Re: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Teslaalset]

Bob, the products they make available are not to be compared with consumer
end-products. It's a limited batch of prototypes. For such a test batch 1
year of guarantee is not too bad.

I agree that the term 'never dying battery' is probably wrong for these
test products, since the electret module is combined with a lithium ion
battery which we all know lasts only 300 - 1000 charge cycles. It could be
combined with supercapacitors which would fit the term a bit better.

The upcoming months will show how real their demo products are.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> It only has a 1 year guarantee.  So, perpetual charging is not
> guaranteed.  Seems like that if you were going to make the claim that it
> NEVER needs charging, then you should at least offer a 10 year guarantee so
> as to make it better than the best lithium battery.  Reality is that even
> if the electret is a perpetual source, the internal lithium battery charge
> buffer will not be.
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Esa J. Ruoho  wrote:
>>
>> "Never charge battery".
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Teslaalset]

Ron, this patent application requires an energy source by means of a Van de
Graaf generator to generate voltage output by means of a high electrical
field provided. Van den Graaf generators do not run without input energy.

Steorn claims are based on a charge generator that does not have a
conventional input source.
Remains the question: what is the energy source this Steorn battery is
tapping from?
Environmental temperature changes or Earth magnetic field variations are
out of order because the energy density Steorn demonstrates does not fit
these potential sources.

My personal guess is that they use 'metal - semiconductor' junctions
to
generate the high electrical field that is required to generate charge by
means of electret materials. Some electret materials
 also have semiconductor
properties, so such combination would fit their claims. In other words the
Van de Graaf generator in your indicated patent application is substituted
by 'metal - semiconductor' mechanism.


On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Ron Kita  wrote:

> Greetings Vortex,
>
> I was wondering IF it will be possible to compare the Orbo Battery with
> the Power Source Patent of my late Lockheeed Martin friend. Boyd
> Bushman:
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2=HITOFF=1=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html=14=G=50=AND=PTXT=%22bushman+boyd%22=%22bushman+boyd%22=%22bushman+boyd%22
>
> From December 31, 1996.
>
> Ad astra,
> Ron Kita, Chiralex
> Few appreciate that a Homocharged electretgoes to.. Discharge then
> Self-Recharges.  This is worthy of a Google search.
>

Re: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Ron Kita]

Alsoperhaps mere  ..triboelectric charging. Electrets are diode like.
There is a patent that uses electrets to rectify radio-radar waves by
Rhines circa 1950.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Teslaalset 
wrote:

> Ron, this patent application requires an energy source by means of a Van
> de Graaf generator to generate voltage output by means of a high electrical
> field provided. Van den Graaf generators do not run without input energy.
>
> Steorn claims are based on a charge generator that does not have a
> conventional input source.
> Remains the question: what is the energy source this Steorn battery is
> tapping from?
> Environmental temperature changes or Earth magnetic field variations are
> out of order because the energy density Steorn demonstrates does not fit
> these potential sources.
>
> My personal guess is that they use 'metal - semiconductor' junctions
> to
> generate the high electrical field that is required to generate charge by
> means of electret materials. Some electret materials
>  also have semiconductor
> properties, so such combination would fit their claims. In other words the
> Van de Graaf generator in your indicated patent application is substituted
> by 'metal - semiconductor' mechanism.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Ron Kita 
> wrote:
>
>> Greetings Vortex,
>>
>> I was wondering IF it will be possible to compare the Orbo Battery with
>> the Power Source Patent of my late Lockheeed Martin friend. Boyd
>> Bushman:
>>
>> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2=HITOFF=1=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html=14=G=50=AND=PTXT=%22bushman+boyd%22=%22bushman+boyd%22=%22bushman+boyd%22
>>
>> From December 31, 1996.
>>
>> Ad astra,
>> Ron Kita, Chiralex
>> Few appreciate that a Homocharged electretgoes to.. Discharge then
>> Self-Recharges.  This is worthy of a Google search.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Teslaalset]

The most likely radio wave source would be a WiFi router.
In Europe, Wifi routers are restricted to 100 mW RF output.
The energy harvesting Steorn demonstrated with their USB hub is 0.4 Watt.
That would suggest they fake their demo's with a dedicated focused RF
source.
But since they roll out test devices that are claimed to work I would not
rely on RF harvesting alone. Maybe a combination.

Re: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[esa ruoho]

So there's some reason Teslaalset ignores that Steorn have claimed that it 
works within a Faraday cage?

---
| Esa Ruoho | +358403703659 | http://fi.linkedin.com/in/esaruoho 
 |
| http://lackluster.bandcamp.com  | 
http://lackluster.org  | http://esaruoho.tumblr.com 
 |
| http://twitter.com/esaruoho  | 
http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial  
|

> On 26 Jan 2016, at 16:18, Teslaalset  wrote:
> 
> The most likely radio wave source would be a WiFi router. 
> In Europe, Wifi routers are restricted to 100 mW RF output. 
> The energy harvesting Steorn demonstrated with their USB hub is 0.4 Watt. 
> That would suggest they fake their demo's with a dedicated focused RF source.
> But since they roll out test devices that are claimed to work I would not 
> rely on RF harvesting alone. Maybe a combination.
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Fact or fiction: Irish firm invents everlasting battery

[Bob Higgins]

Such collected ions as Robin describes are most likely to be attracted to
plates that would provide a net neutralization of the electret.  In other
words, this ion current from the air would be a leakage path for the
electret and not a benefactor.  Such ion current leakage exists, yet
electrets overcome this to provide a net charge.  Like many electrostatic
phenomena, electrets are more easily observed in a dry atmosphere where the
device potentials are protected from such ion discharge.

