[Vo]:banned from vortex? :)
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mark Goldes wrote: I wrote to Bill asking if he had banned me, as I do not believe he accepts the possibility of our magnetic devices or superconductors being genuine. He never answered. Message never received. Eskimo.com appears to be having more and more troubles over the years. A few months back they were vulnerable to heavy DOS attack because of a linux bug that nobody knew how to fix. But they provide shell, and they don't charge for bandwidth! Glad to see this one. Perhaps, he changed his mind. Or it might have been a technical problem. I am sure it was a technical problem. He never bans people because he disagrees with their scientific assertions. He has only banned a few people who were extremely disruptive, rude, or flat-out crazy. I expect your message never reached him, probably because of an e-mail filter. I have had the problem often, lately. Eskimo does have fairly draconian RBL filtering, though I doubt that yahoo mail would ever end up on it. Or... perhaps Bill B. is just BLAMING eskimo, yes, while randomly turning peoples' subscribtions on and off? That way he can unsubscribe anyone for long periods whenever he wishes, first after having ACCLIMATED the subscribership to unexplained outages yes! :) (Mad scientist email technique #47, scatter the word yes at the ends of random sentences. And it's way too late at night to be answering large volumes of email. yes.) Example: Holding entire cities hostage via a Giant Invisible Umbrella yes http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/X-ray_20high-voltage_20invisible_20umbrella (( ( ( ( ((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 206-762-3138unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Detroit's #1 problem: the Peter Principle
Howdy Jones, Back in the '80's, Roger was CEO of GM and drove the last vestige of sanity at GM into the ground like a tent stake. While we were sleeping an entire piece of what we knew of as America was destroyed... by economic terrorists, our real enemies. When the Dime Box saloon starts importing knockoff brands of Tequila,,, and the Guv'ment wont let us make our own moonshine.. well.. Richard Jones wrote, ... but still, all things considered, how much longer can GM keep letting their Peters do the talking, and make such major market miscalculations? ... all the while driving a once-excellent and dominant company into early retirement ?
[Vo]:Beads to Gold
Vo- Four part video and interviews with the late James Patterson; includes assorted figures like George Miley were put up on YouTube yesterday. Well done. This is a must-see for the LENR crowd even if you already caught some of the 12 year-old original footage- Pt 1 is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUQfYw_HEJs uses the index for finding the others. Charlie Gibson and Michael Guillen did the original shorter excerpts for this in 1996 for ABC's 'Good Morning, America'. Patterson was greatly offended, and slandered, by the sick and misguided self-appointed expert, Robert Park... probably singled out because of the favorable TV exposure (seen in these vids) and the fact that nothing important (or fully replicated) has yet to come out of the CETI tech(so far) I hope I live long enough to see Patterson's cell legitimized. He was a competent and diligent inventor, and deserves his share of acclaim instead of the ridicule heaped on him from the misguided mainstream of physics. Jones
[Vo]:A palladium, heavy water, radio frequency experiment was conducted
Bose Condensate? , AFAIK, they form just above absolute zero. Why were you expecting one to form? Good comment. A Bose condensate of electrons only forms at low temperatures. I was attempting to form a Bose condensate of protons (also known as an inverse condensate). The thermal velocity of protons is much less that the thermal velocity of electrons at room temperature. This lower velocity is a result of the increased mass of the protons. The distribution of the kinetic energy of particles with differing masses is the same. I even tried helium in a past experiments in an attempt to obtain an even lower thermal velocity. I believe that protons in a proton conductor may be forced to condense through external stimulation. The required stimulation depends on the coherence length. The product of the length of coherence and frequency is 1.094 meghertz-meters. 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). Another good comment: I like this idea. In general, applying shock to a Bose condensate of protons is what I want to do. The required frequencies for the lengths of wire I am working with are in the 10 megahertz range. I have no way to mechanically stimulate a proton conductor at 10 megahertz. I would like to do this. It would take one tight guitar string. I am hoping the electrical stimulation works because the result may be the production of RF electrical energy. Russ George was mechanically stimulating proton conductors. I have not received word on any working device at D2 Fusion. The device at Gardner Watts appears to be generating RF energy. Perhaps this is due only to sparking. I would like to know more about this. I have just ordered some more nickel wire. I want to try nickel and light water again, perhaps with helium. I lost my full time job at Pelelec about 10 years ago due in part to my activities with new energy. I am currently a contractor with Alstom Power. I start up power plants. The money is better, however, the job requires extensive travel. I'll be going to Pittsburgh and living in a hotel for the next 8 weeks. After that I will return to Charlotte, NC. This travel puts a crimp on my cold fusion experiments. My equipment is in Pennsylvania. 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)
