[Vo]:Stiffler: [All the news that's fit to pr...]
Jones, Would you by perchance have any new information worth reporting or pondering over out loud as to what's happening in Stifflerland these days? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Stiffler: [All the news that's fit to pr...]
- Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 8:31 AM Subject: [Vo]:Stiffler: [All the news that's fit to pr...] Jones, Would you by perchance have any new information worth reporting or pondering over out loud as to what's happening in Stifflerland these days? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1291 - Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
Re: [Vo]:Stiffler: [All the news that's fit to pr...]
see http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3457.0.html The thread is going strong and Stiffler contributes. Harry On 22/2/2008 9:31 AM, OrionWorks wrote: Jones, Would you by perchance have any new information worth reporting or pondering over out loud as to what's happening in Stifflerland these days? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:A palladium, heavy water, radio frequency experiment was conducted
I am home on a short break between contracts. I have conducted another experiment. I placed a 26 gauge palladium wire in a heavy water electrolysis cell (the wire was from surperpure chemicals Inc.) The anode was a nickel wire (which dissolved and was replaced ). I applied 9 volts across the cell for 3 days. I stopped the experiment when the heavy water was depleted (The heavy water was obtained from United Nuclear) The palladium cathode wire was connected in series with a radio frequency tuning capacitor. This capacitor was salvaged from an old radio years ago. The RF tank circuit was stimulated by injecting sparks into it. The oscillations in the RF circuit were observed on an oscilloscope. After each spark the tank circuit oscillated and the oscillations died away in about 15 cycles. The tuning capacitor has a turndown ration of about 4 to 1. Four sections on the capacitor were ganged in and out to obtain a the range of 1 to 60 megahertz. The experiment was designed to employ my megahertz-meter relationships. The palladium wire was about 1/10 of a meter long. The stimulation frequency was varied from 2 to 60 megahertz using the tuning capacitor. No anomaly was observed at 10 megahertz. No anomalous electrical energy was ever detected. The intent of the experiment was to form a Bose condensate of deuterons by increasing the strength of the phonons that bind the condensate. I believe that my 1.094 megahertz-meter relationship describes the frequency of the binding phonons. I believe that the experiment failed to produced anomalous energy because I could not obtain the required D2 loading. Cold fusion is hard. Controlling the natural forces is even harder. I have at this point done all I could do. As I packed up I got the feeling that I was putting my equipment away for life. Frank Znidarsic **Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/ 2050827?NCID=aolcmp0030002598)
[Vo]:Re: Stiffler: [All the news that's fit to pr...]
'Fit to print' is a curious allusion- esp. wrt the latest SEC results... ... which if you read the posting, has a title which may sound more like some of the SPAM which many of us, of the male persuasion, are seeing too much of - in our junk-mail every day: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3457.new;topicseen#new Anyway, Dr Stiffler is making regular progress and is seeing more heat in his calorimeter than is input from a battery. As soon as he is confident that he has the most robust setup, he will have the results verified. Little more to say, except 'stayed tuned' to the Hartmann site if you are following this progress- ...and it makes a good story in the sense of 'evolution' of ideas - the science 'meme' IOW the device has rapidly matured in months, changed and evolved significantly, and some of that is due to the cross-fertilization of ideas, from having it done as an open-source project. Fortunately, Ron Stiffler is also a both a brilliant thinker and an equally brilliant builder, which is rare. Most of the contribution has been his. BTW - If any on Vo have not seen it, here is a fabulous video- which is circulating on many SciFori, which demonstrates the care and skill that dedicated builders of electronic gadgets can apply to their obsession: http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/01/make_your_own_vaccum_tube.html I suspect that Ron's skills are no less versatile, since he is dealing with devices that have never existed before, except in the imaginations. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A palladium, heavy water, radio frequency experiment was conducted
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The intent of the experiment was to form a Bose condensate of deuterons by increasing the strength of the phonons that bind the condensate. I believe that my 1.094 megahertz-meter relationship describes the frequency of the binding phonons. Bose Condensate? , AFAIK, they form just above absolute zero. Why were you expecting one to form? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Parksie gets it wrong yet again
[Reporting from home with the wrong return address . . .] thomas malloy wrote: Last night on the BBC news they reported the then breaking news that the American missile had hit the spy satellite. I couldn't help but smile, Parksie was wrong yet again. Long term Vortexians will recall his attacks on the antimissile system. It was a waste of money, a government boondoggle, it would never work. Worse, the government was going full speed ahead building it. Well, it appears that he was wrong. As much as I dislike Park, in this case he is right. Even a stopped [analog] clock is right twice a day. Anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) were successfully demonstrated by the U.S. long ago. The first nuclear ASAT Nike was in 1963, and a kinetic ASAT was successfully tested in 1985. The Chinese demonstrated one recently. They are far easier to engineer than anti-missile systems (SDI). Satellites are easy to detect because they follow fixed orbits at relatively slow speeds, and you can predict where they will be weeks in advance, whereas you have only about 15 minutes to detect and stop an incoming nuclear warhead. Satellites do not have any anti-ASAT equipment on board. They take no evasive action -- especially this one, which was disabled. They are far larger than incoming nuclear missiles; this one was the size of a bus, whereas a MIRV nuclear warhead is the size of a trashcan. U.S. 1980s ASATs were launched from an aircraft, meaning it was a simple, small rocket, whereas an an effective anti-ballistic missile system would be gigantic, because it would have to stop dozens of incoming rockets. An anti-missile system would be very easy to defeat. Countermeasures include things like putting balloons on board the incoming missiles that inflate and drift away from the warhead. These would be far cheaper per rocket than the cost of the anti-missile system, and far easier to implement. The difference is a few hundred dollars versus tens of millions. This is asymmetric warfare. It would cost the U.S. trillions of dollars to defeat weapons that cost a few billion dollars. Even we can't afford that. SDI began after the first ASAT proved successful, and $60 to $90 billion has been spent on the RD phase so far, but SDI has failed every realistic test, and there is no telling how many tens of billions more dollars it would take to make it work. Perhaps, in the future, a breakthrough will make a viable SDI possible. That's another matter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Stiffler: [All the news that's fit to pr...]