Note also that the electret phenomenon has been around for more than 100
years before man created radio waves.

The fact that electrets exist means that it is distinguished from an
ordinary capacitor - once discharged a capacitor remains discharged.  The
mere fact that an electret can restore its charge after it has been
discharged means that it has done work.  Maybe it is only a little work.
Maybe the sum total work that can be extracted from an electret is less
than the work required to form the electret.  I have no direct experience
in measuring the work available from an electret, but obviously Steorn
does.  Perhaps the electret stack will just turn out to be a good battery
with a well defined energy storage.  It will be interesting to see the
results when the devices are independently tested.

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:39 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:27:53 -0600:
> Hi,
> >Hi Robin,
> >
> >I understand you to be suggesting that ions in the air might restore the
> >state of the Orbo by removing electrons from one plate through
> >de-ionization.
>
> ...and also adding them to the other plate. When an atom is ionized, the
> free
> electron has to go somewhere, so it is likely to attach itself to a neutral
> molecule, forming a negative ion to compensate for the positive ion left
> behind.
> Overall the atmosphere should be a dilute mixture of positive and negative
> ions.
>
> >An ion comes along and picks up an electron, becoming
> >electrically neutral and restoring the original potential by a small
> amount.
> >
> >On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:43 PM,  wrote:
> >
> >Many of these do not recombine immediately, because dry air is a poor
> >> conductor.
> >
> >
> >On this theory, would you expect the Orbo to work less effectively in a
> >humid environment?
> >
> >Eric
>
> At first blush I might be inclined to say yes, but ions created in the
> upper
> atmosphere may be carried to lower levels by precipitation, wind currents,
> &/or
> dust, which complicates the picture.
>
> Also direct sunlight is not the only source of ions. Background radiation
> also
> plays a role, as do extreme electric fields in thunderstorms.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Jones Beene]

Observers should overlook the Steorn claim of Faraday cage testing as 
essentially meaningless… with a history. Steorn was saying the exact same thing 
about the other Orbo incarnations, going back 8 years. Look it up - it’s still 
online - same old BS then, as now.

Even if they “got religion” and are honest this time around, consider what they 
are really saying. The problem with the claimed Faraday testing is that you 
cannot accurately test any device containing a large capacity battery unless 
you leave it there for months, knowing for sure that the cage is actually 
“earthed”. Steorn has in the past used a ground which could actually have 
functioned as an antenna ! (and probably did)

At best, a Faraday cage would eliminate a possible source of battery recharging 
from RF. But Steorn did not show proper grounding… so we are back to the 
question of basic honesty. 

Side note: As moderator Bill B sez: the word "ground" can mean several things, 
several of which can actually be used to implement fraud – or it can be 
inadvertent, in the case of neon lights in the pub wiring… Ho, Ho Three more 
quarks for Muster Mac!

1-4 below are not proper earth grounds since they are easily tampered with.

1)  A direct connection to the house or factory power supply via a negative 
terminal.
2)  A “common” or negative connection of uncertain status based on having a 
third, or ground prong.
3)  A connection to the inside of a shielded metal fuse box.
4)  A connection to a metal mass which is much larger than the circuit 
(e.g. car chassis or “chassis ground”)
…or

5)  A direct electrical connection to a conductor purposely driven into the 
earth or to a copper water pipe which extends out of the house or factory (or 
pub) and into earth. 

Only 5 is a useful as a Faraday cage ground which is difficult to trick.

[Vo]:relatively good LENR news, mainly from Russia; The rarity of NAE not fatkl

[Peter Gluck]

It is encouraging to see how active are the Russian LENR'ists;
LENR supporters or adherents at the TV
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/01/jan-26-2016-lenr-rarity-of-nae-not.html
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Bob Higgins]

Jones,

A Faraday cage requires no ground.  It just requires a continuous metal box
enclosure.  The Orbo test would be simple.  Put the Orbo and the phone
inside the box with its charging cable connected totally within the box.
No cables enter or exit from the box.  Close the box for XX hours and see
if the phone is charged when it is removed.  Then close the box and keep
the Orbo entirely within the box.  Then do it again - over and over.

If you want to eliminate the possibility of energy gain from the outside,
just don't let any cables go in or out of the box.  Strictly speaking, you
would also want to have a magnetic mu-metal shield around the Faraday box.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Observers should overlook the Steorn claim of Faraday cage testing as
> essentially meaningless… with a history. Steorn was saying the exact same
> thing about the other Orbo incarnations, going back 8 years. Look it up -
> it’s still online - same old BS then, as now.
>
> Even if they “got religion” and are honest this time around, consider
> what they are really saying. The problem with the claimed Faraday testing
> is that you cannot accurately test any device containing a large capacity
> battery unless you leave it there for months, knowing for sure that the
> cage is actually “earthed”. Steorn has in the past used a ground which
> could actually have functioned as an antenna ! (and probably did)
>
> At best, a Faraday cage would eliminate a possible source of battery
> recharging from RF. But Steorn did not show proper grounding… so we are
> back to the question of basic honesty.
>
> Side note: As moderator Bill B sez: the word "ground" can mean several
> things, several of which can actually be used to implement fraud – or it
> can be inadvertent, in the case of neon lights in the pub wiring… Ho, Ho
> Three more quarks for Muster Mac!
>
> 1-4 below are not proper earth grounds since they are easily tampered with
> .
>
> 1)  A direct connection to the house or factory power supply via a
> negative terminal.
>
> 2)  A “common” or negative connection of uncertain status based on
> having a third, or ground prong.
>
> 3)  A connection to the inside of a shielded metal fuse box.
>
> 4)  A connection to a metal mass which is much larger than the
> circuit (e.g. car chassis or “chassis ground”)
>
> …or
>
> 5)  A direct electrical connection to a conductor purposely driven
> into the earth or to a copper water pipe which extends out of the house
> or factory (or pub) and into earth.
>
> Only 5 is a useful as a Faraday cage ground which is difficult to trick.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Jones,
>
> A Faraday cage requires no ground.  It just requires a continuous metal
> box enclosure.  The Orbo test would be simple.  Put the Orbo and the phone
> inside the box with its charging cable connected totally within the box.
> No cables enter or exit from the box.  Close the box for XX hours and see
> if the phone is charged when it is removed.  Then close the box and keep
> the Orbo entirely within the box.  Then do it again - over and over.
>
> If you want to eliminate the possibility of energy gain from the outside,
> just don't let any cables go in or out of the box.  Strictly speaking, you
> would also want to have a magnetic mu-metal shield around the Faraday box.
>

