[Apologies for the quoting - required context] > Jones wrote: > > One does not necessarily need to believe in the > present objective proof of a crude device like the > Joe-Cell to further investigate what is going on. It [snip] > The fact that a particular device, like a few of these > cells, has gotten that close to a real anomaly - i.e. > to some level of success, often indicates that there > is much room for improvement over the primitive level > of design being used previously... [snip] > serendipitous discovery of 'something novel' ... which > has been completely overlooked by the practioneers due > their lack of knowledge of physics and focus on > 'orgone' or related hocus-pocus. [snip] > There is the possibility of achieving something > valuable and unique here, in this sub-field which can > be termed as 'eltra-efficient electrolysis' and it may > be drivaive and based roughly on these crude early > designs, but the end product will surely be very > different from any of them.
About a month ago I posted the following: > On Y!, there are a few individuals discussing theory based on > known science, or what might be considered reasonable > extrapolations to it. On the whole, though, there's a lot of > Orgone breathers (which may/may not prove valid), attempting to > discuss cell theory/construction without really knowing how the > thing works (assuming it does). However, on Y! you also seem to > have a decent number of folks actually doing hands-on experiments. > > Here (vortex) we've got some very well grounded scientific > expertise, with a decent amount of open mindedness. Over the > last few weeks I've seen a number of plausible (and a few not so) > theories evolve here as to how these, or similar, cells might > function. What I've not seen here are any suggested protocols > for simple experiments to work towards proving - or otherwise - > any of these theories. [snip] > My challenge: how about a few simple protocols for reproducible > experiments to test some of the theories previously discussed here? Whilst it's gratifying to find Jones agreeing with my original proposition - and he certainly puts the case more eloquently than I did - simply restating the current position does not help advance matters. The only practical response that I had to my original mail was from Robin, and I passed on his suggested protocol to Greg Watson in Australia, who is due to undertake some tests on a cell setup provided by Peter Stevens (date presently unknown). Also, as far as I am aware, Fred is the only person here actively pursuing similar research in a hands on manner (with the assistance of his 'lackey' :-). The reason for my original post - and I have to assume Jones' too - is still valid: there ought to be a sufficient depth of multi-disciplinary expertise amongst the readership here to provide both the theoretical and practical basis to actually move our understanding of this particular phenomenon forwards, if the will exists. I recognise that discussing the Joe cell is very much in vogue at the moment, and have no desire for this topic to take up too much bandwidth on this list. However, and providing that our mod does not disagree, I'd like to pull together a summary of the various theories out there, for discussion. More pertinently, and picking up on Jones' final point above, the true benefit of doing so would be to facilitate a discussion around how those theories might actually be investigated, with simple and replicable experimental set-ups designed to optimally test each particular theory, or combinations thereof. I'd be happy to get my hands dirty, opening this can of worms and actually building. However, there are currently so many Schiffer-style Joe cell replications being undertaken that I can see little added value in pursuing that approach myself - let's have some alternatives to the 'crude early designs', as Jones puts it. If you believe that adopting an empirical approach to this topic would be worthwhile, please drop me a line privately. Whilst I continue to enjoy the theoretical banter which drew me here in the first place, it does seem a shame not to draw upon the group's collective expertise to attempt to produce something practical. Patrick -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/353 - Release Date: 31/05/2006
