. As you know it was you who made this discussion last for ages, deliberately making me look like a nasty guy torturing poor Ed with great pleasure. I am glad this minor controversy is over, let's go back to science I agree heartily, I just hope it won't take this long to solve any controversies that may arise on science itself. Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack) Michel Jullian wrote: So, this complex process you just described, whereby Li plates on and reacts with the Pd to form soluble alloys, these dissolve and the Pd is replated back on the cathode surface --- which indeed involves decomposition and electric current flowing through a solution, just like electrolysis! --- is in fact what your paper talks about principally, and that's why it says electrolysis of palladium, right? Oh dear, how unfortunate, you forgot to mention this process in the paper! I hope Profs. Fleischman and Pons did mention it in their paper, since you write in page 1 that in 1989 they too electrolyzed a platinum anode, a palladium cathode, using a LiOD + D2O electrolyte. Note they seem to have beaten you, they even managed to electrolyze platinum, will you please explain the detailed process too? Apart from that, any electrolysis of heavy water going on, accessorily? ;-) Thanks for the good laugh Ed : You many find this funny. I, on the other hand, find your approach very sad. Your primary interest has been to show that my use of a word is wrong. Apparently, the results described in the paper in which this word is used have no value at all to you. You initially asked some good questions that I accepted as honest interest. When I supplied the information you requested, the only issue was my use of a word. Am I mistaken or has Vortex ceased to be where science is discussed? Ed Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack) Michel Jullian wrote: No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also considered electrolysis. If by this you mean that electroplating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroplating is not electrical decomposition you are quite mistaken Ed, it is. What decomposes in electroplating is --as in any electrolysis-- the electrolyte, a metal salt solution whose metal component plates out on the cathode, by the dissolved positive metal ion acquiring one or more electrons from the power supply's negative pole to become solid metal. In one technique (but not all) electroplating also involves dissolution of the _anode_ as a way to replenish the ions in the bath. However in PF experiments such as yours palladium is the _cathode_ so this phenomenon doesn't occur, therefore it cannot be invoked to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. Controversy solved? I now see the problem, you have not read or believe what I write. First of all, I did not say that electroplating was not decomposition. I said that electroplating is a another form of electrolysis. As to the issue regarding palladium, palladium does in fact dissolve as the cathode. The process begins by Li plating on and reacting with the Pd to form soluble alloys. These dissolve and the Pd is replated back on the cathode surface. The process is complex, but involves decomposition and electric current flowing through a solution. Rather than insisting on your interpretation being the only correct one, I suggest you expand your viewpoint. I might point out I have been studying electrochemistry for the past 18 years and do understand the subject. Ed Michel Lobbying for a proper use of the terms of electrochemistry --terms on which, which may explain my sensitivity to their misuse, I have become by chance a specialist cf my contributions to the anode and cathode articles on wikipedia-- and more generally for calling a cat a cat (sorry for being such a smug aristocratic French smart ass Terry) - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack The issue of importance on Michel's
Re: [Vo]: Re: Di-Ozone
Oops! I meant No, instead of Yes, hmmm...but then again... Harry Harry Veeder wrote: Yes, but I would put it this way: an infinite force is required to accelerate a non-light particle to the speed light. Harry Dean McGowan wrote: Am I incorrect in assuming that a particle travelling at the speed of light has infinite mass ? Dean