Perhaps it would speed things up to drain the battery before the testing.

We could also test Robin's idea by keeping the Orbo and the charger under
high vacuum.  Perhaps the testing of the two sets of concerns could be done
separately, first looking at the claim about the Orbo working in a Faraday
cage.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Bob Higgins]

Putting the Orbo in a vacuum would probably destroy it.  There is nothing
that says that Steorn's particular electrets or the internal lithium
battery would survive outgassing in a vacuum.  The Faraday cage would also
prevent atmospheric ions from being attracted to the device.

It would be easy enough to put instrumentation inside the Faraday cage to
measure and record the amount of energy delivered from the Orbo to an
attached internal device - but everything must be put completely in the box.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
> Jones,
>>
>> A Faraday cage requires no ground.  It just requires a continuous metal
>> box enclosure.  The Orbo test would be simple.  Put the Orbo and the phone
>> inside the box with its charging cable connected totally within the box.
>> No cables enter or exit from the box.  Close the box for XX hours and see
>> if the phone is charged when it is removed.  Then close the box and keep
>> the Orbo entirely within the box.  Then do it again - over and over.
>>
>> If you want to eliminate the possibility of energy gain from the outside,
>> just don't let any cables go in or out of the box.  Strictly speaking, you
>> would also want to have a magnetic mu-metal shield around the Faraday box.
>>
>
> Perhaps it would speed things up to drain the battery before the testing.
>
> We could also test Robin's idea by keeping the Orbo and the charger under
> high vacuum.  Perhaps the testing of the two sets of concerns could be done
> separately, first looking at the claim about the Orbo working in a Faraday
> cage.
>
> Eric
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

 

Well – I looked this up online, specifically wrt Wi-Fi which is primarily the 
RF of interest for recharging since the end use is cell phones. This frequency 
will be around 2-3 GHz. In the video below - it was 2.4 GHz.

 

As this video shows, a single Faraday cage reduces the RF signal - but only by 
half !... and grounding the cage does not improve that. I am shocked (so to 
speak) to see that the effect of a metal cage is so small for this frequency.

 

Of course, a signal which is reduced by half is still able to recharge an Orbo. 
This is Steorn’s gimmick, apparently. They assume that their audience believes 
that a single Farraday cage allows no signal, when in fact, it reduces the 
signal by half. Adding a second Wi-Fi router would presumably bring the signal 
back to an uncaged level!

 

To do this right, Steorn (or the customer) would need at least 3 and probably 
four nested Faraday cages and also to turn off all Wi-Fi. That way it should be 
possible to do an accurate test.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eUCyR7jesk

 

Jones

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Jones, 

A Faraday cage requires no ground.  It just requires a continuous metal box 
enclosure.  The Orbo test would be simple.  Put the Orbo and the phone inside 
the box with its charging cable connected totally within the box.  No cables 
enter or exit from the box.  Close the box for XX hours and see if the phone is 
charged when it is removed.  Then close the box and keep the Orbo entirely 
within the box.  Then do it again - over and over.

If you want to eliminate the possibility of energy gain from the outside, just 
don't let any cables go in or out of the box.  Strictly speaking, you would 
also want to have a magnetic mu-metal shield around the Faraday box.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Observers should overlook the Steorn claim of Faraday cage testing as 
essentially meaningless… with a history. Steorn was saying the exact same thing 
about the other Orbo incarnations, going back 8 years. Look it up - it’s still 
online - same old BS then, as now.

Even if they “got religion” and are honest this time around, consider what they 
are really saying. The problem with the claimed Faraday testing is that you 
cannot accurately test any device containing a large capacity battery unless 
you leave it there for months, knowing for sure that the cage is actually 
“earthed”. Steorn has in the past used a ground which could actually have 
functioned as an antenna ! (and probably did)

At best, a Faraday cage would eliminate a possible source of battery recharging 
from RF. But Steorn did not show proper grounding… so we are back to the 
question of basic honesty. 

Side note: As moderator Bill B sez: the word "ground" can mean several things, 
several of which can actually be used to implement fraud – or it can be 
inadvertent, in the case of neon lights in the pub wiring… Ho, Ho Three more 
quarks for Muster Mac!

1-4 below are not proper earth grounds since they are easily tampered with.

1)  A direct connection to the house or factory power supply via a negative 
terminal.

2)  A “common” or negative connection of uncertain status based on having a 
third, or ground prong.

3)  A connection to the inside of a shielded metal fuse box.

4)  A connection to a metal mass which is much larger than the circuit 
(e.g. car chassis or “chassis ground”)

…or

5)  A direct electrical connection to a conductor purposely driven into the 
earth or to a copper water pipe which extends out of the house or factory (or 
pub) and into earth. 