Two follow-up questions, At this stage of the game is definitive proof more likely to take the form of unaccounted for heat as compared to excess light? I've also gotten the impression that even if one employed the most expensive and most efficient solar cells available on the market a setup, with current technology, still wouldn't possess a sufficient electrical conversion factor to make the device self-running. Are those correct assumptions on my part? (It would be nice to know if my second assumption may soon turn out to be incorrect!) ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:A palladium, heavy water, radio frequency experiment was conducted
In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message of Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:34:05 EST: Hi Frank, [snip] The intent of the experiment was to form a Bose condensate of deuterons by increasing the strength of the phonons that bind the condensate. I believe that my 1.094 megahertz-meter relationship describes the frequency of the binding phonons. [snip] If your intent is to increase the strength of the phonons, why not use sound for the stimulation, i.e. attach an ultra-sound generator to the wire, and stimulate it at the desired frequency? It may be easier to tailor the length of the wire to the frequency of the generator than the other way around. (start with wire that is a little too long, then you can slowly reduce it to the correct size - perhaps even using an adjustable clamp to change the natural frequency - as with a violin or guitar). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Parksie gets it wrong yet again
Jed Rothwell wrote: [Reporting from home with the wrong return address . . .] thomas malloy wrote: Last night on the BBC news they reported the then breaking news that the American missile had hit the spy satellite. I couldn't help but smile, Parksie was wrong yet again. Long term Vortexians will recall his attacks on the antimissile system. It was a waste of money, a government boondoggle, it would never work. Worse, the government was going full speed ahead building it. Well, it appears that he was wrong. As much as I dislike Park, in this case he is right. Even a stopped [analog] clock is right twice a day. Anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) were successfully demonstrated by the U.S. long ago. The first nuclear ASAT Nike was in 1963, and a kinetic ASAT was successfully tested in 1985. The Chinese demonstrated one recently. They are far easier to engineer than anti-missile systems (SDI). Satellites are easy to detect because they follow fixed orbits at relatively slow speeds, and you can predict where they will be weeks in advance, whereas you have only about 15 minutes to detect and stop an incoming nuclear warhead. Satellites do not have any anti-ASAT equipment on board. They take no evasive action -- especially this one, which was disabled. They are far larger than incoming nuclear missiles; this one was the size of a bus, whereas a MIRV nuclear warhead is the size of a trashcan. U.S. 1980s ASATs were launched from an aircraft, meaning it was a simple, small rocket, whereas an an effective anti-ballistic missile system would be gigantic, because it would have to stop dozens of incoming rockets. An anti-missile system would be very easy to defeat. Countermeasures include things like putting balloons on board the incoming missiles that inflate and drift away from the warhead. I have a small nit to pick here. Your main point is certainly correct but the example you give has a problem. Ballistic missile warheads reenter with a velocity of something like mach 20. A balloon dropped from such a warhead would not drift away; rather, it would do something closer to splatter. Furthermore, if you made its skin of adamantium and it somehow survived the shock of hitting air at mach-a-zillion, and slowed down enough to drift away, it would be trivially distinguishable from the real warhead, due to the difference in velocity of about a factor of 10,000. Even the old Nike Hercules systems could deal with slow-moving stuff like balloons, unless there was an unbelievably large amount of it. Dummy warheads are a major problem but to move enough like real warheads so that the system gets confused, they need to have a density approaching that of a real warhead. Balloons won't do the job. * * * I haven't been following the list lately (bad Steve) so maybe someone (Jones?) has already covered this, but the question of *WHY* the U.S. chose to shoot down that satellite is an interesting one. From an impressive PR point of view it seems dumb -- the U.S. has had demonstrated ASAT capabilities for, what, a couple decades, so how will this impress anyone? (Remember that satellite they knocked down with a missile fired from an F-15, back around 1986 or so? As I recall it outraged a lot of scientists, because it was *not* at the end of its useful life at all; there were, however, rumors that the whale-tracking techniques which were being developed using that satellite might have been usable to track U.S. subs as well and that was the real reason for zapping it.) From a hysteria point of view it seems dumb -- now we'll get people all scared of satellites which contain hydrazine, which is ubiquitous in satellites. Just great, just what we need, more fear of legitimate space science. From a safety point of view it seems dumb -- the hydrazine, in a thin-walled tank, would surely have been vaporized and denatured during reentry; it's inconceivable that it would have posed any sort of hazard on the ground. It burns to something fairly innocuous, so it wouldn't have posed a threat to the upper atmosphere, either. From a moral high ground point of view it seems dumb -- this will make it a whole lot harder for the U.S. to effectively criticize other nations for blowing stuff up in space. In fact it seems just all-around dumb -- but we all know the U.S. military is not all-around dumb. So why DID they shoot it down? One theory I've run across is that it wasn't a spy satellite at all, and it actually contained something a lot more dangerous than hydrazine. 10 kilograms of plutonium, say, for example. If *THAT* reentered in a single chunk it might cause major trouble -- but if it could be blasted to bits at the edge of the atmosphere, it would be dispersed over a large enough area that nobody would notice (and nobody would get hurt). So then, the question is, why would the military have launched an atomic bomb into space? We've got lots of them on the ground