Re: [Vo]:A palladium, heavy water, radio frequency experiment was conducted
In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message of Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:34:12 EST: Hi Frank, [snip] Bose Condensate? , AFAIK, they form just above absolute zero. Why were you expecting one to form? Good comment. A Bose condensate of electrons only forms at low temperatures. I was attempting to form a Bose condensate of protons (also known as an inverse condensate). The thermal velocity of protons is much less that the thermal velocity of electrons at room temperature. This lower velocity is a result of the increased mass of the protons. The distribution of the kinetic energy of particles with differing masses is the same. I even tried helium in a past experiments in an attempt to obtain an even lower thermal velocity. I believe that protons in a proton conductor may be forced to condense through external stimulation. The required stimulation depends on the coherence length. The product of the length of coherence and frequency is 1.094 meghertz-meters. Assuming your coherence length is at least proportional to the De Broglie wavelength (L_DB) and L_DB = h/p and p = sqrt(2*m*E) where E = kinetic energy, we get L_DB = h/(sqrt(2*m*E)) . Since, as you state above, the energy is the same irrespective of type of particle, we see that L_DB is in fact shorter for heavy particles than it is for light ones (the mass is in the denominator). IOW I would expect the coherence length of electrons to be sqrt(1836) ~= 43 times greater than that of protons. IOW I think your quest for heavier particles may be misguided. 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). Another good comment: I like this idea. In general, applying shock to a Bose condensate of protons is what I want to do. The required frequencies for the lengths of wire I am working with are in the 10 megahertz range. I have no way to mechanically stimulate a proton conductor at 10 megahertz. Piezo-electric crystals have been used in the past, to achieve sonic frequencies in a solid on the order of 10 GHz (in the most extreme case of which I am aware), so I think 10 MHz should be well within the realm of possibility. I would like to do this. It would take one tight guitar string. In my previous post I suggested that the natural resonant frequency was significant, which isn't necessarily so. It would be difficult to achieve, since this is determined by the speed of sound in the material in question, whereas the frequency you are striving for is determined by your 1 MHz-m product, which as I have pointed out before, is actually a velocity (about 1E6 m/s). The speed of sound in most metals is on the order of 4000 m/s, so there is an implicit mismatch here. If you really want to resonate the wire at a natural resonant frequency of the wire, then perhaps you can find a metal-temperature combination where 1E6 m/s is a whole multiple of the speed of sound in the metal. This may be a matter of slowly heating the wire (passing a current through it?), until the right sound velocity in the wire is reached. (Assuming that there is some temperature dependence of sound velocity in a metal.) [snip] BTW, while researching this response, I came across a reference to the Fermi velocity of electrons (see http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/FermiVelocity.html), which I note is very close to your 1 MHz-m product. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Beads to Gold
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Jones Beene wrote: Well done. This is a must-see for the LENR crowd even if you already caught some of the 12 year-old original footage- Pt 1 is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUQfYw_HEJs Always take time to link such online discoveries to stumbleupon.com. My own pages get huge amounts of traffic via Stumble, so it's probably even better publicity than submitting a new page to Google or Dmoz. Example: http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv=eUQfYw_HEJs (( ( ( ( ((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 206-762-3138unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:A palladium, heavy water, radio frequency experiment was conducted