Only 5 is a useful as a Faraday cage ground which is difficult to trick.

 

Re: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Esa J. Ruoho]

Cant we just take it to The wilderness like a proper desert etc and see what it 
does. Steorn havent marketed it as a "dude faraday cage woah buy now" type 
thing at all. It was just an interesting comment from em because everyone is 
all "RF Harvester LOL" as a way of ignoring their device.

Sent from some iDevice. Written by Esa.

> Jones Beene  kirjoitti 26.1.2016 kello 21.17:
> 
> Bob,
>  
> Well – I looked this up online, specifically wrt Wi-Fi which is primarily the 
> RF of interest for recharging since the end use is cell phones. This 
> frequency will be around 2-3 GHz. In the video below - it was 2.4 GHz.
>  
> As this video shows, a single Faraday cage reduces the RF signal - but only 
> by half !... and grounding the cage does not improve that. I am shocked (so 
> to speak) to see that the effect of a metal cage is so small for this 
> frequency.
>  
> Of course, a signal which is reduced by half is still able to recharge an 
> Orbo. This is Steorn’s gimmick, apparently. They assume that their audience 
> believes that a single Farraday cage allows no signal, when in fact, it 
> reduces the signal by half. Adding a second Wi-Fi router would presumably 
> bring the signal back to an uncaged level!
>  
> To do this right, Steorn (or the customer) would need at least 3 and probably 
> four nested Faraday cages and also to turn off all Wi-Fi. That way it should 
> be possible to do an accurate test.
>  
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eUCyR7jesk
>  
> Jones
>  
> From: Bob Higgins
>  
> Jones,
> 
> A Faraday cage requires no ground.  It just requires a continuous metal box 
> enclosure.  The Orbo test would be simple.  Put the Orbo and the phone inside 
> the box with its charging cable connected totally within the box.  No cables 
> enter or exit from the box.  Close the box for XX hours and see if the phone 
> is charged when it is removed.  Then close the box and keep the Orbo entirely 
> within the box.  Then do it again - over and over.
> 
> If you want to eliminate the possibility of energy gain from the outside, 
> just don't let any cables go in or out of the box.  Strictly speaking, you 
> would also want to have a magnetic mu-metal shield around the Faraday box.
> 
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Observers should overlook the Steorn claim of Faraday cage testing as 
> essentially meaningless… with a history. Steorn was saying the exact same 
> thing about the other Orbo incarnations, going back 8 years. Look it up - 
> it’s still online - same old BS then, as now.
> 
> Even if they “got religion” and are honest this time around, consider what 
> they are really saying. The problem with the claimed Faraday testing is that 
> you cannot accurately test any device containing a large capacity battery 
> unless you leave it there for months, knowing for sure that the cage is 
> actually “earthed”. Steorn has in the past used a ground which could actually 
> have functioned as an antenna ! (and probably did)
> 
> At best, a Faraday cage would eliminate a possible source of battery 
> recharging from RF. But Steorn did not show proper grounding… so we are back 
> to the question of basic honesty.
> 
> Side note: As moderator Bill B sez: the word "ground" can mean several 
> things, several of which can actually be used to implement fraud – or it can 
> be inadvertent, in the case of neon lights in the pub wiring… Ho, Ho Three 
> more quarks for Muster Mac!
> 
> 1-4 below are not proper earth grounds since they are easily tampered with.
> 
> 1)  A direct connection to the house or factory power supply via a 
> negative terminal.
> 
> 2)  A “common” or negative connection of uncertain status based on having 
> a third, or ground prong.
> 
> 3)  A connection to the inside of a shielded metal fuse box.
> 
> 4)  A connection to a metal mass which is much larger than the circuit 
> (e.g. car chassis or “chassis ground”)
> 
> …or
> 
> 5)  A direct electrical connection to a conductor purposely driven into 
> the earth or to a copper water pipe which extends out of the house or factory 
> (or pub) and into earth.
> 
> Only 5 is a useful as a Faraday cage ground which is difficult to trick.
> 
>  

RE: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Jones Beene]

From: Esa J. Ruoho 

 

Ø  Cant we just take it to The wilderness like a proper desert etc and see what 
it does. Steorn havent marketed it as a "dude faraday cage woah buy now" type 
thing at all. It was just an interesting comment from em because everyone is 
all "RF Harvester LOL" as a way of ignoring their device.



I agree that taking it to a remote area without RF would provide valuable 
information on its performance. How long before this happens?

 





 

Re: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Bob Higgins]

RF shielding enclosures are a technology all of their own.  I worked for a
major manufacturer of communications equipment for 37 years, and we had
many of these, including enclosures that you could work in ("screen
booths").  The trick is in the door - you must keep the contact periodicity
in the seal to be a small fraction of the wavelength of the radiation that
you are sealing against - preferably soldering if you really want to keep
it out.  Most box mfgrs. use a fingered copper gasket that insures near
continuous contact.  The problem is that if you have a contact gap that is
near a half wave of the frequency of interest, it becomes a slot antenna,
that will re-radiate the RF inside the box.  The bandwidth of the slot will
be determined by its area and can be quite wide.

Proper Faraday cage boxes are constructed with copper, and are certainly
copper, silver, or gold in the contact area and gasket.  Copper oxide is
conductive while aluminum oxide is not - so you cannot use aluminum
reliably for this purpose.