Re: [Vo]:Parksie gets it wrong yet again
[Reporting from home with the wrong return address . . .] Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Ballistic missile warheads reenter with a velocity of something like mach 20. A balloon dropped from such a warhead would not drift away; rather, it would do something closer to splatter. The balloons would only be deployed in outer space. Once the vehicle reenters the atmosphere they would be left behind, but as far as I know, target acquisition and destruction can only be done outside the atmosphere. Once they re-enter, it is too late. During the first Gulf war, Patriot missiles were fired at Iraqi short range rockets after they reentered. At the time it was thought they intercepted them, but I believe I saw Congressional testimony that indicted most experts now believe they missed. Anyway, those Iraqi missiles were larger and slower than a nuclear ICBM warhead, and easier to hit. Balloons are only one suggested counter-measure. Many others have been proposed and I expect some would work. If the Chinese come up with a credible missile defense system you can bet the U.S. will develop a dozen ways to overcome it. I haven't been following the list lately (bad Steve) so maybe someone (Jones?) has already covered this, but the question of *WHY* the U.S. chose to shoot down that satellite is an interesting one. From an impressive PR point of view it seems dumb -- the U.S. has had demonstrated ASAT capabilities for, what, a couple decades, so how will this impress anyone? The answer seems pretty obvious to me. The U.S. does not want to develop ASAT capabilities, and it does not want others to have them either, because we have the most to lose. We are the most dependent on satellites. The only people we would even want to impress would be the Chinese experts, and they will not be impressed, for the reasons you listed. They know perfectly well that the U.S. could have done this 30 years ago, and after all, we spent $90 billion after that, so we must be a little better at it. (I will grant, it is ridiculous that we are developing the SDI while we say we don't want ASATs to become popular.) So, the only answer that makes sense is to take the claims at face value. Apparently someone decided it is worth $60 million to prevent any chance of poisoning people on the ground. Plus -- I will bet -- they wanted some target practice, and they didn't want the Chinese or Russians to pick up large, relatively intact chunks of a late-model U.S. spy satellite. The chunks of the two demolished Space Shuttles were more intact and revealing than expected. Normally, spy satellites are still under control at the end of their lives, and they are ditched in the Pacific to prevent anyone from examining them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Parksie gets it wrong yet again
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:48:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] I haven't been following the list lately (bad Steve) so maybe someone (Jones?) has already covered this, but the question of *WHY* the U.S. chose to shoot down that satellite is an interesting one. From an impressive PR point of view it seems dumb -- the U.S. has had demonstrated ASAT capabilities for, what, a couple decades, so how will this impress anyone? (Remember that satellite they knocked down with a missile fired from an F-15, back around 1986 or so? As I recall it I don't recall that, and I doubt many others do either. OTOH the Chinese shooting down a satellite is still fairly fresh in everyone's mind, so from a PR standpoint it does make sense IMO. Furthermore, their inability to hit the side of barn has been pretty well publicized, so they may have seen it as necessary to prove that they could actually do it. However, what I wonder is, what proof is there that they actually succeeded, apart from their word that they did? [snip] One theory I've run across is that it wasn't a spy satellite at all, and it actually contained something a lot more dangerous than hydrazine. 10 kilograms of plutonium, say, for example. If *THAT* reentered in a single chunk it might cause major trouble -- but if it could be blasted to bits at the edge of the atmosphere, it would be dispersed over a large enough area that nobody would notice (and nobody would get hurt). [snip] So then, the question is, why would the military have launched an atomic bomb into space? We've got lots of them on the ground already, complete with very effective delivery systems. One possibility is that they wanted to stage an attack on their own forces, as part of the move to keep the ongoing war on terror going on. When a missile is launched from the ground, orbiting satellites pick it up, and provide about 20 min. warning. However if the weapon is already orbiting in space, then there is nothing to alert the spy satellites, and it can be dropped just about anywhere without providing any warning. That's why they would want to have one in space. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
