Hi Frank. Sorry I've been tardy in my responses, business is actually picking up over this summer ( rather than diminish as is usually the case ) and my plate is full at the moment.
You write, > CHARGE > 1 0 > 1 Proton Neutron >MASS > 0 Electron ??? Actually, Mendeleev did consider such a thing. That is, that the aether itself is a "particle" and deserves a place on the periodic table. Rex Research used to carry a paper of Mendeleev that gave some details, I'll snoop around for the reference later today. As regards your previous post; I'm still very hazy about this notion of the beta aether. You were kind enough to provide some paper ref's, which if I can ever get out of this chair and into Manhattan I'll look up. Better would be some internet accessible instance; I see you have a website of sorts ( cake??? ) so how about "liberating" one of those journal articles for the proletariat??? Then we ( meaning the list ) can all be on the same page... I gather from your posting that, because you can fit those experimental curves with several power functions, you conclude that the zero of each function is an "absolute" zero of the system. Do I understand that correctly? If so, would it be possible to ( taking H2O for example ) get it to reach those alternate zero points? The phase changes as you reduce temperature, making this a seemingly daunting task. That a system is nonlinear should not preclude a unique zero point; consider for example a ferromagnetic system. The permeability changes with applied field, and we can make a rough analogy of the basic unit of permeability to temperature. ( I know, very rough, but I think you see where I'm going with this ). Using your approach, we could talk about several unique values for the vacuum permeability, depending on where on the BH curve we are and extrapolating to zero. That model may have some novel uses, about this I must think a bit more, but for engineering purposes it helps to assume that there is one zero point and allow the relative permeability of the material to change. Sorry I can't devote more time to this, it's nice to see some actual discussion again on vortex. Your posts are certainly a delight to read. K. PS: That would be Animal Farm, not 1984. Double plus ungood! -----Original Message----- From: Grimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 1:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ...upon the clouds of heaven... At 07:07 am 20-07-04 -0700, you wrote: >Frank, > >Well done post. > > >One comment about the previous post: >"I wonder what would happen if one subjected water to the Ranque-Hilsch Vortex tube >treatment. Could one separate out the 4-8-12 phases I wonder." > >This is an excellent idea and I am going to give it some thought, especially since GM >has rejected my RHVT proposal... > >Jones > >BTW - don't you hate it when someone feels compelled to sign their mail with their >educational credentials? Rec'd this morning: > >Dear Mr. Beene, > >Thank you for your Proposal Abstract in response to NineSigma RFP 30365-2. > >After careful consideration our client, General Motors, has elected not to >pursue your proposal. > >Thank you for your interest in this RFP and NineSigma, Inc. As new RFPs >are generated that may be of interest to you, we will forward them to you. > >Sincerely, > >Larry Mitchell > >Lawrence Mitchell, Ph.D. >Sr. Program Manager >NineSigma, Inc. >440-537-5824 (cell) >239-949-4577 (fax) > > Don't worry Jones. Good ideas must expect to be rejected. The best idea I ever had rejected was that of the Materon Since the organic order of things has four basic building blocks, A, C, G, and T (my mnemonic is Alternating Current Gin and Tonic - but the official names are Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine) it seems highly appropriate that the inorganic order should be similarly favoured. However, we only recognise three, P, N, and E (Proton, Neutron and Electron) in spite of the fact that the vacant space in the minimalist Mendeleev type diagram simply screams out to be filled. CHARGE 1 0 1 Proton Neutron MASS 0 Electron ??? I suggested that we recognise the existence of the Materon as the fourth particle so removing our slight on the inorganic world. Of course I never expected my letter to the New Scientist to be published. I just wanted to get the polite rejection slip for my files. It is now becoming increasingly clear to me that, not only was I right, but that the lighter nuclei have as many materons as electrons, and the heavier atoms quite a few more. In the nucleus the materon is the partner of the neutron as much as the electron is the partner of the proton. All very obvious really. So obvious in fact that hardly anyone can see it. <g> Cheers Frank Grimer
