Jones, > There have been some good practical ideas for improvement of the > basic cell - already appearing in many of these posts, but often > you have to "read between the lines," to move forward towards an > actual design. Here is more specific detail from this one > observer.
The difficulty in 'reading between the lines' is obviously that one brings one's own preconceptions and experiences to the party in interpreting such comments, potentially leading to misunderstanding or, worse, (sub)conscious rejection of what is being suggested. So, thank you for the fulsome reply (filed for now, but not forgotten - see below). > Of course, you might not get agreement on every detail from others > on vortex, because many are looking at this from differing > perspective - i.e. as being LENR or hydrino-based - and probably a > few are still grasping at "orgone" ... I sincerely hope that there will be considerable disagreement! My post was prompted by my interest in anecdotal evidence of the functioning of the Joe cell. There is a school of thought that it is 'merely' an ultra-efficient low voltage electrolysis cell (and parallels have been drawn with Kanarev's work) - with this theory being vociferously promulgated by one of the more vocal members of the JC community. However, such a theory is at odds with reports of the actual physical functioning of the cell. I am assuming that not everyone here with a potential interest has had the time to closely follow the JC community since the relatively recent surge in popular interest - the two Y! groups alone jointly generate several hundred messages weekly. This was one of the reasons that I proposed to summarise some of the theoretical thinking for the consideration of this group. My hope would be that in discussing the alternative theories - coupled with the increasing anecdotal evidence - we may come up with several different (possibly complimentary, possibly not) strands of practical research to follow. I believe that it would also be likely - as your own mail actually demonstrates - that by initially keeping the focus on the Joe cell itself, potentially interesting avenues of investigation may open up, even if they have little to do with how that particular cell operates. [As a side note, I must reiterate that I have not seen a working Joe cell in person. However, I neither wish to continue prefacing comments with 'if this is true' or some such, nor do I believe that we can merely ignore the mounting anecdotal evidence. As Jones noted previously, suspension of (dis)belief can be a useful technique, at times.] Consequently, I'd quite like to have that more general theoretical discussion prior to moving down to specifics for any particular investigation. I wouldn't want us to limit ourselves simply to examining ultra-efficient electrolysis, no matter how valid that approach may transpire to be, at the expense of alternative, but equally interesting theories, such as those suggested here by Robin. I'll pull together a summary of current thinking within the JC groups for posting over the next week or so, which I hope will prove interesting and stimulate some debate. 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