With a perfect seal, there will be some leakage due to the resistance of
the metal; however, the amount that leaks in directly through the metal is
small compared to the amount that leaks in due to a bad gasket/door seal.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Bob,
>
>
>
> Well – I looked this up online, specifically wrt Wi-Fi which is primarily
> the RF of interest for recharging since the end use is cell phones. This
> frequency will be around 2-3 GHz. In the video below - it was 2.4 GHz.
>
>
>
> As this video shows, a single Faraday cage reduces the RF signal - but
> only by half !... and grounding the cage does not improve that. I am
> shocked (so to speak) to see that the effect of a metal cage is so small
> for this frequency.
>
>
>
> Of course, a signal which is reduced by half is still able to recharge an
> Orbo. This is Steorn’s gimmick, apparently. They assume that their audience
> believes that a single Farraday cage allows no signal, when in fact, it
> reduces the signal by half. Adding a second Wi-Fi router would presumably
> bring the signal back to an uncaged level!
>
>
>
> To do this right, Steorn (or the customer) would need at least 3 and
> probably four nested Faraday cages and also to turn off all Wi-Fi. That way
> it should be possible to do an accurate test.
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eUCyR7jesk
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
>
>
> Jones,
>
> A Faraday cage requires no ground.  It just requires a continuous metal
> box enclosure.  The Orbo test would be simple.  Put the Orbo and the phone
> inside the box with its charging cable connected totally within the box.
> No cables enter or exit from the box.  Close the box for XX hours and see
> if the phone is charged when it is removed.  Then close the box and keep
> the Orbo entirely within the box.  Then do it again - over and over.
>
> If you want to eliminate the possibility of energy gain from the outside,
> just don't let any cables go in or out of the box.  Strictly speaking, you
> would also want to have a magnetic mu-metal shield around the Faraday box.
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> Observers should overlook the Steorn claim of Faraday cage testing as
> essentially meaningless… with a history. Steorn was saying the exact same
> thing about the other Orbo incarnations, going back 8 years. Look it up -
> it’s still online - same old BS then, as now.
>
> Even if they “got religion” and are honest this time around, consider
> what they are really saying. The problem with the claimed Faraday testing
> is that you cannot accurately test any device containing a large capacity
> battery unless you leave it there for months, knowing for sure that the
> cage is actually “earthed”. Steorn has in the past used a ground which
> could actually have functioned as an antenna ! (and probably did)
>
> At best, a Faraday cage would eliminate a possible source of battery 
> recharging
> from RF. But Steorn did not show proper grounding… so we are back to the
> question of basic honesty.
>
> Side note: As moderator Bill B sez: the word "ground" can mean several
> things, several of which can actually be used to implement fraud – or it
> can be inadvertent, in the case of neon lights in the pub wiring… Ho, Ho
> Three more quarks for Muster Mac!
>
> 1-4 below are not proper earth grounds since they are easily tampered with.
>
> 1)  A direct connection to the house or factory power supply via a
> negative terminal.
>
> 2)  A “common” or negative connection of uncertain status based on
> having a third, or ground prong.
>
> 3)  A connection to the inside of a shielded metal fuse box.
>
> 4)  A connection to a metal mass which is much larger than the
> circuit (e.g. car chassis or “chassis ground”)
>
> …or
>
> 5)  A direct electrical connection to a conductor purposely driven
> into the earth or to a copper 

RE: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Jones Beene]

 

Assuming that Steorn really are shipping a product soon, and the Oz-Reds as 
well - it should not take long to find out most of what is going on. Actually, 
I doubt that the device operates by rectifying RF and I doubt that it is 
overunity. There could easily be a major breakthrough in ultra-capacitors, 
however.

 

The best thing which could come out of it, assuming both Steorn and ADGEX have 
found the same bona fide energy anomaly – is that both devices will illuminate 
the underlying technology better than either alone - so that whatever is at the 
core of it can be understood and improved.

 

These new products are too close in time for it to be coincidental. The big 
question is: are we seeing an anomaly or is it the work of two different scam 
artists coming out within weeks of each other? 

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

RF shielding enclosures are a technology all of their own.  I worked for a 
major manufacturer of communications equipment for 37 years, and we had many of 
these, including enclosures that you could work in ("screen booths").  The 
trick is in the door - you must keep the contact periodicity in the seal to be 
a small fraction of the wavelength of the radiation that you are sealing 
against - preferably soldering if you really want to keep it out.  Most box 
mfgrs. use a fingered copper gasket that insures near continuous contact.  The 
problem is that if you have a contact gap that is near a half wave of the 
frequency of interest, it becomes a slot antenna, that will re-radiate the RF 
inside the box.  The bandwidth of the slot will be determined by its area and 
can be quite wide.

Proper Faraday cage boxes are constructed with copper, and are certainly 
copper, silver, or gold in the contact area and gasket.  Copper oxide is 
conductive while aluminum oxide is not - so you cannot use aluminum reliably 
for this purpose.

With a perfect seal, there will be some leakage due to the resistance of the 
metal; however, the amount that leaks in directly through the metal is small 
compared to the amount that leaks in due to a bad gasket/door seal.

 

Jones Beene wrote:

Bob, 

Well – I looked this up online, specifically wrt Wi-Fi which is primarily the 
RF of interest for recharging since the end use is cell phones. This frequency 
will be around 2-3 GHz. In the video below - it was 2.4 GHz.

As this video shows, a single Faraday cage reduces the RF signal - but only by 
half !... and grounding the cage does not improve that. I am shocked (so to 
speak) to see that the effect of a metal cage is so small for this frequency.

Of course, a signal which is reduced by half is still able to recharge an Orbo. 
This is Steorn’s gimmick, apparently. They assume that their audience believes 
that a single Farraday cage allows no signal, when in fact, it reduces the 
signal by half. Adding a second Wi-Fi router would presumably bring the signal 
back to an uncaged level!