Assuming your coherence length is at least proportional to the De Broglie wavelength (L_DB) and L_DB = h/p and p = sqrt(2*m*E) where E = kinetic energy, we get L_DB = h/(sqrt(2*m*E)) . Since, as you state above, the energy is the same irrespective of type of particle, we see that L_DB is in fact shorter for heavy particles than it is for light ones (the mass is in the denominator). IOW I would expect the coherence length of electrons to be sqrt(1836) ~= 43 times greater than that of protons. IOW I think your quest for heavier particles may be misguided. I believe that you are way off using the deBroglie wavelength as the coherence length. In superconductors the state of the electron can equal the length of the superconductor. This is much longer than the deBroglie waveleigth. I believe that the coherence length is equal to the downshifted Compton wavelength. Frank Z **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)
Re: [Vo]:Beads to Gold
Jones, My understanding is that as clever as the Patterson cell was, there was something in the beads that was important to the success. When the supply of beads was used up, the effect vanished. This has happened before, in other industries. At one time Motorola offer to buy him out but his CEO grandson thought they could do better and refused. Motorola might have had the resources to analyze everything. The Case cell also required an undocumented magic touch to work. When the source of the carbonaceous carrier was used up, the effect went away also. FP were most successful with cathodes from a specific ingot prepared by JM which has not been duplicated. The 'secret' of the Nuclear Active Enviroment is still elusive. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 11:29 AM Subject: [Vo]:Beads to Gold Vo- Four part video and interviews with the late James Patterson; includes assorted figures like George Miley were put up on YouTube yesterday. Well done. This is a must-see for the LENR crowd even if you already caught some of the 12 year-old original footage- Pt 1 is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUQfYw_HEJs uses the index for finding the others. Charlie Gibson and Michael Guillen did the original shorter excerpts for this in 1996 for ABC's 'Good Morning, America'. Patterson was greatly offended, and slandered, by the sick and misguided self-appointed expert, Robert Park... probably singled out because of the favorable TV exposure (seen in these vids) and the fact that nothing important (or fully replicated) has yet to come out of the CETI tech(so far) I hope I live long enough to see Patterson's cell legitimized. He was a competent and diligent inventor, and deserves his share of acclaim instead of the ridicule heaped on him from the misguided mainstream of physics. Jones This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Parksie gets it wrong yet again
- Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 5:37 PM Subject: 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. The satellite was dead, unresponsive to any commands, unsteerable. It did not have an aerodynamic shape, so its interaction with the atmosphere was unpredictable. It is was not a meteor, so might not burn up totally and nasty chuncks could have fallen on cities, creating all manner of problems. The Aegis system is well developed and does not carry atomic warheads. Its mission is to protect a fleet at sea by shooting down any threat from horizon to horizon. It has routinly shot down test missiles for years. It is no 'news' to the armed forces of the world. The only question was the altitude range of the on board missiles. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:A palladium, heavy water, radio frequency experiment was conducted
In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message of Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:16:41 EST: Hi Frank, [snip] Assuming your coherence length is at least proportional to the De Broglie wavelength (L_DB) and L_DB = h/p and p = sqrt(2*m*E) where E = kinetic energy, we get L_DB = h/(sqrt(2*m*E)) . Since, as you state above, the energy is the same irrespective of type of particle, we see that L_DB is in fact shorter for heavy particles than it is for light ones (the mass is in the denominator). IOW I would expect the coherence length of electrons to be sqrt(1836) ~= 43 times greater than that of protons. IOW I think your quest for heavier particles may be misguided. I believe that you are way off using the deBroglie wavelength as the coherence length. In superconductors the state of the electron can equal the length of the superconductor. Do you have a reference for this? All those, that I could find, mentioned the coherence length in superconductors as exceeding the distance between the electrons in a pair (not difficult). This is much longer than the deBroglie waveleigth. The De Broglie wavelength at 4 K is about 66 nm, which seems about right, if the inter electron pair distance is to be less than this. I believe that the coherence length is equal to the downshifted Compton wavelength. Do you have a formula for this, and how does it differ from the definition of the De Broglie wavelength? BTW, did you notice the Fermi velocity? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:A palladium, heavy water, radio frequency experiment was conducted
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: 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). Dale Pond of www.svpvril.com , agrees with you. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
[Vo]:Phoenix Lights
_Pat Bailey sent me this www.thephoenixlights.net http://www.harkinstheatres.com/ _ --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