To do this right, Steorn (or the customer) would need at least 3 and probably 
four nested Faraday cages and also to turn off all Wi-Fi. That way it should be 
possible to do an accurate test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eUCyR7jesk

 

Re: [Vo]:Fact or fiction: Irish firm invents everlasting battery

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:19:32 -0700:
Hi,
>Such collected ions as Robin describes are most likely to be attracted to
>plates that would provide a net neutralization of the electret.  

I agree.

>In other
>words, this ion current from the air would be a leakage path for the
>electret and not a benefactor.  

It would only be a leakage current, if charge could actually reach the electret.
However, if the electret is well insulated, then all you get is a charge build
up. Essentially, you end up with a capacitor within a capacitor. However,
whether or not one can be discharged with discharging the other, I don't know.
IOW can one discharge the accessible capacitor with "discharging" the electret?
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:electrostatic finite element software

[Jeff Driscoll]

Does anyone have access to electrostatics software package and have time to
do a finite element analysis on a 3-D part to determine the electrostatic
field potential? Specifically the JPEG in the link below shows a grouping
of protons and neutrons. I mainly need to figure out which protons have the
highest electrostatic field near them so that the protons can be numbered
and ordered from highest to lowest voltage potential. There might be two
ways to do it, one where they are all electrically conductive  and the
second where they are isolated charged spheres.  I can supply a CAD model
in different formats from a Solidworks model.

I can pay someone if they can do it.

this is the picture of 100 protons and 104 neutrons

http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/protons-neutrons.jpg

I have a CAD model of it also. It is made from 100 protons and 104 neutrons
(fermium-204 which does not exist, but fermium-257 has a half life of 100
days). Each red proton in the image would be about .8 fm (.8 x 10^-15 m) in
diameter and the same for the green neutrons. The electrons would be
orbiting this nucleus further out at some fraction (such as 1/100th) of the
bohr radius where the bohr radius = 5.29 x 10^-11 m. But I only need the
finite element analysis done on the proton/neutrons shown in the image (no
electrons). I need the order of decreasing electrostatic voltage
potential.  The goal is to confirm the well known standard orbit filling
order: 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d, 4p, 5s, 4d, 5p, 6s, 4f, 5d, 6p, 7s, 5f,
6d, 7p, 8s

Jeff

RE: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Jones Beene]

For those who want to believe in magic….

There is a new form of (proved) energy harvesting … without RF, and it is a 
field where electrets are actually essential (in combination with 
piezoelectrics):
http://www.energyharvestingjournal.com/articles/7668/new-energy-harvesting-for-vehicles-and-devices-huge-business

There is the slight possibility that Orbo implements this kind of energy 
harvesting (vibrational/mechanical) in such a way that it operates on very 
slight motion, nearly imperceptible. Say… do they have the Taos hum in Dublin? 
They do have it in Bristol, UK apparently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hum

More likely: almost every week there is an announcement like this in the field 
of ultracapacitors.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/fuel-cells/nitrogen-supercharges-supercapacitors

It may be giving Steorn too much credit, but a combination of electrets, piezos 
and ultracaps is poised to happen somewhere soon - due to the convergence of 
technology advancement on many front. 

Perhaps they got lucky (they are Irish, after all) but in the end – Orbo is not 
overunity, even if it could be a valuable advance. 

Say… what about that Irish hum …
http://strangesounds.org/2012/03/mysterious-hum-in-kerry-county-ireland.html

---
Assuming that Steorn really are shipping a product soon, and the Oz-Reds as 
well - it should not take long to find out most of what is going on. Actually, 
I doubt that the device operates by rectifying RF and I doubt that it is 
overunity. There could easily be a major breakthrough in ultra-capacitors, 
however.

The best thing which could come out of it, assuming both Steorn and ADGEX have 
found the same bona fide energy anomaly – is that both devices will illuminate 
the underlying technology better than either alone - so that whatever is at the 
core of it can be understood and improved.

These new products are too close in time for it to be coincidental. The big 
question is: are we seeing an anomaly or is it the work of two different scam 
artists coming out within weeks of each other? 

Re: [Vo]:Fact or fiction: Irish firm invents everlasting battery

[David Roberson]

In all the unusual systems mentioned I would be extremely surprised to find a 
significant amount of energy being harvested.  It would be astounding to find 
more than 1 milliwatt of power available to charge the main battery.

Also, a well constructed shielded room like Bob is describing would generate 
far better than 3 dB reduction to the input unshielded level assumed by Jones.  
More like >30 plus should be expected.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jan 26, 2016 3:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fact or fiction: Irish firm invents everlasting battery

In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:19:32 -0700:
Hi,
>Such collected ions as Robin describes are most likely to be attracted to
>plates that would provide a net neutralization of the electret.  

I agree.

>In other
>words, this ion current from the air would be a leakage path for the
>electret and not a benefactor.  

It would only be a leakage current, if charge could actually reach the electret.
However, if the electret is well insulated, then all you get is a charge build
up. Essentially, you end up with a capacitor within a capacitor. However,
whether or not one can be discharged with discharging the other, I don't know.
IOW can one discharge the accessible capacitor with "discharging" the electret?
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Perhaps they got lucky (they are Irish, after all) but in the end – Orbo is
> not overunity, even if it could be a valuable advance.


I'm curious -- is Steorn claiming overunity?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:electrostatic finite element software

[Bob Higgins]

Jeff,

I think you will have trouble with finite element analysis of that
structure, and the results will likely depend a lot on some of the
assumptions.  The first problem is how you are going to model the charge of
the proton.  For example, will you presume the charge is concentrated at
the center of the proton?  Will you presume a charge density inside the
proton as a sphere instead?  If you presume that the proton is modeled as a
uniform spherical charge density, you will have some charge density too
close to the charge density in the adjacent proton - this will cause
numerical convergence failure of the analysis.  If you let the charge
density inside the proton to re-distribute based on the  force from the
adjacent protons (as is typically done for electron charge density on
conductors), then you need to have a model for the force that holds the
charges into a uniform distribution in the first place - AND - the result
may not be a spherical proton anymore.

All in all, this becomes a fields analysis research project, probably
requiring custom coding of the simulator, with little means of determining
whether the initial assumptions about charge behavior in the proton were
correct or not.  I have coded such simulators for determining electron
charge distribution in conductors before, but the electronic charge
distribution had a direct impact on the computed capacitance of the
structure, so there was a reasonable test one could make to determine if
the formulation was correct.  Not so easy in the case of nuclear field
distribution.  How do you think the results would be tested for validity?

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Jeff Driscoll  wrote:

> Does anyone have access to electrostatics software package and have time
> to do a finite element analysis on a 3-D part to determine the
> electrostatic field potential? Specifically the JPEG in the link below
> shows a grouping of protons and neutrons. I mainly need to figure out which
> protons have the highest electrostatic field near them so that the protons
> can be numbered and ordered from highest to lowest voltage potential. There
> might be two ways to do it, one where they are all electrically conductive
>  and the second where they are isolated charged spheres.  I can supply a
> CAD model in different formats from a Solidworks model.
>
> I can pay someone if they can do it.
>
> this is the picture of 100 protons and 104 neutrons
>
> http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/protons-neutrons.jpg
>
> I have a CAD model of it also. It is made from 100 protons and 104
> neutrons (fermium-204 which does not exist, but fermium-257 has a half life
> of 100 days). Each red proton in the image would be about .8 fm (.8 x
> 10^-15 m) in diameter and the same for the green neutrons. The electrons
> would be orbiting this nucleus further out at some fraction (such as
> 1/100th) of the bohr radius where the bohr radius = 5.29 x 10^-11 m. But I
> only need the finite element analysis done on the proton/neutrons shown in
> the image (no electrons). I need the order of decreasing electrostatic
> voltage potential.  The goal is to confirm the well known standard orbit
> filling order: 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d, 4p, 5s, 4d, 5p, 6s, 4f, 5d, 6p,
> 7s, 5f, 6d, 7p, 8s
>
> Jeff
>

Re: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Esa J. Ruoho]

"Never charge battery".

Sent from some iDevice. Written by Esa.

> Eric Walker  kirjoitti 26.1.2016 kello 23.45:
> 
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>> 
>> Perhaps they got lucky (they are Irish, after all) but in the end – Orbo is 
>> not overunity, even if it could be a valuable advance.
> 
> I'm curious -- is Steorn claiming overunity?
> 
> Eric
> 

Re: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Esa J. Ruoho  wrote:

"Never charge battery".
>

That sounds like an easy statement to wiggle out of if you're harvesting
RF, while having the benefit of catching people's attention.  The natural
conclusion one draws is that it means perpetual motion.  But does it?

If the Orbo is just an RF harvester, would that be a bad thing, or truly
deceptive marketing on the part of Steorn?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[Bob Higgins]

It only has a 1 year guarantee.  So, perpetual charging is not guaranteed.
Seems like that if you were going to make the claim that it NEVER needs
charging, then you should at least offer a 10 year guarantee so as to make
it better than the best lithium battery.  Reality is that even if the
electret is a perpetual source, the internal lithium battery charge buffer
will not be.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Esa J. Ruoho  wrote:
>
> "Never charge battery".
>>
>
>

[Vo]:Re: electrostatic finite element software

[Bob Cook]

Bob and Jeff--

If you believe the standard model, the charge is tied to quarks which have 
values  of -1/3 and +2/3.  Who knows where those charge centers are at any 
given time and even if they are deterministically placed in a coherent system.  
The charge density may be randomly oriented in space.  And neutrons are not 
really neutral throughout either per that model.  


Bob Cook 

From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 2:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:electrostatic finite element software

Jeff,


I think you will have trouble with finite element analysis of that structure, 
and the results will likely depend a lot on some of the assumptions.  The first 
problem is how you are going to model the charge of the proton.  For example, 
will you presume the charge is concentrated at the center of the proton?  Will 
you presume a charge density inside the proton as a sphere instead?  If you 
presume that the proton is modeled as a uniform spherical charge density, you 
will have some charge density too close to the charge density in the adjacent 
proton - this will cause numerical convergence failure of the analysis.  If you 
let the charge density inside the proton to re-distribute based on the  force 
from the adjacent protons (as is typically done for electron charge density on 
conductors), then you need to have a model for the force that holds the charges 
into a uniform distribution in the first place - AND - the result may not be a 
spherical proton anymore.


All in all, this becomes a fields analysis research project, probably requiring 
custom coding of the simulator, with little means of determining whether the 
initial assumptions about charge behavior in the proton were correct or not.  I 
have coded such simulators for determining electron charge distribution in 
conductors before, but the electronic charge distribution had a direct impact 
on the computed capacitance of the structure, so there was a reasonable test 
one could make to determine if the formulation was correct.  Not so easy in the 
case of nuclear field distribution.  How do you think the results would be 
tested for validity?


On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Jeff Driscoll  wrote:

  Does anyone have access to electrostatics software package and have time to 
do a finite element analysis on a 3-D part to determine the electrostatic field 
potential? Specifically the JPEG in the link below shows a grouping of protons 
and neutrons. I mainly need to figure out which protons have the highest 
electrostatic field near them so that the protons can be numbered and ordered 
from highest to lowest voltage potential. There might be two ways to do it, one 
where they are all electrically conductive  and the second where they are 
isolated charged spheres.  I can supply a CAD model in different formats from a 
Solidworks model.



  I can pay someone if they can do it.


  this is the picture of 100 protons and 104 neutrons

  http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/protons-neutrons.jpg 

  I have a CAD model of it also. It is made from 100 protons and 104 neutrons 
(fermium-204 which does not exist, but fermium-257 has a half life of 100 
days). Each red proton in the image would be about .8 fm (.8 x 10^-15 m) in 
diameter and the same for the green neutrons. The electrons would be orbiting 
this nucleus further out at some fraction (such as 1/100th) of the bohr radius 
where the bohr radius = 5.29 x 10^-11 m. But I only need the finite element 
analysis done on the proton/neutrons shown in the image (no electrons). I need 
the order of decreasing electrostatic voltage potential.  The goal is to 
confirm the well known standard orbit filling order: 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 
3d, 4p, 5s, 4d, 5p, 6s, 4f, 5d, 6p, 7s, 5f, 6d, 7p, 8s


  Jeff 

Re: [Vo]:Orbo- Battery _Steorn and Lockheed- Bushman Battery Patent

[John Berry]

Here is a good video that shows he slot antenna effect and how some cheap
aluminum tape can fix it up for a massive improvement in shielding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3S2KDuVxaU

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> It only has a 1 year guarantee.  So, perpetual charging is not
> guaranteed.  Seems like that if you were going to make the claim that it
> NEVER needs charging, then you should at least offer a 10 year guarantee so
> as to make it better than the best lithium battery.  Reality is that even
> if the electret is a perpetual source, the internal lithium battery charge
> buffer will not be.
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Esa J. Ruoho  wrote:
>>
>> "Never charge battery".
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:electrostatic finite element software

[Jeff Driscoll]

I agree, this is going to be a trial and error thing. I've done a lot of
stress/strain and thermal finite element modeling (I'm a mechanical
engineer)  but never electrostatic.The main thing is just to see what
happens and keep on trying different assumptions.  First thing is to try
all the cheap options.  The main goal is to number the red protons in order
from highest to lowest potential. The ultimate goal is to confirm the well
known standard orbit filling order: 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d, 4p, 5s, 4d,
5p, 6s, 4f, 5d, 6p, 7s, 5f, 6d, 7p, 8s

Bob, I will send you a powerpoint presentation off-line.  Is there anyone
else that can help me? I can pay a medium token amount - say $200 for a
some simplified runs? I really think that my hypothesis (which I borrowed
from someone else, who I will give full credit to later, after I can
confirm as much as possible)  is worth some effort investigating.

Jeff


On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> I think you will have trouble with finite element analysis of that
> structure, and the results will likely depend a lot on some of the
> assumptions.  The first problem is how you are going to model the charge of
> the proton.  For example, will you presume the charge is concentrated at
> the center of the proton?  Will you presume a charge density inside the
> proton as a sphere instead?  If you presume that the proton is modeled as a
> uniform spherical charge density, you will have some charge density too
> close to the charge density in the adjacent proton - this will cause
> numerical convergence failure of the analysis.  If you let the charge
> density inside the proton to re-distribute based on the  force from the
> adjacent protons (as is typically done for electron charge density on
> conductors), then you need to have a model for the force that holds the
> charges into a uniform distribution in the first place - AND - the result
> may not be a spherical proton anymore.
>
> All in all, this becomes a fields analysis research project, probably
> requiring custom coding of the simulator, with little means of determining
> whether the initial assumptions about charge behavior in the proton were
> correct or not.  I have coded such simulators for determining electron
> charge distribution in conductors before, but the electronic charge
> distribution had a direct impact on the computed capacitance of the
> structure, so there was a reasonable test one could make to determine if
> the formulation was correct.  Not so easy in the case of nuclear field
> distribution.  How do you think the results would be tested for validity?
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Jeff Driscoll  wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have access to electrostatics software package and have time
>> to do a finite element analysis on a 3-D part to determine the
>> electrostatic field potential? Specifically the JPEG in the link below
>> shows a grouping of protons and neutrons. I mainly need to figure out which
>> protons have the highest electrostatic field near them so that the protons
>> can be numbered and ordered from highest to lowest voltage potential. There
>> might be two ways to do it, one where they are all electrically conductive
>>  and the second where they are isolated charged spheres.  I can supply a
>> CAD model in different formats from a Solidworks model.
>>
>> I can pay someone if they can do it.
>>
>> this is the picture of 100 protons and 104 neutrons
>>
>> http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/protons-neutrons.jpg
>>
>> I have a CAD model of it also. It is made from 100 protons and 104
>> neutrons (fermium-204 which does not exist, but fermium-257 has a half life
>> of 100 days). Each red proton in the image would be about .8 fm (.8 x
>> 10^-15 m) in diameter and the same for the green neutrons. The electrons
>> would be orbiting this nucleus further out at some fraction (such as
>> 1/100th) of the bohr radius where the bohr radius = 5.29 x 10^-11 m. But I
>> only need the finite element analysis done on the proton/neutrons shown in
>> the image (no electrons). I need the order of decreasing electrostatic
>> voltage potential.  The goal is to confirm the well known standard orbit
>> filling order: 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d, 4p, 5s, 4d, 5p, 6s, 4f, 5d, 6p,
>> 7s, 5f, 6d, 7p, 8s
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
>


-- 
Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998